Badnarik?

[TommyC1776]

Is Michael Badnarik doing better than Nader? I got this idea from this website.

 http://badnarik.org/blog/blog_a.php?p=605&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Is Michael Badnarik doing better than Nader? I got this idea from this website.

 http://badnarik.org/blog/blog_a.php?p=605&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

I see Badnarik support everywhere.  He is the ideal conservative protest vote to Bush.  I even saw someone hanging a "BADNARIK 2004" sign on an overpass on the freeway outside Oshkosh (perfect for the EAA convention).

I would not be at all surprised if Badnarik beats Nader, or even if he costs Bush a state or two.  Oregon and New Hampshire, in my mind, seem particularly vulnerable to being "spoiled" by Badnarik.  Maybe even Wisconsin (not traditionally Libertarian, but we did give the LP candidate for governor (Tommy Thompson's brother) more than 10% of the vote).

[Defarge]

With the liberal backlash against Nader, I wouldn't be surprised if the Libretarians pulled it off.  However, I don't think it is very likely.

But, from Democrat to Libretarian, may I wish you the best of luck Beef.  Focus alot of NH if you can

[Posterity]

Is Michael Badnarik doing better than Nader?

Badnarik will certainly be on more state ballots than Nader (by far), and yes, I think Badnarik will win more votes than Nader.

[John Dibble]

Badnarik is now running two prime-time television commercials and a number of radio commercials in New Mexico from today to the fourteenth. We'll see if it pays off.

[Lunar]

In 2000, the only state that the Libertarians beat Nader in was Georgia (Nader's worst state that he was on the ballot in).

The Libertarian Party is much stronger this year and Nader is not only weaker, but on less ballots too, so it is completely believeable.  As a Kerry supporter, I'm still hoping for a backlash against Nader accepting GOP help with ballot-access.  Maybe one of the 527s will run ads against him.

[MODU]

He's campaigning too late to make much of an impact.  The Libertarians, if they really want to be serious in the election run, need to start campaigning in early 2005 and lay the foundation for their 2008 run.  At this point, they are just spinning their wheels and wasting gas.

[Jake]

Badnarik will beat Nader but only because both of them will get less than .75% of the vote.  

There is no way Badnarik will cost Bush states.
Most anti-war Americans who won't vote for John Kerry don't know Badnarik is anti-war.  The simple slob on the street has never heard of him. On election day people will walk into the booth and see the candidates and will
a) vote for Bush or Kerry 98%
b) vote for Nader because they've heard of him .75%
c) write there own name because they don't know anyone else.
or
d) vote for Badnarik because they are libertarians .75%

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

He's campaigning too late to make much of an impact.  The Libertarians, if they really want to be serious in the election run, need to start campaigning in early 2005 and lay the foundation for their 2008 run.  At this point, they are just spinning their wheels and wasting gas.

Let's say this was done for this election cycle.  That means Badnarik would start campaining in 2001.

-Pre-9/11, conservatives have absolutely no reason to be unhappy with Bush
-Post 9/11, moderates and even some liberals are happy with Bush

It's not until Summer 2003 that Bush's popularity among conservatives and moderates drops low enough that a Libertarian would have any ground to stand on.  It's only in the last few months that conservatives have become disgruntled enough that Badnarik had any chance of picking up significant support.

So trying to build a support base in 2001 would have done no good anyway - there was nobody to build a base from.  It would have been a waste of money.

But now that there are considerable chinks in Bush's armor, the LP can use all of that money they saved to go all out and hurt Bush when he's genuinely vulnerable.

[MODU]

It's not about hurting Bush though.  Many Libertarians want to see their party rise to power like the Democrats and Republicans.  That won't happen by making campaign runs late in the cycle.  You need to start early, get the Libertarian name out there so the country will know there is a third option.  And then, you have to constantly raise and pour money into the media to gain name recognition.  Once you have that, you need to have your primaries and party debates before the others do, so you can monopolize the time on CNN/Fox/MSNBC.  Only at that point will you expect to see double-digit percentages.  How do you think Perot did it?  He spent a lot of money early, and got right into the prime-time slots to get full exposure to the nation.  The Libertarians have yet to do anything on that scale . . . so they aren't going to get much of a PV gain nationally.

[MODU]

Perot benefitted more from his reputation than his money.  Right now, the people don't know who the Libertarians are.  The more they know about them, the more money they can raise.  You can only raise enough money to compete by getting your name out, and early.

[MODU]

Maybe that's what we need to do then.  Not necessarily a Hollywood actor, but say someone like ummmm . . . Paul Allen (co-founder of Microsoft), you know . . . someone that started off like the rest of us, and worked hard to become successful.  Movie/sports celebrities don't always attract voters, exceptions being ones like Arnold and Ronald Reagan.  

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Perot benefitted more from his reputation than his money.

Hmm... I don't think I agree with that statement. He was so quirky that his enormous money is what allowed him to run his infomercials. He really didn't go out on the stump much. I have to believe it WAS more his money that his personality. In any event, no alternative party can match his money or reputation. The best a "third" party can hope for is to nominate someone who is already well known (in a positive way!) and has a few bucks to boot. Perhaps a Clint Eastwood.

I shudder to think how well Perot would have done in 1992 had he had the same money and the same ideas, but with the looks and personality of Clint Eastwood.  And didn't pull out of the race mid-campaign.

I will speculate:



Clinton: 305
Bush: 148
Perot: 85

I can't see any possible way to drop Clinton below 270 EV, though.  Even if MO, WA, and OR flipped to Perot, that would still leave Clinton with 276.  He would be the only President of all time to be elected with less than 35% of the popular vote :-)

[MODU]

If Perot hadn't susspended his campaign when his daughters reputation was threatened, that map could look a whole lot greener.

[MODU]

That's an odd theory.  I don't see how that would help in the appearance as a strong leader.