Former Rep. Bob Barr won the Libertarian Party's Presidential nomination at the party's convention in Denver Sunday afternoon. He defeated long-time party activist Mary Ruwart, 54 to 46 percent, on the sixth ballot.
Fourteen candidates ran for the nomination. Former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel was defeated in the fourth round.
Third place finisher Wayne Allyn Root, an internet gambling entrepreneur, is the vice-presidential nominee. (...)
"I'm sure will we emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr said in his victory speech.
For a great play by play of the convention, click here.
Now, if Barr-Root actually will be "with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," it would require at least 1.07% of the popular vote, surpassing the 1.06% Edwards Clark scored for a fourth-place finish in 1980. Since that election, the best libertarian performance was 0.50% by Harry Browne in 1996, also for fourth place. In fact, 1984 and 1988 are the only elections where the Libertarian nominee even managed to finish in third-place.
As a former congressman, Bob Barr appears to be a more formidable candidate than the typical third-party crusader. Also, Ron Paul's campaign demonstrated that there was both activist excitement, and a 2-3% national voting base, for an effective libertarian candidate. So, there does seem to be an opening, at least in theory.
However, I just don't think that Barr is going to be able to make a real impact on this election. In fact, he probably won't even break the 1.06%, 1980 high-water for Libertarians. For one thing, after decline sets in, third-parties in American never recover. The No Names, the Populists, the Socialists, The Progressives, the Reforms, the Greens-all of them went into permanent decline after an initial splash. Further, you can't change leaders in mid-stream, and Bob Barr is not going to attract the same support that Ron Paul had. The activist excitement around Ron Paul over the last year was closely connected to Ron Paul himself, and will not be easily transferable in such a short period of time. Yet further, even if the activist excitement around Ron Paul was transferable, it isn't going to a Libertarian-come-lately like Bob Barr. Even the Libertarian Party was lukewarm about Barr, as it took him six ballots to receive a narrow delegate majority of 54%.
So, while I would like to believe that Bob Barr will receive more than 1.06% of the vote, I just don't think it will happen. In fact, with Ralph Nader in the field, he won't even get all of the non-ideological, "f**k you" vote, which is the roughly 1% of the electorate that always chooses third-parties no matter what. It is nice to dream of Barr pulling down 3% of the vote, with his supporters drawing roughly 2-1 from the McCain camp, but in truth he will probably get about 1% of the vote, with about two-thirds of his supporters being people who would never vote for either McCain or Obama. So, Barr might swing the election 0.1% in favor of Obama, and thus probably cancel out Nader. There is an outside chance even this small amount will swing a state or two, but not much.
Third parties will not be a significant factor in this presidential election. If Ron Paul himself had run for the Libertarian nomination, it would be a different story. Alas, 'twas not to be.
Update: Another reason Barr is unlikely to be a factor is that third-party performance is actually on the decline (or, at best, stagnant). Click here and here for my post-2006 election analysis on this subject.
First the disclaimers. We are in the realm of subjectivity here, which is highly vulnerable to the art of "spin". It's not like looking at candidate position papers and voting records, it is guessing how voters will react to a person, their positions, their image, and overall how well they campaign. And electability is not the end all criteria for selecting a candidate either. Reagan was more "electable" than Mondale in 1984, which wasn't a good reason for me to support Reagan. Or more to the point; I would be much happier seeing Al Gore narrowly elected President of the United States than seeing Evan Bayh coast to that same victory. But there is something about avoiding losing the Presidency to yet another reactionary Republican which is compelling. Slippery as it is to get a handle on, electability is an important concept and merits some consideration when choosing a candidate to support.
My second basic disclaimer is this. Any Democrat who can master the political skills necessary to win the Democratic nomination has at least some chance to be elected President of the United States when the race boils down to them vs the Republican candidate, and possibly one or two major Independents. An unpopular Democrat can defeat an even more unpopular Republican; a controversial Democrat can defeat an even more controversial Republican, etc.
As many political junkies know, unlike in most other elections, in the Iowa caucuses voters' second choices sometimes matter a great deal, because if your first choice doesn't have 15% of the folks who show up at that precinct, they have to pick some other caucus to go to in the second round. What this means in practical terms this year, unless there is a surprising surge or slide by some campaign, is that the top three candidates- Clinton, Obama and Edwards- will be viable in most precincts, and everybody else will be non-viable in a great many caucuses throughout the state. That means that if you are with a front-runner, who your second choice is probably doesn't matter. But if you are for Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich or Gravel, who your second choice is will likely matter a lot.
Who are those folks most likely to go with in the second round on caucus night? One of the danger spots for Hillary may be in the politics of second choices. I am getting the word from multiple sources in the Edwards campaign that they are very pleased with how they are polling in terms of the second choice issue, and Obama people seem satisfied on this score as well, but I've also been told by multiple rival campaign that Hillary is not doing so well in this regard, that the people who are for her are solid but that she doesn't have much in the way of being folks' second choice. I e-mailed multiple folks on the Hillary campaign staff how they were doing in terms of the second choice, and got radio silence back, which I'm pretty sure is a bad sign.
That this would be the case makes logical sense to me. If you are for the wildmen, Kucinich and Gravel, Hillary isn't going to be your second choice. If you get behind Dodd because of his strong stand on FISA, or Richardson because of his strong stand on residual troops, Hillary's probably not your backup choice. And with most frontrunners, the people not with them are looking for somebody else in general, and tend to coalesce behind whatever alternative is still in the game.
The one thing that might overcome this problem for Hillary is highly skilled and experienced precinct captains. They are the ones whose job it is on caucus night to go to the non-viable caucuses and negotiate, beg, plead, and cajole with folks to join their camp. My sense is that Hillary seems to have the best network of experienced precinct captains of any campaign, and that network could help her overcome the lack of 2nd choice support. But it's a dangerous problem for her, and makes that five-point lead she's shown in recent polls a lot more shaky.
I am proud to report that the Texas Democratic Party's ePrimary Poll has been a huge success. Because of your help spreading the word to our fellow Democrats, in just five short days, over 7,200 Texas Democrats have cast their vote for President!
That's over five times the number of Texas Republicans who cast their vote in last weekend's exclusive Straw Poll. And we're not done yet! With one more day left to vote, all Texas Democrats still have a chance to make their voices heard in the next presidential election.
The enormous participation in the TDP ePrimary Poll is evidence of a Democratic Party on the rise in the Lone Star State. While Texas Republicans had only third-string candidates and embarrassingly low turnout at their VIP-only Straw Poll last weekend, Democrats from every corner of the state are energized by our Party's strong field of presidential candidates and showing their excitement for 2008 in the ePrimary Poll.
Democrats believe our state and nation are better served when more people participate, and the ePrimary Poll is a way for all Texas Democrats to get involved in the primary process and weigh in as our Party selects a presidential nominee. Tell the country which Democrats you want to see take over the White House!
If you haven't voted in the ePrimary Poll, there's still time. Texas Democrats have until TOMORROW at 11:59pm to cast their vote for any one of our Democratic presidential candidates.
During the Texas Democratic Party's recent Town Hall Tour, I traveled nearly 10,000 miles and visited with thousands of Democrats. And I am proud to report that Texas Democrats are unified, energized and eager to win in 2008!
Like most Americans, Democrats from Texarkana to El Paso are tired of George Bush's failure and ready for a change in the White House. That's why I am very pleased to announce that the Texas Democratic Party is holding our first-ever ePrimary Poll, a weeklong online event that will give Texas Democrats a chance to support their favorite candidate for President.
Starting today, Democrats across the Lone Star State have the opportunity to vote for any of our outstanding presidential candidates at the TDP website. After Republican leaders weakened the influence of Texas voters by failing to move up our state's primary election, the TDP is doing everything we can to ensure Texas Democrats have a say in determining the next president of the United States. Now is the time to make your voice heard!
