Surprising Poll Numbers for Barr
Jim Babka on Aug 27th 2008
Quote: “Support for Bob Barr brings too much uncertainty to the call.” - John Zogby
One of the two best pollsters in the country, John Zogby, in a recent survey of ten “battleground states,” has some surprising poll numbers to report for Libertarian Bob Barr (who will appear on 49 state ballots).
| Battleground States | Obama | McCain | Barr | Nader | Not Sure/Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado | 44% | 38% | 8% | 2% | 8% |
| Florida | 40% | 43% | 5% | 1% | 12% |
| Michigan | 46% | 37% | 5% | 1% | 12% |
| Nevada | 39% | 38% | 10% | 3% | 10% |
| New Hampshire | 38% | 42% | 11% | 1% | 9% |
| New Mexico | 46% | 37% | 5% | 1% | 11% |
| North Carolina | 47% | 39% | 3% | 2% | 9% |
| Ohio | 41% | 36% | 8% | 1% | 13% |
| Pennsylvania | 46% | 37% | 5% | 3% | 8% |
| Virginia | 43% | 41% | 5% | 1% | 10% |
What does this mean? Honestly, not much.
But to be fair, let me say that in 2000, Harry Browne never got double-digit numbers in any state from a national pollster. In 2004 Michael Badnarik got 7% in New Mexico, and it seems to me it was before the conventions as well. I worked on Harry Browne’s campaign, and I can remember getting excited by some 3s and 4s, so this represents a whole new level.
But Barr is a celebrity, of sorts — a former Congressman who was one of the Clinton impeachment managers. His celebrity has already gotten him some plum media appearances that Harry Browne didn’t get (like ABC’s This Week, and Fox News Sunday, a chance to testify before the Judiciary Committee on Bush Impeachment before a national TV audience). Moreover, there’s greater public dissatisfaction with the political parties than I can ever recall. And on top of that, lots of conservatives are unhappy with McCain.
To my knowledge, no Libertarian Presidential nominee has ever gotten 3% in any state on Election Day.
And I doubt this Bob Barr’s campaign will exceed this level.
When we (the Harry Browne 2000 campaign) got those 3s and 4s, we knew they wouldn’t last. This is because, as the election draws to a close, the race between the Two Principle Evils becomes a matter of picking the lesser one. This is game theory in action. Players in zero sum games tend to minimize their pain. And most people mistakenly believe their vote could decide an election.
You might be able to stop this trend with overwhelming visibility, but a) your candidate needs to be in the Presidential debates and/or b) you need money to generate and maintain high visibility, and third party campaigns just don’t have those kinds of funds. Funding-wise, Bob Barr’s campaign is running pretty much to spec.
But as exciting as these poll numbers are, they miss the point. A Libertarian (or Green, Constitution, etc.) campaign is about a) growing your party, and b) public education. If you’re really lucky, you might reach the rare but obtainable air of throwing a state to one side or the other — like Nader did for Bush in Florida in 2000. But luck is everything in that third scenario.
The way the Barr campaign will prove to its party that its been successful will not be record vote totals on Election Night, but by swelling the membership ranks.
The Libertarian Party donor-base peaked in 1999-2000, with 38,000 or so members and contributors during that time-frame. My understanding is that the number dropped to half-that years later. But I’m not in the loop anymore, and I think the party has stopped advertising the numbers.
Barr’s campaign will be a success if they start reporting those numbers again because they’re back up to record levels.
In general, vote totals fade and third place is still losing. Still, I would love to be wrong and find that Barr did break double-digits in a couple of states, and that the libertarian vote would be perceived as the reason John McCain lost.
Hardball delenda est.
Filed in The Bureau
There are definitely things about Barr that make me unhappy, but I’m still excited that the LP has nominated the most viable candidate since Harry Brown. It’s also nice (and not even remotely surprising) to see that Barr’s highest poll numbers are in my own adopted state of New Hampshire.
What I hope it means is that people who value liberty are expressing that to pollsters instead of at the polls.
If Barack Obama uses the word “liberty” in any meaningful way between now and November, I’ll vote for him myself. [Yah, I used that before, but I mean it. I like the guy.]
But I do not think Sen. Obama thinks of liberty in any fashion recognizable to a Libertarian or even a libertarian. Mobocracy ["ochlocracy," technically] messes with everybody who’s not with the plan.
I mean, mebbe it’s true John McCain favors oligarchy, but oligarchs are more discriminating about who they mess with. They only mess with you if you’re worth the trouble.
Hillary and Bill succumbed to the mob tonight [Wednesday], and endorsed it for their own survival. Barack’s coronation tomorrow at a packed Mile High Stadium sounds like its sets were designed by Albert Speer.
Hope you’re looking forward to it as much as I am.
but oligarchs are more discriminating about who they mess with
do you consider the feelings of the batteries you stick in your flashlight?
Well, I was trying not to be too kind to McCain. I guess what I’m saying is that oligarchies are at least theoretically capable of excellence; mobs, on the other other hand, are by definition capable of only mediocrity, and usually worse, as they have a propensity for eating the best of their own.
[...] Zogby, for example, has both states too close to call because of Libertarian Bob Barr! In the coming days, we’ll find out whether Sarah Palin has revived McCain and sunk Bob Barr [...]