A Zogby/Reuters Poll released July 16 shows these results when voters are presented with a list of 4 presidential candidates: Obama 46%, McCain 36%, Barr 3%, Nader 3%, other or undecided 12%. See here for more details. When the voter is only presented with the names of Obama and McCain, 3% still volunteer someone else. Thanks to ThirdPartyWatch for this news.
If Bob Barr polled 3% in each state, the Libertarian Party would become a qualified party, for the first time ever, in Arkansas, Connecticut (presidential status only), Iowa, and Kentucky. At that point, the only states in which the party would never have been a qualified party would be Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia. Minnesota requires a vote of 5% for any statewide race; New Jersey requires 10% for all votes cast for lower house of the legislature; New York requires 50,000 votes for Governor; Pennsylvania requires registration of 15%; Rhode Island requires 5% for president or governor; Virginia requires 10% for any statewide race. The Tennessee requirement is currently under attack in federal court.
The Libertarian Party has also never been a qualified party in the District of Columbia, but it has some reason to believe it can attain that status this year, since it has a strong candidate for Delegate to the U.S House. He needs 7,500 votes to give the party “qualified” status.
Finally, although the Libertarian Party has been a qualified party for statewide office in both Illinois and Georgia, it has never been a ballot-qualified party in those two states for district and county office. Those two states, along with Connecticut, are the only states in which it is possible for a party to be “qualified” for all statewide office, but not all office.
Libertarians are the story and not Nader. Here is why. If Libertarians get 3 to 5 percent this year then the ballot access job will be minimal for 2012 and if they can find a qualified candidate for 2012 then they can spend money on T.V. instead of ballot access. Nader on the other hand will be too old in 2012 and even if he tries again he has to start ballot access all over.
It will be good for the Libertarians if this year’s campaign helps in the future. And I certainly hope that Nader uses the gains he makes this year to continue supporting policies he advocates (whether via the vehicle of a party or not). But I don’t know, Larry, why you say Libertarians are “the” story. There are lots of stories here.
Whereas Barr and Nader have both been touting having been at 6% in national polls (Barr in Zogby and Nader in CNN), the fact that they are both only at 3% underscores how difficult it really will/would be to get above 10% so as to qualify for the YouTube / Google debate. There’s probably a better chance of YouTube / Google changing their requirements or letting Barr and Nader in anyway. (Write to them at http://www.neworleansdebate.org and encourage them to let Barr and Nader debate!)
The fact that *both* Barr and Nader are “hurting” McCain more than Obama also changes the discussion of their place in this year’s election. Obama could (and *should*) take the democratic high road and support including Barr and Nader in the debates without worrying about a “spoiler” effect (for himself, that is).
Maybe Nader is hurting McCain more than Obama, by perhaps getting some of the Hillary Clinton voters (especially the older ones, since Nader is 2 years older than McCain) who said they would vote for McCain in the general election. If on general election day it is discovered that Nader actually helped Obama to win the 2008 election, more than he hurt him, then that could redeem Nader in the eyes of those Democrats who are currently mad at him in regards to the 2000 election.
It doesn’t matter who you support from the Dem, Rep and Lib candidates, as they are all for the same ends. Even Barr just took the very UN-Libertarian stance of supporting the Fannie/Freddy bailouts, calling for a measure to give the FED even more oversight into the free market economy.
The parties are false sides. It doesn’t matter which you choose because they are controlled by a few elite individuals.
I agree with PRO DEMOCRACY, the story here is none of the Third party candidates will get to 10% which is sad in terms of not seeing them in the debates. I just had to fly to Houston, Nashville and New Orleans for Business and talking to every stranger it struck me no one knows about Barr or that Nader is running again or they just laugh at me even though they are not laughing if you know what I mean. People are choosing between McCain and Obama. The true culprit is the media, watching tv from the hotel rooms there is no talk about Nader or Barr and so that’s how the chip falls. This is ofcourse intentional by the media . I’m very depressed today on the fight of the Third parties where they cannot beat the system.
Anthony, take a look at the press release on Barr’s website. He blames the whole mess on gov’t intervention and he wants the gov’t to take “short term” steps to prevent economic meltdown — “However, the ultimate objective must be full privatization”.
If Barr ever threatens the D’s and R’s, the elites will close ranks against him, you can count on it.
Larry wrote: “Libertarians are the story and not Nader. Here is why. If Libertarians get 3 to 5 percent this year”
You are going to need a truck load of IF for that to happen ! I have been critical of the Greens for losing the initiative in 2004 with their holier than thou suicidal moves. The reason being casual voters know how to sniff out the pretenders and charletons and give them the cold shoulder when they are identified as not serious. If you are going to start a political with the aim of mounting a serious challenge to the big boys you have to show rapid progress in your first 3 election cycles. The Greens were showing that until the debacle in 2004.
The Nader/Green Party effort in 1996 was strictly a party building campaign using Ralph Nader’s name. Even though campaign spending was limited to less than $5000 in order to keep it below the FEC’s radar the Greens still out polled the Libertarians with .37% of the popular vote.
The Libertarians have been around for quite some time. Their formation was in 1971 and by 1980 they reach ballot status in all 50 States. In the early days the Libertarians their Presidential Candidates were a shoe-in to make every state ballot no matter how obscure. And some were pretty obscure. In the last several election cycles their best showing was showing was .5% of the popular vote (485,000 votes) in 1996 by Harry Browne. (The guy who was known for looking like Elmer Fudd) Ralph Nader and the Greens who were testing the waters in the same election polled .7% for (685,000 votes)in 22 states. In 2000 Nader garnered 2.7 million votes to 375,000 for Browne. In that race Nader was on the ballot of 43 States with the other 7 as write-ins. The Libertarians were showing signs of trouble when they failed to qualify in one state. Getting on the ballot was never their problem but the Libertarian Party’s age was showing.
In 2004 between Nader’s miscalculation of the Democrat resistance and the Green’s outright stupidity Nader was limited to 34 State Ballots giving 50.3 % of the electorate access to Nader’s name on the ballot. The Libertarian, Michael Badnarik, was on 48 ballots which placed his name on 98% of the ballots. Despite the fact that Nader’s Campaign was being pummeled by superfilous legal channels that devoured economic resources Ralph Nader out polled Badnarick 465,000 votes to 397,000 votes.
The Libertarians hit their high water mark in 1980 when they garnered 1.1% of the popular vote and since have never exceeded .5%. In 1988 they ran Ron Paul and received .5% of the vote. Now we are suppose to believe Bob Barr is going to 5 percent of the vote ? You are to easily swayed by popular opinion poles. Unless McCain screws up royal or has major health problems flare up in the next 3 months Barr will pole 1 to 2 % in the Southeast where his base is and .01% every place else.
Gavin Young Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Maybe Nader is hurting McCain more than Obama, by perhaps getting some of the Hillary Clinton voters (especially the older ones, since Nader is 2 years older than McCain) who said they would vote for McCain in the general election. If on general election day it is discovered that Nader actually helped Obama to win the 2008 election, more than he hurt him, then that could redeem Nader in the eyes of those Democrats who are currently mad at him in regards to the 2000 election.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Ralph Nader does not need to be redeemed “in the eyes of those Democrats who are currently mad at him … “; he did nothing wrong. Why aren’t those Democratic Party hacks blaming the millions of Democrats who voted for George W. Bush instead of blaming Mr. Nader for the GOP victories?
The Democrats need to get their own votes; however, they seem to usually have a difficult time doing so on a national scale. There has been only one Democratic candidate for president since 1964 who has been able to win in an essentially two-person race: Jimmy Carter in 1976 (one has to consider that an essentially two-person race because of the miserable national news blackout of Eugene J. McCarthy’s independent campaign). Even then, even with the Watergate scandal and all that, Jimmy Carter just barely made it.
It is not true that the Libertarian Party has never exceeded 1.1% of the national vote. In 2000 the Libertarian Party’s US House candidates received 1.7% of all the votes cast in the nation, in all districts, for US House. And the party only had candidates on the ballot in about 60% of the districts.
Richard: He’s talking about Presidential voting. In 2000 the libertarian presidential candidate received 0.36% of the vote.
And as to the article as a whole, don’t get too excited. Some polls at this point in 2004 showed Nader with about 5% support. In the end he received 0.38% of votes cast.
Richard wrote: “It is not true that the Libertarian Party has never exceeded 1.1% of the national vote. In 2000 the Libertarian Party’s US House candidates received 1.7% of all the votes cast in the nation, in all districts, for US House. And the party only had candidates on the ballot in about 60% of the districts.”
Cullen you are partially correct. There is a difference between polling for a National Seat and running a bunch of candidates for Congress.
While running for office is never an easy task securing 2% of the vote in any congressional district in not a tough task after you get on the ballot, especially as a candidate of a certified party. If you are lucky enough to find your self in a race with only one dominant party candidate then you can easily peel off 20% of the vote. Admittedly you have to catch a pretty big break because the dominant parties usual run proforma candidates in districts that they conceed. So 1.7% under those circumstances is nothing to crow about.
As to why the Libertarians can run that many candidates here is an excellent opportunity to do some educating. The Libertarians though small in numbers have so very well heeled members. And they make sure their members pay their dues. That is one reason why their registration numbers stay so low. Having been associated with the Greens early on I got the impression that they were stingy with a buck. In 1998 I had a conversation with Walt Sheasby who was doing some liason work with the Reform Party. What he told really opened ny eyes. On the matter of funding the party Walt said “You think our guys are cheap Reform Party Members are the biggest bunch of Skin Flints going ! What Ross Perot doesn’t buy for them doesn’t get bought. And it’s not like their base is marginally employed like ours (referring to the Greens) they have good paying jobs and refuse to pay for the bare necessities to run the party.”
Richard I thought I was being very charitable when I referred to Clarke’s 1.1% as the Libertarian’s best effort at running a National Ticket. the fact of the matter is in 10 attempts 9 failed to break .5%. Actually it has consistently ranged from .3% to .5%. So Clark’s 1.1% is really an aberation.
It will be interesting to see how Bob Barr and the Libertarians square their differences on the abortion issue, Marijuana Legalization and illegal immigration. It is not going to be a bowl of cherrys.