Fo Shizzle Wrote:GGniner Wrote:[quote=Ninerfan1]
It doesn't matter who he picks. He's facing a 40 state defeat in November unless Obama makes a huge misstep.
Quote: a significant 3rd party run by bob barr could cause it to happen though.
Any LP member that would vote for Bob Barr has NO principles and should just join the Rep. party. Bob Barr is trying to Republicanize the LP and if they allow it...I will be through with them...I support Dr. Mary Ruwart, author of the great book "healing our world" for the nod of the LP.
I've probably voted Libertarian more than you have, and I'm not that troubled by Barr. He's as close to being a main-line Libertarian as the right wing will tell you that McCain is to being a main-line republican. And closer than Obama's centrist speeches are to Obama's left of left voting record.
I really think it would be pretty cool for enough people to vote Libertarian to impact the results of the election. That's how third party views have historically gained significance in our "first past the post" electoral system. Nobody pays them any attention until they actually afffect the outcome of an election. But once they actually do affect the outcome of an election, they have been known to grow.
Sometimes they don't. I hoped Perot's movement would gain some legs, but it never had much of a grass roots organization in place and was too dependent on the personality at the top. Libertarians are (more or less, as much as true Libertarians can be) organized in most states, and could capitalize on a strong showing.
Heretofore, Libertarians have gotten their 1% or 2% of the vote and been disregarded. What if the Libertarians nominate Barr and he gets 10% and that is enough to actually affect the outcome in a couple of states? What if Barr actually carries a state (not THAT outrageous, suppose he got Mike Gravel as a running mate, in a state with as much of an individualist outlook as Alaska, and with Gravel's base there, it could be doable)? What if things then break so that the other 49 states split 268-267 in electoral votes, so that little bitty Alaska holds the key to victory? Would Barr negotiate to give Alaska's votes to put somebody over the top? That's actually the outcome I hope for this year. Very unlikely, but we're all hoping for some outcome, and that's the one I'm hoping for. Anything that tweaks the two branches of the demopublican party is a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.
So is it worth selling out on principle to get enough votes to make a splash? Happens in politics every day. If selling out to Barr is the price of gaining relevance, that's a trade that this Libertarian makes every day.
I'm not sure how happy I'd be to see Barr actually WIN the election. But at this point, I don't think that's a problem.
I'm also not certain that Barr hurts McCain as much as some believe. His website indicates polling data that show him pulling 6% right now with no publicity, including 7% with republicans, 5% with democrats, and 5% with independents. If whatever appeal he has remains that balanced, I don't see how he could cause McCain to lose a state where he has a 10% (or even 5%) margin otherwise. And he'd have to lose a bunch of those states to take a 40-state beating. I believe there are a lot of people who are so disillusioned with Bush that they're not going to vote for any republican, and unable to bring themselves to vote for anyone as far left as Obama (or Hillary), to whom Barr will have significant appeal. Those people won't be votes taken away from McCain.