Was just announced as “breaking news” on CNN Headline news. Very briefly. Still looking for an online cite.
Now, I know the difference between Big L and little l libertarian.
But from what I can see, Mr. Barr was a big fan of the “War on Drugs”, helped author the “Defense of Marriage” act and in the past took other non-Libertarian viewpoints.
Will this, assuming he can get some press and other issues rolling, draw votes away from McCain? He appears to have been a rather prominent Republican for quite a while.
I will say it was interesting see him labeled on his press conference as Bob Barr (L).
I await a viewpoint from some folks with more interest and knowledge.
Barr has been wrting Libertarian-viewpoint columns for several years (since he lost his House seat). Any votes he can pull away from McCain will be helpful, and I get a sense that there are enough Republicans who are unsatisfied with McCain that Barr might be able to pull a few.
Here’s hoping he turns into the right wing’s Nader.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Barr get 1 or 2% of the vote, giving disaffected Republicans a place to go.
In a close election like 2000 or 2004, that could make the difference. If it’s a blowout, he’ll be a footnote, like the Libertarian candidate usually is.
Depends in part on whether Ron Paul, after he finally gives up, endorses Barr or McCain. Paul actually having some sort of personal grassroots support base, which Barr has not, AFAICT.
The Libertarians typically get about .3% of the vote in presidential elections. I think the type of Republicans who are uneasy about McCain (social conservatives) would be even more uneasy about the Libertarian party.
Nothing is going to put Georgia in play. Other than Florida, and maybe Virginia this year, the Democrats have no chance in the South regarding the presidency.
Take a look at these numbers from www.electoral-vote.com . The South is the most consistantly Republican and conservative region of the country. In 2004, the Republican won every southern state. In 2000, the Republican won every southern state. In 1996, when the Democrats had a Southern president, and the Republicans won a weak campaign, they still won Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Virginia. The last time a Democrat won Georgia was 1992, and that was only by .59% of the popular vote, and when there was a serious third party movement that took votes from the Republicans. The Libertarian party isn’t serious, and people don’t vote for them.
Since 1964, the only northern Democrat to win a single state in the old Confederacy was Hubert Humphrey carrying Texas in 1968. I believe Obama can possibly carry Virginia, other than that I see no electors for him in the south. To win, he must expand the map and carry places like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, and Iowa in addition to New England, the Great Lakes, and the West Coast.
Given the pretty strong anti-encumbent feeling being demonstrated down there in recent elections, what about Louisiana? I haven’t looked at the numbers so I don’t know how extreme of a possibility this would be.
NM is only worth 5 electoral votes, and Kerry only lost it to Bush by .8%. If McCain sticks with the social conservatives’ “Send 'em back to Mexico” line, or Richardson campaigns seriously for Obama (likely and very likely, respectively) NM will probably go Obama, even if Richardson isn’t the VP candidate.
I’m kind of rolling my eyes at Bob Barr here- Ron Paul stands a much better chance to be a spoiler than he does.
All the state level election news I read about LA (Governor race, etc) mentions that a lot of black democrats left the state as a result of Katrina and haven’t returned. I don’t imagine LA being in play under the best of circumstances.
