The Bob Barr effect

(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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

By the way, he was only officially chosen as the Libertarian Party nominee yesterday.


http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/bob_barr_libertarian_party_nom.html

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/

LOL

Re: The Bob Barr effect


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.

Re: The Bob Barr effect

A plonk, haven't read it yet:

GOP Frets Barr Could Play Spoiler in Prez Race

Re: The Bob Barr effect