Sage Observations
columnist: David F. Nolan

Socially Bookmark this article! BlinkList Blogmarks Bloglines Buddymarks CiteUlike del.icio.us Digg It Diigo DZone Ekstreme Google Gravee ISEdb Linkagogo Linkroll Maple.nu Mr. Wong Netvouz Newsvine Onlywire PlugIM reddit Segnalo Simpy Sphinn Squidoo StumbleUpon tagtooga TalkDigger Technorati Yahoo MyWeb

Reader Comments:

Posted By: Scott
Date: 2008-11-05 18:59:54

I think that if Barr hadn't self-destructed (and proved himself to be a Libertarian in name only), the Libertarian brand would have gotten a larger result. His stance on a lot of the issues didn't ring true to a lot of the older Party members and his dissing of Ron Paul didn't help his standing with a lot of the younger activists.

 I really didn't see a lot of support for Barr; the support that I saw was for the Party, first and foremost. It was the Party faithful that carried Barr-- when we had the potential of getting far more.

We lost some to Chuck Baldwin, but his stance on religion alienated a lot of the more secular younger folks.

 McCain didn't appeal to the younger set-- but Obama really resonated as being a BIG change from Bush. I think that we lost a large number of people to Obama, people that we COULD have had if Barr hadn't acted like a dick.

Report violation

---

Posted By: censoredagain
Date: 2008-11-05 19:06:22

one of the things that keep a third party out in many elections has been stated before.  Many if not most Americans do not vote for a particular candidate they tend to vote against a candidate.  So they they vote for the candidate other then the one they do not want in office that they think has the next best chance of winning.

Report violation

---

Posted By: vendex
Date: 2008-11-05 19:13:23

This was the first time I can remember that no LP presidential candidate function was held in Washington State.  None of the "oldtimers" in the state were interested in putting any energy into the Barr campaign and many of them, I have been told, just did not vote for president this year.  The vote totals seem to show the, shall we say, lack of enthusiasm.

I can hardly wait to hear the rationalizations and explanations and excuses in San Diego in December at the LNC meeting

Report violation

---

Posted By: D. Frank Robinson
Date: 2008-11-05 19:13:58

My analysis was done more off the cuff based onearly Wednesday morning  reports on the OKLPdiscuss group on Yahoo.com. Mr. Nolan's analysis is more through perhaps, yet we seem to reach very similar conclusions. I go on to discuss a strategy for the future. Mr. Nolan does not necessarily agree with my suggestions - since I have not present them to him until now. 

***

Note that by combining the Barr and Baldwin votes you get a result that beats Nader - just barely. Then you throw in the votes for Ron Paul and you're at about one percent.  In a 'normal' election at least one dissident candidate should get two percent of the vote. To get to two percent one must combine Nader, Barr and Baldwin.  I think this vindicates my view that Obama sucked up at least fifty percent of the dissident votes.  Money and exposure talks. 

Libertarian leaning voters who typically vote GOP did not abandon the GOP even under the stress of Bush baggage. They stuck with McCain and now have nothing to show for it - not even the satisfaction of a statistical show of dissent.  There appears to be no limit to the abuse these libertarian leaners will not endure. Most are faith based voters - they still have faith that the Establishment will listen to them.  The dominant element in these faith-in-the-establishment libertarians are the beltway types who follow the CATO-Reason line. 

The Ron Paul-Lew Rockwell libertarians may have mostly opted out of this election entirely.  These people do exist.  This remains a stealth constituency not reflected in the returns.  What would it take to attract them to vote for ANY candidate other than Ron Paul?

Clearly Ron Paul's endorsement of Baldwin had no measurable effect on these non-voters.  It would surely had no measurable effect even if Paul had endorsed Barr either.

The immediate effect of economic turmoil was to push voters toward the establishment candidates.  It also push the wars nearly off the table. Obama and fear trumped anti-war and economic policy indignation across the board. 

We will soon know the extent of the backlash against incumbents who voted for the Bailout.  I expect it will be insignificant. We already know there was no backlash in Oklahoma.  Incumbents will take this a renewal of their license to kill.  The GOP will (except Ron Paul) take whatever the Democrats offer so long as it sugar coated with earmarked pork.  Hence, the GOP will be an even more irrelevant party by 2010.

Will 2010 be a year for dissident revolt?  Or, will the Establishment overreach?  Of course it is too soon to guess.  Nevertheless, if any opportunity emerges from the world's further slide into a depression, then preparation for that opportunity must begin now. 

What preparations?  Think and buy gold and silver so you will have some resources to commit if the opportunity does emerge.  Even if it doesn't you will still better off.

In five months will we have more clues to what is coming.  Watch the first 100 days to see what the Establishment does.  Start your stash for resistance now.


--- In oklpdiscuss@yahoogroups.com, "D. Frank Robinson" wrote:
>
> You can get percentage rankings of dissident party candidates here.
>
>
> From what I see at 12:18a is that Bob Barr is a failed candidate for the
> LP. Nader has beat the Barr in state after state in some cases 2 to 1.
> I looks highly improbable that Barr will get 3/4 of one percent and
> nothing like one million votes. This may not have been a record turnout
> after all, just a lot of early voting. Furthermore, there was not a
> large pool of undecideds who could have been swayed with a large media
> effort in the last week. If Barr had had fifty million dollars to buy
> media in the last week, it would hot have helped him. The well was
> already dry. Obama sucked the life out of all the dissident campaigns.
> Obama was the dissident candidate. Game over.
>
> Barr was the wrong candidate at the wrong time. The LP may well have
> done better with a hard-core Libertarian and certainly could have done
> no worse. The Barr-Root episode should a lesson to Libertarians. Your
> principles are your opportunity. Eschew GOP retreads with baggage. The
> LP has managed to make itself unfriendly to Ron Paul. Big mistake.
>
> Now get down to running candidates for Congress who can get elected and
> , if not elected, actually inflict damage to Democrat and Republican
> candidates. Run Libertarians for Congress as Independents who are
> avowedly Libertarian.
>
> By 2012, the LP could be revitalized if it elected just one person to
> the Congress - just one in 2010. There will be an opportunity for
> dissident candidates two years into the Obama Administration. Then in
> 2012 run more candidates for the House and yes, nominate Presidential
> and VP candidates who will run and litigate on a platform of electoral
> reforms, sound money (gold), and peace. But spend the money on the
> Congressional candidates campaigns. Candidates on the ballot can get
> elected. Let the Presidential candidate litigate for ballot access, let
> the Congressional candidates run to win - not fight for ballot access.
> They can fight for ballot access after they win.
>
> You can call this strategy LINC 12 X 12 (12 Libertarian-Indpenedents in
> Congress by 2012) - even if they are all elected as Independents.
>
> Who should run against whom in Oklahoma in 2010? I'll never say never
> again.
>
> 

 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Ted Brown
Date: 2008-11-05 19:28:45

While the voters didn't want to risk a vote for alternative presidential candidates, they were very willing to do so in down-the-ticket races.  In California, the Republican brand is very tarnished, both by Bush at the national level and by Arnold at the state level.              Libertarian candidates in California did very well.  Congressional candidates averaged 4.53%, State Senate candidates averaged 5.94%, and State Assembly candidates averaged 6.74%.  Some individual candidates did very well indeed, including Professor Pamela Brown, who won 14.7% in a 3 way State Assembly race (yes, against D and R), which is probably a record in CA.           I think the protest vote is alive and well, and we were able to take advantage of it by having a lot more candidates than the Green, P & F, and American Independent parties combined.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Fascist Nation
Date: 2008-11-05 19:37:37

Well, I applaud David for taking the time to gather numbers and do some analysis. But the bottom line is that no third party will ever ger much of the vote.

It is like asking people who would you rather watch on TV: The Chicago Cubs, The Boston Red Sox or the 3rd Street Little League? The vote gets split amonst the two "real" baseball teams, many people say they could care less and don't vote, and a few atypical people pick the kids.

Politics is a sporting event in Amerika.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Gene Berkman
Date: 2008-11-05 19:40:06

You are right, Dave, when you say "relatively unknown and hugely underfunded third-party candidates cannot realistically compete at the Presidential level."

In several states, Libertarian candidates for statewide, Congressional or legislative positions did have vote totals that we can build on. Allen Buckley in Georgia may have forced a run-off in the Senate race. Candidates for legislature in Texas & North Carolina who ran in two way races got double digit percentages.

Yet nation-wide, there were fewer states with active Libertarian candidates, because the poor showings of our Presidential tickets have caused people to burn out, and caused even sympathetic media to ignore us. And the LNC provides no support for local candidates, nor do the state committees of the LP.

We need to stop wasting time, money and credibility on Presidential races where we are not competitive. We need to at the same time build local and state-wide organizations that can give some support to the candidates we run.

Report violation

---

Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2008-11-05 19:52:27

Since posting the piece above, I have learned that updated figures  can be seen at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/allcandidates/

Thes figures include Baldwin, McKinney, and all the micro-candidates.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Less Antman
Date: 2008-11-05 21:41:20

In 1980, California State Assembly candidate Roberta Rinehart earned 16.8% of the vote in a 3-way race with a D and R.  Jack Dean was the brilliant campaign manager, and deserves credit for the success of that campaign, and I had the honor of being her speechwriter and brochure content developer.  I believe that stands as the highest vote percentage ever by an LP candidate in California in a race that included both Hertz and Avis as opponents.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Anonymous
Date: 2008-11-05 21:56:23

We interrupt this discussion of top-of-the-ticket matters to mention that, fortunately, we gained ballot access in several states due to strong showings by down-ticket campaigns.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Chris Baker
Date: 2008-11-05 22:10:36

Barr was a disaster. There's no doubt about it.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Steve
Date: 2008-11-05 23:07:29

The problem of the don't go main stream or go main stream argument is that they both ignore the issue of money. Go far far far back in history and look at Rome. If you want to win a Rome election bring in cash. If you want to be competitive in a US election bring in cash.

I went to one libertarian event this fall, for the first time, i took a check book with me expecting to be witting out donations. I was shocked.... libertarian candidates don't ask for your vote they don't ask for help financially. I looked into the cost of yard signs, some where between half a buck to a buck in quantities of one hundred. One hundred dollars will produce one hundred yard signs.

I must reiterate this idea... say after me just like Obama did “we don't need to boo, we need to go and vote”. We can not be a political force unless we are an economic force. If we have the cash the media will ask for our attention not us asking for media attention. Once we have the attention of the media we must be effective or we loose.

So what is it? Why are libertarians, (among other things) the pro-capitalist party (capitalism being about the accumulation of wealth) so opposed to the idea of asking for money to fund an election cycle for the purpose of increasing both social liberties and economic liberties. Yes the LNC does send out round after round of fund raising letters but the candidates for statewide office and local office don't and at least in my neck of the world they don't even raise a voice up to the level of a whisper at libertarian functions.

One exception being that one notable libertarian did suggest one last round of asking for the selling of raffle tickets before the raffled objects where distributed. Thanks, the idea is good but we can't fund meaningful campaigns off of raffle tickets.

 

Steve Meier

Report violation

---

Posted By: Steve
Date: 2008-11-05 23:40:56

Barr was less of a disaster Badnarik and not much different then Harry Browne. Not in quantitative terms such as votes and financial support. Nor was Barr a great success he was just ... typical.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Alex
Date: 2008-11-06 00:56:02

Hmm, didn't Barr's campaign say that he would get 20 MILLION votes?  By that measure, I think we can safely say that Barr was the biggest failure the LP ever had.  Hopefully, from here on out they will chose an actual libertarian as a candidate. With as many libs as they lost by choosing this guy, they didn't make up a thing.  Selling out is not that profitable is it?  Idiots.  For once we could have made a difference.  Instead, we again are a party of no influence at all.  Barr's numbers don't even get him 1% of the vote.  Thanks Barr.    (That figure is taken from the Barr website and is an actual quote by Root.)  

 Ron Paul got over 10 million dollars in a month and didn't even know it was coming.  Had the LP picked a real candidate they too would have received money.  But there was already one Republican running and I think he got all of Barr's money.  Barr sure didn't get any of the Ron Paul money.  I wonder why?  Perhaps because people were starved for libertarianism and despised Bush?  

Then the beltway, or "blast away all supporters" libertarians did all they could to alienate all of Ron Paul's supporters and pick a Republican as their candidate.    Good job.  Barr said he didn't need any Ron Paul people.  The LP party said it too.  Surprise!  When you spit on your entire base (and they were too stupid to know that Ron Paul's supporters are their base) you don't get much money.  

 In a climate where Ron Paul had hundreds of thousands of supporters give money, any libertarian candidate should have done ten times better than any other candidate in the past.  Instead, Barr alienated most of his base.  

 Frankly, Paul's campaign was run by a bunch of children who knew nothing and he got how much money?  If you have the right candidate the money comes.  If you have a dog, you are not going to get much no matter what you do.  I took out loans to give Ron Paul money.  I wouldn't spit on Barr.  My saliva is worth more to me than that.

 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-11-06 03:00:34

My suggestion to the LP faithful is to pick your candidate maybe 2 years in advance so there is enough time to spread the word.

However, the title "Crash and Burn" doesnt reflect just on Barr, but on all third parties.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Jesse Priester
Date: 2008-11-06 06:58:37

It is time for Libertarians to start over at the grassroots.  What we do in the next two to four years can decide the future of the Libertarian Party.  Only the most dedicated vote in non-Presidential elections, and so 2010 is a great opportunity to start winning some local races.  In order to do that, we need to get involved at the local level and learn all we can about local issues.

We also need to focus on what unifies us as Americans.  After a century of common dependency, most Americans are scared of less government, but most Americans also favor more open government.  Let\'s start with open government and be willing to work with anyone who agrees.

When you run for political office, organizations you have never heard of will suddenly care about what you think and will publish your responses in voter guides to their supporters.  When you write to your local paper as a candidate, more people will read what you say.

Despite weak national candidates, the Libertarian Party continues to earn the most votes of any third party because we continue to field the most candidates at the local level.  It is easy to talk about what needs to change at the national level, but it is worth the effort to start looking at what can be done locally.

Jesse Priester
www.JessePriester2008.com

Report violation

---

Posted By: Anonymous
Date: 2008-11-06 07:06:33

Alex, I'd simply say that I won't take the time to point out all the flaws in your post, but that'd be doing the discussion a disservice.

When Barr said he'd be getting 20 million votes it's clear that he expected to generate significant contributions and make it into the big league debates.  He expected to be treated as a serious contender and be mentioned whenever McBama was discussed online, in news broadcasts, and in print.  He also expected a large number of people to be wholly unwilling to vote for one of the two available Demopublican stooges.  Further, since Ron Paul did not receive the Republican nomination (and chose not to run as the Libertarian candidate for President), he anticipated that Ron Paul would wholeheartedly support his candidacy.

 None of this came to pass.  He didn't receive nearly the exposure he expected, and that among other things led to lackluster fundraising.  The lack of anticipated support levels kept him out of the debates, and the CPD ignored public opinion yet again by maintaining the unreasonable opinion polling requirement.  The media virtually ignored him during regular presidential campaign updates, when it mattered most, and his media connections only earned him interviews rather than the continuous coverage he expected.  Polarization, hype about the race being close, and the age-old "this is the most important election" argument mixed with all the other factors to prevent voters from straying from the status quo.  Amidst all this Ron Paul's unwillingness to miff Baldwin by supporting Barr caused him to wait too long to provide guidance to his supporters.  His solution was to take a neutral stance by endorsing "Anyone but McBama" at the press conference.  Barr was frustrated to see Ron Paul  diluting the force of his concentrated support base instead of focusing it because Barr understands that it will take focused support behind one third party for anythird party to  ever make a breakthrough.  The events that followed were then spun out of control, and sparked off a ton of unnecessary infighting.

Your comparisons of Barr's campaign to Paul's don't make sense.  Ron Paul stood on a stage for the Republican debates, and had an opportunity to speak to tens of millions of people nationwide simultaneously.  A large portion of his fundraising came, undoubtedly, from Republicans that wanted to see him win the Republican Party's nomination.  When that did not happen the majority of those people then became McCain supporters that chose party loyalty and trying to keep the evil liberal out of office over common sense and trying to accomplish something outside the Republican Party.

 

 

Jake, I agree, the LP needs to start picking its candidate far earlier to take advantage of all the election coverage that comes from the lead-in to the Demopublican primaries.  We have enough disadvantages without coming out the gate  with our newly-selected nominee against opposition candidates that have been on TV for a year or more already.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Davy C Rockett
Date: 2008-11-06 07:38:03

Libertarians will have to honor the "life part" of the Constitution, before they will win any major seats in an elections.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Rocketman
Date: 2008-11-06 08:27:15

Barr did about as well (or poorly depending on how you look at it) as I expected.  His campaigning was awful and he raised hardly any money, no where near what he said he would.  I hope that the true Libertarians learn from this that having someone like him who is not a real libertarian heading the ticket is a huge mistake that they shouldn't make in future elections.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Gesellschaft
Date: 2008-11-06 08:43:49

KO !   Obviously we can be the "spoiler", it's not a bad thing, it is an effective weapon if wielded as such!  Either the two ordained rupublicrats start listening to some degree on real issues, or we'll knock out the one who avoids them the most.  All the while getting the message out and spreading the campaign for liberty.

Report violation

---

Posted By: James Oaksun
Date: 2008-11-06 08:59:02

It's time to start getting some Libertarian dog catchers, probate judges, school board members, city councilors, etc.

I was stunned when I went to vote and saw many downballot races completely unopposed.  What, is the guy Christ Himself or something? I thought.  For that matter, even Jesus had competition in his day.

 I know -- my bad for not knowing who was running unopposed prior to voting.  But if every Libertarian made a commitment to go and run for *some* office which would be otherwise uncontested... we could make a splash, have some fun and Get Some People Elected to Something.

 As a Denver delegate, I have to give Barr and his people a modicum of credit.  They saw an opportunity, saw it would take incredibly few people and not much money to capitalize on that opportunity, and then Took that opportunity.

Communications I received from Mary Ruwart or anyone connected with her, asking for my vote/help/support:  Zero.

Communications I received from Steve Kubby or anyone connected with him, asking for my vote/help/support:  Zero.

Communications I received from the "Radical Caucus", asking for my vote/help/support:  Zero.

You can't beat "something" with "nothing".  I wonder how many libertarians are willing to commit to "something" in the next cycle.

Report violation

---

Posted By: EM of the GOP
Date: 2008-11-06 14:58:59

The letter I wrote to Robert Kraus of the LP:

I suggest that we help the LP out and give them all the free advice that we can.

 

 

 

What are you going to do different next election?

 

Please hear me out and don't delete this message. I will be rough and honest.

 

The move that Bob Barr made on the Ron Paul press conference was what made me think the LP lacks judgement.

 

When he decided to throw his own press confrence and then ask Ron Paul to be his vice president was even more confusing as he got very little press for the whole thing.

 

I am very sure that Ron Paul planned to endorse Bob Barr until he and the LP pulled the stupid stunt.

 

Who is giving Bob Barr advice on such matters?

 

Parts of me think Barr is a GOP plant sent to disrupt the Liberty Movement. 

 

I am also one of the disenfranchised voters of Louisiana as after all of my doubts Barr was still a better canidate than McBama.

 

When I voted today I actually cried as I drove off. Ron Paul was my protest vote.

 

So what to do now? I have some advice and will join the LP if at least some of these suggestions are followed.

 

1. First of all get organised now. Start the Presidental race for 2012 NOW. Get people converted. Make 4 page PDF flyers on what the LP is and does so they can be printed out and put up on the bulletin boards of every walmart and grocery store in the USA. The motto NEITHER! is a great one. Meaning neither GOP or Dem!

 

2. Get commercials out there. TAKE OVER the INTERNET. Get banners put on every website that you can. Put this out to the different state LP offices and have them make it happen on a local level. Billboards, flyers, University LP clubs, LP charities, and whatever else will get the message out.

 

3. Next LP convention needs to be thrown in a larger place. It looked like a hotel ballroom and not a convention center. Have some kind of dress code as the few people in funny costumes made the convention look like a bunch of weirdos. Yes weirdos! Not my words but the words of the few people I convinced to watch it. Ask everyone to present themselves in a bussiness like manner. I watched it on CSPAN and it looked unprofessional.

 

4. Pull the LP party back together as it has scattered to the wind.

 

5. Find liberty minded canidates and help them out in votes.

 

6.Install canidates on the grassroots level and have them take back our nation from the ground up. Convince ordinary people to become Statesmen and not Politicians. FROM THE GROUND UP!

 

7. I feel that the USA has very little time left and only the Libertarian beliefs can save our nation.

Report violation

---

Posted By: FormerLPMember
Date: 2008-11-06 16:02:12

D. Frank Robinson, if you really believe that we'll have a dissident revolt in 2010, you can't eat gold and silver nor defend yourself from the armed thugs. Consider large quantities of dry and canned goods along with firearms and ammunition.

Report violation

---

Posted By: FormerLPMember
Date: 2008-11-06 16:18:12

EM of the GOP, you may be right when you wrote: “Parts of me think Barr is a GOP plant sent to disrupt the Liberty Movement.“

Barr is quoted in the Atlanta Journal Constitution after losing: “I don’t know about you, but I feel like celebrating tonight,” the Libertarian nominee proclaimed as he bounded on stage in a crowded function room at the Mansour Center in Marietta.

[link edited for length]

Report violation

---

Posted By: Greg
Date: 2008-11-06 18:16:45

I was a delegate at the convention who voted for Root on the first five ballots until he was eliminated.   I was skeptical about Barr, but nevertheless I voted for him on the final ballot being that the only other choice left (besides NOTA) was Ruwart.

 I witnessed the outcry from many delegates who were quite disappointed that Barr won the nomination.  I thought to myself at that moment that it was possible that, unlike the energy and excitement from Libertarians about the 2004 Badnarik campaign, Barr would receive little support and possibly few votes from many Libertarians. 

 Then over the next month I observed that Barr seemed to not be generating any steam.  There were few posts from supporters on various Bob Barr Yahoo Groups and message boards (unlike Badnarik in 2004), and donation money was coming in at a trickle.

 I said to myself that at this rate, Barr will not get any more votes nor raise any more money than Badnarik did in 2004.  Seems my hunch was correct.  I still had hopes that Barr could get 2% anyway.

 After Bob Barr dissed Ron Paul at his press conference, and later when he refused to debate Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader in the first third-party debate, I decided that he would get no more money from me.  He still got my vote, but I'll be damned if I want him to be the Libertarian nominee again in 2012.

 It is likely that Bob Barr did bring in some new voters and some new members to the Libertarian Party.  But these were offset at the polls by the numbers of Libertarians who decided to not pull the lever for Barr.

Report violation

---

Posted By: D. Frank Robinson
Date: 2008-11-06 20:48:59

About nominating a presidential candidate(s) early: I can see no clear advantage in doing that. I can see an advantage in starting a fund raising effort for the nominees early.  A central focus of the nominess should be ballot access and litigation. I suggest setting up a PAC now for the 2012 nominees of the LP.  The focus of that PAC fund would be securing ballot access and ballot litigation.  This PAC would not pre-empt the National LP efforts on ballot access but push more resources into those efforts.

As an intermediate objective, funds permitting, the PAC should start in 2010 on funding and litigation on ballot access for the state races.

As an immediate goal ASAP the PAC should fund a documentary video on ballot access - perhaps through a grant to Richard Winger and legal scholars. 

Lastly, I hope that all dissident party supporters will grasp that open ballot access is fundamental to open government - it's a civil rights issue as much as the right to vote. Ballot access restrictions are voter suppression. It is an issue which merits sit-in, marches and demonstrations and all the methods of civil disobedience as much as  voting rights. It's way past time by 30 years to get tough on this - no ballot access restrictions at all - a clear legal goal of a voter's universal right to self-nomination to public office at all levels of government. 

This civil rights agenda should NOT be a part of the PAC I previously discussed but a separate legal entity which persons of all parties of no party can support.

It is apparent that the two activities are related.  

PS: On buying gold, silver and stockpiling. I wouldn't hold on to paper for the next four years to fund these projects. Hyperinflation moots all  arguments. 

 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Chris Baker
Date: 2008-11-06 21:55:27

Thanks a lot, Greg. You voted for Barr and Root. They are both plants.

Report violation

---

Posted By: Peg H
Date: 2008-11-07 04:09:25

I am skeptical that the write-ins were counted.    There seems to be no way to find a good local level or even national one that gives specific figures for third party results.        They give you a fat line marker and a sheet with a small box on the ballot, so they can probably claim almost any write in effort is not readable, and it certainly is not readable by machine.          I feel disenfranchised.   I think that everyone, including the media, had this idea that it is so important that one candidate win a majority that they ignored the 3rd party candidates as much as they could.   

I nkgoodcgveiosee ex

Report violation

---

Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-11-07 22:07:57

Now that we know that watered-down conservatism is no more popular than true libertarianism, and that both factions' presenters failed to sway anyone, the LP must die.

 These people honestly believe that they can rationalize away Barr's efforts (or even Badnarik's) as a mild success. How outrageous. No libertarian need feel compelled to stay in the LP if they seek an alternative to the two major parties due to poor arguments like "social validation", "name recognition", "educational purposes". 

 Nolan is part of the "old" activist guard of the LP. He will obviously blame the failure of the campaign this year on Barr, rather than the whole party's flawed top-down approach. What part of grassroots is so hard for the LP to understand, much less emulate? I mean, my god...

 I'm telling you- if this party were to completely dissolve, and the "educationists" simply started their own thinktank and allowed true partybuilding to occur in a more libertarian direction, our ideas would flourish. It's already starting to work for Campaign 4 Liberty. 

If you guys want to educate someone, stop telling the people who want to win elections to go join them. It should be the other way around. Butt out of this party business if it's too "low" for you to sink to, or if you feel you're somehow above it, because regardless of where you stand, you're always going to fall inside the electoral paradigm. 

So please, stop inflating this party with your votes. Then we'll see if the complacency lasts.

Report violation

---

Posted By: stefan
Date: 2008-11-08 05:07:19

Very applicable remarks, David Nolan. 2007 and 2008 has shown a strong interest in politics and a watershed election. Failed campaign strategies by third parties and lack of serious debating aside, the four third parties struggle with the "perception" of being "fringe" and the fact that after initial interest, many voters tend to vote for the "less of the two evils" in the end, for different reasons, as they are too afraid the other big party and its policy may win (not that the difference between the two parties are so large!).

Compare these third parties performance to that of the "independence Party" of Minnesota. Senate candidate Dean Barkeley managed to attract 15% plus on  low budget and his polling numbers turned out to be consistent and accurate and the Coleman-Franken race was titanic and a lot of money spent. In Ohio strong Independent candidate David Krikorian managed to attract almost 20% in the primary. He is fiscally conservative, pro-life, managed to raise 200k plus and received a few endorsements and participated in debates.

Its candidate in Minnesota district 6 (that did not even endorse him), Anderson managed to attract 10% 

Mike Munger managed to attract more than 2% in NC (a battle ground state this year) and and Buckley managed to get 3% in a tight GA senate race, where he could also participate in debates.

 

If you attract 10% plus, then you also have the perception of seriousness and this shatters the "fringe aspect". These Independence Party and Independent  candidates fared quite well and their message is quite to very libertarian. 

 

One should perhaps consider some merger between say the LP and CP and some factions of Nader, roughly based on Ron Paul's platform under a new name of say the "Independence Party" in different states. The party is registered in Minnesota and NY, but not other states as far as I know. Their platform should be changed and a bit more "radicalized', to show principle and distinction, yet allow for differences on certain issues. A true viable third party could be established, combining the best of the third parties. There may be those elements that still prefer the "old party" and they can stay with them and remain without influence.

Report violation

---

Posted By: David F. Nolan
Date: 2008-11-08 10:14:08

"Spence" needs to improve his reading skills. In his comment above, he wrote "Nolan is part of the "old" activist guard of the LP. He will obviously blame the failure of the campaign this year on Barr, rather than the whole party's flawed top-down approach."

But what did I actually say in my column?

"None of these numbers give any of the candidates or their supporters much reason to rejoice. If anything, they demonstrate, once again, that relatively unknown and hugely underfunded third-party candidates cannot realistically compete at the Presidential level.

"Barr's showing of 0.40% puts his results right in line with other Libertarian Presidential campaigns. In 1988, Ron Paul received 0.47% of the popular vote total. In 1992, Andre Marrou got 0.28%. In 1996, Harry Browne got 0.50%, and in 2000 he got 0.36%. In 2004, Michael Badnarik received 0.32%. The average percentage for the last five elections was thus 0.39% -- almost exactly what Barr got this time. The argument that by going "mainstream" the LP could improve its results by a factor of ten or more proved to be completely false. The Libertarian ticket would most likely have gotten a very similar vote total with Root, Ruwart or Kubby as the nominee."

In other words, I made much the same point that Spence does. Lacking much greater recognition and funding, no third-party Presidential candidate will amass millions of votes. Hence, my belief that the LP should field a hard-core, no-compromise standard bearer to deliver the purest message possible in the national arena, but "run to win" at the local level.

 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-11-08 13:06:40

The section you quoted proves my reading skills are perfectly fine. I'm not simply taking what you said in this article as evidence, but the consistent remarks on Barr in your previous columns.

Here is what you said in your last article, Monday (11/03)

"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."

 The answer is simple. Barr created too huge of expectations, by himself, and when these weren't met, away went his easiest media, endorsements, as well as fundraising.

Back in your 9/11 article, you also said: 

"But do not, under any circumstances, send any money to the Barr '08 campaign. Most of the money will be wasted, and the rest will be spent muddying the waters about what genuine libertarianism is all about."

So if fundraising's too blame, people only need point at your suggestion. Not that I'm disagreeing with you here about Barr, merely the hypocrisy at blaming fundraising when you publicly said that we should avoid funding him. That only fed the vicious cycle. 

 Also, to follow up on that, this was a year supposedly custom fit for his campaign, so it's quite clear that you're not simply advocating your belief in a strongly-funded hardcore libertarian candidate, but also a subtle bash of Barr and reformer belief in general.

So on the case that you made "much the same point that" I did, that's partly true. I see all that money as wasted resources anyway and only a temporary surge or fix where it could be better applied to local and statewide campaigns. But this top-down ideology disagrees.

Report violation

---

Posted By: D. Frank Robinson
Date: 2008-11-09 14:34:41

On Spence's remarks: it appears to me that Dave agrees with you more than you care to give him credit for. Dave, as I understand him, wants the LP to run effective campaigns below the Presidential level. The next level down is U.S. Senate. That's a bit rich except in a couple of states (Montana, Wyoming). But the U.S. House is not implausible.  I, clumsily perhaps, tried to push the House strategy before the LP National Committee back in the mid-1970s (aka LINC '80).Six or 7 Presidential elections later, I think that strategy is still more viable.

Moving on down the ticket, I don't like the idea of Libertarian candidates for Governor either except as a way to get ballot access in a few small population states wheremoney spent on a gubernatorial campaign might be cost effective in maintaining ballot access rather than petitioning every four years to get on the ballot.

Libertarians and all the other dissident parties still don't appreciate how much campaigning for ballot access is a handicap.  Running candidates for the State House (or equivalent) as Independents is a viable strategy to partially circumvent the ballot access barrier. Nevertheless, a well funded coalition to "break the matrix" on ballot access is super critical.

I urge all dissident parties to adopt in their platforms and as a critical action item a stance of zero tolerance for any barriers to ballot access as an individual's civil right. All candidates of all parties at all levels should campaign vigorously against ballot access laws - expecially those running as Independents. Education of the voters about the undemocratic and authoritarian nature of ballot access laws should be VERY high priority ideologically and financially for ALL dissidents.

Finally, people who took Dave's advice not to fund Barr-Root, as I did, are better off than those who did not take his advice.  The reason for castigating Dave for this advice would have been if Barr-Root almost won enough Electoral votes to tip the election. That was never a realistic possibility.  I think events have vindicated Dave's analysis and advice.

 

 

Report violation

---

Posted By: Spence
Date: 2008-11-09 20:02:58

I know he agrees, and I know how much wisdom he has accumulated from his founding role in the party, but the point is that while our end products may be the same, his overemphasis of the educationist perspective is what's been hindering the LP for years, and will not work on any level, much less the presidential one.

 He would still run a candidate that was a hardcore, principled libertarian at the ticket, whereas I view it as a complete waste of resources. Libertarians complain about finding themselves in a catch-22 all the time, but the problem is they put all their resources into growing instead of trying to gain success with what they already have. Look at Texas and Florida (and this year), North Carolina, and the breakthroughs made in such states over the past few years for the LP. 

As to the fundraising advice, I included that to make a point that if education is your goal, and the goal of how much we "educate" people is measured in how many votes we get, which is in turn dependant on how much money we raise, it would seem kinda hypocritical to be blaming Barr right now. The results have shown, downticket, where more principled libertarian campaigns were plentiful, if not still underfunded and undercovered, voters were far more receptive to their ideas.

Report violation

---

Posted By: D. Frank Robinson
Date: 2008-11-11 12:17:39

Spence said: The results have shown, downticket, where more principled libertarian campaigns were plentiful, if not still underfunded and undercovered, voters were far more receptive to their ideas.

Yes!

How far down the ticket do we calibrate our appeals?  I have long thought the U.S. House of Representatives campaigns gets us the most bang for the buck and stands a chance of victory. It is significant to me that conservatives often mouth libertarian phrases in campaigns and then knuckle under to their corporatists party leadership in theit votes - Ron Paul being the only significant exception. 

Am I detecting a meeting of the minds here?

Report violation

---

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.

Leave A Comment
Your Name:
Your Email Address*:
Your Comment: