Will the Libertarians be on the ballot of all 50 states and DC in 2008?

[MaC]

Since being hopelessly optimistic is a requirement to be a Libertarian, I'll say yes

I mean, we did it in 1996 and 2000.  2004 we only got 49 states and DC.
No reason why we couldn't again though-but I will say the biggest challenges are Oklahoma and Illinois.

[7,052,770]

I wouldn't mind, provided that they siphon off more votes from Republicans than Democrats.

[Gabu]

If Libertarians are truly serious about wanting to become a major party, this really should not be their biggest concern, because there is no way in hell the Libertarian will win the presidency even if this occurs.  Running presidential candidates is great for one's ego, but it doesn't so much help getting people elected.

[Alcon]

I doubt it.  Oklahoma has ridiculous ballot access requirements.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wouldn't mind, provided that they siphon off more votes from Republicans than Democrats.

I don't see any evidence that they hurt the Republicans much more than they hurt the Democrats. The libertarian leaning people I know are all more favorable to the Democratic party than the Republican party. I had a friend who voted Browne 2000, Kerry 2004.

[MaC]

If Libertarians are truly serious about wanting to become a major party, this really should not be their biggest concern, because there is no way in hell the Libertarian will win the presidency even if this occurs.  Running presidential candidates is great for one's ego, but it doesn't so much help getting people elected.

I think 50 states + DC is a requirement in all presidential elections-we need to be taken seriously.  Besides-we need to run a presidential candidate if the Republicans don't nominate Ron Paul.  What are we going to do?

"Don't vote for the lesser of two evils, become a Libertarian"
"Who's your presidential candidate?"
"uhm, we kinda don't have one"

or

"Vote Libertarian, because you can move to Texas from Oklahoma to vote for us, and then move back"

[MaC]

I will have to say 2004 was a total embarrassment since NH was one of those two states to not have Libertarians listed on the ballot.

[Alcon]

I wouldn't mind, provided that they siphon off more votes from Republicans than Democrats.

I don't see any evidence that they hurt the Republicans much more than they hurt the Democrats. The libertarian leaning people I know are all more favorable to the Democratic party than the Republican party. I had a friend who voted Browne 2000, Kerry 2004.

Dude, you do live in Berkeley. 

[Verily]

If Libertarians are truly serious about wanting to become a major party, this really should not be their biggest concern, because there is no way in hell the Libertarian will win the presidency even if this occurs.  Running presidential candidates is great for one's ego, but it doesn't so much help getting people elected.

I agree wholeheartedly. If they're serious about becoming a major party, the Libertarians should not run Presidential candidates. It's a drain on their resources that they could be pouring into easier state-level and House races. No one takes the Libertarians seriously anyway, and I think people might be more inclined to if they knew the Libertarians were being more practical than the Greens and Constitutionalists. (Frankly, it makes me disinclined to vote for minor parties that they throw their money away on fruitless Presidential campaigns. Is that how they'd run the country, too?)

[Know Your Rights!]

I will have to say 2004 was a total embarrassment since NH was one of those two states to not have Libertarians listed on the ballot.

The same thing happened in the 06 Gubernatorial race.

I voted no, btw, because of New Hampshire.

[NewFederalist]

I mean, we did it in 1996 and 2000.  2004 we only got 49 states and DC.
No reason why we couldn't again though-but I will say the biggest challenges are Oklahoma and Illinois.

The Libertarian Party achieved ballot status in all 50 states plus DC in 1980 and 1992 in addition to the elections you cited above. It makes for a nice overlooked press release but for the cost of ballot status in NC and OK it isn't justified IMO. Until petition requirements in those two states are made more reasonable the money it costs to gain a few thousand extra votes just isn't worth it.

[MODU]

I wish they would, but they won't.  The Constitution Party will have even less ballot access in 2008 as well.

[Verily]

I wish they would, but they won't.  The Constitution Party will have even less ballot access in 2008 as well.

I'd be willing to bet that, unless Giuliani is the GOP candidate, the Constitution Party won't even be on enough ballots to theoretically be able to win the Presidency this time. (They only just barely made it on enough ballots to theoretically be able to win in 2004, IIRC.)

[adam]

I'm sure they wont make at least one, but they will get access in over 45 states.

[Gabu]

If Libertarians are truly serious about wanting to become a major party, this really should not be their biggest concern, because there is no way in hell the Libertarian will win the presidency even if this occurs.  Running presidential candidates is great for one's ego, but it doesn't so much help getting people elected.

I think 50 states + DC is a requirement in all presidential elections-we need to be taken seriously.  Besides-we need to run a presidential candidate if the Republicans don't nominate Ron Paul.  What are we going to do?

"Don't vote for the lesser of two evils, become a Libertarian"
"Who's your presidential candidate?"
"uhm, we kinda don't have one"

or

"Vote Libertarian, because you can move to Texas from Oklahoma to vote for us, and then move back"

How much did the Libertarian Party and Michael Badnarik spend on his presidential campaign?  I'd imagine that 99% of people probably didn't even know who Michael Badnarik was on election day.  You don't get taken seriously by running a completely futile presidential campaign with someone no one knows as your candidate.  You get taken seriously by actually winning elections.  I don't see the Libertarian Party being taken less seriously if they don't run a presidential candidate, because - no offense - no one takes them seriously at all right now.  You can't really lose credibility when you have none.

What the Libertarian Party really needs to do is concentrate all of their funds on actually getting a Libertarian representative elected.  Find some credible candidate in a district not unfavorable to the Libertarian Party and pour all of your resources into getting that guy elected.  If people actually see the Libertarian Party win a single semi-notable election, then they'll actually start taking the party seriously.