1
   

The Bob Barr effect

 
 
sozobe
 
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 08:27 am
I started asking about Bob Barr on the "McCain, Giuliani and the Republicans" thread, and have been putting follow-up there -- thought I'd go ahead and start a new thread on him.

I'm seeing lots of stuff that seems to indicate he'll help Obama. This is an interesting overview, I agree with a lot of it.

http://theamericanscene.com/2008/05/20/bob-barr-and-the-electoral-college-map

It's long, and I won't quote all of it. Here are a couple of the points I thought were interesting:

Quote:
6. Bob Barr is from Georgia. In general, Obama is going to have a tough time in the deep South - even if he gets record African-American turnout in states like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina, overwhelming white support for the GOP will make an Obama victory impossible. But if Barr gets a significant vote in his home state, and Obama can generate historic levels of African-American support, there may be a window for Obama to contest Georgia, which would otherwise be out of reach.


Quote:
8. Significant third-party candidacies do more harm to the candidate identified with the status quo. It was true in 2000, it was true in 1992 (and, I suspect, 1996, though then it didn't matter), it was true in 1980, it was true in 1968, and the editors of the Chicago Tribune thought it was going to be true in 1948. I had figured that this year we'd see a significant anti-war, anti-immigration candidate running on a third party platform, but Barr will do in a pinch.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,321 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 08:29 am
(Standard karma disclaimer -- Obama doesn't have the Democratic nomination yet. All of the discussion I've seen though has been about Barr in the context of an Obama - McCain race.)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 08:38 am
I don't see how he takes any votes from anyone but McCain. He's no Ross Perot, but in a tight State, he could conceivably make a difference.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 11:39 am
Well, I suppose if Barr gets 1% of the vote in Georgia (which is about twice as much as what the Libertarian candidate got in the 2004 election) and Obama wins Georgia by 537 votes or so, then one could argue that Barr would have had a profound effect on the election. But that won't happen.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 12:13 pm
I am far more interested in Hillary playing spoiler by running as an independent. Think about it, She splits the Dem vote, McCain gets elected and in only 4 years, Hillary can again run for President.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 12:50 pm
I don't think she'll do it, though. As a close-second, formidable candidate, she'll have a lot of power in the senate. If she runs as an Independent, she'll just smash all of that.
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 02:25 pm
Well, I mean, in terms of known potentialities, it would be to overlap partially with McCain or nothing so slight advantage to Obama.

Still, as I said before about Paul I don't think it'll be the Ross-Perot effect. For one thing the Libertarian ideas getting airtime, the effect of getting that wonderful stuff out there would dangerous for Obama - make him look bad on things the GOP just gets accused of being baby-killers for calling out. And with the setup as it is, both candidates leaning left of their party, card carrying Libertarians such as myself will be leaning right just to keep from getting passed around, let alone because McCain's populism is more deliberate and reserved than that of the usual party-drone.

As it is now, as a curiosity to most, he's slightly bad news for McCain, but if he gets say Huckabee-level publicity or gets into a debate with them, anything such that Obama can't just look the other way, it could be something different...

Also, almost forgot since it's not exactly my thing (in the sense that in addition to wanting the G not to get out of hand as do other Libertarians, I want the G to do it's core functions better/with greater ferocity) - but who's lunch would another peace-nik eat?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2008 05:51 am
By the way, he was only officially chosen as the Libertarian Party nominee yesterday.

Quote:
Rep. Ron Paul had this job once:

Representing the Libertarian Party on the presidential ballot.

Now former Rep. Bob Barr has the duty for 2008.

The Libertarians, convening in Denver, named him.

"I'm sure will we emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr said in his victory speech. "I want everybody to remember that we only have 163 days to win this election. We cannot waste one single day."

Winning is a relative term, perrhaps.

The party has been good for about 3 percent of the vote in the past.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/bob_barr_libertarian_party_nom.html
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 09:26 am
Will Ron Paul join forces with Barr? (And what will the effect be, if so?)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/14/paul_barr_may_be_forging_an_alliance_for_fall_election/
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 09:29 am
McGentrix wrote:
I am far more interested in Hillary playing spoiler by running as an independent. Think about it, She splits the Dem vote, McCain gets elected and in only 4 years, Hillary can again run for President.



LOL
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 10:13 am
Re: The Bob Barr effect
sozobe's source wrote:
. . . and the editors of the Chicago Tribune thought it was going to be true in 1948.


Yeah, but they were wrong, as were the editorial staffs of quite a few other newspapers. There were not just three parties, either, there were four. Henry Wallace ran on the "Progressive Party" ticket, and took almost 1.2 million votes, which, compared to Strom Thurmond's almost 1.8 million, was just about as significant a factor, one as the other. The key states in that election were California, Ohio and Illinois--despite what pundits continue to say, the "Dixiecrat" vote was meaningless in the outcome.

It would, in fact, be 20 yeas before there was a significant party re-alignment in the South, when Southerners, traditional Democratic voters, would vote for Richard Nixon. Despite Strom Thurmond, in 1948, Truman took Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas and Texas.

I don't think this analogy is valid. In fact, in many states of the South, Strom Thurmond took votes away from Thomas Dewey, not Truman. In California, Ohio and Illinois, Truman beat Dewey by a very slim margin--less than a percentage point in California and Ohio.

But in this election, for Obama to take any states of the South, he'd have to overcome the tendency to vote conservative without regard to party which began in 1968 and became sufficiently significant for the press to notice it in 1980. In 1968, Nixon or Wallace took every state of the South except Texas. In the South, whether he won a state or not, Nixon hammered Humphrey among middle class urban voters, and beat Wallace five to four in those precincts. Wallace only won in the rural precincts, and then just barely, and Humphrey only won in low income urban precincts and among black and Hispanic voters in all precincts.

I just don't see how Obama, no matter who his running mate were, could overcome the historical voting trends in the South for the last 40 years. I don't think he should abandon the South in his campaigning, because if he wins, he'll need at least some residue of good will there, and Democrats running in the South are not likely to dissociate themselves from a popular candidate, even if he doesn't seem likely to win any states there.

But i just don't see a running mate doing Obama any real good in the South. He'll need to put together his electoral votes elsewhere to win this one.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 10:21 am
Re: The Bob Barr effect
Setanta wrote:
sozobe's source wrote:
. . . and the editors of the Chicago Tribune
I just don't see how Obama, no matter who his running mate were, could overcome the historical voting trends in the South for the last 40 years.


He doesn't have to. Populations have shifted in recent years. Especially NC of late which I understand is becoming a lot like Florida with its influx of notherners.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 10:46 am
A plonk, haven't read it yet:

GOP Frets Barr Could Play Spoiler in Prez Race
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 10:54 pm
Re: The Bob Barr effect
Roxxxanne wrote:
Setanta wrote:
sozobe's source wrote:
. . . and the editors of the Chicago Tribune
I just don't see how Obama, no matter who his running mate were, could overcome the historical voting trends in the South for the last 40 years.


He doesn't have to. Populations have shifted in recent years. Especially NC of late which I understand is becoming a lot like Florida with its influx of notherners.


True, more's the pity, but not all transplanted northeners are Liberals.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Bob Barr effect
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2019 at 11:01:05