Posted on 10/29/2004 8:50:48 PM PDT by freedom44
WASHINGTON -- Move over, Ralph Nader: A New York Times analysis says that Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik could be 'critical' to the outcome of the 2004 election, and that the party's 2000 candidate may have cost Bush at least four states.
In the Sunday, October 24 "Political Points" column, New York Times writer John Tierney asserts that in 2000, Bush "could have won Florida easily, and possibly several other states, if the Libertarian candidate, Harry Browne, was not in the race," assuming that Browne's votes would have gone to Bush.
In Florida, Browne earned 16,415 votes, while Bush defeated Al Gore by just 537 votes.
In three states won by Gore -- New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin -- Browne won more votes than the difference separating Bush and Gore, the article notes. In New Mexico, for example, Gore prevailed by 366 votes while Browne earned 2,058, and in Wisconsin, Gore beat Bush by 5,708 votes while Browne garnered 6,640.
With New Mexico, Wisconsin and other battleground states too close to call again in 2004, Libertarian Badnarik has the potential to "Naderize" Bush by attracting conservative votes, according to Tierney and other analysts.
A recent Zogby/Reuters national poll shows Badnarik tied with Nader at 1 percentage point, which is "not much, but possibly critical" to the outcome on Election Day, Tierney says.
Rasmussen polls have put Badnarik as high as 5 percent in New Mexico and 3 percent in Nevada, which Bush won by just 4 percentage points in 2000.
Increasing Badnarik's impact, according to Tierney: "Unlike Mr. Nader, Mr. Badnarik is on the ballot of every battleground state except New Hampshire."
Nader will be absent from the ballot in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oregon, Missouri and other key states, prompting many analysts to predict that Badnarik will have a bigger impact on Bush than Nader will have on Democrat John Kerry.
In an attempt to attract votes from fiscal conservatives, the Libertarian Party has launched an advertising blitz on the conservative Fox News Channel -- a campaign that is "aimed directly at Mr. Bush's Republican base," notes the Times article.
Responds Joseph Seehusen, executive director of the Libertarian Party: "Fiscal conservatives aren't abandoning the Republican Party; the Republican Party has abandoned fiscal conservatives. Bush has fattened up the government far more in percentage terms than Bill Clinton did, and responsible voters don't want to reward that behavior. So they're sending a message by voting Libertarian."
Hank, if you're dead, nothing else matters.
Don't be a fool. Please.
LOL
More like "crazy like a fox". I see no indication that the libertarian party is trying to "destroy" the Republicans, or "replace" them with the Democrats.
Nor do they have to actually tip the scales in an election in order to gain some clout. And they probably are well aware of the fact that it would take almost a miracle (and a *very* special set of "lucky" voting results) for them to actually tip the race this year, or any year.
Instead, they realize that all they have to do is get enough votes to be a *possible* spoiler in this or future elections in order to make the Republicans (*and* the Democrats) nervous enough about whether voters lost to the libertarians might cost them an election at some point. The hope is that this will make either or both major parties shift a bit in their platforms in order to "take back" the votes "lost" to libertarians. In this way the libertarians can influence national policy to lean more towards their desired goals in the long term, without ever having to actually win an election or even necessarily flip one.
By running ads in Republican districts in "undecided" states, for example, they're trying to get the Republicans to realize that drifting away from fiscal responsibility *will* lose them critical votes -- so that the Republicans have a real incentive to pull up the reins on spending.
This is pretty much the same "game" played by third parties of any stripe in this or any two-party nation. The Greens, the Socialist Party, the Libertarians, etc. are not crazy enough to think that they're going to have a chance to *win* this year or any time in the forseeable future, but just being in the race at all can be helpful to their goals, both in the way I describe above, and by giving their philosophies a podium.
Or are we supposed to completely ignore the irresponsibility of the Republicans until the last terrorist is dead and we plant our flag in Mecca? And when will that be? Next election? The one after that?
Don't you see what I'm saying? Your arguments (and the implied threats that lie beneath them) will be trotted out this year, and every two years, as justification for shutting up and voting Republican no matter what they do to us next.
When, exactly, do you plan to start holding them accountable? What commitments have been extracted from George Bush to do anything if reelected? He hasn't bothered to veto even the most ridiculous, egregious Big Government waste for the last 4 years. And how's that promise to eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts coming along, much less elimination of the Depts of Education and Commerce? What leverage will you, me, or anyone have after next Tuesday?
I just want to know when the Republican Party plans to shape up, that's all. We've got a $3 Trillion monster on our backs, thanks to them, and that's as debilitating to our continued survival as a theoretically-free country as a terrorist threat.
That's an interesting analysis, but my point is simply that this particular election, at this particular time in history, is nothing to be playing games with. It's too dangerous.
Very well put.
Libertarian here... voting for President Bush.
Too damn important this time...
Survival is my single-issue. I don't want to die in a biological attack. I don't want to see one more American die at the hands of Osama bin Laden. Though he has done other things I have appreciated, I am voting for President Bush because he will take this on aggressively. I can't put it any more simply, Hank.
It is my sincere opinion that people who vote for the Libertarian candidate in this election are profoundly selfish, and breathtakingly foolish.
If that includes you, that is regretful.
For a "strategerist", you haven't given this statement much thought.
For example, I voted Libertarian for President in 1996 (Dole v Clinton), not because I was "dumb" or need to be "institutionalized", but because a) Dole was so far ahead in Texas that my vote wasn't going to change the outcome one way or the other, so it was a "safe" vote even though the Clinton presidency completely horrified me, and b) Dole was enough of a RINO on many issues that I didn't want to give him my "approval" in the form of another vote in his total. (Although I would have voted for him if there had been any chance at all that it might have actually helped him oust Clinton, of course. And I voted straight-ticket Republican in 96 not including the Presidential vote.)
Instead, while I couldn't affect the final outcome at all, I was hoping that in some small way the addition of my vote to the Libertarian vote total would be able to help affect future Republican policy in the way described in my earlier post on this thread. (And in case you're wondering, I'm going to cheerfully vote for Bush next Tuesday.)
So yes, there can be reasons to sometimes vote Libertarian beyond being stupid or crazy, contrary to your assertion.
I agree. On the other hand, as my other post mentions, in the states which are 100% certain shoe-ins for Bush already, a libertarian (or other third-party fan) could use his vote to still "make a statement" without at the same time risking "playing games" with the election.
Not that I'm endorsing that, mind you. I think Bush has well earned a vote for re-election (and the Democrats have well earned a thumb-in-the-eye vote against them for Bush), and only the most churlish "issue voter" would deny Bush their support, in my opinion. As you say, larger issues are at stake this time. The more that Bush can get a landslide instead of "just" a win, the clearer voice it will be against our enemies, both foreign and domestic.
And given the likelihood that terrorism will be with us for a very long time, you also imply that you will never hold them accountable, you will unquestioningly buy into their excuses and ridiculous rationalizations ("we can't kill off PBS - there are terrorists out there!") for more money, more pork and more control, and that their morphing into The Other Big-Government Party will proceed unabated. You simply don't care about tackling more than one pressing problem at a time. And whether you know or care, there are other pressing problems that can threaten our nation.
What happens, then, when our ability to muster the resources and public support to kill our enemies is diminished because of the sheer overwhelming oppression of government?
Don't think that can happen? Just watch.
You're going to say exactly the same thing in '08 when Hillary runs.
Will we have a $5 Trillion Big Stupid Government by then, and will that still be fine with you, because terrorists will still exist?
Again, my simple question: when do you plan to start holding Republicans accountable for unrestrained growth in government spending, borrowing and theft of liberty?
Not this year, obviously. Fine. 2006? 2008? (whoops, Hillary, so No) 2010? '12? Later?
If not now, when? The problem is getting bigger and harder to roll back with every passing day.
Thank you. I hope the majority of Libertarians are lucid enough to come to those same conclusions.
It's getting too late for this sort of pointless volleying.
I don't want to see a dangerous man of extremely questionable character elected to the presidency. No need to complicate it.
Have a good night. I hope you'll vote for President Bush.
Thats why I'm voting libertarian at the other levels besides president this election. I like George Bush's foreign policy and the libertarian isolationism seems insane in a global interconnected world.
But I can't reward the big spending liberal republicans in congress and the senate with my vote. There are of course some Republicans I would vote for who have worked for at least some fiscal conservatism, but not where I live.
I would like to have a bunch of Ron Paul's in congress, but even if they can't win its the only way I have to send a message to the Republican leadership that they wont' win if they don't reduce the non-defense parts of the federal budget.
Good night!
Plus I forgot to add, I think if we cut down these other bureaucracies or outright eliminated them... we could afford to pay our troops far far more.
Which I believe we will have to increase troop pay massively in the next four years. To make sure the ranks are full of soldiers.. Plus just common sense who should be making more money, some education consultant in Washington D.C... or some soldier risking his life for our security in Afghanistan?
By running ads in swing states against the Republicans, they are trying to defeat Republicans and elect Democrats. To pretend that GOPers are going to suddenly switch to the Libertarian positions before election day is just silly. John Thune lost the Senate seat in 2002 because of the Lbertarian party...period. I hope you guys are thrilled with Democrat Tim Johnson as a result, who endorses a complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts.
Oh whatever.....third party candidates that poll at 1% or less have no impact. If the two major parties want impact, how about convincing the 50% non-voters to vote. Leave the 1%ers alone.
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.