Ross Perot’s 1992 Reform Party movement got more independent votes (19%) than any third-party candidacy since Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 Bull Moose Party run. But, it’s interesting to see where he got his support. Perot did exceedingly well in New Hampshire and Maine (he came in second place in Maine). He got 24% in Minnesota, which pre-saged the governorship of Jesse Ventura. He got 27% in Idaho, almost beating out Clinton for second place. In fact, Perot topped 20% in California, Oregon, and Washington, and in every state (except New Mexico) all the way from the left coast to the Missouri River. However, nowhere in the Old Confederacy did he do better than 14%, and he generally tallied 9-11% in the Deep South.
In other words, while Perot didn’t run an explicitly libertarian campaign (far from it), his main appeal was to the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. New Hampshire’s motto of ‘Live Free or Die’ is the motto for much of the West. And these are the areas where Barack Obama has had the most success with attracting white voters. In West Virginia, Perot only received 16% of the vote, and in Kentucky only 14%.
It will be interesting to see how Bob Barr’s independent run on the Libertarian ticket will affect the outcomes in the West. He certainly offers a Perot-like protest vote for hordes of disaffected Republicans in states like Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, and the Dakotas. Barr hails from Georgia, which along with Mississippi, is one of the states where a strong right-leaning third party vote, combined with record black turnout, could put a Deep Southern state in play for Obama. But, Barr’s appeal is likely to catch fire, if it does at all, in the states where Perot ran strongest.
If Kansas is going to fall to Obama, it will probably be because Gov. Sebelius is on the ticket and Bob Barr grabs a significant number of votes (Perot nabbed 27% in Kansas). Nebraska, which divvies up its Electoral College votes by district (like Maine) rather than giving them out winner-take-all, could easily hand its eastern district to Obama if Barr has a strong showing (Perot got 24% in Nebraska). A strong showing by Barr could put Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada completely out of McCain’s reach. Those three states, plus Iowa, would be enough for Obama to win without Ohio or Florida (assuming Obama carries Kerry’s states).
A Barr campaign could easily cost McCain his chance to poach New Hampshire and Maine, and it could prove decisive in a close race in Florida.
It all depends on whether Bob Barr can pull a significant fraction of the vote. In some close (purple) states, a few percentage points could flip the balance. But if he starts approaching 10% in some strong Perot states, we could see a real landslide effect.
Personally, I voted for Perot (twice!) and can’t conceive of any circumstance in which I’d vote for Barr, much as I respect some of his civil liberties stances.
Generally, Perot took a lot of Democrats’ votes as well as Republicans’, but I don’t see Barr doing the same.
That makes him all the more potent.
Exactly. The votes he gets should all be Republican. How easy will it be for him to get on the various state ballots? (Remember the Santorum Libertarians?)
Bob Barr graduated from high school in Tehran? Oooh, I can’t wait to see what fun the Republicans have with that…
Barr could have a real impact on this race, simply because many people won’t vote McCain or Obama and will happily vote for a third party candidate. When you consider the vitality of Paul’s campaign, this run actually has strength IMHO. He’ll pull many more voters from McCain than from Obama. It will also give Obama some time to discuss local economies, etc. and that’s important for him to do well.
Could he also be a fall-back choice for all those disaffected Hillary supporters whose overarching goal now is to work to deny Obama the Presidency?
This way they don’t have to explicitly support the Bush reincarnation, John McCain. They can try and inflict their damage tangentially by throwing away a potential Democratic vote for Obama by voting for Barr. That way they can rationalize a McCain victory enough to somehow keep their Democratic Party creds in good stead, at least in their own minds.
“See, I’m still a good Democrat. I didn’t vote for McCain. It’s not my fault Obama can’t muster enough support to win!”
Hmm. If they know the issues, Clinton supporters shouldn’t vote for Barr. He led the impeachment of Bill. And he’s just as anti-abortion as McCain.
Sweet, an anti-abortion libertarian.
Ahh, the stupid, it burns!!
So is Ron Paul. Maybe women don’t count as humans in the Libertarian outlook? Come to think of it, I haven’t ever personally encountered a female Libertarian, although certainly they must exist.
Well, Ron Paul may have libertarian ideas but he is still officially a Republican.
According to OnTheIssues, the Libertarian party is pro-choice as part of their platform:
Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if someone (or several someones) reminded them of this fact.
Mike,
Many of those Hillary supporters won’t be able to get over what Barr did to impeach Clinton.
This is great news for us. I’m listening to a conservative talk host and he is spitting nails about Barr and Ron Paul. 🙂
I agree with everyone’s observations on Barr’s obvious lack of appeal to anyone with a shred of Democratic blood in their veins. And I do believe it is great news for us. No way in hell any rational, thinking Democrat would cast a vote in his favor.
But with the seething irrationality and blind, despising hatred we’ve seen over the last few weeks directed at Obama from within his own party, what lengths might people be willing to go in order to knee cap Obama? That’s all I’m wondering.
Americans have an astoundingly consistent track record of voting directly in opposition to their own interests.
How deep is the hatred? We’ll see in the not too distant future.
I don’t. Since the impeachment outrage, Barr has stood up strongly for civil liberties. I can see lefty Dems being attracted to a candidate who opposes the drugwar and firmly denounces the spying, wiretapping, secrecy, and destruction of habeas corpus that are justified as matters of “security”.
So far Obama, like all Dems, has been pretty wishywashy on issues like this. I hope at least Barr puts some pressure on him to take a stronger stand.
BTW, Gravel is still running as a Libertarian, too, right? And there’s still talk of Paul jumping in. The fact that Paul has been getting 6 to 15 percent in GOP primaries long after McCain is the undisputed nominee spells more bad news for the GOP.
Of course, Nader is still running, too, I guess, but it’s hard to see him going over 1 percent against Obama.
Bob Barr’s position on the “War on Drugs” is very flip-floppy. When in the House, he was one of the biggest supporters of the “War on Drugs.” Now that he is a Libertarian, he had to tone it down. Now he is for the states enforcing drug laws, not the Feds. But he is still opposed to legalizing anything. So he says “leave it to the states to decide.”
The Libertarians have their convention in a couple weeks where they will choose their nominee. I wonder if they’ll go with Barr. He has the most name recognition, but considering his past views, many Libs may have trouble supporting him.
I don’t think Ron Paul will run as Libertarian. He is still “in” the Republican race and I think his goal is to mess with the Republican Convention, judging by the behavior of his supporters here in Nevada.
Echoing wildrez and MikeInOhio, Barr will probably get a lot of votes from folks who really don’t want a third Bush term, no matter what they say in public, and really don’t want to vote for Obama for any number of reasons, racist and otherwise.
Perot took almost 11% in the Oklahoma general, holding Bush to an 8% lead over Clinton. And Clinton was already a four-letter word in Oklahoma, long before Monica. He was that upstart hippie boy governor next door, automatically the devil’s spawn to many redneck Okies. I wouldn’t be surprised if Barr does better here than Perot did.
You know what I meant…
McCain’s people begged Barr not to run – LATimes
I also voted for Perot twice…. and worked on his campaign both times.
Perot drew equally from the Dems and the GOP. His appeal for me was his socially liberal / fiscally conservative stances.
Bob Bar, not even close. Keep in mind, Bob Barr tried to have Wiccans and Pagans thrown out of the military when he learned Wiccans from Fort Hood, Texas were holding services on Base with permission from their commander.
That was it for me, too: more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative than Clinton or the Republicans. And I loved those half-hour commercials with the charts.