In 2008, Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party nominee, will be on the ballot in states that cast 59.8% of the presidential vote in 2004.
By contrast, Michael Peroutka was on the ballot in states that cast 66.4% of the vote. Peroutka was the party’s presidential nominee in 2004.
Too bad for Chuck that Noonan and Keyes hijacked the AIP away or that number would look a lot better.
How about our three Socialist Candidates?
What percentage of the voters will be able to vote for Bob Barr?
Ditto what Alex said.
We are, despite all of the bizarre happenings this year, actually on one more state ballot than Peroutka was on in ’04.
Baldwin is a far, far superior candidate to Michael Peroutka, plus he doesn’t have a name that people like to make fun of which was the case for Palooka, er, Peroutka (just as an example of what we had to deal with in ’04).
There seems to be a much greater depth of support for Baldwin than Peroutka ever enjoyed, in my opinion. He would have done far better in California than Peroutka did in ’04 and should still receive a decent write-in vote.
Time, of course, will tell.
“Too bad for Chuck that Noonan and Keyes hijacked the AIP away or that number would look a lot better.”
the victimization mentality; its always someone else’s fault
What are Baldwin’s chances of getting on the ballot in Pennsylvania? The CP website says they’re in court over it. And if they do, what will the percent be then? I assume something close to that 04 level.
Baldwin already lost in court in Pennsylvania, at 6:30 pm Friday, Sep. 12. There is no appeal. As to Barr’s percentage, we don’t know yet. Still in play are Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. He is definitely off in West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
I EXPECT BALDWIN WOULD BE LUCKY TO RECEIVR ONE HALF THE VOTES PEROUTKA RECEIVED.
People in 48 states and Dc can vote for Baldwin…
The only states where you cant vote for Baldwin are NC and Oklahoma either by write in or on the ballot.
Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Pensylvania were attainable and hurt the overall totals. The other states need serious ballot access law changes. Members of third parties should inundate the state houses of Georgia, N.C., Indiana, Texas, Arizona, and California with letters regarding changing the ballot access laws to reflect a more reasonable amount of signatures needed. It is understandable that they don’t want dozens of candidates per office but a mere 10,000-12,000 signature requirement should prevent that from occurring.
I predict that, despite not being on the ballot in California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Montana, etc., Baldwin will still get about 200,000-300,000 votes, simply by capitalizing on Barr’s middle finger to the r3VOLution.
joell Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 10:33 am
“Too bad for Chuck that Noonan and Keyes hijacked the AIP away or that number would look a lot better.â€
the victimization mentality; its always someone else’s fault
Phil Sawyer adds: You are correct, Joell. There will always be someone on the losing side to say that the game was not played fairly.
joell Says:
September 15th, 2008 at 10:33 am
“Too bad for Chuck that Noonan and Keyes hijacked the AIP away or that number would look a lot better.â€
the victimization mentality; its always someone else’s fault
Phil Sawyer adds: You are correct, Joell. There will always be someone on the losing side to say that the game was not played fairly.
What totally glib non-answers. Do you think that what Keyes did was OK because he won?
Suppose Peace and Freedom becomes a multi-state party in the years to come. Let’s say that your candidate wins the nomination fair and square in 2012, but one of the state parties decides to blow off the results and keeps him off the ballot. Will you be cool with that?
Again, I ask: What is the point of even having national nominating conventions if the winner has to spend his or her time begging state parties to put him or her on the ballot? It is beyond absurd to have a second set of state “caucuses” and “conventions” after the national convention is settled.
Oops, sorry. I meant to post #13 under my own name.
“What totally glib non-answers. Do you think that what Keyes did was OK because he won?”
the same people complaining would be celebrating if baldwin had done the same thing to keys
“the same people complaining would be celebrating if baldwin had done the same thing to keys”
I wouldn’t. I think that it’s wrong for candidates who lose a party’s nomination to try to poach ballot lines, regardless of who does it.
My question about the value of having national nominating conventions if the nominee has to spend his or her time begging state parties to put him or her on the ballot remains ignored. I am not surprised.
#16
“the value of having national nominating conventions”
what about rigged national nominating conventions?
“what about rigged national nominating conventions?”
Anyone can claim that any convention is rigged. There are plenty of lies that continue to be spread around by the most unprincipled and dishonest of Nader’s supporters (such as yourself) about how the Green Party convention was “rigged” in 2004. Had Nader sought our nomination and campaigned for it half as hard as Cobb, he would have won easily.
I resent the comments of Greg (#4). He says that Baldwin is far superior to Peroutka and then makes fun of Peroutka’s name.
Peroutka’s integrity is solid as he has never been caught in a lie. Some of the original CP folk who helped form the party would stand with Peroutka. To make fun of his name is cruel and low-down. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the name. What kind of person would babble off such nonsense?