Skip to main content

And for 26 of his electoral votes, Barack Obama needs to thank ... Bob Barr

Despite his disappointing overall showing, Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Bob Barr managed to garner sufficient votes in both North Carolina (15 electoral votes) and Indiana (11 electoral votes) to deprive Senator John McCain of what might have been the slenderest of majorities--assuming that all those who voted for Barr would have still come out, and would have voted for McCain en mass. OK, it would have been a tiny mass, but it was critical.

I haven't checked to see if there was a similar Nader effect anywhere yet.

Third Parties do make a difference--whether or not it is always the difference they are looking for.
Labels:

Comments

paulie said…
Unlikely that the LP vote would have broken that decisively for McCain if Barr had not been in the race.

It appears that Barr swung zero states.

The only state Nader could have possibly swung might be Missouri, but his percentage there was almost exactly that of Barr plus Baldwin. Also, it is a huge mistake to think all Barr and Baldwin votes would otherwise go to McCain (or that all Nader votes would otherwise go to Obama). Thus Missouri appears to have been a wash as well.

The last state where this claim has been made is Montana. Looks like McCain got it by more than the combined Barr/Paul total.
November 5, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said…
I am fascinated that you think a Libertarian is automatically a Republican.

http://www.chris-spangle.com/2008/09/22/proof-that-libertarians-take-more-democratic-votes/

Secondly, it's my vote. I am not controlled by the GOP.

http://www.chris-spangle.com/2008/09/22/the-arrogance-of-the-gop-on-libertarians/
November 5, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Anonymous said…
That's funny, I voted for Bob Barr because he was the only fiscal conservative on the ballot. I know he doesn't pass your Libertarian purity test on legalizing drugs, but as an outside observer it looks like you guys let the perfect be the enemy of the very good.
November 5, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Anonymous said…
This is a difference yet, but it's not the kind of different that gains third parties support. If people look at them as only taking away votes from the mainstream candidates, how does that really help their cause?

And I have to second anonymous's comment on the assumption about Libertarians being more inclined to vote Republican. I can honestly see a Libertarian going either way if they choose to vote for one of the major parties. It depends on which issues are more important to them. A Libertarian who cares more about civil liberties is more likely to vote Democrat, while one who thinks economic issues and the size of government are more important is more likely to go Republican.

By the way, I am a libertarian-leaning unaffiliated first time voter who chose Bob Barr.
November 5, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
44 comments
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...
31 comments
Read more