Barr to play serious roll - chipping away at McCain

[KG4JYD]

From the Washington Times:

Bob Barr's Libertarian presidential campaign is poised to play a serious role in this year's elections, with early polls showing him taking away enough votes from Sen. John McCain to give Democrats a chance to win states that should be safely Republican.

Polls in Georgia and North Carolina over the last two weeks show Mr. Barr winning 8 percent and 6 percent respectively of the presidential vote, and in both cases helping keep likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama within striking distance of Mr. McCain in those states — which, taken together, account for more electoral votes than Florida, Pennsylvania or Ohio.

The Georgia poll, taken just before Mr. Barr secured the Libertarian nomination, gave Mr. McCain 45 percent support, Mr. Obama 35 percent and Mr. Barr 8 percent. In North Carolina a Public Policy Polling survey released Monday found Mr. McCain at 43 percent, Mr. Obama at 40 percent and Mr. Barr at 6 percent. The poll's authors said Mr. Barr's support appeared to come particularly from independents who previously had broken for Mr. McCain.

"It's a long way until the election but the early indication is that Bob Barr's presence on the ballot could be a good sign for whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee," said Dean Debnam, president of the poll. "He's likely to siphon off more voters who would otherwise be inclined to vote for McCain than he is from Clinton or Obama."

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/04/barr-chiseling-mccain-voter-base/

[N9MOQ]

. .

[N2RJ]

Let's ROLL!

[KG4JYD]

Don't forget that those voting for Obama, would also be taking away votes from Barr, and that could help McCain win.No one who would ever vote for Obama would vote for Barr.

[N9MOQ]

. .

[KG4JYD]

Just as no one that would vote Libertarian, would ever vote for a Republicrat.

Thus... Votes for Barr are not taking away from McCain. (or Obama)That's not true this time around. Some of the most staunch conservative Republicans I know are talking about sitting out or considering Bob Barr. They DON'T like McCain and will NOT vote for him.

[W3MIV]

No one who would ever vote for Obama would vote for Barr.

You can say that again. And again. And again.

[K5FH]

Barr to play serious roll - chipping away at McCain

If memory serves, didn't you spend months posting on this forum about how Ron Paul was going to do the same thing?

By the way...in this context, it's "role," not "roll."

[KG4JYD]

If memory serves, didn't you spend months posting on this forum about how Ron Paul was going to do the same thing?This is a different situation. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination the people who voted for him will NOT be voting for McCain. They will either go for Barr, Chuck Baldwin, write in Ron's name, or sit out all together.

By the way...in this context, it's "role," not "roll."Yes, thanks for the correction. I must've had a brain fart.

[W3MIV]

Yes, thanks for the correction. I must've had a brain fart.


Given what you feed it, it is not surprising.

:rolleyes:

[N9MOQ]

. .

[KG4JYD]

So if they won't vote for McCain, how is voting for Barr taking a vote away from McCain? What if Barr wasn't even in the race? They wouldn't vote for McCain regardless.

Why not say those voting for Obama are taking a vote away from McCain?

What about all those voting for McCain that are taking votes away from the other candidates?
See this:
http://www.lettertogop.com/

[W5JO]

Speaking of taking votes, will Nader take votes from Obama or McCain?

[AE6IP]

Speaking of taking votes, will Nader take votes from Obama or McCain?

Barr.

..........................

[KG4JYD]

Barr.You're ignorant if you think Nader will take votes from Barr :rolleyes:

[K5FH]

You're ignorant if you think Nader will take votes from Barr :rolleyes:

"Ignorant" is a bit over the top here. Marty is strongly opinionated, true, but he has a point. Barr is a relative unknown with little support. Nader has more name recognition and a cadre of loyal followers, such as they are.

It's academic, anyway. We're taking fringe third-party candidates here and, historically, their influence on the outcome of the presidential election has been, and will be, negligible.

H. Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992, while superficially appearing to be an exception to the third-party rule, really wasn't. The Perot movement was a cult of personality whose influence was directly a function of money (Perot's) and fawning media coverage, and drew in disaffected voters from both mainstream parties. If you're thinking that Barr (or Nader, for that matter) can do what Perot did, think again.

If there was any one factor that assured Bill Clinton's election in 1992, it was Perot. Barr and Nader, on the other hand, won't garner enough votes between them to affect the election to any meaningful extent. They don't have enough money and the media will mostly ignore them. The unfortunate reality is, without money and media, you don't have a chance in American national politics.

You can argue all you want to about how it shouldn't be that way, but that won't change the fact that it is that way.

[W5JO]

"
It's academic, anyway. We're taking fringe third-party candidates here and, historically, their influence on the outcome of the presidential election has been, and will be, negligible.

You can argue all you want to about how it shouldn't be that way, but that won't change the fact that it is that way.


This seems to argue that voters who choose a 3rd Party candidate would not vote for one of the major parties. Would they choose one of the major candidates or just stay home?

In a race like 2004 where Ohio was so close, could they not have made a difference to Kerry in Ohio or in 2000 to Gore in Florida? Some precincts were within 100 votes or less. If memory serves, the Gov. of Washington State won by less then 200 votes, so races can be close enough that 10,000 votes can swing an election.

I kind of expect this coming election will hinge on very close margins.

[W4DFW]

So let me get this straight.

What we have here are lib'ruls so pissed off that Hitlery washed out that THEY are going to vote for McCain, and conservatives pissed off at a Li'brul lovin' Republican that THEY are either NOT voting or voting for Obama??

WTF??

BY GOLLY I'm buying a case of beer and sittin' back watching the fun come election night 'cuz there ain't likely going to be another like it for the next hundred years!

I just wish Walter Cronkite was still on CBS to send it over to Eric Sevaride for his comments!!

WHHEEE DOGGIE!! :D

[KG4JYD]

It's academic, anyway. We're taking fringe third-party candidates here and, historically, their influence on the outcome of the presidential election has been, and will be, negligible.Riiiiight... tell that to Al Gore :rolleyes:

H. Ross Perot's candidacy in 1992..drew in disaffected voters from both mainstream parties. I doubt many Democrats / liberals voted for Perot.


If you're thinking that Barr (or Nader, for that matter) can do what Perot did, think again. I doubt either one of them will get the % that Perot did, but if the election is close, it won't take much at all. Again, look at Al Gore.

The unfortunate reality is, without money and media, you don't have a chance in American national politics. Youi are absolutely correct. I found that out the hard way back in February when I worked for Ron Paul. He HAD the money, but he didn't receive much if any media attention, and most of it was negative FUD.

I have come to the realization that if the media is working against you, then you are out of luck no matter who you are, what your warchest is, or which office you are running for.

[W3MIV]

I must've had a brain fart.


Just one? :rolleyes:

[KB4UHK]

No one who would ever vote for Obama would vote for Barr.

I used to be a Libertarian Party member. It seemed to me, that my governmental beliefs were changing, and not in the same way that the LP was changing. I voted and supported Badnarik for pres in 04, but he was light-years from being the candidate the LP needed. Like many, I was hoping Aaron Russo would have been the nominee, but that's not how it went down in the convention. I'm supporting Obama in 08. I'm just an Independant now. For me, the LP became ground zero for the lunatic fringe.

Bob Barr is not a libertarian. He's just someone who wants to run for president. He is a conservative more than he is a libertarian, and his nomination for me is just further proof that the LP has become nothing more than a refugee camp for the GOP.

[KG4JYD]

I used to be a Libertarian Party member. Like many, I was hoping Aaron Russo would have been the nominee, but that's not how it went down in the convention. I'm supporting Obama in 08. I'm just an Independant now. For me, the LP became ground zero for the lunatic fringe. Then you obviously don't understand what libertarianism really is. I am not saying that the LP is perfect or even an accurate representation of true libertarianism, but someone who is a libertarian and subscribes to the libertarian philosophy would NEVER vote for someone like Obama or McCain because of their track record and their platforms.


I Bob Barr is not a libertarian. He's just someone who wants to run for president. He is a conservative more than he is a libertarian, and his nomination for me is just further proof that the LP has become nothing more than a refugee camp for the GOP.I honestly don't know anything about him. I haven't researched him yet. You could be right.