Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Election Spoiler May Turn Out to Be a Libertarian
New York Sun ^ | October 5, 2004 | Josh Gerstain

Posted on 10/07/2004 5:27:21 AM PDT by Commie Basher

Just as in 2000, a third-party candidate could tip the balance in this year's presidential contest. This time, however, the spoiler may not be Ralph Nader, but a man whose name most voters have never heard.

The presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, Michael Badnarik, is on the ballot in 48 states. Mr. Nader, by contrast, is certain to be on the ballot in only 35 states, though he may pick up a few more by Election Day.

Democratic activists, many still fuming over Mr. Nader's perceived role in Vice President Gore's loss to President Bush four years ago, have brought court challenges to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot in places across the country.

By contrast, Republicans have said and done little about Mr. Badnarik, a 50-year-old computer programmer from Texas. Yet political strategists say he and the little-known Libertarians could affect the outcome in several battleground states crucial to Mr. Bush's re-election.

"The Libertarians are drawing somewhere between 1% and 3% - not big numbers, but in these very close races like the presidential contest, they could well be the margin of difference," a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, Lawrence Jacobs, said. "They pose a genuine threat to be the kingmaker in several swing states."

Most national polls don't ask about Mr. Badnarik, but some state surveys do. Polls done by Rasmussen Reports for Mr. Badnarik's campaign showed him with 5% of the vote in New Mexico in August and with 3% support in Nevada last month.

Newspaper polls haven't shown him doing quite as well. They often peg his support at roughly 1%, but even that number could prove decisive. In 2000, Mr. Gore carried New Mexico by 366 votes, or 0.06%.

Mr. Jacobs, who has studied third-party campaigns, said Mr. Bush's policies appear to have driven some conservative Republicans into the Libertarian camp.

"They see the president as a federalizer. You've got the debt. You've got 'No Child Left Behind.' You've got the new Medicare entitlement. You've got the Patriot Act. And you've got the war," the professor said. "It's a very different approach to government than a small government Barry Goldwater."

Mr. Jacobs said he conducted a survey in June and July in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa to examine support for third-party candidates. It showed that the vast majority of Badnarik voters described themselves as either Republicans or independents.

Mr. Jacobs also said that Libertarian candidates in 2002 appeared to have tipped statewide races against the Republicans in Oregon and South Dakota.

The danger for the GOP, the professor said, is especially great this year in states where Mr. Nader is not on the ballot.

"It creates a drain on Republican voters that the Democrats aren't experiencing," Mr. Jacobs said.

The Bush-Cheney campaign did not respond to a call seeking comment for this story.

The communications director for the Badnarik campaign, Stephen Gordon, said he believes his candidate is drawing votes from both Mr. Bush and the Democratic nominee, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mr. Badnarik has run a modest number of television ads in Nevada and in New Mexico. Mr. Gordon said the antiwar ads appear to resonate with some voters, while the message about government overspending hits home with others.

"They negate each other if we run them in the same area," Mr. Gordon said. "We may pick up 10 Bush supporters and lose 10 Kerry supporters.

"In a younger community, a college town, they are a lot more likely to be concerned about the war," he continued. "In an older, established, suburban community, they're not as interested in that."

This year, none of the third-party candidates has come even close to the threshold of 15% that the self-styled Commission on Presidential Debates has set for inclusion in the presidential and vice-presidential debates. While Mr. Nader has done little but gripe about the snub this year, the Libertarians have gone to court.

Last Friday, the Arizona Libertarian Party filed suit against Arizona State University, which is the host of the final Bush-Kerry debate, scheduled for October 13. The group is arguing that the school's sponsorship of the debate amounts to an illegal use of state resources to advance the two major political parties.

The university has replied that the costs of the event are being borne by private donors.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released last night showed Mr. Bush maintaining a small lead nationally following last week's debate. Mr. Bush had support in the poll from 51% of those deemed likely to vote, while Mr. Kerry had 46% and Mr. Nader had 1%.

A CBS News/New York Times poll, which was also released yesterday, had Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry tied at 47%, while Mr. Nader had 1%.

In those surveys, voters were not asked about Mr. Badnarik or other presidential candidates. That irks the Badnarik campaign. "Nader was included even though in a lot of key states he's not even on the ballot," Mr. Gordon said.

Mr. Badnarik will be on the ballot in New York, although the Libertarian Party does not have a regular line on the ballot. A spokesman for the state elections board, Lee Daghlian, said Badnarik supporters delivered more than 15,000 valid voter signatures by an Aug. 17 deadline to place their man's name on the ballot.

A professor of political science at SUNY Cortland, Robert Spitzer, said third parties have made a difference in a number of statewide races in New York, but usually by giving their ballot line to a major-party candidate.

"There's certainly been cases in recent years where third parties in New York have had a pretty big effect on outcome," Mr. Spitzer said. He pointed to the 1994 gubernatorial contest, in which Governor Pataki won with votes from the Conservative and Tax Cut Now ballot lines.

Mr. Spitzer said he sees the earnest, small-government message of the Libertarians as limiting their appeal.

"They're hampered by their consistency," Mr. Spitzer said. "It's a point of view that most Americans simply don't agree with. Even conservative Republicans that want to constrain the modern welfare state are not running to do away with it."

Other observers say, however, that the Libertarians have new energy this year.

"So many people who lean Libertarian have been arguing for years that the only effective thing to do is to work in the Republican Party," the editor of Ballot Access News, Richard Winger, said. "All those people ... have been rebuffed by what Bush does in terms of deficit spending and starting the war."

Mr. Winger said the anti-war message has been adding momentum to Mr. Badnarik's campaign. "He's certainly more opposed to U.S. involvement in Iraq than Kerry," Mr. Winger said.

Several campaign strategists said the Libertarians seem to win more support in certain states in the Southwest and Midwest. They appear to do less well in urban centers.

"There is more of this natural 'Keep government off our backs' mentality out West," a New Mexico-based political analyst, Joseph Monahan, said.

Mr. Badnarik was nominated by the Libertarian Party in May at its convention in Atlanta. In 2000 and 2002,he ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the House of Representatives. He is a technology specialist, who has worked at nuclear power plants and on the once-secret Stealth bomber program.

While predicting a relatively strong showing for Mr. Badnarik, Mr. Jacobs, the professor at the University of Minnesota, cautioned that some voters ultimately shy away at the last minute from third-party candidates. "No question about it," he said. "You get kind of cold feet going to the ballot box."

When The New York Sun conducted an unscientific survey of anti-war protesters during a major demonstration in the city in August, most participants said they planned to vote for Mr. Kerry. Several, however, spontaneously stated their support for Mr. Badnarik. They also complained that the survey mentioned only Mr. Bush, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Nader.

Mr. Badnarik has also made a concerted appeal for the votes of Muslims and of other Arab-Americans. Last week he attended the national convention of the American Muslim Alliance in Orlando. Mr. Badnarik accepted an award from the group and endorsed its complaints about government-backed discrimination against those of the Islamic faith.

"Muslims have borne the brunt of draconian government actions since 9/11," Mr. Badnarik told the group, according to a release from his campaign. "A plurality of American Muslims supported George Bush in 2000. Now they're looking outside the major-party club for candidates who support their rights."


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: badnarik; libertarianparty; libertarians; muslim; nader
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
The same old tired and misinformed refrain. All Libertarians are dopers.

Every libertarian I know is a respectable non-drug user who's just trying to scale back local government and taxes.

41 posted on 10/07/2004 7:24:27 AM PDT by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

It's saying none-of-the-above. A perfectly understandable position.


42 posted on 10/07/2004 7:26:14 AM PDT by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher

There are more Democrats than Republicans who will vote for Badnarik. Funny that the liberal press chooses to give him some free publicity about now, though.


43 posted on 10/07/2004 7:52:18 AM PDT by valkyrieanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs

Republicans have abandoned their fight for smaller government nad most freepers responded with a wimper (if that).


44 posted on 10/07/2004 7:56:24 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
This is from the Libeltarian site.

Dopers unite

America Can Handle Legal Drugs
Today's illegal drugs were legal before 1914. Cocaine was even found in the original Coca-Cola recipe. Americans had few problems with cocaine, opium, heroin or marijuana. Drugs were inexpensive; crime was low. Most users handled their drug of choice and lived normal, productive lives. Addicts out of control were a tiny minority.

The first laws prohibiting drugs were racist in origin -- to prevent Chinese laborers from using opium and to prevent blacks and Hispanics from using cocaine and marijuana. That was unjust and unfair, just as it is unjust and unfair to make criminals of peaceful drug users today.

Some Americans will always use alcohol, tobacco, marijuana or other drugs. Most are not addicts, they are social drinkers or occasional users. Legal drugs would be inexpensive, so even addicts could support their habits with honest work, rather than by crime. Organized crime would be deprived of its profits. The police could return to protecting us from real criminals; and there would be room enough in existing prisons for them.
45 posted on 10/07/2004 8:16:39 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Rather calls Saddam "Mister President" and calls President Bush "bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher

What a cheap attempt at making the LP look like anyone even knows the name of their candidate.


46 posted on 10/07/2004 8:18:16 AM PDT by Preachin' (Kerry/Rather 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim

47 posted on 10/07/2004 8:18:45 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: verity
"They see the president as a federalizer. You've got the debt. You've got 'No Child Left Behind.' You've got the new Medicare entitlement. You've got the Patriot Act. And you've got the war," the professor said. "It's a very different approach to government than a small government Barry Goldwater."

He forgot to mention McCain-Feingold (signed by Bush)

48 posted on 10/07/2004 8:19:44 AM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs

From the Libeltarian site.

CRIMINAL INVADERS unite.

The benefits of open immigration
BY MICHAEL TANNER
America has always been a nation of immigrants. Thomas Jefferson emphasized this basic part of the American heritage, taking note of "the natural right which all men have of relinquishing the country in which birth or other accident may have thrown them, and seeking subsistence and happiness wheresoever they may be able, and hope to find them."

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.

A policy of open immigration will advance the economic well-being of all Americans. All major recent studies of immigrants indicate that they have a high labor force participation, are entrepreneurial, and tend to have specialized skills that allow them to enter under-served markets. Although it is a common misconception that immigrants "take jobs away from native-born Americans," this does not appear to be true. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Labor reviewed nearly 100 studies on the relationship between immigration and unemployment and concluded that "neither U.S. workers nor most minority workers appear adversely affected by immigration."


49 posted on 10/07/2004 8:20:24 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Rather calls Saddam "Mister President" and calls President Bush "bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Yeah right. I think the LP will do even worse than they did in 2000, when I voted for them.

Is it possible to get less than 00.31%?

50 posted on 10/07/2004 8:24:30 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Kerry and Edwards, AWOL from the Senate for nearly 2 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
It's saying none-of-the-above. A perfectly understandable position.

It's a stupid position. You're choosing an individual to put into a position of authority, not bestowing your virginity-like vote on whatever young suitor is worthy of it.

Better to stay home and at least contribute to the economy.

51 posted on 10/07/2004 9:12:36 AM PDT by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.

Which is something that both John Kerry and George Bush agree is horribly unfair to illegal immigrants. According to them, we need to not only do nothing to secure our borders, but we must also stop our police forces, medical facilities, and schools from doing anything that might upset them.

I was going to vote for Bush anyway, but hot dang that really cements the deal there. Thanks! (/vomit sarcasm alert)

52 posted on 10/07/2004 9:33:36 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: asgardshill
Ridicule, however, is still quite legal.

Yes, it is.  But if the aim is to attract  Libertarian votes to assure Bush wins, then ridicule them cuts off your nose to spite your face.
53 posted on 10/07/2004 2:08:08 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dawn53
Trust me. The Libertarians won't even be a blip this year. I'm a Libertarian, and I'm voting enthusiastically for Bush.

I have never seen a party (Libertarians) so inept at expressing and selling their positions on any issue. That's why they have their national conventions at the breakfast bar at the Red Roof Inn.

No, worry about the real problem, which is Democrat party goon voter fraud, which could be massive. Don't take your eye off the ball, and don't worry about making Liberals angry. They're angry all the time anyway.

I have no desire to make them happy, I have no desire to get along with them; the only desire I have for liberals is to crush them right through the damn concrete on election night.
54 posted on 10/07/2004 2:13:42 PM PDT by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Vlad
I have never seen a party (Libertarians) so inept at expressing and selling their positions on any issue. That's why they have their national conventions at the breakfast bar at the Red Roof Inn.

If Libertarians are so inept, why must you lie about them? We had our national convention at Atlanta's Marquis Marriott hotel, with over 1,000 attending (when you include delegates, their families, and other ticket-buyers).

55 posted on 10/07/2004 4:40:34 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222
Most moral-liberals will be pulling the Democratic lever, but it's good to see these humanist moral-liberal ideologues have alternative Libertarian and Socialist Worker's levers to pull.
56 posted on 10/07/2004 4:50:53 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher
...We had our national convention...with over 1,000 attending..).

Dude, 3,000 were registered, but most were too stoned to make it to the convention floor.

57 posted on 10/07/2004 6:48:04 PM PDT by Drango (NPR-When government funds a "news" outlet that has a bias...it's no longer news...it's propaganda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
But if the aim is to attract Libertarian votes to assure Bush wins, then ridicule them cuts off your nose to spite your face.

The proportion of Libertarian on the Republican nose (yea verily, on the face of the American electorate as a whole) comes out to about enough to fill one zit. I trust I don't need to elaborate.

58 posted on 10/07/2004 7:06:14 PM PDT by asgardshill (Got a lump of coal? Tell Mary Mapes to 'shove it' - in 2 weeks you'll have a diamond.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: asgardshill
I trust I don't need to elaborate.

Remember Florida 2000.  It's a game of zits.
59 posted on 10/07/2004 8:43:09 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson