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

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw
19 comments
Read more

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h
16 comments
Read more

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 — they are i
78 comments
Read more