Bob Barr's Libertarian Bid Will Take Votes From John McCain? Not So Fast

Conventional wisdom says a Bob Barr Libertarian run for president will take votes from the Republican John McCain, and that's good for the Democratic nominee, but it's not that simple.

Former federal prosecutor and Georgia Republican congressman Barr can be loony, but he has turned into quite the articulate civil libertarian, opposed to everything from street cameras that take pictures of your license plate and then send you a speeding ticket, to the more onerous aspects of the Patriot Act. Plenty of Democrats feel the same way on these subjects. I know I do, although I wouldn't vote Barr for dog catcher.

Remember: even goofy Ron Paul's support crossed party lines and included disaffected liberals and moderates because of his strong (and, yes, principled) opposition to Iraq. This makes the Barr message (if he can raise enough cash to get it into the marketplace) appealing to a certain segment, particularly out west where the "leave me alone" philosophy has roots, and it's out west where Democrats (and certainly Obama's people) believe he and the Party stand to open up the electoral map in November.

Worst case scenario for Democrats next fall:

If Obama struggles with the Democratic base that bedeviled him in big-state primaries (working class Anglos, Catholics, Jews, and those over 45), and if McCain drops his "100 years in Iraq" plan, tacks back to the "maverick" middle and wins over some of these voters in states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and if McCain's Arizona pedigree "checkmates" Obama in some western states, and if McCain's immigration stance isn't wholly anathema to the Latino community (he co-sponsored the bill with Ted Kennedy, after all), then anything that further eats into the Democratic candidate's potential tally is bad, even if it's also eating into McCain.

The 2004 Libertarian candidate got only 1% of the vote, yet if Barr comes close to Ralph Nader's independent neighborhood of 2000, he can hurt either major party at the margins in a close race since he's pro-life and pro-Defense of Marriage Act in addition to his civil libertarianism.

Let's take a key state: In 2004, George Bush beat John Kerry in Colorado, gaining its nine electoral votes, by only 100,000 votes out of 2 million cast, but Democrats will rightly feel the love of the Rockies after their Denver convention this summer. Still, it doesn't take much to screw things up. After all, Nader got only 2.7% of the vote nationally in 2000, but it was his 100,000 votes in tight-as-a-tick Florida that led to the election ending up at the Supreme Court; Al Gore had the presidency in the bag otherwise.

Democrats can't afford that happening again any more than Republicans can. We all need to keep one watchful eye on Bob Barr.

Comments

[noneIn2008]

2008 is the year of 3rd party and stay home. The Dems and Reps are not presenting a palatable choice, again. They already are resorting to "don't vote 3rd party" or you are responsible for putting in a bad President. Every time, we here this vote against candidate A, not that B is any good, but at least it will keep A out.

We are tired of the big 2 not presenting a good candidate. The best solution is to add to the ballot "NONE OF THE ABOVE". This works in other countries.

We are tired of the big two. Who could have a rating lower than Bush. Yes, Congress run by the big two. We the people want to take our country back from the Dems and Reps.

[LonesomeThunderbolt]

It's wrong to blame Ralph Nader for causing Al Gore's loss in the 2000 election. There were numerous other factors, including the presence of six or seven other presidential candidates in Florida, all of whom received more than the 537 disputed votes that cost Gore Florida's electoral votes. It was fundamentally a problem of voting equipment failure and voter confusion that cost Gore votes that should have been his. What exit polling correctly showed was that most Florida voters "intended" to vote for Gore. Post-election analysis confirmed that if all votes had been cast and counted for the candidate the voter intended, Gore would have carried Florida by 22,000 votes.

[noneIn2008]

Al Gore killed Al Gore. He was clearly advised that the polls showed he could easily walk in if he would stay on course with Clinton. But Al felt he was the smartest one in the room. Al had to lean left and leave votes on the table. He blew it.

[HollywoodBill]

Bob Barr is another faux Libertarian, just like Ron Paul. Pro Life Libertarians? Pro Defense of Marriage Act Libertarian? I don't think so. Both Barr and Paul are just garden variety social conservatives. Just two more members of the Revival Tent Republican wing of the GOP who are trying to make others think that they are Libertarians. They're not. Neither one of these religious whackos have a snowball's chance of carrying any state much less making any difference in any Western state. Any no one in their right mind can believe that Georgia or any other Southern state, and that includes the Carolinas, is going to be be won by the Democrats.

[WorkingClass]

I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. I have also sent modest contributions. I have never voted for Ron Paul but I have sent money. Bob Barr bears no resemblance whatsoever to either Nader or Ron Paul. Barr is an ox-cart Republican. His record is abysmal. His personal life is worse. He will not be a factor. I will be voting for Obama unless he puts Clinton on the ticket. McCain will be beaten badly, by a black man. I'm looking forward to it. If Barr takes a few votes from McCain it wont matter.

[Decipherer]

Well, thank you very, very much!

It only has taken you three election cycles to see the proverbial light. I don't want to come down too hard on you, given that you cast all of one vote, but it is folks like you who put the worst possible president in the White House ever known, which will take President Obama his two terms in office, and more, to get over.

I surely hope that this time, your current and perhaps more evolved views will prevail among those of your ilk.

Good luck to you, and us all.

[WorkingClass]

Your wrong. Your also the reason I'm not a Democrat.

[Javalation]

I had thought that Dr. Paul might end up running as the Libertarian candidate, since he has done it before. Now he could pull some votes from the conservative camp, but I'm not sure Barr will do McCain much damage.

[burnt]

ha! A coalition of Bob Nader Barr and Hillary Nader Clinton... what a team that would be..

Like you, I am libertarian in some respects... but I am also conservative and liberal and centrist and socialist and almost all other "isms" to some degree or another depending upon the issue. I am an Independent who freely borrows political viewpoints that add to what I consider a strong overall philosophical amalgam. I don't particularly believe in labels as such.

That said, I would never vote for a "one trick pony" or the lesser of two evils. I've only voted for one President in decades, simply because no one individual came close to the ideals that represented my political viewpoints. I certainly didn't vote for Bill Clinton. I didn't believe he could do the job and I considered his positions to be too far on the right... and he proved me correct on both counts. Hillary Clinton has earned an opinion that is far less favorable, in that it is difficult to see her as anything but a Republican who is wrecking damage on the Democratic Party.

Those from the "Clinton Right" who swear that they would vote for McCain (or Barr) out of vengeance, were never Democrats in the first place... just posers who CHOSE to eat bitter grapes.

[WorkingClass]

Interesting remarks burnt. You could start your own party. The *Strong Overall Philosophical Amalgam Party*. You say you only voted for one president in decades. Please come back and tell us who it was.

[RonLawl]

If Dennis Kucinich's war stance couldn't get him votes from liberals in the primaries, then why in the world would Bob's war stance get him votes from liberals in the general election?

[steamboat]

Jackson, we know Barr is a republican. However, wasn't he v. invasion into Iraq and also v. the Patriot Act? .......so knowing this, wouldn't he cause considerable damage to the GOP?

[Decipherer]

Bob Barr "can be loony?" Really? The guy is certifiably barking at the moon mad!

Given his sorry personal and political record, the latter which was almost entirely bound-up with the impeachment of Bill Clinton even BEFORE there was the slightest shred of anything that could even remotely pass the laugh test, it is hard for me to imagine that a clown like him could get more support in the general election than, say, Tom Tancredo or that other GOP idiot from San Diego whose name mercifully I cannot remember right now.

Bob Barr is a hypocritical serial adulterer whose views on just about everything except for his opposition to the Iraqi War is way, way out of the mainstream.

His candidacy in 2008 won't even be dignified by an asterisk.