I'm sure you're dying to know who finished in third behind Barack Obama and John McCain. Well it's close enough we'll have to wait until all the votes are counted, but here are the rounded totals so far, according to state-by-state data from Wikipedia and added by me:
530,200 votes: Ralph Nader
519,800 votes: Bob Barr
179,900 votes: Chuck Baldwin
147,600 votes: Cynthia McKinney
30,800 votes: Alan Keyes (in CA)
28,300 votes: Write-in/other
10,500 votes: Ron Paul (in MT)
Nader! Feel the momentum. The total number of people who looked at Barack Obama and John McCain and said "nope" is approaching 1.5 million, an increase from 2004. Nader's total this year exceeds his total from 2004 which was about 464,000 but far below his 2000 showing of nearly 3 million.
Write-in votes will affect the final totals and I'm sure there are a significant number of Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul (only on the ballot in MT) and Zombie Reagan votes in there.
We're under no illusions about Barack Obama being a progressive messiah. We hear Republicans call him the most liberal senator-even a socialist with plans to soak the rich and spread the wealth! Don't you wish! Obama has learned to sublimate his progressive instincts and seek moderate consensus. His legislative record shows he will reach across the aisle to seek bipartisan deals. We expect him to operate in a centrist manner similar to that of Bill Clinton and we're sure he'll frustrate us in the process. We don't like that his economic advisers include Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, but his circle also includes progressives such as economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Democratic voters passed over more populist candidates Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards during the primaries. But after eight years of Bush and Cheney messing things up, it is worth the fight to get Obama elected.
Let me first say that I'm not actually one of those Democrats who thinks that third party challenges need to be squashed, or that the people who vote for leftist third party candidates are somehow actually supporting Republicans. My feelings on the matter are as follows:
A vote for a third party candidate is not the same as voting for a Republican. Instead, it is effectively the same as not voting at all. While no analogy is perfect (the truth is that voting for a third party candidate is the same as voting for a third party candidate), this one holds up much better to logical scrutiny. Other than the extremely rare situations where third-party candidates have a shot at winning, voting for a third party candidate ultimately impacts the outcome of the election in the same manner as not voting at all.
No one is entitled to votes. If progressives or Independents or whoever end up voting for third-party candidates, then the Democratic nominee just didn't do a good enough job winning those votes. Period. It isn't the fault of the voters--it is the fault of the candidate.
We shouldn't expect, or even desire, consensus. We would indeed live in a disturbing version of a republic if no one voted for third parties, if everyone voted, and if everyone was enthusiastic about one of the two major party nominees. Dissent via third parties, via not voting, and via "holding one's nose" is healthy for any republic. While third parties and not voting tend to be just about the least effective forms of dissent available, it would still be a shame if the 1-3% of the country that voted third party every two years went away.
Now, with all of that said, as I explain in the extended entry, I still don't want anything to do with third-parties. While they should not be existentially scorned, for anyone who actually wants to change the American political system, the ineptitude of third-parties is indeed worthy of scorn.
Cross posted on from DailyKos with a different poll
Rasmussen recently published results of their first (as far as I know) poll involving more than the two major party candidates. While I am glad to see some reality based polling going on (there will be 5 or 6 candidates on most of the ballot for Pres in most states in November), Rasmussen has some pretty serious flaws in methodology (shocking, I know).
Obama earns 42% of the vote, McCain 38%, Bob Barr 6% and Ralph Nader 4%. Given those options, 11% were undecided.Barr and Nader were mentioned as candidates of the Libertarian Party and the Green Party respectively.
By comparison, Sunday's 2-way numbers were Obama 45 McCain 44 - clearly this is good news for Obama, even if the real pull the lever November support of these two candidates is only half what is shown here. Details on the poll numbers, as well as analysis of both the results and Rasmussen's flawed methodology after the jump.
As the Obama-Clinton battle winds down and Obama's magic number gets lower, some national polls are out there for the general election that are actually polling some of the other names on the ballot, or at least 'other' as an option.
While the Libertarian and Green Party nominations are not wrapped up yet either (Cynthia McKinney will almost certainly be the Green candidate, the 17 candidate battle royale in the Libertarian Party continues), the Constitution Party has nominated unknown Chuck Baldwin over better known but equally irrelevant Alan Keyes.
Of course, the three major party candidates get all the press attention, but it is interesting to take a look at possible 3rd party impact on the GE. Poll numbers after the jump:
STATE BLOGS
