Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Paul-Clark Libertarian Votes Compared Is Ron Paul 2008 doing better than Ed Clark 1980? A comparison of libertarian candidate results - so far.by William Westmiller
(Libertarian)
Sunday, February 3, 2008
In twenty-eight years of libertarian activism, is the political movement making any progress? Ron Paul clearly dominates the internet like no other candidate, but his vote results have been disappointing. How well do they stack up against the best Libertarian Party presidential campaign results, the 1980 campaign of Edward Clark and David Koch?
A comparison is difficult, because the Clark campaign was during the general election that sent Ronald Reagan to the White House. Paul's results are a mix of primaries, caucuses, and other forms of delegate selection within the Republican Party The data table shows the February 4th tally:
[Click image for PDF or click XLS for a complete state speadsheet.]
Although Paul was only competing in the GOP primary in Florida, he garnered more than twice as many votes (62,063) as the LP slate did (30,524) in the 1980 general election. The percentage of votes cast was better than triple the Clark numbers (3.23% v. 0.93%). In Michigan, the Paul vote (54,434) was thirty percent higher than Clark (41,597), but the percentage of votes cast was six times higher (6.28% v. 1.06%).
Assuming that the "Live Free or Die" state has the strongest libertarian inclinations, the New Hampshire improvement is impressive. Paul garnered nine times the number of votes (18,303 v. 2,064) and fourteen times the percentage of votes cast (7.84% v. 0.54%). That improvement can probably be attributed to the efforts of the Free State Project, the Republican Liberty Caucus and other libertarian organizations active in New Hampshire. In South Carolina, the vote count (16,053 v. 5,139) and the percent of votes cast (3.62% v. 0.58%) both tripled.
There are many caveats. The vote counts for Paul might have been substantially higher in a general election rather than this year's GOP primary, with a half-dozen other contenders. There's some reason to believe that Paul might have drawn a large portion of Democrats if there had not been a competitive contest for that party's nomination. Clark certainly drew a large portion of his 1.1 million votes from both Republicans and Democrats.
Of course, there's no way to compare party caucuses to general election votes, but the improvement in the percent of votes cast among Republicans, compared to Clark's vote among the general population is still impressive. In Iowa, the Paul share was ten times higher (9.96% v. 1.00%) than Clark's share of the general electorate. Preliminary results in Maine indicate a 17-point increase in the Paul share (18.75% v. 0.98%) and Nevada showed a 12-point increase (13.73% v. 1.76%). If we were to project on the feeble assumption that party-specific percentages are twice what they would be in a general election (twice as many voters), the Paul share would still be five to nine times higher than the Clark percentages.
Note that the table shown is pre-Super-Tuesday. I'll post an update of the PDF and XLS files when results are available, probably February 6th or shortly thereafter, but I'll leave this graphic for reference. Check for updated tallies after subsequent GOP primaries. It seems likely that Paul has the funds and commitment to stay in the contest through June, if not until the September GOP convention.
What cannot be overlooked is the enormous advantage Paul has enjoyed in national media coverage and fundraising. Paul has appeared (even if allocated small portions of time) in twenty nationally-broadcast presidential debates; Clark none. Paul has had hundreds – perhaps thousands – of broadcast media appearances; Clark had a handful. The multiple internet resources like MeetUp and MySpace, that have boosted and multiplied Ron Paul’s effort, didn’t even exist in 1980. Clark’s campaign spent "several million dollars" (mainly provided by his running mate), while Paul has enjoyed internet "money bombs" that have put over $33 million into his campaign. The upside is that those are real successes spreading a libertarian message. The downside is that Ron Paul’s resources totally overshadow those that were available to Ed Clark in 1980, making them a significant factor in any comparison.
Are the preliminary comparisons encouraging or discouraging? Bear in mind that this time-frame represents twenty-six years of libertarian political advocacy. The best case suggests an improvement of about one-half percent per year. But, the preliminary raw count indicates that the number of libertarian-inclined voters (again, primaries v. general election votes) has nearly doubled (150,853 v. 79,324) in four primary states. Will the next doubling take another twenty-six years, or is there a cascade effect? In theory, a doubling of visibility can produce a logarithmic cascade. Maybe it will only take thirteen years to double again; six years for the next doubling. However, if libertarian influence were focused entirely on the Republican Party, their impact could represent a majority of GOP voters within twenty years. If you're focused on the future and increasing individual liberty for your children and grandchildren, you can be optimistic. If you are hoping for a libertarian-inclined presidential candidate to win the nomination in 2012, or the general election of 2016, you are likely to be disappointed.
Whatever the future holds, all libertarians have to realize that nothing will change in the future if we abandon the effort and activism that we can exert today on behalf of liberty.
---
Update 1: Results after Super Tuesday: XLS speadsheet.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 17 thumbs so far
2008 William Westmiller, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, February 3, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of William Westmiller only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. William Westmiller is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I am a republican and am not bashing libertarians. What is happening to my party has been happening to yours too. Petty bickering over small issues that divide us.
Buck up and vote for what is right, vote for Ron Paul. Heck I have been a republican all my life and I am sick to death of these chosen few people jerking us around and accomplishing nothing. Ron Paul is freedoms best chance. The rest of the field offers nothing.
Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2008-02-04 18:23:47
I really think this comparison is next to meaningless. It's not even apples-to-oranges, more like grapes to watermelons. I have to wonder why Bill W. did not compare Ron Paul's 2008 totals to his 1988 totals. That comparison would show a faster growth rate for acceptance of libertarian ideas, at least as manifested in presidential campaign votes. But, as Mr. Westmiller notes, there are so many differences between the two situations (seeking a nomination of a major party vs. running in a general election as a third-party candidate) that any comparison is only one step up from reading tea leaves or bird entrails. Interesting, yes; meaningful, no.
As an aside, I feel compelled to note that, myth aside, New Hampshire is not a bastion of libertarianism, at least in terms of vote totals. NH has never given more than 1.00% of its votes to a Libertarian Presidential candidate, while 25 other states have done so. Arizona holds the record in this regard, having voted >1.00% Libertarian five times, followed by Alaska (4 times) and Montana, Idaho and Wyoming (3 times each).
I've got the greatest respect for you Bill, but surely you've got better ways to spend your time than this? Your comparison doesn't really tell us anything except maybe a vague indication of how much more or less libertarian these states have gotten in 28 years.
Well, it does tell us that any Libertarian is better off running as a Republican than as a Libertarian, but that should be obvious. I know it became obvious to me immediately after the last time I ran for office as a Libertarian.
Small correction: the Free State Project is not itself active in New Hampshire; its only mission is to encourage libertarian activists to move there. Consider us a "Manpower" for other liberty organizations, like the RLC, whose state coordinator and chairman is an FSP early-mover.
Besides improving strategies, another factor is in our favor: improving communications technologies give a relative advantage to thinly distributed minorities. The FSP was founded as a virtual community (though with very physical goals). As the Ron Paul campaign is demonstrating, libertarians should be pushing to make maximum use of the web.
You ask a good question but there are some errors. For example:
"What cannot be overlooked is the enormous advantage Paul has enjoyed in national media coverage and fund-raising. Paul has appeared (even if allocated small portions of time) in twenty nationally-broadcast presidential debates; Clark none."
Ed Clark did participate in national presidential debates. Unfortunately they were not against Carter, Reagan, or Anderson. He debated Citizens Party candidate Barry Commoner who was on the ballot in enough states that he could have in theory been elected President. He tried to get himself in debates with Carter, Reagan, and Anderson but they refused.
"Paul has had hundreds – perhaps thousands – of broadcast media appearances; Clark had a handful."
Ed Clark was covered by the media many times. He was covered by the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Orange County Register, UPI, AP, and many other newspapers. Ed Clark received the endorsement of the Journal Star and two other newspapers. Ed Clark was covered by magazines Time, Newsweek, People, The National Review, Reason, Libertarian Review, Next, The Progressive, New Republic, MacClean's (a Canadian magazine), Society For Individual Liberty, Inquiry, Fortune, and others all which have (had) different political viewpoints.
Ed Clark was in Face The Nation (CBS), Nightline (ABC) with Barry Commoner, and in other local (ABC, NBC, CBS, Metromedia) television stations. He was also covered by many radio stations of network affiliates ABC, CBS, NBC, and Mutual.
"The multiple internet resources like Meet Up and My Space, that have boosted and muliplied Ron Paul's effort, didn't even exist in 1980."
There were different groups that assisted Ed Clark's campaign. There was Society For Individual Liberty, college Libertarian organizations (one of which was a national organization), NORMAL, and others.
"Clark’s campaign spent "several million dollars" (mainly provided by his running mate),"
Three Million Dollars + ($8,464,268 in 2007 dollars).
"The downside is that Ron Paul’s resources totally overshadow those that were available to Ed Clark in 1980, making them a significant factor in any comparison."
Ed Clark media buys were national in scope. When he bought an ad on CBS (All in the Family #1 rated show) it was aired on all 50 states and Washington DC during prime time. Ron Paul's media buys are local and most air during none prime time hours. Will he be able to air ads in all 50 states and Washington DC and in every city? Ed Clark did.
Ed Clark published a book (A New Beginning), had many campaign brochures many of which were in Spanish, signs, bumper stickers, and badges. Ed Clark published position papers of the issues of 1980 which were covered by the media and think tanks of various political philosophies.
Just setting the record strait.
I was hungry for some indication that the movement was making political progress, not knowing the results in advance, but hoping there was some good news to share.
".. compare Ron Paul's 2008 totals to his 1988 totals ..."
I wanted to take the "best case" historic tally, but that analysis would also still be "Interesting, yes; meaningful, no." I'll try to add it to the spreadsheet.
Dave Nalle: "... it does tell us that any Libertarian is better off running as a Republican than as a Libertarian ..."
Given our mutual interest in the RLC, I think concrete evidence (even qualified in context) is important and it does suggest that major party "infiltration" could be the better strategy.
Thanks to all the commenters for their notes, additions, and reservations.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
click 
2008 William Westmiller, all rights reserved.