Barr's Vote

[Chris Grieb]

I would like to get estimates on Bob Barr's national totals on Nov. 4th.

I must add that only evidence is two signs near the library I go to in Northern Virginia. Is there any more of an effort going on somewhere else?

[Greybird]

Four hundred thousand, plus or minus a hundred thousand. Roughly the same as every other Libertarian presidential nominee since 1984. His greater name recognition will be countered by his moral, strategic, and tactical stupidity.

Mine won't be one of those votes. Barr has disgraced himself, in constantly diluting libertarian principles (and the real, pre-gutting LP Platform) during his campaign. The party elders and activists disgraced themselves in nominating him. As they also did with running mate Wayne Allen Root, for whom a set of initials rarely was more appropriate.

[Chris Grieb]

Greybird; Thanks for your comment but would you tell me what you really think.

[algernonsidney]

Greybird is about right. It may be even worse. There are so many people who are not voting for Barr. I would vote Baldwin if he actually was on the ballot here in Texas. I've long said that the LP couldn't sell ice water in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Barr learned that kind of incompetence.

I posted this on another forum:

In spite of all the rhetoric and optimism regarding the Barr campaign,it is in reality doing pretty badly. Some of the true believers are still calling him the "best candidate ever." All one has to do is look at the facts:

http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html

It looks like Barr will miss five states and DC. It is still certainly possible that Barr could get more total votes than past candidates. Ballot access in the Presidential race has decreased in every election now since 1996. The LP was on every ballot in the elections of 1980, 1992, and 1996.

Here are the LP's misses:

2000: Arizona

The state party revolted and put L Neil Smith on the ballot.

2004: New Hampshire and Oklahoma

2008: Connecticut, DC, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, and West Virginia

Connecticut and Maine are still listed as "in court."

In Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, and Texas, Barr is the only candidate on the ballot besides the two Deck Chairs candidates. Oklahoma, as in 2004, is the only state that has two candidates on the ballot.

Nader is actually on the ballot in DC and 45 states. So, for the first time, it seems that Nader will beat the LP in ballot access as well as in total votes. However, Barr did get on the ballot in some bigger states that Nader did not make.

It also appears that Barr made it in some more difficult states, yet had two misses that should have been easy. They lost Louisiana because they showed up a day late with the paperwork. They lost West Virginia because of their refusal to do a signature swap. Nader, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party made the ballot in both states.

In many respects, this should be the easiest election in the history of the LP. The sheer incompetence and corruption of the District of Criminals should have people exploring different alternatives. Instead, the LP is totally squandering it by trying to act more and more like the Deck Chairs Parties and being tactically incompetent.

[Chris Grieb]

Greybird is about right. It may be even worse. There are so many people who are not voting for Barr. I would vote Baldwin if he actually was on the ballot here in Texas. I've long said that the LP couldn't sell ice water in the middle of the Sahara Desert. Barr learned that kind of incompetence.

I posted this on another forum:

In spite of all the rhetoric and optimism regarding the Barr campaign,it is in reality doing pretty badly. Some of the true believers are still calling him the "best candidate ever." All one has to do is look at the facts:

http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html

It looks like Barr will miss five states and DC. It is still certainly possible that Barr could get more total votes than past candidates. Ballot access in the Presidential race has decreased in every election now since 1996. The LP was on every ballot in the elections of 1980, 1992, and 1996.

Here are the LP's misses:

2000: Arizona

The state party revolted and put L Neil Smith on the ballot.

2004: New Hampshire and Oklahoma

2008: Connecticut, DC, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, and West Virginia

Connecticut and Maine are still listed as "in court."

In Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, and Texas, Barr is the only candidate on the ballot besides the two Deck Chairs candidates. Oklahoma, as in 2004, is the only state that has two candidates on the ballot.

Nader is actually on the ballot in DC and 45 states. So, for the first time, it seems that Nader will beat the LP in ballot access as well as in total votes. However, Barr did get on the ballot in some bigger states that Nader did not make.

It also appears that Barr made it in some more difficult states, yet had two misses that should have been easy. They lost Louisiana because they showed up a day late with the paperwork. They lost West Virginia because of their refusal to do a signature swap. Nader, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party made the ballot in both states.

In many respects, this should be the easiest election in the history of the LP. The sheer incompetence and corruption of the District of Criminals should have people exploring different alternatives. Instead, the LP is totally squandering it by trying to act more and more like the Deck Chairs Parties and being tactically incompetent.

Chris B, This will be a shock but I agree with you.

Let me make one additional point. In order to get a million votes you must average over 2,000 votes in each congressional district. Ed Clark is the only candidate who has come close to doing that. Clark was will over that figure in Alaska in 1980. Barr will probably be only a little over Blankrick's figure. It looks bad and it could have been better.

[algernonsidney]

I had a long talk about a month ago with a professional petitioner. He was the man assigned to the task of getting ballot access in West Virginia. He was not happy at all with the Barr campaign.

He's actually working now on getting all the third parties to work together to get ballot access. Signature swaps can work.

Oklahoma has especially become difficult as it looks it requires about 40,000 to get on the ballot there.

I had a friend (now deceased) who said that he believed that people were infiltrating the LP as early as 1992 during the Marrou campaign.

While being on all the ballots is not necessary to be elected (as Lincoln showed), it is necessary if you want to have credibility with voters.

[Chris Grieb]

My count shows Barr will be listed in 412 Congressional districts. He would need to average over 2400 votes in each district he is listed in. That means he must 6-7 thousand votes in Alaska or Montana to make for districts where he will get less than 100 votes like South Central LA or the South Bronx. He would need 200,000 as a statewide total in California.

[algernonsidney]

I'm not sure how predictable Barr's vote count is. The LP has traditionally done well in Alaska. In fact, they beat John Anderson up there in 1980.

I do predict that Barr will do absolutely terrible in Montana. That's because the Constitution Party actually nominated Ron Paul to be on the ballot. Doctor Paul wasn't happy about this--it was too late for him to do anything about it. I hope it happens.

The LP losing West Virginia wasn't a particularly big loss just because the LP has generally done very badly there anyway.

I like your Congressional district break down, by the way. That's a good way to look at it.

[herculepoirot]

Barr was the real last chance for the LP to break into "the big game". His failed Presidency will set back the LP a few decades. I don't believe we will be seeing a strong LP candidate who can gain media coverage again in quite a few years. As it stands now the only real chance that Capitalist have in altering the political debate is by taking over the Republican Party.

[galtgulch]

Barr was the real last chance for the LP to break into "the big game". His failed Presidency will set back the LP a few decades. I don't believe we will be seeing a strong LP candidate who can gain media coverage again in quite a few years. As it stands now the only real chance that Capitalist have in altering the political debate is by taking over the Republican Party.

A number of things surprise me by posters here. Coming out for McCain despite Ayn Rand's position that it is immoral to vote for a pro life candidate who opposes a woman's right to choose.

Chuck Baldwin is a pastor and in a country which stands for separation of church and state I should think that is anathema.

Despite Barr's flaws a vote for the Libertarian Party might be sufficient to give the LP official permanent ballot status which would be beneficial in subsequent elections when the LP might have a more appropriate candidate. Our interests should be long term and not tied to one candidate.

It remains to be seen whether the www.campaignforliberty.com succeeds in growing and spreading the truth about the crucial issues not even mentioned in the present election season except by Ron Paul. I refer to the fact that there is virtually no regard for the Constitution. FDR referred to the Constitution as being from the horse and buggy days. Ron Paul taught us that so much of the government is in violation of the Constitution, e.g. the Federal Reserve, paper currency with no gold or silver backing it and redeemable, direct taxation by the Feds, Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI, Dept of Ed, Dept of Energy, Homeland Security, etc.

Hopefully freedom lovers will infiltrate both major parties!

Wm

Edited November 4, 2008 by galtgulch

[Greybird]

Told you so ...

Four hundred thousand, plus or minus a hundred thousand. [...]

From CNN:

Ralph Nader - 648,138 - 1%

Bob Barr - 484,616 - 1%

Chuck Baldwin - 172,917 - 0%

Cynthia McKinney - 140,862 - 0%

The totals at this page aren't accurate for those such as Ron Paul, who were accepted as countable (but not-yet-counted) write-in candidates in many states. Including, as only announced last week, California, and I wrote in my vote for him.

[Philip Coates]

***the stupid party, an introduction***

Pitiful, just pitiful.

There is a label the liberals - and the media and the professoriate – try to stick on their opponents and the fact that they only seem competitive away from the coasts, away from the educated people and big cities: "the stupid party".

It's taken me a while to realize they are almost completely correct. But not in the way intended. It’s not the stupidity of the –ideas-, the policies and positions of republicans and conservatives, of libertarians ... or even objectivists, but the stupidity of how they present and how they fight for or try to spread their ideas.

I'll write something explaining why I say this, time permitting. It has to do with losing fights that you should win, losing in attempts to influence the culture. Through anti-intellectualism and incompetence and failure to grasp the methods and techniques for spreading ideas.

Even when changing the country is -very- doable. And the proper arguments and presentation would resonate with a large portion of the American people.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It’s not the stupidity of the –ideas-, the policies and positions of republicans and conservatives, of libertarians ... or even objectivists, but the stupidity of how they present and how they fight for or try to spread their ideas.

I'll write something explaining why I say this, time permitting. It has to do with losing fights that you should win, losing in attempts to influence the culture. Through anti-intellectualism and incompetence and failure to grasp the methods and techniques for spreading ideas.

Phil,

I could not agree with you more.

This actually is one of my constant subtexts, and it is often mistaken for something else in discussions.

There is a real need for studying the difference between the product and the packaging. I can't think of any package that is torn apart, ragged and dirty that will sell much of anything except to people who like used worn-out stuff or junk. Yet this is the preferred package for advancing Objectivist ideas.

Michael