Barr Boosters and Barr Bashers will both try to use Tuesday's results to bolster their positions. Is there a better, more objective way to evaluate the Barr campaign's vote totals? by David F. Nolan
(libertarian)
Monday, November 3, 2008
In little more than 24 hours, we will know how well the Libertarian ticket of Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root did at the polls. And whatever the results, two things are virtually certain.
First, Barr will almost certainly get far more votes than the 2004 LP nominee, Michael Badnarik -- perhaps two to three times as many. Barr Boosters will trumpet these results as evidence of their wisdom and prowess, claiming that the increased showing vindicates their strategy and the choice of a conservative-leaning candidate by the LP. "See, see, we were right" they will say. "We need to stay on the path begun this year."
It is also certain, however, that Bob Barr will receive far, far fewer votes than the 5% his supporters were holding out as a prospect at the nominating convention in May. In all likelihood, Barr will receive only about 1% of the popular vote, after raising about 1/20 the amount of money his supporters projected. Barr Bashers will cite these figures as evidence that the Barr campaign was a snare and a delusion -- an example of what not to do in the future.
But is there another, more objective way to measure the Barr campaign's vote totals?
I believe there is. The most reasonable way to judge the Barr campaign's results is to see how well (or poorly) Barr fares relative to the three other significant "alternative" candidates: Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and Chuck Baldwin. With voter turnout expected to set a new record, and high public dissatisfaction with the McCain-Obama choice, it's a virtual certainty that the total vote for all alternative candidates will be substantially higher than it was four years ago.
The key question thus becomes: which candidates did a better job of winning over dissatisfied voters, and which did worse? If the total vote for Nader, the LP, the Greens and the Constitution rises by 200%, and Barr's total exceeds Badnarik's by 300%, then the Barr campaign did something right. Conversely, if the third-party vote rises by 200% and Barr's total is only 100% higher than Badnarik's, that's nothing to celebrate.
(I realize there are numerous factors that will contribute to each candidate's showing: ballot access, an endorsement -- or non-endorsement -- by Ron Paul, etc. But the bottom line result nonetheless reflects the sum total of each candidate's persona, message, and campaign strategy. And I am suggesting this benchmark the day BEFORE the election so that however the results turn out, it will not be dismissed as an after-the-fact attempt to spin things either positively or negatively.)
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 23
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of David F. Nolan only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
David F. Nolan 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.
One way is just to compare votes, but I think we also need to look at fundraising and dollar per votes. I also would like to look at impact on future ballot access.
Badnarik 2004 raised $1,011,129.48 adjusting that for inflation 12% gives a total budget of ~$1,120,000 and received ~400,000 votes this works out to be 2.8 dollars per vote.
Barr 2008 has raised 1,280,000 which is 180,000 greater the Badnarik's adjusted dollars. So far From a fund raising perspective Barr is only~ 14 percent better.
If Barr receives 1.5% of the vote that would be ~1,600,000 votes 0.8 dollars per vote certainly an improvemen. Using smaller vote totals off course drive the cost of each vote up.
Similar calculations can be conducted for Nader, Baldwin, McKinney, Obama and McCain.
Also, I have been looking for how much was spent on the Ed Clark campaign but havn't been able to find the data. If anyone has any idea please post it.
Posted By: D. Frank Robinson
Date: 2008-11-03 17:47:20
This seems like a reasonable metric to me. Perhaps a state by state break down would be revealing. As a "favorite son" with high name recognition in Georgia, I would look everywhere else at the comparison over the Bednarik baseline.
Steve, Your idea is a really objective one, however, your calculations comparing previous LP candidates to Barr will not factor in the differences in the political environment. I admit I am not a Barr supporter even though I did vote for him. I think the LP shot ourselves in the foot by choosing Barr and we should have been able to do better then what we did. But I will admit that McCain choosing Palin also pulled pack many conservatives from the GOP that might have voted LP this year.
But I give you credit though because you at least put forth an objective idea and I have not.
Badnarik is interesting only because it was the last election. I think better comparisons could be made with Ron Paul 1988, Ed Clark 1980, Nader all years, Ross Perot 1992, 1996 and Pat Buchanan 2000.
Posted By: Bradley in DC
Date: 2008-11-04 00:19:24
Interesting proposal. Before I comment more on it, I'd like to give it some more thought.
I will offer one suggestion. Since many of us come to libertarianism from different paths (left, right, winding or whatever), I think the LP has a unique opportunity: in years when dissatisfaction with one of the major parties is greater (as it is with Republicans this year), it makes sense to offer the best candidate to appeal to that dissatisfaction. Perhaps four years after an Obama Administration, there will be more of an opening for the LP with a leftish civil libertarian nominee.
This is a very reasonable proposal, Mr. Nolan, and I thank you for your measured approach.
You could've easily chosen to take part in the Boosters v. Bashers skirmish, but you chose to be a spectator instead. I truly hope, however, that such a skirmish never comes to pass. Let's let bygones be bygones, one and all.
Mr. Barr as far as I can see is NOT a Libertarian no matter how much he has "improved" since his time as a hardcore fascist style Republican. I and many others dropped out of the LP because of the Neo~libertarians, or Republican light, coup of National LP and I doubt I will ever spend another 12+yrs serving the LP.
None of the D/R or LP picks for presedent are worthy of my vote and I recommend the Boston Tea Party or some other 3rd party of your choice or write in Ron Paul or other if "allowed" by your state D/R political masters;
2008 Presidential Election Write-In Rules per state; http://mfoster.com/misc/write-in_rules_2008.html
Last time I checked a coup made use of the military to take over by force. What happened within the Libertarian Party was democracy. The radicals got out organized by another group. If you arn't organized to maintain control of a party you will never be organized enough to win a major election. In short, whining is no substitution for hard work!
I think that your idea of comparing vote totals among the third party candidates is very balanced. Even though I'm a Libertarian I didn't vote for Barr this election because I felt a large vote total for Barr will say to the LNC that having a conservative not libertarian candidate as it's standard bearer is the way to go when I and so many other libertarians feel that it isn't. We need to return to the roots of our party and elect someone as our candidate that will show the American people who we really are.
A useful criterion, and a good starting point, but it won't put to rest the argument.
Barr boosters will insist that we ought to tease out what is Barr Campaign failure and what is the result of backbiting Small-Tenter F-U-D, but there's no good way of doing that. Barr bashers might attribute any increase to circumstances such as a weak Republican ticket.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2008-11-04 22:31:04
In fact, Barr is getting at the moment about 0.4% of the vote, a few hundredths of a percent better than the last two races, and significantly under the 0.5% that Browne got in 1996. "First, Barr will almost certainly get far more votes than the 2004 LP nominee, Michael Badnarik -- perhaps two to three times as many." appears to be incorrect. Not only has there not been a 200% increase in the LP Presidential vote, there has not thusfar been a 100% increase. In at least some states, Barr is getting fewer votes than the Libertarian Presidential candidate obtained in 2004 or 2000. News that the Libertarian vote total has increased, because there are more voters, does not appear to impress.
As important as how much money was raised is what was done with it, and the Barr spending approaches seem unconvincing.
In comparison to Badnarik... Barr had 10% higher fund raising adjusted for inflation and received 22% more votes. Taking into account only Barr's name recognition and it is disapointing. Taking into account Barr's previous anti-libertarian actions maybe it is not unexpected. I wish there was a way to gage how many "classic" libertarians did not vote for Barr so that we coulod understand where Barr's votes did come from.
Might be able to tease the data out by looking at various districs and comparing Badnarik results to Barr results. For example, the change in Libertarian vote for president in San Francisco or MA (I expect decrease totals) and the changes in say Utah (increase?)
Barr was more effective per dollar than Badnarik but not by much.
To me it looks like fund raising remains very difficult for Libertarian Candidates. Maybe, since we are willing to run candidates who are marginaly libertarian perhaps we should just accution off the top of the ticket rather then using a traditional convention?
Is Bob Barra staying with the Libertarian Party or is he already shopping for a political family that will better help him reach his grandiose political destiny?I am sure there are other political entities willing to drop their ideas and principles to benefit from the superior political skills of Bob Barr.
That's why it's kinda silly to use both funds collected and dollars-per-vote as measures of success, since they cancel out; if a candidate's high in one, he'll be lower in the other, and vice versa.
By any measure Barr did not live up to expectations put forward by the reformers. He had far more name recognition than Badnarik, he had more media contacts than Badnarik, he should have done far better.
I cannot predict how the runner up (Mary Ruwart) would have done, but I doubt that she would have recieved fewer votes than Badnarik and that would have put her at around 400,000 votes. She would have also presented a more clear libertarian message to the world, and that is priceless. Barr on the other hand muddied the message talking about states rights, the "fair" tax, etc.
Nader in 2000 spent $8.23 per vote to get 2.7% of the votes. But in 2008 Nader spent $5.47 per vote for 0.5% of the vote. I suspect there isn't a straight line. In that I think there are people who will vote for a particular candidate who spends almost nothing and other people that take a bit more convincing and still others that take a lot of convincing. I think that this doesn't happen in a vacuum it depends on who the candidate is what they have done whom they have offended whom they are competing against and the overall competence and frugality of their team.
So I think I disagree, look at the dollar per vote range for Barr, Baldwin and Nader. Then look at the $36.45 that Buchanan spent to get 0.4% of the vote in 2000. The ability to raise money doesn't equate into the ability to turn cash into votes.
To summarize in 2000 Pat Buchanan raised over 13 million and only received some ~450,000 votes. Nader Raised ~5.1 million and received some 2.9 million votes. So in 2000 Pat Buchanan was a much more effective fund raiser and much less effective candidate.
Severin,
I would say that Barr was a marginally better candidate than Badnarik. It seems that the Libertarian Candidate is capable of raising about 1.1 million dollars which will get about 0.4% of the vote no matter who we run. This is why I was only partially joking when I said we should just auction off the roll as head of the ticket. If a candidate can't show up at the convention with the backing of a few million dollars you will probably be able to raise a million and get 0.4% of the vote. If a candidate shows up with 2.0 million and then they raise 1 million for a total of 3.0 million you have a shot at 1% of the vote. Isn't this sort of what happened in 1980 the VP candidate bank rolled the campaign and a vote total of 1.3% or so was reached?
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.
