Stephen Gordon, a member of the Barr campaign and editor for Third Party Watch, has posted a hypothetical electoral map in which the LP ticket wins 18 states. Among the improbable blue states Gordon sees going “gold” are Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
Although most would consider Gordon’s scenario unreasonably optimistic, it does call into question electoral strategy. Some pundits, including former LP presidential hopeful Jim Burns, say Barr/Root should focus on swing states, where their vote total can be greater than the difference between McCain and Obama, thus giving the LP relevance in the election. Our own Austin Cassidy disagrees, saying that several “safe state” votes can be gained for the same resources expended on one “swing state” vote — “swing state” campaigning is thus too costly on a per-vote basis.
But what of a third strategy, wherein Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root concentrate on a few key states with the goal of winning those states outright? Some possible contenders could be Georgia (Barr’s home state), Nevada (Root’s), New Hampshire (libertarian by tradition), Maine (a small state with a history of voting independently), and Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho (three red states Gordon predicts staying that way but are small enough that Barr/Root could make a run there). The campaign could focus solely on these states, test the waters, and uproot wherever they were unable to gain traction. One legitimate statewide victory for the presidential ticket would be quite an accomplishment.
31 responses so far ↓
1 Dylan Waco // May 30, 2008 at 1:37 am
I have been making this argument for months.
I am not a Barr supporter, but a Barr led LP ticket could conceiveably win a few states, most likely in the Mountain West and prarie states if it actually focuses its attention there.
If I was in charge of the Barr campaign I would focus tons of energy and time pounding the pavement in Montana, Idaho, and the Dakotas where civil liberties issues and fears of big government are major concerns.
LP is not going to win a lot of states, but a smart campaign could net one or two.
2 LPiberty // May 30, 2008 at 1:49 am
So where do you think the LP could win a states’ electoral votes? The mountain west does make sense. Where and how could the Barr team focus resources?
While there are a few polls showing Barr support across the country, it would be interesting to see what his support would be state by state.
If you are going to dream, dream big.
For those who supported a Barr/Root ticket, did you do so comfortably with your principles? Was it a compromise to forward this ticket?
I believe most are hoping this ticket will enable further successes to putting principles into action.
3 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 1:53 am
My strategy would be to raise cash, open offices and work hard in Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Do a lot of polling, and wherever it’s not working, get out and concentrate resources where it is working.
4 Austin Cassidy // May 30, 2008 at 1:56 am
I just can’t imagine it happening.
It’d probably be better if they focused on driving up the overall popular vote total. And to do that they should pick safe states and campaign hard there. Hit CA and NY… TX… out West… Alaska… places where wasted vote syndrome is the weakest and people are most willing to cast a vote that “sends a message.”
The Badnarik campaign did one thing well, and that was prove how bad of a strategy focusing on swing states is. They blasted lots of money at Nevada… New Mexico… and Wisconsin… and got nothing at all for it. If they’d spent those same sums in California it might have been worth another 30,000-40,000 votes… at least.
5 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 1:59 am
Austin – There are some really small states. Those states with one congressional district could be flooded with money. Many of them are anti-government and are not seen as big prizes for the Ds or Rs. I think the strategy is worth considering.
6 Deran // May 30, 2008 at 2:11 am
The scenarios of Barr/Root winning MN, MI and OR, for instances, would seem predicated on very strong showings from the Left by Nader and McKinney to sap the Obamarama enough for the LP to then be able to step in over the assumed collapse of the GOP presidential campaign to then carry those states by plurality?
Unless there is a strong indie Left vote, I can’t see states like that going “gold”, as it were. And from what I can tell, it just doesn’t seem to be happening; for instance — despite how it may look on the FEC books — I’m get emails from the Nader/Gonzalez campaign looking for gas money to get city to city!
7 Dylan Waco // May 30, 2008 at 2:33 am
If Ron Paul can get a quarter of the vote in Idaho, months after the GOP nomination is a foregone conclusion, it is a state worth focusing on for Barr and co.
Upping the overall vote total means nothing, if you don’t win a state. Even one state would be a huge coup for the LP and given the way things have shaken down this year it is not impossible. (Especially if turnout is down among the other two major parties, because of internal angst/buyers remorse, again a likely scenario this time out).
I don’t think it is likely that this will occur, because I dont’ think the LP political strategist see this as a worthwhile goal or something that can be done. To them 10% overall seems more likely than winning Montanta. I think the opposite is pretty clearly true, and I think it would give the Party and bigger jumping off point than a big popular vote spike.
On the other hand I wouldn’t spend a lot of time in GA. Barr will do well there on his own, but won’t win. Third Party candidates do disproportinately poor in the South regardless of their politics and message.
8 Peter Orvetti // May 30, 2008 at 3:19 am
I would wager a fair sum that Barr will not carry any states. If electors were the goal, I suppose he and Root could move to Maine’s Second District for the next five months, though having spend some time there, I’m not sure how Root would play.
9 chuckmoulton // May 30, 2008 at 5:05 am
In 2004 the Green candidate David Cobb tried the safe state strategy. The vote totals were worse than when the swing state strategy was tried.
In my opinion going all out in a few states going for an electoral vote would be the best use of resources.
10 Steven R Linnabary // May 30, 2008 at 5:06 am
It’s kind of comical to see us debating where Barr/Root should be centering their LP campaign, whether it should be “safe states” strategy vs a “swing state” strategy.
It probably doesn’t matter. Unless a campaign has at least a million dollars per Congressional district, it should be only an educational campaign. Considering the candidates….
PEACE
Steve
11 Eric Sundwall // May 30, 2008 at 7:46 am
. . . or instead of smoking electoral crack, a message focused on ending the occupation on Iraq (and perhaps the Federal Reserve) could produce a spontaneous combustion of the grassroots and a small donor bonanza. Thousands would join Meetup groups around the country and donate millions, furthering the cause, ideas and party for years to come.
12 hogarth // May 30, 2008 at 8:19 am
“In my opinion going all out in a few states going for an electoral vote would be the best use of resources.”
I disagree, and think Eric and Steven have much better ideas. This isn’t a game and shouldn’t be an ego-trip for Barr; it’s a long battle of ideas. What our party’s candidates should be doing is concentrating on pressing a strong antiwar message and growing and reviving wiling local LPs. Activists have to know they aren’t entirely alone, and that there’s a real movement they are a part of. That won’t happen if the focus is on one or a few key states. But Barr has already indicated in interviews that this will be his strategy, so I don’t have high hopes for him working to add to the activist base.
13 Gene Trosper // May 30, 2008 at 8:45 am
Well, the LP has been “unreasonably optimistic” in terms of the vast majority of candidates it has ran. Once can’t blame Gordon for being that way, since it’s the LP’s nature.
14 LPiberty // May 30, 2008 at 9:24 am
No matter what the strategy, would the 2008 campaign leave the LP stronger?
If Barr is able to bring greater attention, any attention, to more local candidates – great.
So far the media attention is encouraging.
Some have emphasized the importance of inspiring grassroots activism. I agree that ending our involvement in Iraq should be a focus and contrast with McCain and to some extent Obama.
Without the activism, would Barr be stuck at single digit polls without a chance of getting in debates?
I hope the Barr team can challenge Obama and McCain to debates sooner rather than later.
15 bsharitt // May 30, 2008 at 10:20 am
Of course the best chance of this unlikely senario coming true relies on an even more unlikely scenario, Clinton winning the dem nomination, that way we have a lot of disgruntled voters on both sides.
16 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Deran – As someone living in Michigan, I can say there is literally zero percent change of anyone but Obama winning Michigan. The notion that Barr would have a better chance here — with 12 million people, the city of Detroit, and tons of union households — than in tiny libertarian-minded Montana is off the charts insane.
17 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Dylan – The last third-party candidate to win any states did so in the South. I’m speaking of George Wallace, of course.
18 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Susan Hogarth – Winning electoral votes would catapult libertarianism and the Libertarian Party to a new level of prestige and help win the battle of ideas, even if indirectly. Look, we’ve lost the battle this time and the reformers have won — might as well let them go all out trying new things.
19 torial // May 30, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I think the approach of focusing on swing states is actually counterproductive. The people there will fall most into the strategy of voting for the “lesser of two evils”. The people who are in states that are decidedly going one way are often looking for a way to make a protest vote.
20 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Okay, so we have about four strategies identified here:
1. Swing State (try to be a “spoiler”)
2. Safe State (try to maximize votes by campaigning where it doesn’t matter)
3. “Winnable” Sate (focus resources in a few small or otherwise winnable states to get electoral votes)
4. Status Quo: Do what Libertarians have done thus far but, hopefully, better.
My preference is for #3.
21 hogarth // May 30, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Winning electoral votes would catapult libertarianism and the Libertarian Party to a new level of prestige and help win the battle of ideas, even if indirectly. Look, we’ve lost the battle this time and the reformers have won — might as well let them go all out trying new things.
That’d be a reasonable argument if it was a likely scenario, but I very much doubt it is. Perhaps the Barr campaign will surprise me. So far their fundraising/media is hardly taking off.
22 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Susan – It may be possible, though unlikely, to go all out and win in Montana or some other small, Mountain West state. One-congressional-district states are the size of one congressional district — and they’re not hotly contested by either of the major parties. Dump several million in there and give it a go. Although I agree that it may not be a “likely scenario,” I think it is more likely than what you suggest — that Barr/Root carries forth the banner of Principled Libertarianism across the nation.
BTW: It was a pleasure meeting you in Denver.
23 vortexoffreedom // May 30, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I would concentrate on the small states. 200,000 votes barely makes a dent in California, New York or Texas. It could win many of the “3 electoral vote” states.
24 Fred Church Ortiz // May 30, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I kind of like the idea of a “leans” state strategy, where Barr forces either candidate to expend resources where they wouldn’t have to. I’d like it even better if he’s sure to go on the attack on both candidates, in whichever state they lead. Force Obama and Cain to run around in states they think they can count on addressing Barr. More media, higher awareness/polls, weaker position for the duopoly through November, and a result too confused to easily spin with the spoiler argument when it’s all said and done.
If I thought it was feasible, I’d prefer a focused winnable-state(s) strategy. But other than the usual ruminations about Alaska and NH, I just don’t see any state where the LP can take the win in a three-way race. Maybe if the Heller decision gives Barr an energized gun rights electorate, but that would depend on us getting a crappy decision and sliding even further into tyranny, or both candidates gaffing hard on a good one.
25 Thomas L. Knapp // May 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm
GE,
I have to go with the “winnable states” strategy — with an eye toward winning the ELECTION.
If the election splits between McCain and Obama with neither having a majority in the Electoral College, and Barr holding the balance, Barr’s electors can tell the Republican electors “you get Barr or Obama — McCain’s not an option.”
Either way, we get something out of it. We either get a president, or we get the spectacle of Republican electors publicly and willingly handing the election to the Democrat.
26 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Knapp – The problem is that Obama’s going to win in a landslide, and the states where Barr stands a chance are states that would otherwise go to McCain.
27 Dylan Waco // May 30, 2008 at 5:08 pm
G.E., Obama isn’t going to win in a landslide. People keep looking at the national polls and making poor assumptions based on them. Furthermore there are a lot of Hillary voters who WON’T vote for Obama. Obama will win, but it will be much closer than people think.
Also, I’m aware that Wallace was the last third party candidate to carry a state,but that was in 68, the last election year governed by the “party boss” rules, plus their were a lot of other factors. Since then third party candidates from John Anderson to Perot to Nader have done disproportionately poorly in the South regardless of their message.
Also…
“I disagree, and think Eric and Steven have much better ideas. This isn’t a game and shouldn’t be an ego-trip for Barr; it’s a long battle of ideas. What our party’s candidates should be doing is concentrating on pressing a strong antiwar message and growing and reviving wiling local LPs. Activists have to know they aren’t entirely alone, and that there’s a real movement they are a part of. That won’t happen if the focus is on one or a few key states. But Barr has already indicated in interviews that this will be his strategy, so I don’t have high hopes for him working to add to the activist base.”
If the LP wanted to do this they shouldn’t have nominated Barr, who is running a John Kerryesque “I was stupid and didn’t think Bush would actually use his authorization of force, plus they lied to us about WMD!” schtick as his foreign policy plank. The advantage of Barr was that it could get them more attention and more votes. If you are going to make a deal with the devil you may as well go for broke.
28 G.E. // May 30, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Obama will win every blue state from ‘04 plus Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa. That’s 313 to 224; 58% of the electoral vote, and just as much of the popular vote.
29 John P Slevin // May 31, 2008 at 3:26 am
G.E.’s small state strategy is the obvious doer. It’s been proposed many times before.
I’m not for giving anywhere, but if the goal is to get a few electoral votes, you do it in states like New Hampshire and Nevada (limited media markets, and in the case of New Hampshire, spillover to Mass), Wyoming, all the mountain states out from Wyoming.
Then, you’ve about exhausted the doable limited media market small states.
Oregon is Gordon’s pipe dream. Austin is correct, that map is absurd, and meant to get attention. Just don’t believe it.
30 Bob Barr’s $30 million strategy // Jun 1, 2008 at 2:36 pm
[...] it seems the campaign will be pursuing a variation of the “winnable state” strategy examined earlier by IPR. “There are certain states that are a one-party state,” said [campaign manager Russ] [...]
31 Third Party Watch » Blog Archive » An Electoral Strategery for Bob Barr? // Jun 1, 2008 at 3:46 pm
[...] Political Report raises an interesting concept, as [...]
Leave a Comment