Bob Barr polling nationally at seven percent

From the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee:

In a survey commissioned last week by the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee, seven percent of likely voters responded that they would vote for the former Georgia congressman for president if he were on the ballot in November. Shortly after Ross Perot announced he was re-entering the presidential race in October 1992, he polled at seven percent. Barr is considering whether to seek the nomination of the Libertarian Party for president.

According to the latest poll, Barr enjoys 36 percent name recognition. When questions were asked reminding voters about Barr’s role in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, and about the reasons why Barr left the Republican Party to join the Libertarian Party, Barr’s seven percent rose to nine percent against Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. He polled at eleven percent against Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Russell Verney, Ross Perot’s 1996 campaign manager and a volunteer with the Barr Exploratory Committee commented, “Bob Barr’s name recognition and voter support are tremendous considering he has never run as a national candidate and has yet to spend any money on advertising. In the event Bob Barr officially enters the race, he will already be half way to qualifying for the fall Presidential debates.”

The telephone survey of 1,000 ‘Likely Voters’ was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on April 3, 2008. Pulse Opinion Research, LLC is an independent public opinion research firm using automated polling methodology and procedures licensed from Rasmussen Reports, LLC. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

The Libertarian Party, America’s oldest and largest third party, formed in 1971, is on track to achieve ballot access in at least 48 states. Its nominee will be chosen at the Libertarian National Convention which will be held in Denver, CO May 22 through 26.

81 Responses to “Bob Barr polling nationally at seven percent”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    “Russell Verney”

    Wow. That’s quite a coup. So is 7% polling. Of course—wait until all the Paulites find out his various drawbacks. They wont be as fiercely loyal to Barr I dont think.

    And of course,this is pre-supposing he catches the nomination. His FairTax stance kind of puts that in a bad light. GO MARY RUWART. =)

  2. Hugh Jass Says:

    Okay, I think this is enough to overlook his flaws, assuming he consistently polls in this range.

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    Ill believe it when a Rasmussen or some other national polling firm does it. This poll was paid for BY THE BARR campaign. No details, no nothing.

    Besides, the news of his aborted child and 2-3 divorces will really hurt him with the RP crowd.

  4. Susan Hogarth Says:

    When questions were asked reminding voters about Barr’s role in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton, and about the reasons why Barr left the Republican Party to join the Libertarian Party,...

    Silly me. I thought questions were asked to get information, not to give it.

    Unless you’re one of those obnoxious peeps who go to a talk and then use the ‘question’ period to deliver a 5-minute diatribe on your HobbyHorse, followed by a token “Don’t you agree?” directed pugnaciously at the speaker.

    Or a political pollster.

    So I wonder just what those ‘questions … reminding voters’ said. I’m curious what Barr’s polls gave as his reasons for joining the LP.

  5. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Susan,

    Yes, questions are asked to get information.

    “Do you recognize the name Bob Barr?” is a question that gets one kind of information.

    “Bob Barr was one of the House managers in the 1998 impeachment of President Bill Clinton. He publicly left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party in 2006. Do you recognize the name NOW?” is another question that gets another kind of information.

  6. Trent Hill Says:

    So this was push-polling? wow.

  7. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Incidentally, this is the same firm that George Phillies used back in December - and his numbers were higher:

    http://phillies2008.org/press/12%25_would_support_phillies_in_3way_race

    Guess he gave more ‘informative’ questions.

  8. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Yes, I know, Tom. I was being snarky. Pollsters annoy me.

    Trent, not exactly push-polling:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

  9. Guy Fawkes Says:

    Everyone assumes they know what the Paul crowd will or won’t like. I can assure you the Paul crowd will make a reasonable, intelligent decision about whom to support in the general election. As one of the leaders of their movement, I can assure you that we will solidify behind the candidate that has the best opportunity to make a difference in pushing our message forward. We always knew the Revolution was not a cult of personality, and that Paul would not always be our leader. He was very careful to fashion us that way. Now we are regathering our forces, and will select our candidate once all of the cards are on the table.

  10. disinter Says:

    I have to wonder if Barr would do more good running and winning a state rep race as a Libertarian than spreading the message via a futile Prez run?

    Once you run for Prez, you rarely run for lower office again.

  11. disinter Says:

    *US Rep race

  12. LifeMember Says:

    “Ill believe it when a Rasmussen or some other national polling firm does it. This poll was paid for BY THE BARR campaign.”

    The poll was done by a company “using automated polling methodology and procedures licensed from Rasmussen Reports, LLC.”

  13. LifeMember Says:

    If only 1/3 of people recognize his name so far and 7% would vote for him, wouldn’t he automatically get in the debates if 100% of people know who he is? I’m not an expert on polling stuff, how does this normally work?

  14. Brent Burk Says:

    Ron Paul supports won’t find another Ron Paul, Trent Hill. Ruwart won’t be the next Ron Paul either.

    Barr has flaws, particularly the abortion and, more importantly to me, the 3 wives and divorces.

    The FairTax isn’t a concern for me, though. And him being in the CIA, that’s okay with me. etc etc. I’d vote for him.

  15. Mark Says:

    “Once you run for Prez, you rarely run for lower office again.” (disinter)

    I bet Michael Badnarik wishes he’d thought of that.

  16. disinter Says:

    If only 1/3 of people recognize his name so far and 7% would vote for him, wouldn’t he automatically get in the debates if 100% of people know who he is? I’m not an expert on polling stuff, how does this normally work?

    No. The whole system is rigged.

  17. LifeMember Says:

    “Incidentally, this is the same firm that George Phillies used back in December - and his numbers were higher:”

    Voters won’t vote for George Phillies once they have seen his face or heard his voice. Most people in the LP don’t even like Phillies, no one outside of the LP will vote for Phillies.

    Ruwart will get Badnarik level of support in the national election. Phillies won’t get half of that. Root will improve vote totals, but not beat Clark’s record. Gravel won’t get that much unless Hillary wins the Demo nomination. Barr is the only one who can get a million or more votes right now.

  18. LifeMember Says:

    Susan/disinter: How do you do those italics or larger text when quoting another post?

  19. disinter Says:

    How To Rig An Election In The United States

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rigvote.html

  20. disinter Says:

    LifeMember - see this:

    w3schools.com/tags/html5_blockquote.asp

    Put http://www. in front of it (it wouldn’t let me post the entire link)

  21. Nigel Watt Says:

    Nice.

  22. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Lifer,

    My point was not that Phillies would be more successful than Barr, but that these sorts of polls are essentially meaningless except as press release fodder. 12K (ref: barr’s website) is a pretty expensive press release.

    You get italics by using HTML tags (I hope this works):

    makes text italics

    Now ask how I got the code to show up instead of turning it to italics (if that worked :)

    Here’s how it looks: makes text italics

    You can bold words or phrases simply by putting an asterisk on either side:

    bold

  23. Yank Says:

    I’d like to poll Kim Kardashian.

  24. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Pooh, the ‘pre’ tag is not recognized by this blog (which is usual, they often just have a simplified list of accepted tags.. Google-fu gives us this:

    (this is for blogger but will prob apply here, except not to worry about links, most places make autolinks now:

    http://mike.brisgeek.com/2006/08/30/simple-html-for-formatting-blogger-comments/

  25. Doug Craig Says:

    Disinter

    In georgia it is easier to run for Pesident then US House. We are the state that has went the longest without a third party run for US House. It is the hardest state in the nation to get on the ballot for US House

  26. Titus Curendaro Says:

    Appearently, I’m considered a nut because I want an end to the war in Iraq, the drug war, deficit spending, nation building and the national debt.

  27. James Madison Says:

    It’s good to see the Barr campaign doing polls. That’s a sign he’s seroius about this election.

  28. Fred C. Says:

    “Ill believe it when a Rasmussen or some other national polling firm does it.”

    You’d be surprised at just how often Rasmussen and national polling firms outsource to smaller companies like these Pulse guys. Anybody can interpret survey results; the extra money paid to companies like Rasmussen is to get an English major to summarize those results for you.

  29. NewFederalist Says:

    If he’s polling so well and his name recognition is so good why can’t he raise money?

  30. Bill Says:

    Has anyone posted the internals? All I’ve seen in 1,000 likely voters 3% MOE, i’d assume in a general, and I’d assume not “Yellow Dog” Libertarians. Does anyone have the state/party/demographic breakdown? What was the undecided?

  31. John Lowell Says:

    Nothing could please me more. While I’m not wild about Barr, at least he can communicate effectively which is more than I can say for Ron Paul. One always had the impression with Paul of witnessing someone who’d inhaled helium while in the midst of a manic attack. His recent performance at the Betrayus hearing is a case in point. And besides, Barr may bring a blessed end to all of this adolescent “we’re-going-to-take-over-the-Republican-Party” craziness of Paul’s dead-end followers. That alone would be enough for me.

  32. johncjackson Says:

    OK. It seems like there is nothing left to ‘Explore.” If things are going so great, just jump in. Why not, is Barr a scared of being embarrassed if he loses to some Libertarian no-name?/

    Also these hypothetical 3rd party polls are almost ALWAYS way HIGHER than reality. As it gets closer to election time and the whole “spoiler” and “’wasted vote” psychology comes into play all but the hardcore 3rd party partisans pick one of the big guys.

    I would consider it a success if a general election Barr even competes with Clark numbers.

    As far as how the Ron Paul nutswingers will take to Barr, well the REPUBLICAN Ron Paul had just as many or more negatives and anti-libertarian views. And at least Barr has the guts to be an actual Libertarian.

  33. Laura Says:

    The way Guy Fawkes talks about Ron Paul supporters is creepy. Ron Paul supporters are not all going to choose to vote for the same person. Some will vote LP, some will vote CP, some will write in Ron’s name, and some will even vote Democrat or Republican. Ron Paul supporters come from varied backgrounds and the only thing they could agree on was Ron Paul.

    Hey Trent, every candidate has various drawbacks, even Ron Paul. Besides, aren’t you a CP shill? I guess you think Bob Barr could take votes away from the CP.

  34. LifeMember Says:

    Susan/disinter:

    Thanks

    Thanks
    Thanks

  35. LifeMember Says:

    Also these hypothetical 3rd party polls are almost ALWAYS way HIGHER than reality. As it gets closer to election time and the whole “spoiler” and “’wasted vote” psychology comes into play all but the hardcore 3rd party partisans pick one of the big guys.

    That is how it was for Badnarik and a lot of races. But Ross Perot was the exception. Now it looks like Perot’s campaign manager is advising Barr. Maybe this will be the first race since Perot to capture the American public.

  36. Sivarticus Says:

    I can’t see where it says “Exploratory Committee” on Barr’s website anymore. Did he just decide to jump in all the way the last couple days without saying anything?

  37. Fred C. Says:

    Look at the bottom of the page, Sivarticus.

  38. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    LifeMember,

    You write:

    “That is how it was [diminishing support as the election got closer] for Badnarik and a lot of races. But Ross Perot was the exception. Now it looks like Perot’s campaign manager is advising Barr. Maybe this will be the first race since Perot to capture the American public.”

    That’s a bit of a stretch. For one thing, Perot spent about $98 million of his own money (in 2007 dollars) on his campaign. Right now, after six days as an “explorer,” Barr has raised $22,829.13. If Barr raises $22,829.13 every day between now and election day, at the end of it all he’ll have raised about 1/20th as much money as Perot spent.

    Also, Perot ran as an crusading, idealistic outsider with appeal to both major party constituencies. So far, Barr seems to be running as a knowledgeable former insider with appeal to a fraction of one major party constituency.

  39. Thunder Pig Says:

    If you want to build a third party, start from the bottom up. This top-down Soviet Style of trying to build third parties will not work.

    Only when the third party people think in terms of decades, will they succeed.

  40. disinter Says:

    Appearently, I’m considered a nut because I want an end to the war in Iraq, the drug war, deficit spending, nation building and the national debt.

    Yes, anyone that supports freedom is bat-shit insane. Faux News told me so.

  41. David F. Nolan Says:

    As someone already noted, Phillies got roughly the same percentage when a similar poll was done for him a while back. And I’d bet you’d get about the same result no matter whose name you put in as the third choice: Root, Kubby, whomever.

    Also: was Nader included in the poll? If not, figure he’d get at least half of the “anti” vote, and Barr’s share would drop proportionately.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m delighted to see ANY Libertarian getting 7% in ANY national poll. But I won’t kid myself (or anyone) by pretending that a poll like this accurately reflects reality.

  42. Mike Gillis Says:

    Yeah, I think it would be extremely important to include Nader in the poll, just to make sure that Barr isn’t getting all of the “pox on both your houses” votes.

    I’d like to see a four way poll. One was done a few months back before Nader had even announced his exploratory committee, where Paul got 8% as a Libertarian and Nader pulled 4% as a Green.

    Now that Nader has actually announced and Barr is starting to get press, I’d like to see another four way poll.

  43. Dave Williams Says:
    1. disinter Says:
      April 11th, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Appearently, I’m considered a nut because I want an end to the war in Iraq, the drug war, deficit spending, nation building and the national debt.

    Yes, anyone that supports freedom is bat-shit insane. Faux News told me so.

    LOL guys…

  44. Dave Williams Says:

    Polls are bullshit…polls are bullshit…polls are bullshit…polls are bullshit…propaganda!

  45. Stefan Says:

    The other day on CNN they mentioned Nader polled at 5%-6% nationally, and if Barr would announce formally AND if he gets the nomination, it would be interesting how they both poll, but of course one cannot say too much about polls, especially this early.

    The funny/ironical thing with Faux news is that Rupert Murdoch, who supported the war staunchly, just like his network, contributed 2300 to Hillary’s campaign last year and newly his daughter is going to raise money for Barack Obama. All of course a way to buy political interest. There is really not much difference between McCain, Clinton and Obama, except for personalities.

  46. John Lowell Says:

    From Drudge, this just in from Harvard educated, United Church Of Christ pastored, Obama on small town America:

    “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard a more patronizing, elitist comment from a politician than this one. Obama, the typical liberal, we-know-what’s-best-for-you Democrat, increasingly showing himself as disdainful and arrogant toward average Americans just may have cost himself the election with that crack. Oh, he’ll beat Hitlery, its too late for her. But I’ll bet McCain just sticks that one right down his throat in the Fall and justly.
    The heart betrays itself everytime. This guy has all the instincts of a red-lining insurance executive.

    Barr should comment on this remark.

  47. Aaron Says:

    Let me just say - as a former LP member and activist who still agrees with the party platform - that I would not be surprised if the LP did not nominate Mike Gravel or Bob Barr. I think it would be a monumental mistkae if one of these two gentlemen were not nominated. They would start percentages above all other potential nominees.

  48. LifeMember Says:

    As someone already noted, Phillies got roughly the same percentage when a similar poll was done for him a while back. And I’d bet you’d get about the same result no matter whose name you put in as the third choice: Root, Kubby, whomever.

    This is ridiculous. Nobody even knows who Root, Phillies, Kubby are. People polled for Phillies on the issues he mentioned, not his name. Thanks for starting the LP, Mr. Nolan. You are good on issues, but your political skills are lacking.

  49. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Guy Fawkes Says:
    April 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am

    “I can assure you the Paul crowd will make a reasonable, intelligent decision about whom to support in the general election”

    I CAN ASSURE YOU that many, if not more than half of the “Paul crowd” is not rational. Even though Ron Paul has said many, many times, that the “revolution” wasn’t about him, a lot of supporters believe it IS about him. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen post by Paulites saying basically, “I don’t care who else is running . . . I’m writing in Ron Paul’s name.” In my view this isn’t reasonable or intelligent . . . it’s cultish. As much as I admire and support Ron Paul, I can assuredly say that a lot of his supporters are Ron Paul “worshipers” and folks, that’s not reasonable or intelligent.

  50. Wes Benedict Says:

    I don’t see any problem with people wanting to write-in Ron Paul doing that. Probably he’ll get 1% or less. Perhaps over 1%. Doubtful over 2%. Are you telling them not to waste their votes?

    I’ll be voting for whomever the Libertarian Party nominee is, but again, I have no problem with people writing in Ron Paul to send a message.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Quoth Dave Williams:

    “Polls are bullshit…polls are bullshit…polls are bullshit…polls are bullshit…propaganda!”

    To the extent that they’re used as press release fodder, yeah, they usually are. It’s best to always assume that a campaign is only showing you what it wants you to see, and that what it’s not showing is probably not nearly as positive.

    That said, polls are useful, both as bullshit propaganda and for internal campaign use. They can tell you, within limits, how recognized your candidate is, how much support he has, where that support is from, where it’s not from, and what issues might let you get it to start coming from where it’s not coming from now.

    They can also tell you whether it’s worth running or not. For example, I used to know a political consultant who did a lot of successful work with local and county level candidates, and the FIRST thing he sold any prospective client on was a quick name-recognition poll. Name recognition 30%+, maybe a run is in order. Name recognition less than 30%, don’t bother—or at least don’t bother trying to hire that consultant, because he considered it a waste of time.

    Of course, that’s not a rule easily applied to LP presidential politics, because we are going to run a candidate (unless NOTA prevails, which it never has) ... but 36% name rec for Barr is a definite positive indicator, at least at the internal campaign level (whether the delegates are going to give a damn about it when they balance it against issues stands, etc., is another story—we tend to place greater weight on other variables).

    Polls should not dictate policy stands (although they might indicate which ones can be most profitably EMPHASIZED), nor should they be taken as gospel predictors (but if I was placing a bet, I’d pay attention to them), nor should they be taken at face value when used for propaganda purposes (but they may convey a worthwhile message).

    7% is a nice starting number for Barr. It’s not bankable as a general election predictor, but it does sound mighty good to Libertarians for whom presidential vote totals are a priority, and it may sound bad enough to the GOP to make them get stupid and start attacking Barr (which would just get him more publiclity, and possibly more support).

  52. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Wes,

    You write:

    “I don’t see any problem with people wanting to write-in Ron Paul doing that. Probably he’ll get 1% or less. Perhaps over 1%. Doubtful over 2%. Are you telling them not to waste their votes?

    “I’ll be voting for whomever the Libertarian Party nominee is, but again, I have no problem with people writing in Ron Paul to send a message.”

    There are wasted votes, and then there are wasted votes.

    The wasted vote that Libertarians deny the existence of is a vote cast for a candidate who “can’t win.” Obviously there are reasons to cast such a vote anyway (for example, as you say, to “send a message”).

    There’s another kind of wasted vote, though, and that’s a vote that is not counted or acknowledged. I don’t know about the other 49 states, but in Missouri unless a candidate states that he is a write-in candidate and registers with the election authority which supervises election to the office in question, write-in votes for that candidate will not be counted or included in any official tally.

    So, unless Ron Paul files a form with the Secretary of State of Missouri before November saying that he’s a write-in candidate, it doesn’t matter if 99% of the voters write him in, because nobody will ever know how many did so, or even that anyone other than themselves did so. No message sent. Of course, if feeling good about how one cast one’s vote is reward enough, that’s a perfectly valid reason as well.

  53. Dave Williams Says:

    Again, polls are bullshit.

  54. Robert Capozzi Says:

    there is no “Paul crowd”. There is no spoon.

  55. Wes Benedict Says:

    Wes says: I’m hoping I learned a posting technique today.

    The best things in life are free

    We’ll see!

  56. Wes Benedict Says:

    [email protected] says:

    There’s another kind of wasted vote, though, and that’s a vote that is not counted or acknowledged . . . unless a candidate states that he is a write-in candidate and registers with the election authority . . .

    Good point. I do not recommend writing in a vote for a candidate who is not an official write-in candidate.

  57. Wes Benedict Says:

    I said:

    I’m hoping I learned a posting technique today.

    I say:
    I did! I did!

  58. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Wes Benedict Says:
    April 11th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    “Are you telling them not to waste their votes?” I don’t know if this question was directed toward me, but I’ll answer it I am not TELLING anyone to vote, not vote, or vote for any particular candidate. I am trying to persuade (maybe to no positive effect) first, Libertarian delegates to vote for Mary Ruwart, and if she gets the nomination, voters in general.

    What I AM saying is, a write-in vote for a candidate, who after all REALLY ISN’T a candidate at all, (Ron Paul was offered the “red carpet” to run as a Libertarian, and declined) is not reasonable or intelligent. Plus in the context of Ron Paul, the “revolution isn’t about Ron Paul, but the movement in general. Some Paul supporters will feel that the logical vote is for the Constitution Party candidate, others would say the Libertarian Party is the best expression of the Ron Paul Revolution. Either way (though I hope most think the LP is the best expression of the revolution) those votes would be reasonable and intelligent, in my view. A write in vote for a “non-candidate” is not. Add in Mr. Knapp’s bit of info about certain states which may not even count such votes, makes such write-in votes even more ridiculous.

  59. George Phillies Says:

    My campaign did 2, 3, and 4 way polls last fall using the same polling house. We did a D/R race, a drl race, and a DRLIndependent. I was at 12 percent in the three way and six or so percent in the four-way the fourth being a prolife conservative. I donot have most details here to forward them.

  60. Jerry S. Says:

    One thing I remember from my liberal democratic political science professor those many moons ago, polls can be made to say anything you wish them to say. Order of questions, voice inflection, persons polled, are a few of the tricks of the trade. My belief is polls are used to help keep the preceived two Party system in power, as already stated polls are apart of the propaganda we are fed daily. You won’t see a third Party in the “main” debates unless they have $5o + million on hand. Barr’s propaganda poll won’t get him the money or the nomination.

    A reality check, the Perot campaigns were the biggest major third Party duds in the 20th century. ZERO electoral college votes. Argue all you want ZERO = ZERO. He spent much more money than any others, however ZERO ! You give me $98 million dollars and I’ll come close to putting Jim LIBERTARIAN Burns in the White House on 1/20/09. We would win some states in a 4 to 6 way race, (LP, DP, RP, GP, CP, and Nader) I’d gaurantee it!

    Bob Barr’s hope of taking over Paul’s R(3vol)ution of volunteers and big bucks isn’t going to happen. If you don’t believe me check the Paul forums. They admired straight shooting honesty. Barr ducks debates against businessmen, women, 77 y.o. men, and Milnes. This from one of the men who started the R(3VOl)UTION logo…

  61. Real Conservative Says:

    I was worried about Bob Barr jumping into the race and making Obama the next president until I read this thread.

    Thank the Lord Almighty that Libertarians are just as stupid as they always have been. They won’t nominate Bob because he isn’t an anarchist, which is good, because I don’t want Obama to be the next president.

    Go nominate some loser like Bandarik or that George guy who just left a stupid comment. We need McCain to win and for Losertarians to keep losing, like they always do.

  62. Jerry S. Says:

    This from one of the men who started the R(3VOl)UTION logo…

  63. Jerry S. Says:

  64. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    A study a couple of years ago noted that the number of people not being truthful with pollsters was increasing.

    And the polls picked Obama to win in New Hampshire as I recall.

    MHW

  65. Dave Williams Says:

    “polls can be made to say anything you wish them to say. Order of questions, voice inflection, persons polled, are a few of the tricks of the trade. My belief is polls are used to help keep the preceived two Party system in power,”

    Again, polls are bullshit…next topic…please.

  66. paulie Says:

    I am trying to persuade (maybe to no positive effect) first, Libertarian delegates to vote for Mary Ruwart, and if she gets the nomination, voters in general.

    Ruwart campaign needs more signs of life for that to have a chance. Videos, articles, audio, etc.

    Some signs she appeals to groups outside of the libertarian movement would really help her chances. Get with alternative medicine/natural foods/vitamins advocates, right to die people, and Fully informed jury folks in a public way ASAP.

    I’ll talk to her husband about this today (I’m at the Wisconsin LP convention, and so is he) if he has time.

  67. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I agree with you Paulie. Though Mary Ruwart’s position and support within the LP is somewhat different that every other candidate, I don’t think she should simply rely upon her strong support with long time Libertarians. Evidence of media, sending out press releases, and activity which goes beyond rallying the LP troops at state conventions would have a synergistic effect toward building more support within the LP.

  68. Yank Says:

    Mary Ruwart’s position should be on Kim Kardashian.

  69. Jim Lesczynski Says:

    There’s another kind of wasted vote, though, and that’s a vote that is not counted or acknowledged. I don’t know about the other 49 states, but in Missouri unless a candidate states that he is a write-in candidate and registers with the election authority which supervises election to the office in question, write-in votes for that candidate will not be counted or included in any official tally.

    In New York, they definitely count all write-ins without those candidates being registered. (They don’t always count them accurately, but that’s another matter.) Whenever I’m dissatisfied with the choices for a given office, I always write in the names of my children and their friends, and they get a kick out seeing their names tallied with 1 vote, along with the names of various celebrities, fictional characters and dead presidents, in the certified results from the Board of Elections.

  70. John C. Jackson Says:

    I really cant understand the sentiment about any 3rd party “giving” anything to Obama. As if he is worse than McCain. McCain is better on a couple issues but they pretty much cancel each other out. IMHO, McCain and Obama are about even and Clinton is the worst.

    I don’t see how McCain can appeal to conservatives or libertarians at all, though for slightly different reasons.

  71. Brad Forschner Says:

    1. Let each candidate earn their votes.
    2. Let each candidate come up with something better than “if you don’t vote for me, the other one will win”
    3. Let each candidate who loses the election realize they failed to build support, rather than blaming the loss on some other candidate who was out there building supporters.

    As for 08, unless Paul pulls off a Miracle in St. Paul, and gets the R nomination, I’ll support the L regardless.

    As for Bob Barr being the L, here in GA I think it would be great. My goal in GA is a 20% for the L to gain Major Party status and full ballot access. If he gets7% nationwide, great, but my main focus is furthering the party and shooting for a goal locally.

    Lets turn the Bob Barr campaign into an L Ballot access campaign. What are the requirements for ballot access for the L in your state? the GA goal is 20%, whoever the nominee is.

  72. Brad Forschner Says:

    in ‘04, the requirements to be included in the televised debates was the following;

    1. Be on the ballots in enough states to mathematically have a possibility of winning enough votes on the electoral college to win the presidency. The LP has met this criteria, for multiple cycles.

    2. (and the more difficult) The candidate in question must be polling at least 15% nationally averaged in polls conducted by several leading media outlets, ie Washington Post, ABC, NYTimes, etc, etc. Not once has this criteria been met by any third candidate since it’s inception.

    Ross Perot was included in the debates during his cycle, because, these stricter rules were put into place after his cycle when the Rs and Ds formed a committee to protect their interests by conducting the debates.

    Not to put down Ross Perot, as it was still a major feat that he was included in the debates during his cycle, but the Ds and Rs raised the bar to be in them.

  73. Steve LaBianca Says:

    I can understand Jim Leczynski’s point of “Whenever I’m dissatisfied with the choices for a given office, I always write in the names of my children and their friends”, but that’s as far as that goes; it doesn’t make a bigger “statement” than not voting for that office, at all. It may be fun, but I don’t think it’s effective at sending a message.

  74. Can't Says:

    Don’t despise small beginnings. None of the 3 stooges are acceptable to me. I know nothing of Mr Barr, but am willing to listen. I just heard of this over on Ann Coulter’s web site. Am looking for a candidate worth putting my vote on. Will be researching him out. I appreciate all the comments on him that are posted. I believe a 3rd party could do it this year.

  75. 4Liberty Says:

    Hi Wes,

    The best test of whether you have learned something well is to see if you can teach it. Please teach me how to submit comments with the quoted text indented.

    Thanks -
    Wes said:

    I’m hoping I learned a posting technique today.

    I say:
    I did! I did!

  76. Jim Lesczynski Says:

    I can understand Jim Leczynski’s point of “Whenever I’m dissatisfied with the choices for a given office, I always write in the names of my children and their friends”, but that’s as far as that goes; it doesn’t make a bigger “statement” than not voting for that office, at all. It may be fun, but I don’t think it’s effective at sending a message.

    No big message, just fun. In sharing that anecdote, I mostly just wanted to point out that not all states require write-in candidates to be registered for the votes to count.

  77. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Jim,

    That’s cool! I bet the election officials have fun in states that count every write-in, especially if there are multiple write-in instances including the surname “Lesczynski.”

    When Tamara was elected City Marshal as a write-in candidate, among the candidates she beat were a couple of misspellings of her own name.

    Tom

  78. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    Tom what would have happened if she had lost to a misspelling?

    Sheeeeesh!

    MHW

  79. Yank Says:

    Kardashian is a tough name to spell but worth it.

  80. yankeetrader Says:

    Hey Yank Kardashian ain’t that good lookin’.

    You need to quit yankin’ on yourself

  81. Steve LaBianca Says:

    Jim Lesczynski Says:
    April 12th, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    No big message, just fun. In sharing that anecdote, I mostly just wanted to point out that not all states require write-in candidates to be registered for the votes to count.

    Fair enough Jim. I like fun. I’ ll hopefully see you in Denver. We met in Atlanta, as I am a former NY LPer, and we sat down for dinner together with others from the NY LP.

Leave a Reply