The Barr Factor

Don't miss Dave Weigel's writeup of Bob Barr's announcement of his candidacy for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination. I think this is a potentially significant turn of events as Barr, a former wingnutty member of the House GOP leadership, is an unusually credible LP standard-bearer and his biography is well-designed to attract the votes of conservatives who loathe the war and Barack Obama with equal passions.

Third party candidacies never go anywhere as candidacies but often wind up playing a substantial role in presidential campaigns nonetheless. Ralph Nader got only 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000, but that was enough to make a difference.

Comments

The problem with Barr is that he's not strong in the two areas where McCain is the weakest among conservatives: immigration and religious right issues. If we had a conservative in the race strong on those issues, then we'd really get McCain worried. But it doesn't look likely.

Posted by Mike | May 13, 2008 11:24 AM

"votes of conservatives who loathe the war and Barack Obama with equal passions"

That's the key, Matt. Which do they loathe more? I really don't think it's a gimme that he draws from McCain. I'm more worried about people (in the Mountain West, say) who hate the war and really would not vote for McCain because of it. Now they have the option to vote for the anti-war white guy.

Posted by Ryan | May 13, 2008 11:32 AM

If the Democrats had brains, they would pour every possible dollar they could fine into the Barr campaign, and have their friends in the MSM give Barr the wall-to-wall coverage treatment.

Still, there's actually some risk in that. After all, Barr's promising to not attack Iran, rapidly withdraw from Iraq, repeal the Patriot Act, and completely restore our vanishing civil liberties. Since Obama's position is much closer to Bush/McCain's, maybe Barr will grab too many liberal votes to swing the election to Saint Barack...

Posted by RKU | May 13, 2008 11:34 AM

I see no caveats about this. If you're a Democrat, this announcement means Christmas came in May this year.

McCain still ALSO has the christofascist problem on top of this one. There may yet be another minor-party candidate for them, and if not, a substantial number of them may just stay home.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | May 13, 2008 11:38 AM

1) What's really hilarious is that the Chairman of the Nevada Republican Party had to SUSPEND their convention in Mid-Progress to head off a revolt by Ron Paul Supporters and BLOCK the appointment of Ron Paul Delegates to represent NEvada at the Republican National Convention. (The Chairman used , in my opinion, a two-faced claim that the Party's lease on the convention hall had expired. )

Normally, one would have to go to one of the small Communist countries to see maneuvers like this.

See http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20080427/NEWS/252102622/-1/rss01

and
http://www.nevadagop.org/

2) No word yet on WHEN the Nevada Republican Party will reconvene the Convention.

Posted by Don Williams | May 13, 2008 11:40 AM

This May 12 story says the Nevada Republican Leadership are still stalling on reconvening their Convention.

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=8313770

Posted by Don Williams | May 13, 2008 11:44 AM

1) This UPI story notes that Ron Paul supporters are planning a MUTINY at the Republican National Convention:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/12/report_ron_paul_to_lead_convention_mutiny/6488/

Posted by Don Williams | May 13, 2008 11:52 AM

The Salt Lake City Tribune notes that Ron Paul supporters are trying to "infiltrate" the Utah delegation to the Republican National Convention
in order to raise hell:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9211438?source=rss
---------
"The Ron Paul Revolution will not go quietly.
As they have done in Nevada, Minnesota and elsewhere, a number of Utah Ron Paul backers are trying to get elected Saturday as delegates to the Republican National Convention where, under a proposed rule change, they could be free to vote for whomever they want.
Under existing party rules, the 36 Utah delegates to the convention are obligated to vote for Mitt Romney, who won the state GOP primary with 90 percent of the vote.
But on Saturday, the state party will consider changing its rules to release the delegates and let them vote for whom they see fit. ...
... That could free the delegates to support whomever they want at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., in September - a point not lost on Paul supporters.
On blogs and in e-mails, Paul backers have spread a strategy aimed at getting Paul supporters elected as delegates in order to keep McCain from getting enough delegate support to clinch the nomination. That could force a convention fight, they argue, and give Paul a path - albeit a contorted one - to win the nomination.
"We will try to force a brokered convention - there is no way around it," writes Steve Parent on The Daily Paul blog.

Posted by Don Williams | May 13, 2008 11:55 AM

What's the likelihood that Ron Paul will endorse Barr? And if Barr weren't running, might Paul endorse Obama?

Posted by KCinDC | May 13, 2008 11:56 AM

Something's going on in Idaho also:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/377849.html

"A stealth strategy by supporters of Ron Paul to win delegates at the Idaho Republican Convention leaves mainstream party leaders anxious and a bit secretive themselves.
The Texas congressman and former Libertarian presidential nominee has targeted Idaho as part of his quixotic challenge to John McCain. Paul loyalists seek to yank the Idaho GOP organization up from the grass roots by fielding candidates for precinct committeeman in the May 27 primary. But they refuse to identify their slate.

An unusually large number of candidates, many unfamiliar to party regulars, seek to fill the county and state central committees, especially in Ada, Twin Falls and Kootenai counties.

"We've built a strong Republican Party in Idaho and these Ron Paul people want to come in the back door and take advantage of that," said Kootenai County GOP Chairman Brad Corkill. "We're not going to let it happen."

"The Democrats are having their battle out in the open," said Region 4 Chairman Brad Hoaglun of Ada County. "Ours is more behind the scenes. There is heightened anxiety."

Hoaglun fears Paul delegates may try to embarrass McCain at state and national conventions. A rules change forced by Paul delegates prompted the Nevada GOP to abruptly adjourn its convention last month. Paul delegates stormed the Spokane County, Wash., convention and passed an anti-war platform plank. Paul forces have skirmished with mainstream Republicans in Georgia, Oklahoma, Minnesota and Missouri.

Idaho GOP Chairman Kirk Sullivan said Paul's tactics were a hot topic at a recent National Committee meeting.

"They are working hard to have an impact on the national convention," Sullivan said. "But they don't talk to anybody. I have never been approached by a single Ron Paul person about what the party's doing, how they get involved, how the platform will be rewritten, how the rules will be established....
...McAffee offered to put me in touch with some others, but later said he couldn't find anyone willing to talk. He acknowledged that surprise is key to the Paul strategy."

----------

Posted by Don Williams | May 13, 2008 12:03 PM

And in New Mexico:
http://sfreporter.com/articles/publish/outtake-050708-ron-paul-uprising.php

"As the mainstream media obsesses over the Democratic Party’s brewing civil war, supporters of Republican presidential candidate US Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, are already staging their own quiet uprising at GOP conventions across the nation.

If, by a strange twist of fate, the Republicans’ presumptive nominee, US Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., fails to win the first ballot at the national convention, “all hell will break loose,” one Santa Fe County delegate tells SFR.

In New Mexico, Paul would need to collect 15 percent of the popular vote to win delegates to the national convention. That’s exceedingly unlikely in New Mexico. McCain barely broke 10 percent in 2000 after George W Bush, like McCain in 2008, became the presumptive nominee following Super Tuesday. Instead, Paul’s grassroots and netroots campaign is attempting to stack the deck with what can only be called “cryptodelegates”—elected delegates to the national convention who are privately supporting Paul’s presidential bid. They would be “bound” to vote for McCain on the first ballot, but may vote for whomever they choose if the nomination is forced to a second ballot. "

Posted by Don Williams | May 13, 2008 12:07 PM

The other thing about third party candidates is they can influence the campaign narratives. For example, just as important as (or perhaps more important than) actual Nader voters was Nader pushing the message that there was not much ideological difference between Gore and Bush, which I think worked to Bush's advantage. And in this case, I think the narratives arising from Barr's campaign are likely to be quite bad for McCain, but I guess we shall see.

Posted by DTM | May 13, 2008 12:08 PM

Montana's lookly kinda wobbly for McCain also:

http://www.ktvm.com/montana_news.php?id=a730bdd9b774a7e9fcbfc0b4a0100680

"In April, Texas Republican Congressman and Presidential Candidate -- Ron Paul -- told The News Channel that he strongly disagrees with the Party's presumptive Presidential Nominee -- John McCain. Yet, Montana's GOP has chosen Paul to headline its State Party Convention in June.

The Montana GOP says Ron Paul's appearance at the convention will not hurt John McCain's chances at becoming President. The Party's Spokesperson says the fact that Ron Paul so strongly disagrees with McCain, is even a good thing for the party. "
-----------------
ha ha ha

I don't think Ron Paul's strategy is all that secret -- he obviously hopes that if he makes that vein on McCain's forehead pulsate strongly enough, McCain will have a stroke and Paul will be last man standing.

Kinda like the "Martin Luther King Scenario" they whisper about in the upper reaches of Hillary's campaign -- and Hillary's newfound affection for gun owners.

Posted by Don Williams | May 13, 2008 12:14 PM

So Mike Gravel is now 0-2 in nomination bids, huh?

Posted by 55 | May 13, 2008 12:16 PM

maybe Hilary was simply projecting when talking about dodging sniper fire?

DTM is right on. The appearance of a credible third party creates additional avenues for voter affiliation/dissonance, nader and perot come to mind. Perot's "giant sucking sound" in re NAFTA was second only to "read my lips" in that election. Clinton was clearly the beneficiary of Perot's entry in the race. Nader said only forgettable things but was enough of a force to cause some liberals to sit home or pull the lever for Nader.

Posted by mike c | May 13, 2008 12:25 PM

oops alert: clearly meaning "in that era" when comparing "read my lips" (from '98 convention) and '92 election. Memory is shot.

Posted by mike c | May 13, 2008 12:33 PM

"read my lips" in '88 election; perot in '92. memory shot...going back into my hole.

Posted by mike c | May 13, 2008 12:35 PM

There will be no Barr endorsement from Paul. Paul doesn't trust him.

Also, Paul supporters will not be voting for McCain in any sizeable numbers. They will be writing in Paul, voting for Chuck Baldwin, or even Barr or Obama. Here is the order
1. Paul
2. The Constitutionalist candidate
3. Anybody but McCain

That means there is about 100,000 votes in PA that McCain won't be getting in the general

Posted by AJ | May 13, 2008 12:45 PM

Barr's not the Libertarian nominee yet. Obviously he's the highest-profile guy (sorry, Gravel) associated with their party as a Presidential candidate, but will they nominate him? He's been with the Libertarians for a couple of years now, has softened his drug war stance and has denounced the PATRIOT Act, but he still seems like more of a straight-up conservative than a libertarian. He's like a Republican with ACLU membership.

Posted by Adam Villani | May 13, 2008 12:49 PM

I'm more worried about people (in the Mountain West, say) who hate the war and really would not vote for McCain because of it.

Many people in the Mountain West who still generally identify with the Republican Party would be holding their noses and voting for the Republican, or at most staying home. They're not going to vote for a filthy communist gay-loving Muslim Democrat who wants to confiscate all guns, no matter how much they've soured on the war. And Mountain West voters who have realized that the Republicans have fucked up everything, and want things to change, aren't going to vote for more of the same with a quixotic third-party gesture.

Now they have the option to vote for the anti-war white guy.

Again, a lot of them were going to vote for the pro-war white guy anyway. Because "white guy", "Republican", and "tax cuts" still tends to win out over "even more ruinous wars of choice" in segments of the target demographic.

He's like a Republican with ACLU membership.

Actually, he is a Republican with ACLU membership, so this is an apt comparison.

Posted by mds | May 13, 2008 1:00 PM

Barr makes it even less likely McCain will win, but he could deny Obama a majority.

Posted by David Weman | May 13, 2008 1:05 PM

The often libertarian-minded West is where I think Barr could in fact do the most damage to McCain. Again, I have no idea how many votes Barr will get (probably not many), or who would otherwise get them (my guess is he will take some from both candidates), but I think just hammering McCain for his departures from libertarian-type conservativism will be enough to help Obama considerably.

Posted by DTM | May 13, 2008 1:06 PM

Barr's not the Libertarian nominee yet. Obviously he's the highest-profile guy (sorry, Gravel) associated with their party as a Presidential candidate, but will they nominate him? He's been with the Libertarians for a couple of years now, has softened his drug war stance and has denounced the PATRIOT Act, but he still seems like more of a straight-up conservative than a libertarian. He's like a Republican with ACLU membership.

Posted by Adam Villani | May 13, 2008 2:01 PM

My vote is for Baldwin/Castle.

Posted by Glaivester | May 13, 2008 4:48 PM

If Paul doesn't switch to the Libertarian Party, I'd say they have no choice but to go with Barr if they want ANYBODY to hear what they say.

They will nominate Barr, I'm pretty sure.

I also don't assume that Barr will just take votes from McCain, although I'd say it's a sure bet that most of the votes he gets will be from McCain.

But he could also take votes from Obama via the independents, if not directly from Obama supporters, who are unlikely to switch at this point.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 13, 2008 5:27 PM

Well, I'm a survey of one. But I'm a libertarian-leaning guy who was inclined to vote for Obama, with serious reservations, mainly to punish the GOP for the war and for their attacks on the Constitution. But I might be tempted to pull the lever for Barr instead.

Posted by jbd | May 14, 2008 8:06 AM