CP and LP Votes

[Young Paleocon]

With the 1.2 million RP votes this year what are peoples speculations on the CP and LP vote totals in November. Allowing for people to vote for Reps for Palin or anti-Obama votes, people voting for Obama because of "Change"....whatever the hell that means, Nader and Mckinney. Also factoring in new voters to the movement and those of the LP and CP that didn't vote for the Dr. Could the CP break 500,000 and/or the LP break 1 million. Granted the press conference and future events will play a role this is merely out of curiosity.

[Bradley in DC]

FWIW, Baldwin was getting 0.1% of the vote in the 35 states where he's on the ballot (highest number I've seen for him), and Barr is getting a bit less than 2% on the ballot in 44 states (these numbers do not count write-in states).

http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/obama_vs_mccain_with_barr_nader-957.html

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvoand3s.php

EDIT: "Estimated Voting age population (2000): 205,815,000"
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G08/

The way it stands today, Barr is conservatively set to get about three million votes, give or take. Baldwin, not so much (probably about 170k--the Keyes thing really hurts, as is not being on the ballot in CA, TX, NY, etc.). Barr has been much higher in (non-Zogby) national polls and in lots of state polls. It's very conceivable Barr could get near ten million votes. If that seems like, there may be a breakout like what happened with Perot.

[Shotdown1027]

Bradley,

Im all for positive estimates, but 10 million (or even 3 million) is completely unrealistic.

[TER]

It's very conceivable Barr could get near ten million votes. If that seems like, there may be a breakout like what happened with Perot.

What you just wrote may have been possible this past Tuesday night, but not anymore.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley,

Im all for positive estimates, but 10 million (or even 3 million) is completely unrealistic.

Those are gross extrapolations from the polls. I'd welcome a discussion of analysis on that method: polling numbers, ballot status, voter registration numbers, etc. EDIT: also, there are more registered voters in 2008 than there were in 2000 (last year for which I've found hard numbers).

How important are the polls this early? Not very, but it's a fun exercise anyway and the best method I see for any intelligent, informed discussion.

Take the CP: How many votes last time? Use that as a base. Subtract the votes in states where they were on the ballot but not this time. Add votes in new states (weak methodology would be assuming an "average" national vote and ascribing it to those states; better would be a demographic crosstab estimation; best would be reputable scientific polls). You see where I'm going with this.

So yes, no doubt, as it stands now (these things change wildly sometimes), Barr is almost certain to be the highest Libertarian vote getter ever. His success will likely give the LP new visibility, credibility and ideally ballot status.

And yes, (again going with the politics is strange and weird things happen), Barr is the one best positioned of the minor candidates to break out and have a serious run for the White House. The Obama voters seem very set and Biden doesn't mix it up at all. The depth of McCain's support has fluctuated wildly and his quest now pretty much rests on the Palin pick. If she falters, Barr (and Barr alone) has an opening.

[Bradley in DC]

What you just wrote may have been possible this past Tuesday night, but not anymore.

Even more so. The hand-wringing about Barr is mostly from people upset he got the nomination in the first place. Others who were going to hold their nose and vote for him and now might not would be well served to follow Dr. Paul's own instruction to vote third party and send a message: Barr is the one who represents Dr. Paul's message AND is significant in the political debate.

More importantly, name ID is huge in politics. One has to hear someone's name six times before they even remember it. The more discussion, the better. The Barr bashing only reinforces that he is the significant candidate (Nader is the other, but not as strongly advocating Dr. Paul's message). I think it was an actress or someone who said she didn't care what they printed about her as long as they spelled her name correctly. There is something to that.

Every indication now strongly suggests that Barr will be the best LP candidate ever--and will get far more votes in the general election than Dr. Paul got in the primaries (yes, apples and oranges and all that). The Barr campaign, for all of its faults (and there are those, certainly), is campaigning to win over not only Dr. Paul's supporters but is succeeding in bringing new supporters to our cause. Those that want to be big fish in small ponds are upset.

[nate895]

Even more so. The hand-wringing about Barr is mostly from people upset he got the nomination in the first place. Others who were going to hold their nose and vote for him and now might not would be well served to follow Dr. Paul's own instruction to vote third party and send a message: Barr is the one who represents Dr. Paul's message AND is significant in the political debate.

More importantly, name ID is huge in politics. One has to hear someone's name six times before they even remember it. The more discussion, the better. The Barr bashing only reinforces that he is the significant candidate (Nader is the other, but not as strongly advocating Dr. Paul's message). I think it was an actress or someone who said she didn't care what they printed about her as long as they spelled her name correctly. There is something to that.

Every indication now strongly suggests that Barr will be the best LP candidate ever--and will get far more votes in the general election than Dr. Paul got in the primaries (yes, apples and oranges and all that). The Barr campaign, for all of its faults (and there are those, certainly), is campaigning to win over not only Dr. Paul's supporters but is succeeding in bringing new supporters to our cause. Those that want to be big fish in small ponds are upset.

I agree with you Bradley. Bob Barr is our only hope of actually getting some press come November 5th outside of Ron Paul deciding to give it another go in 2012. Ron Paul, IMO, was the only chance this election cycle of having a third party or independent candidate actually make it to the White House since Ron Paul has been able to inspire an almost fanatical devotion. I don't think any other candidate's supporters are still together in our strength months after they have dropped out, and we should stay strong at least until the end of the next Presidential election cycle. After that, unless if we come out with greater strength under a banner that can lead us forward, it is uncertain of our future.

Unless if we want to be totally depressed come November 5th, without having broken any barriers, we should be backing Barr. Baldwin cannot gain the 5% needed for minor party status (I'd be shocked if he got .5%, to be honest), Barr can and seems to be the biggest vote getter for the LP ever, and the only way to stop McCain/Palin (especially if Palin or McCain don't make a big gaffe).

[Shotdown1027]

"So yes, no doubt, as it stands now (these things change wildly sometimes), Barr is almost certain to be the highest Libertarian vote getter ever. His success will likely give the LP new visibility, credibility and ideally ballot status."

No way Barr will surpass Ed Clark's total from 1980.