AWF
11-08-2008, 11:17 AM
Hopefully this is a topic of interest to many of us within the Ron Paul community.
As the 2008 election post-mortems are written, I felt one of the striking aspects of this cycle was the relatively weak showing of the right-leaning Libertarian and Constitution party presidential candidates, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin (in most states), respectively. Combined, the 2008 "Lib/Con" total appears to be about 730k, or roughly 0.61%, up slightly from 0.44% in 2004 and 0.45% in 2000 (Pat Buchanan separately contributed 0.43% that year) and down slightly from 0.69% in 1996. While the 730k will rise as the final votes and write-ins are tabulated, the percentage is unlikely to move relative to prior years.
Resolved: 2008 should have been a "favorable" year for these two candidates. John McCain appeared to be a nice foil for the Lib/Con, particularly given his views on illegal immigrant amnesty, Iraq and other hot spots, campaign finance reform, global warming and constitutionally-faithful judges. This is to say nothing of the very poor Bush GOP brand value and progressively higher tension and intra-party hostility.
While Barr and Baldwin had some real differences on social issues, their overlap was substantial - largely in opposition to the McCain positions stated above, and more broadly, a fundamental belief in a very limited federal government with basic constitutional freedoms such as gun rights, limited surveillance powers, etc. Lastly, it should be noted that Barr and Baldwin were somewhat higher profile than previous party nominees.
At this point it is worth considering the Lib/Con target audience. In a nutshell, the "sweet spot": Ron Paul (RP) supporters. This group numbered some 1.2 million in the primary/caucus season. To this total, we can also add other RP supporters "in spirit", such as those who did not vote for him but would have if not for caucus or primary party registration and timing issues, those discouraged by a vote late in the cycle after RP stopped actively campaigning or people who got interested in RP subsequent to their state's primary/caucus. Let's put that at another million or so, resulting in a broader RP general election day base of 2-3 million.
To this, we can add other libertarian and "paleo-conservative" minded individuals: Lib/Con party members (i.e., those who didn't take any interest in RP) and actual/potential supporters of other GOP candidates that flamed out with little to no votes: Tancredo, Hunter, Keyes, and to some extent, (Fred) Thompson. These candidates, while more supportive of the Iraq war and related matters, were also fiercely strong on borders/sovereignty issues and probably somewhat skeptical about foreign nation-building. On the domestic front, their voters will tend to be critical of Bush/Democratic social engineering projects such as minority homeownership through looser lending standards, corporate bailouts and other PAC requests. This second batch of voters includes a few hundred thousand Lib/Con party members and another million or so from the other GOP contenders (incl. a conservative estimate for the mainstream Thompson’s share).
So, we now have an unscientific hypothetical base case of about 4 million politically-aware right-leaning voters who are very inclined to not play ball with the Bush-McCain-Giuliani-Rove Establishment and not vote McCain (or Obama). But Bob and Chuck (and Alan/Ron) only get 730k votes. What happened?
The old Washington two-party two-step. Dem and GOP supporters tell scary Halloween stories in the closing days of the race: "…THIS particular election is the most important one of our lifetimes and the US won't exist in four years if we don't beat [insert major opposition party candidate's name]. THIS is not the year to make a statement."
In our Lib/Con group, it tended to be a movement back toward the GOP, although certainly some libertarians and others viewed Obama as the lesser of two evils. A couple to Ralph Nader or no-votes or uncounted write-ins.
What variables could have changed? Perhaps Huckabee or Giuliani as nominee would have sent a few more people to Lib/Con, or Lieberman, Giuliani, or Ridge as VP. For that matter, how about Clinton instead of Obama? - fewer traditional conservatives scared into supporting McCain. Alternatively, Clinton lacked Obama's anti-war street cred and other baggage, so maybe she loses some Lib/Con Obama votes. Maybe if Obama’s lead appeared larger and more certain in the closing days? What if prominent Libertarian and Paleocon writers on the web had been more supportive of Barr or Baldwin?
We can argue around the margins, but the fundamental issue is the set-up of the two party system. The ballot access, the financing, the historical legacy, other entrenched incumbency advantages, but most of all, the psychology. While on individual voter has essentially no chance of flipping the outcome, the natural inclination is to be on a winning side. Voting for one of the Big 2 feels like it makes a real difference. On a related point, I suspect some people universalize the voting decision: "if everyone - who like me is tempted to vote for Barr/Baldwin - does so, Obama will beat McCain because we are probably around 5-10% of the vote". This same logic applies to races for other political offices beyond the presidency, all of which are determined on a plurality, winner-take-all basis.
Looking ahead, Lib/Con will need to fundamentally change the structure of the game through election reform such as IRV, proportional representation, expanded debates, looser ballot access in order to meaningfully raise their percentage.
As the 2008 election post-mortems are written, I felt one of the striking aspects of this cycle was the relatively weak showing of the right-leaning Libertarian and Constitution party presidential candidates, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin (in most states), respectively. Combined, the 2008 "Lib/Con" total appears to be about 730k, or roughly 0.61%, up slightly from 0.44% in 2004 and 0.45% in 2000 (Pat Buchanan separately contributed 0.43% that year) and down slightly from 0.69% in 1996. While the 730k will rise as the final votes and write-ins are tabulated, the percentage is unlikely to move relative to prior years.
Resolved: 2008 should have been a "favorable" year for these two candidates. John McCain appeared to be a nice foil for the Lib/Con, particularly given his views on illegal immigrant amnesty, Iraq and other hot spots, campaign finance reform, global warming and constitutionally-faithful judges. This is to say nothing of the very poor Bush GOP brand value and progressively higher tension and intra-party hostility.
While Barr and Baldwin had some real differences on social issues, their overlap was substantial - largely in opposition to the McCain positions stated above, and more broadly, a fundamental belief in a very limited federal government with basic constitutional freedoms such as gun rights, limited surveillance powers, etc. Lastly, it should be noted that Barr and Baldwin were somewhat higher profile than previous party nominees.
At this point it is worth considering the Lib/Con target audience. In a nutshell, the "sweet spot": Ron Paul (RP) supporters. This group numbered some 1.2 million in the primary/caucus season. To this total, we can also add other RP supporters "in spirit", such as those who did not vote for him but would have if not for caucus or primary party registration and timing issues, those discouraged by a vote late in the cycle after RP stopped actively campaigning or people who got interested in RP subsequent to their state's primary/caucus. Let's put that at another million or so, resulting in a broader RP general election day base of 2-3 million.
To this, we can add other libertarian and "paleo-conservative" minded individuals: Lib/Con party members (i.e., those who didn't take any interest in RP) and actual/potential supporters of other GOP candidates that flamed out with little to no votes: Tancredo, Hunter, Keyes, and to some extent, (Fred) Thompson. These candidates, while more supportive of the Iraq war and related matters, were also fiercely strong on borders/sovereignty issues and probably somewhat skeptical about foreign nation-building. On the domestic front, their voters will tend to be critical of Bush/Democratic social engineering projects such as minority homeownership through looser lending standards, corporate bailouts and other PAC requests. This second batch of voters includes a few hundred thousand Lib/Con party members and another million or so from the other GOP contenders (incl. a conservative estimate for the mainstream Thompson’s share).
So, we now have an unscientific hypothetical base case of about 4 million politically-aware right-leaning voters who are very inclined to not play ball with the Bush-McCain-Giuliani-Rove Establishment and not vote McCain (or Obama). But Bob and Chuck (and Alan/Ron) only get 730k votes. What happened?
The old Washington two-party two-step. Dem and GOP supporters tell scary Halloween stories in the closing days of the race: "…THIS particular election is the most important one of our lifetimes and the US won't exist in four years if we don't beat [insert major opposition party candidate's name]. THIS is not the year to make a statement."
In our Lib/Con group, it tended to be a movement back toward the GOP, although certainly some libertarians and others viewed Obama as the lesser of two evils. A couple to Ralph Nader or no-votes or uncounted write-ins.
What variables could have changed? Perhaps Huckabee or Giuliani as nominee would have sent a few more people to Lib/Con, or Lieberman, Giuliani, or Ridge as VP. For that matter, how about Clinton instead of Obama? - fewer traditional conservatives scared into supporting McCain. Alternatively, Clinton lacked Obama's anti-war street cred and other baggage, so maybe she loses some Lib/Con Obama votes. Maybe if Obama’s lead appeared larger and more certain in the closing days? What if prominent Libertarian and Paleocon writers on the web had been more supportive of Barr or Baldwin?
We can argue around the margins, but the fundamental issue is the set-up of the two party system. The ballot access, the financing, the historical legacy, other entrenched incumbency advantages, but most of all, the psychology. While on individual voter has essentially no chance of flipping the outcome, the natural inclination is to be on a winning side. Voting for one of the Big 2 feels like it makes a real difference. On a related point, I suspect some people universalize the voting decision: "if everyone - who like me is tempted to vote for Barr/Baldwin - does so, Obama will beat McCain because we are probably around 5-10% of the vote". This same logic applies to races for other political offices beyond the presidency, all of which are determined on a plurality, winner-take-all basis.
Looking ahead, Lib/Con will need to fundamentally change the structure of the game through election reform such as IRV, proportional representation, expanded debates, looser ballot access in order to meaningfully raise their percentage.