libertarians...

[WalterMitty]

i was so bored today that i watched the libertarian presidential debate on c-span.

i love some of their stands, particularly letting the free market take care of every problem we have.  i tend to agree that the government creates more problems than it solves.

some of their ideas are nutty, however.  i strongly oppose drug legalization and isolationism.

i was struck at how ill-informed the 3 candidates were.  none gave any in depth answers to any of the questions.  i dont think any of them had a firm grasp on the issues.  i found it hard to concentrate on gary nolan's answers, though.  every time he spoke, i just marveled (in disgust) at how he looked like he just crawled out from the tanning bed.

[WalterMitty]

yes, russo was awful.  but is he a serious candidate?  

am i correct in assuming that nolan is the front runner?  how is the nominee determined?

[Justin]

Michael Badnarik has just won the Libertarian nomination on a third vote defeating Russo and Nolan.

[angus]

i was so bored today that i watched the libertarian presidential debate on c-span.

i love some of their stands, particularly letting the free market take care of every problem we have.  i tend to agree that the government creates more problems than it solves.

some of their ideas are nutty, however.  i strongly oppose drug legalization and isolationism.

i was struck at how ill-informed the 3 candidates were.  none gave any in depth answers to any of the questions.  i dont think any of them had a firm grasp on the issues.  i found it hard to concentrate on gary nolan's answers, though.  every time he spoke, i just marveled (in disgust) at how he looked like he just crawled out from the tanning bed.

I wish I had known this was on!  Maybe I'll catch it later.  Thanks.

And thanks justin for the update.

"Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not where we live, my brothers:  here there are states.  State?  What is that?  Well then, open your ears to me, for now I shall speak to you about the death of peoples.  State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters.  Coldly it tells lies too; and this lie crawls out of its mouth:  "I, the state, am the people."  That is a lie.  It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a love over them:  thus they served life."
 --Friedrich Nietzsche

[© tweed]

Michael Badnarik has just won the Libertarian nomination on a third vote defeating Russo and Nolan.

I *might* have voted for Nolan...but this guy is waay too pro-gun for me.  I'm stuck with Kerry.

[JohnFKennedy]

Michael Badnarik has just won the Libertarian nomination on a third vote defeating Russo and Nolan.

I *might* have voted for Nolan...but this guy is waay too pro-gun for me.  I'm stuck with Kerry.

Too bad for you! Michael Badnarik was the true dark horse in this race. Both Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan had more command of the media (or so they said). The delegates went for a regular guy who teaches courses on the Constitution (like Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party) and has no illusions of winning the presidency. He just wants to be heard and wants people to think about why they vote. He will lose BIG but I like him and I hope thinking people will at least hear his point of view and decide based on that not whether he will win.

Has no illusions of winning? In his acceptance speech he said if he could win the nomination then he could win the Presidency didn't he?

[khirkhib]

So I was wondering if the Libertarians could actually have some sort of Nader effect on the election. (Score a high enough precentage in a battle-ground state that it might cause the Electoral Votes in that state to go one way or the other.

The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 in Colorado and I have heard annecdotaly that it is strongest in the South West.  With New Mexico, Neveda, Arizona, Colorado being potential battle ground states and Oregon and Washington as BGs at least in theory they could have an effect.

The party has been ran canidates in every election since 1972.  With the use of this great web page Dave I compiled their numbers.

 
I have listed the Libetarian candidate, the year they ran and their home state.

The national shows the Libertarian's precentage of the national vote and highlighted red or blue to indicate the party that won the elction that year.  

Then I have the top 5 scoring states for teh Libertarian Party.  In light red or light blue are potential battle ground states.  The state is high-lighted to reflect the party that won the state in the 2000 election.  With the exception of a strong showing in Hawaii in 1976 all the other non-high-lighted states voted heavily for George Bush in the 2000 election.

What does the spread sheet tell us.  I think first off it does confirm that, for the most part, the party may be stronger in western states.  Though the party did not have access to the ballot in all 50 states in 1976, 1984 and 1988.  Most western states had the Libertarian ballot in all the elections.  This is even more so confirmed with the maps that I have included at the bottom.  I think  the party may be strengthenign in other parts of the country like Indiana and Lousiana.  Back to the graph.  Since the spread sheet seems to indicate that the party does better in western states but generally scores less than 1% unless they have a very active campaign and get some of the media attention that is being focused on Nader. (The Media seems to have made Nader the official third party candidate this year).  Unless the party finds their own Nader or Perot like candidtae they probably will continue to perform between .5 and 1% national.  

Secondly it doesn't seem that the candidates ever really have a home state advantage at the polls.  Badnarik is from Indiana and Libertarians did earn .7% of the vote in Indiana in 2000.  I don't know how well liked or known Badnarik is in Indiana but even my most optomistic predictions of the election have Indiana going to Bush.

Regional affect.  Their is not much to indicate that candidates in the party have a regional affect from their home state.  (As opposed to the stronger in the west trend I already addressed).  Although in the 2000 election Brown from TN did better in Georgia and Indiana.  It is hard to imagine Badnarik having much of a regional affect but if he did bring people on the Right away from Bush Indiana would be a dangerous place for it to happen.  Even 1% of votes going from Bush in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan could make a significant impact.

Since I have been predicting the Kerry sweep I'm going to give my spin.  Conservatives will generally not vote for Kerry.  Bush's republican strong holds are with Neo-cons and the Christian Coalition types.  Republicans in the south west are niether of those.  Disastified conservatives is the west will probably not vote but they could also give their votes to a the Libertarian's.  I think that Badnarik will be more appealing to these voters than Nader because of that I think that the Libertarians may have one of their best elections in the history of their party and will help put New Mexico and Neveda heavily in Kerry's column.  The votes in Arizona and Colorado will be close.  Arizona going to Kerry with a margin smaller than the Libertarian vote (like NH with Nader in 2000)  Bush will pick up Colorado.  Their will be no noticable effect in OH, PN, or Michigan.  Indiana will not be Badnarik's best scoring state despite his heaviest campaigning there.  New Hampshire will go Kerry with out any affect from the Libertarian vote.  

1976
yellow 0.00 - 0.19 %
orange 0.20 - 0.32 %
green 0.33 - 0.63 %
pink 0.64 % +
 

1980
yellow 0.00 - 0.54 %
orange 0.55 - 0.85 %
green 0.86 - 1.28 %
pink 1.29 % +
 

1984
yellow 0.00 - 0.11 %
orange 0.12 - 0.20 %
green 0.21 - 0.40 %
pink 0.41 % +

 

1988
yellow 0.00 - 0.19 %
orange 0.20 - 0.32 %
green 0.33 - 0.63 %
pink 0.64 % +

 

1992
yellow 0.00 - 0.21 %
orange 0.22 - 0.33 %
green 0.34 - 0.50 %
pink 0.51 % +


1996
yellow 0.00 - 0.11 %
orange 0.12 - 0.18 %
green 0.19 - 0.30 %
pink 0.31 % +


Couldn't get a picture for 2000

[khirkhib]

Oh well I guess that screws up a bit of my analysis.  His website seemed to indicate that he was from Indiana.  I don't really think he will have much of an effect in the Mid-west anyway.  Perhaps being from texas will increase his effect in the south west.

[khirkhib]

Birthplace: Hammond IN
Home City: Austin TX

[CARLHAYDEN]

If it looks like Bush is either going to win big or lose big, then Badnarik's vote will go up to somewhere between one to two per cent of the vote.

In a close race, he'll probably get 0.4% of the vote.

[khirkhib]

If it looks like Bush is either going to win big or lose big, then Badnarik's vote will go up to somewhere between one to two per cent of the vote.

In a close race, he'll probably get 0.4% of the vote.

I think that is pretty accurate statement

[CARLHAYDEN]

In a landslide I suspect the vote would break down regionally as follows (for Badnarik):

Northeast 0.8%
South 0.4%
Midwest 1.6%
West 3.6%

In this case, Badnarik could top five per cent in several western states.

[classical liberal]

If he gets 3.6 in the West, I would forecast 2.5 in the South.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There are two reasons Libertarians do poorly in the south.

First, they have very few active members in the south (they often have trouble coming with enough Presidential Elector candidates), and

Second, the political culture in the south is allergic to the position of the LP on most social issues.

Best chances of cracking five per cent are:  Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico.

No chance of cracking five per cent in: California, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, Washington or Wyoming.

Montana is very doubtful.

[classical liberal]

If he gets 3.6 in the West, I would forecast 2.5 in the South.

Some of that may depend on just what states Michael Peroutka is listed.

Forgot about Peroutka.  I think that it's safe to say that Peroutka and Badnarik's combined total will be 5 in both the west and the south.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So far, the Constitution party appears to be doing better in Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Hampshire and South Dakota.

Not suprised about Alabama, Connecticut or Kentucky, mildly suprised about South Dakota are rather suprised about weakness of LP in New Hampshire.

Developments are in limbo about Maryland and Ohio last time I checked.

Generally, in most of the rest of the states the LP is tied with or ahead of the Constitution party.

[WalterMitty]

i dont think the libertarians or the constitution party will take votes away from either candidate.  both of those voters are their own breed.  they dont fit in the two party system.

now, there are some republicans who call themselves libertarians (like my father).  but they are really republicans and they vote republican.


i could never vote for a libertarian because i think some of their views are grossly irresponsible (ie. legalizing drugs and having an isolationist foreign policy).

[CARLHAYDEN]

So far, the Constitution party appears to be doing better in Alabama, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Hampshire and South Dakota.

Not suprised about Alabama, Connecticut or Kentucky, mildly suprised about South Dakota are rather suprised about weakness of LP in New Hampshire.

Developments are in limbo about Maryland and Ohio last time I checked.

Generally, in most of the rest of the states the LP is tied with or ahead of the Constitution party.

I noticed there were no delegates from South Dakota at the Libertarian National Convention. I think the Constitutionalists are fairly well organized there. Libertarians tend to underperform their national averages in the Deep South (except Florida) and that is where the Constitutionalists do better. In days past the Prohibitionists used to do okay in the South. Florida is the only place they ever elected a governor.

Actually, in 2000, the libertarians did well in Georgia and Louisiana, they preformed ok in North Carolina and Virginia.  They tanked in Mississippi and Tennessee.  Rest of the south was at or below national average,

[King]

Libertarians should just stay at local level, thats where they seem to be strong in.

The problems with the 3rd parties are that they tend to go too far in the same direction. There are not "moderate" Third parties...there are just the strong Liberal Lefts and the strong Conservative Rights.

Somebody needs to form a strong Political Force that can unite the Conservatives, Liberals, and Moderates.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Libertarians should just stay at local level, thats where they seem to be strong in.

The problems with the 3rd parties are that they tend to go too far in the same direction. There are not "moderate" Third parties...there are just the strong Liberal Lefts and the strong Conservative Rights.

Somebody needs to form a strong Political Force that can unite the Conservatives, Liberals, and Moderates.

Conservatives and Liberals have different value systems.  So, uniting the disparate elements won't happen.

[King]

Libertarians should just stay at local level, thats where they seem to be strong in.

The problems with the 3rd parties are that they tend to go too far in the same direction. There are not "moderate" Third parties...there are just the strong Liberal Lefts and the strong Conservative Rights.

Somebody needs to form a strong Political Force that can unite the Conservatives, Liberals, and Moderates.

Conservatives and Liberals have different value systems.  So, uniting the disparate elements won't happen.

Yeah...only in dream world...

[Giant Saguaro]

I missed it, but then again none of these guys were in the running for my vote anyway. I couldn't get upset enough with Bush to go the route of the protest vote.

It would be interesting to catch the debate, though, if one was bored.

[CARLHAYDEN]

In the real world, choices have to be made.

More than two centuries ago, a great American, Patrick Henry noted that while peace is desireable, freedom is more important.

James Burnham noted the difference in values in his seminal work, Suicide of the West.

[angus]

In the real world, choices have to be made.

More than two centuries ago, a great American, Patrick Henry noted that while peace is desireable, freedom is more important.

James Burnham noted the difference in values in his seminal work, Suicide of the West.

Second time since you been posting that you brought up patrick henry, that I noticed.  I appreciate the consistency.  Young patrick was an idler and by many accounts a derelict.  Although everyone knew he was a smart kid, he simply would not lift a finger except to his own pleasure.  And he bankrupted the first business his father set him up, but he was a strong supporter of civil rights in general, and the right to bear arms, in particular.  And he served his country well when the time came.  Give me liberty or give me death.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, Pat was NOT a derelict, he just didn't want to follow the path he father charted.  

Second, Pat did NOT want to be in business.  He was a moderately sucessful lawyer and later politician.

Third, he was heroic and consistent in his principles, even when threatened and demonized by Hamilton and the federalists.

Fourth, he saw things clearly, and stated his case with great eloquence.

Finally, thanks for noting my appreciation for good ole' pat, and my consistency.