[Bartholomew Roberts]

This is from memory from the Dallas Morning News article I just read. I'll list the top LP states and their numbers:

1) Texas - 33k votes
2) Illinois - 28k votes
3) Indiana - 18k votes
4) Georgia - 16k votes
5) ??????? - 12k votes (forgot already)
6) California - 11k votes

Badarnik got less than 1% of the vote nationwide based on the state-by-state breakdown. Everywhere Nader was on the ballot, Badarnik got hammered with Nader leading him by margins of 3-1 or greater in many places. In no state did Badarnik exceed 1% of the vote.

[Byron Quick]

Nationwide, Nader got 0.4% of the vote and Badnarik got 0.3%. Given the name recognition and press that Nader had even before he started his repetitive campaigns...that's really a hammering:rolleyes:

[tyme]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the poor showing by all third parties was due to Nader's sabotage of Gore in 2000. Nobody on either side wanted to see that happen again.

What upsets me is that more people in strongly liberal or republican states didn't vote their conscience. Or maybe they did... in which case God help this country, because the people won't.

[CZ52GUY]

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

I think once 2004 results become final, it will be interesting to observe the trends.

In 2000, fringe party candidates scored up to 10% of the vote (Nader in Alaska) and had a relevant influence on outcomes in multiple states (e.g. Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Mexico).

Nader's candidacy was correctly identified as a risk by the Democrat ticket and legal challenges in multiple states (especially focusing on critical swing states) limited the Nader effect.

I'm not aware of equivalent efforts to legally constrain Badnarik because the Republican ticket did not see the Libertarian candidacy as a significant threat.

While passionate advocates for the fringe parties may represent a disproportionate vocal minority on this board and others like it, I suspect the hard numbers will find that a polarized nation will make "protest votes" or "votes of conscience" less practical in coming elections. While the two major parties provide some readily apparent similarities, approximately 114m voters (representing roughly 99% of the voting population) were able to identify tangible differences worth pulling the lever for one, or against the other as the case may be.

Bottom line, we live in a country where you have to choose sides, or make a de facto choice by failing to engage in the battle that has been joined. These things tend to go in cycles, and another cycle of voter disenchantment with the Jackass and/or Elephant is certainly possible, but the odds are stacked against it for the next several years.

Safe shooting (and voting),

CZ52'

[R.H. Lee]

When I read the thread title, I thought 'nervous breakdown'. What's he gonna do now? Go back to work at Diablo Canyon nuc-u-lar power plant?

[Byron Quick]

Allen Buckley in the race for the Georgia US senate seat received 65,963 votes or 2%.

The Libertarian Party in this presidential election got more votes than all other third parties combined. Nader isn't running as a party candidate, even the Greens didn't want him back.

The LP also has more elected officials nationwide at the county and city level than all other third parties combined.

Here in Georgia, we've kept at least one liberal US Senator from being re-elected.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot to mention this but the leaders of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are cowards.

Prior to 1988, presidential debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Then the League decided that the LP had done well enough in the past for its candidate to be included in the presidential debates. The Democrats and Republicans ran and hid. They pulled out and formed their own debate commission. Wimps.

[duck hunt]

I misread it as "Badnarik Beatdown,' which is how I felt upon seeing the results this morning.:(

[No4Mk1]

It is interesting to note that Nevada has a "None of These Candidates" option on its ballot, or the notorious "None of The Above"....

I find it interesting at two levels.

First, I get tired of hearing the old blowhard line "If they had a None of the Above option, that would win every time!!!"

Results in Nevada would indicate otherwise with the NOTC getting less than one half of one percent of the vote....

Second, "None of These" beat Badarnik..... In other words, not only are the people (at least in Nevada) completely disinterested in the Libertarians, the also would rather have NOBODY than Badarnik.

[CZ52GUY]

Allen Buckley in the race for the Georgia US senate seat received 65,963 votes or 2%.

2% of the vote as a claim of success?

The Libertarian Party in this presidential election got more votes than all other third parties combined. Nader isn't running as a party candidate, even the Greens didn't want him back.

I'm assuming your aggregating all candidates for all offices? How many did they win proportionately vs. the two major parties?

The LP also has more elected officials nationwide at the county and city level than all other third parties combined.

How many? Trending upward or downward from '02, '00, etc.

Here in Georgia, we've kept at least one liberal US Senator from being re-elected.


x- Johnny Isakson Rep 1,753,016 - 58 percent
Denise Majette Dem 1,187,802 - 40 percent
Allen Buckley Lib 65,963 - 2 percent

The above info' from Yahoo election results.

How does 2% within a 18 point margin represent relevant impact? There was no re-election of an incumbent "liberal" US Senator possible. This race was to fill the seat of retiring Senator Zell Miller. Passionate advocacy of one's point of view is one thing...failing to come to grips with the reality of circumstances is quite another.

Additionally, if Buckley pulls votes away from a "liberal" Democrat...than would the Libertarian have made a preferable alternative to the left-wing Jackass anyway?

Oh, yeah, almost forgot to mention this but the leaders of both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are cowards.

So...if only Badnarik could have debated Kerry and Bush (and I'm sure you would have been fair enough to invite Nader, and the dozen or so other fringies) you honestly believe that would have had a real impact that would have changed the outcome? Bush and Kerry shaking in their boots because they might have to debate Badnarik? I have my doubts.

Prior to 1988, presidential debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters. Then the League decided that the LP had done well enough in the past for its candidate to be included in the presidential debates. The Democrats and Republicans ran and hid. They pulled out and formed their own debate commission. Wimps.

I think it would be useful to review the results of '04 vs. '00 and see if there is any "there, there" with the claims presented.

You have every right to your world view, but the facts do not bear out your assertions.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[MatthewVanitas]

WA Governor Race

(R) Rossi 917,207
(D) Gregoire 916,143
(L) Bennet 38,957

[CZ52GUY]

This is a good example:

2% Libertarian vote in a tight election for the Governor's office in Washington.

According to NRAPVF, Rossi was graded A, insufficient data was available on the Democrat challenger.

If the Libertarian candidate pulled votes away from the Democrat, that could certainly be a boon to 2nd Amendment supporters in Washington State. However, if a Libertarian is considered a preferable alternative to the disenchanted Democrat than the ultimate office holder (should this result bear out), does the Libertarian truly offer a viable alternative beyond the 2nd Amendment issue? In other words, if the Libertarian is attractive to Dem's...then what's the difference? Why would "voters of conscience" move away from a solid 2nd Amendment Republican? Make a case...your selling product here...you have an audience of potential consumers.

If on the other hand, the Libertarian is more likely to appeal to disenchanted Republicans, with the realities of our two party system...would not a vote for the Libertarian candidate be equivalent to providing aid and comfort to the Democrat adversary?

One reason the Libertarian party struggles (there are many) but the biggest reason I submit is that they cannot provide a compelling case to support their candidates given the political realities we find ourselves in.

If being a spoiler or an unintended ally to the Dem's is the best pitch you got...I aint buyin'...

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[Byron Quick]

How does 2% within a 18 point margin represent relevant impact?

It keeps the Libertarian Party on the ballot for four more years, that's what.

CZ, some of your assertions have no relationship with what I wrote. Sorry, if I was unclear.

The liberal US Senator we helped defeat was Wyche Fowler in 1992. For some reason, you assumed I meant this election. I would vote for Majette over Fowler.

In Georgia, you have to get a majority of the votes. If you only have a plurality then there is a runoff.

These were the results:

Wyche Fowler Paul Coverdell Jim Hudson
(D) (R) (Lib)
1,108,416 1,073,282 69,878
49.23% 47.67% 3.10%

As you can see, Paul Coverdell was behind the very liberal incumbent. Also, as you can see, the percentage obtained by the LP candidate is greater than the difference. Jim Hudson endorsed Paul Coverdell for the runoff.


The resullts of the runoff were:
Wyche Fowler Paul Coverdell
618,877 635,114
(D) (R)


Did the LP make a difference? Paul Coverdell thought so. So did Wyche Fowler, who hates us.

[Byron Quick]

Examine the LP vote total in Georgia between the presidential election and the US Senate election. Plenty of libertarians vote Republican when it comes down to the crunch and a liberal needs to be blocked. We hold our noses but we do it.




17,000+ for the LP presidential candidate.
65,000+ for the LP senate candidate.

The majority of us are realists. We dislike the Republicans and the Democrats.
But we dislike the Democrats more.

Oh, and the nationwide trend of LP officeholders is up. We have permanent
ballot access in 48 states now. The petition process that Nader had to go through to get on the ballot...we only have to do that in two states now.

[Standing Wolf]

Badnarik earned—and got—my vote.

[CZ52GUY]

Thanks for clarifying your comments.

I wasn't thinking about the '92 election for this thread which I understood to focus on the Badnarik candidacy in '04...and evolved to Libertarian impact in '04 (with trending information being a useful tangent).

Bottom line, regardless of party, I am put off by those who aren't intellectually honest with me...like the salesmen that says "sure, that roadster will take a car seat" ("hyperbolic" example).

Those within the Libertarian party that try to make the case that "Jackass = Elephant" will turn me off because I know it isn't true. Now RINO = Jackass, that's a different story...bottom line, I'm standing up for me and mine the best way I know how...it involves a lot of nose-holding these days, and I suspect when I drill into the returns in my state, I may have a Jackass in the Governor's chair thanks in part to the fringie's...doesn't make for a good selling point...

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[Daniel T]

You're assuming that the "fringie's" would otherwise have voted for your candidate, which is not a smart thing to assume.

[CZ52GUY]

You're assuming that the "fringie's" would otherwise have voted for your candidate, which is not a smart thing to assume.

Then he who is the ally of my enemy (whether intentional or collateral)...is my enemy...which is something the "fringies" can safely assume...which again, is not a way to recruit nose-holders who might otherwise be inclined to at least listen to your message.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[Gordon Fink]

“The pro-freedom candidate will never win, so I won’t vote for him.”

~G. Fink :rolleyes:

[CZ52GUY]

“The pro-freedom candidate will never win, so I won’t vote for him.”

The "self-described pro-freedom candidate" tends to provide material assistance to the "pro-tyranny" candidate, so no, I won't provide tangible assistance to the "pro-tyranny" candidate until Mr./Ms. "pro-freedom candidate" can persuade me they are a viable alternative.

Face it, you're selling a product...you need to give nose-holders a compelling reason to buy. Provide some objective evidence that I am not providing aid and comfort to my enemy the tyrant, and I'll be all ears. The #'s do not bear out your message. You have an idealistic dream and are entitled to it, but for the majority of Americans...your message results in a call to abandon the fight for freedom, not join it.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[Daniel T]

Face it, you're selling a product...you need to give nose-holders a compelling reason to buy.

So, apparently, a "compelling reason" for you "to buy" is to have no "fringie's" run for anything and to have no one vote for them?

Huh.

[Rebar]

MA:

x- John F. Kerry Dem 1,793,916 - 62 percent
George W. Bush (i) Rep 1,067,163 - 37 percent
Michael Badnarik Lib 15,712 - 1 percent
David Cobb Grn 11,277 - 0 percent

Nader didn't make it on the ballot.

The libertarians need credibility. Running a doomed Presidential candidate every four years is not the way. They need to get someone into a House seat. There has to be a vulnerable House seat where a strong Libertarian candidate can win somewhere. That should be the priority, not this tilting at windmills every four years, it's a waste of resources and time.

[CZ52GUY]

My message to the "fringies" is that your window of opportunity may have come and gone for the current cycle.

55m voters turned out for JF-Kerry...this man had to be stopped. Fortunately, ~58.5m voters turned out to stop him.

What road map can you offer that would provide a compelling reason not to vote to stop the '08 version that no doubt will be trotted out in front of us?

My guess is that you will have limited success eating into the 55m "tyrant-abetters". Your best chance to recruit members to your cause will be within the 58.5m "tyrant-fighters".

So yes, the fringies net effect is to provide material assistance to the tyrants and those who carry on this idealistic dream need to understand the risks associated with it.

If your intent is to be strong advocates for freedom but the net results of your actions is to advance tyranny...you might consider a different approach to the message you put forward to THR members.

Put simply, your dog don't hunt...

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[MountainPeak]

First of all, vote whatever party you want to, but you Libertarians need to get off your "we are the only principled" 2nd Amendment supporters high horse. My state(NM) is still up in the air this year. In 2000 it went to the anti-gun Gore by 336 votes. The Libertarians drew 2080. If your protest vote is that important to you, fine. I happen to think it is foolish, and self defeating. The only point you made in 2000 was that you know how to throw electoral votes to an anti-2nd Amendment politician.

[CZ52GUY]

The libertarians need credibility. Running a doomed Presidential candidate every four years is not the way. They need to get someone into a House seat. There has to be a vulnerable House seat where a strong Libertarian candidate can win somewhere. That should be the priority, not this tilting at windmills every four years, it's a waste of resources and time.

I actually think that the Libertarian view may better express itself in local elections where concentrated focus could yield tangible results without collateral benefit to the tyrants.

We can't with our rhetoric espouse freedom and concurrently take actions that benefit our adversaries. Byron described a principled view of fighting the opponents of freedom when push comes to shove. Others in the Libertarian movement take more of a "fundamentalist" view expecting us to take it on the chin for several years for the "sake of the cause". We live in times where we can't afford that investment and can't take that risk. Tyranny needs to be stopped in its tracks, period. Any view that says I win later by losing now fails to acknowledge that current losses absorbed may not be recoverable later (ask our friends in England, Australia, etc.).

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

In 2000 it went to the anti-gun Gore by 336 votes. The Libertarians drew 2080. If your protest vote is that important to you, fine. I happen to think it is foolish, and self defeating. The only point you made in 2000 was that you know how to throw electoral votes to an anti-2nd Amendment politician.

...and I don't see how that advanced freedom or could be considered the principled vote under the circumstances known at the time.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

At this time, I do not find results that support my previous contention that "fringies" may have abetted a tyrant in my state's Governor's chair. I must retract the accusation, it is not currenlty supported by objective evidence.

Stay safe (and intellectually honest ;)).

CZ52'

[BigG]

2% of the vote as a claim of success?

A drowning man will grasp at any straw. :uhoh: No offense, Byron, but anybody who draws votes from the dems is no candidate I will support. I have no ideals that could be shared with a democrat. Sorry! :(

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Nationwide, Nader got 0.4% of the vote and Badnarik got 0.3%. Given the name recognition and press that Nader had even before he started his repetitive campaigns...that's really a hammering

It is a hammering Byron. Badarnik was on the ballot in all 50 states (or near it). Nader was on the ballot in only a few states and yet still managed to get more of the popular vote.

The DMN article I was reading didn't have it broken down by nationwide results, just state results, so I didn't have nationwide numbers. I just skimmed the results of each state and the first thing that stood out was that Nader beat Badarnik every time and often by large numbers.

However, I think you make a good point about what press and name recognition can do. I think now is a good time for the LP to ask what it can do to try and get on that gravy train with a press-friendly spokesman. Given the media-bias I saw last night, you would think getting the press to promote a vote-draining third-party alternative to the Republican party would be easy enough. Surely that hook can be used to get more coverage?

[Byron Quick]

CZ,

You're forgetting (or don't know) two things. One is the LP motto: The party of principle. The media hook would be unprincipled. Therefore out of bounds for a Libertarian. Two: If it is a given that a Republican or a Democrat will win and it's very close...two thirds of libertarian voters will cross party lines and vote for the Republican unless he's trying to come off as the reincarnation of Genghis Khan. Examine the Georgia Presidential and Senate figures again. Four times as many people voted for the LP Senate candidate as voted for the LP Presidential candidate. Why? Because they viewed the race as damn close and would rather have the devil you know than a Democrat;)

You seem to be a fairly fervent Republican. Tell me something. The Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate. They have the Presidency. And yet the only good thing we've seen out of them is allowing the AWB to sunset. And all they had to do was nothing for that to happen.

What's it going to take for the Republican House and Senate to repeal some of those liberal gun control laws? What's it going to take for them to rein in the ATF? The 1986 machine gun "ban" that was signed into law by a Republican President was written by a doofus. It doesn't say to do what he meant to do. However, the ATF, by agency fiat, has chosen to follow his meaning instead of the letter of the law. When can we expect President Bush to issue an Executive Order telling ATF to cut the BS? When can we expect President Bush to issue an Executive Order cancelling his Dad's Executive Order on the importation of various 'assault weapons'?

It seems that what it's going to take for them to do any of the foregoing is the surgical implantation of moral courage.

Ball's in your court. Enlighten me on what the Republican Party is going to do for Second Amendment Rights except brag about keeping us from losing anymore ground.

I want to hear someone talk about regaining lost ground.

[CZ52GUY]

Hey Byron,

The hook was Mr. Robert's idea...I won't take credit.

I contrast your pragmatic approach with others who claim Libertarian affiliation. Way too many have tried to convince the THR faithful of essential equivalency this Presidential season...something that doesn't fly with me.

I am actually a fervant anti-tyranny voter. The RINO charge in NYC frankly disgusted me. When the most compelling speaker at the RNC was a retiring Democrat...it's a sure sign that party has problems. However, when contrasted with the DNC event in Boston (largely attended by DU types), the choice was difficult but clear. This was an election where holding my nose would be a requirement.

The proactive goals you describe would be most welcome. Let's hope that principled 2nd Amendment elected officials like Larry Craig can prevail (his party affiliation being secondary to his dedicated stand to 2nd Amendment stance) give me some hope. I don't post here to try to convert Libertarians to the "Republican path of enlightment". Make no mistake, 2004 will go down as a difficult year for these United States. What I do suggest is that those who support the fringe parties without regard to the tangible consequences (who do not take the pragmatic principled stance you take)...do 2nd Amendment advocates like those represented in the THR membership no favors. In fact, as described above in the 2000 election, they caused harm...which could have been irreversable.

Contrast the Elephant term '00-04 with the Jack-Ass one from '92-94 and it's plain to see that while not ideal, the Elephants have served us better than the Jack-Asses did. Probably more accurately stated, they did far less harm.

I therefore question your premise that the burden of proof in the value proposition of considering the Libertarian vote is on those who do not buy into the value proposition of tossing away a vote that could very well return us to the early 90's.

The landscape has improved over the past several years. CCW states continue to come on line. The AWB died. It took steadfastness to resist those intent on taking away our rights (e.g. the 4 tyrants of the apocolypse - Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein).

Shooting sports is the fastest growing sport in the United States, exceeding all others.

Do you honestly believe that a Gore White House and a sustained majority in the US Senate would have resulted in the same circumstances in November of 2004?

You strike me as a cerebral sort...please don't try to project on me "true believer" attributes regarding the Elephant...I know it's limitations...I also know the Jack-Ass is a poisonous serpent in disguise which needs to be resisted...I think you do too.

Your serve ;).

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[Poodleshooter]

What upsets me is that more people in strongly liberal or republican states didn't vote their conscience. or maybe they did... in which case God help this country, because the people won't.
I actually think that the highlighted is the case. Left or right, I think that most people want to control others in some manner. They believe that some actions which don't harm others form a slippery slope that MUST lead to harm,and they take action upon that premise.. A Libertarian vote is essentially a vote for pure liberty with no security. I don't think many people buy that message.
Badnarik had a good bit of press in our area. I heard him on radio ads quite a bit (no TV). What I didn't see was yard signs from his supporters in anywhere near the numbers that I saw Kerry and Bush signs. That was true all over my region (Central VA). There just aren't that many libertarians. Still, while more of a Constitution Party/Republican guy myself, I'd like to see the LP keep trying as I certainly wouldn't mind a libertarian government over our current socialist/entitlement heading.

[Byron Quick]

"pure liberty with no security" I'll go with that statement. I don't believe the military can protect any better than the police can. At the best, they will avenge me. That's why I'm armed 24/7. Because protecting me is basically beyond their capabilities. Deterrence? Yes. Avengement? Yes. Prevention? Not always.

CZ. Sounds like we basically agree. I voted for Bush in 2000 because he wasn't Al Gore. What we got was basically what I expected. I voted for Bush in 2004 because he wasn't John Kerry. I held my nose when I did so.


I'd really damn cheer if the Republican Party stood up and displayed some testicles about the Second Amendment. Hell,I'd be proselytising in the streets.

[Byron Quick]

Left or right, I think that most people want to control others in some manner.

You're probably right in that statement. But for anyone who believes that; I've got some good advice for them: Make sure to control me through your government agents for attempting to control me personally would be hazardous to your health. You can think of if as equivalent to a surgeon general's warning.

Heck, I want government to control people. People who murder, rape, rob, cheat in their business dealing or commit other crimes which directly harm other folks, go for it. Believe me. criminals wouldn't like my system even though our prison population would probably be about a tenth what it is today...most of the surplus would be dead

It's when you start trying to control my bedroom habits or lack of them or what I do when I'm not at work, that I get my butt on my shoulders.

Infringe my rights to control terrorists? To hell with that...kill the terrorists. Kill anyone who has given them aid and comfort. Hell, kill anyone who knew they were terrorists and gave them a sandwich.

[CZ52GUY]

CZ. Sounds like we basically agree.

Yup.

I wish for the same rights reclaimations you described. I wish for a RINO purge and an influx of pro-2nd candidates within the ranks of the Elephants.

What was clear to me when I went into the voting both was that Kerry intended to unleash the ATF, would have restored the "right of the national guard to disarm the citizenry" view at DOJ (only by the benevolence of John F. Kerry would we be "allowed" to keep our private weapons...and certainly not the mind-altering "killing machines" labeled as AW's), would have aggressively attacked gun rights while strait faced declaring his steadfast support for the right of the elite and the enlightened sportsmen to hunt fowl, and would appoint the most ardent opponents of the 2nd to the Federal bench.

'04 was a no-brainer given the alternatives...it wasn't terribly pleasant...or satisfying...but absolutely necessary.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

[CZ52GUY]

Left or right, I think that most people want to control others in some manner.

What I want most of all is to be left alone to live in piece with my little one and my bride...and...to be completely candid.........................to shoot the IDPA Classifier with a Master score :D.

Seriously, I agree that way too many seek to impose their world view on others. What I respect most is intellectual honesty and candor in my dealings with others...and I try to do the same. A lot can be said for the Golden Rule...and I'm talking about the 2000 year old version, not the "one who has the Gold rules" version.

In the end, we have to be honest about the consequences of the decisions we make including the likely outcome of those decisions. That's why I take many Libertarians to task...not because they don't have a right to their position, but because when I engage them in debate, they fail to acknowledge the consequences of their position, their actions, and the consequences to me if I were to adopt their world view and approach.

I can respect someone who passionately advocates their beliefs...just don't try to convince me it isn't raining when I'm getting wet...I ain't buyin' it.

It's been fun...I enjoyed it Byron...THR is the one place I know where vigorous debate like this can happen without degrading into a pure flame fest.

I'm outta' here for the night.

Stay safe,

CZ52'