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.

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.

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.

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.

BTW: It was a pleasure meeting you in Denver.

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.

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.