Ballot Access News is reporting that Bob Barr actually failed to make the ballot in Maine. The Bob Barr campaign is filing a lawsuit in Maine to have the Secretary of State except late signatures, which is the same strategy being used in West Virginia. Barr’s campaign now has active lawsuits in New Hampshire, Massachussetts, West Virginia, Maine, and Oklahoma. The signatures filed by the August 8 deadline amounted to 3,200, short of the 4,000 valid signatures required.
Bob Barr fails to make ballot in Maine
August 18th, 2008 · 48 Comments
Filed Under: Libertarian Party
48 responses so far ↓
1 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 11:33 am
Baldwin missed Maine too. But I expected Barr to make this.
This brings Barr’s total down to 47,which is the least ballot access for an LP presidential candidate since Ron Paul (who was on 46).
2 Thomas M. Sipos // Aug 18, 2008 at 11:39 am
When Barr missed West Virginia, someone floated a theory that Barr intentionally missed WV in order to sue, and thus establish a legal precedent that the ballot access law in that state was onerous.
I doubt that theory was true, but so it was said.
3 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 11:45 am
Thomas,
So is he challenging West Virginia, New Hampshire, Massachussetts, Maine, and Oklahoma ALL because he wanted to intentionally miss it, and then sue? lol. Seems pretty rediculous.
If Barr is not on the ballot in WV, Maine, OK, DC, and one other state–it’ll be the worst ballot access since 1984. It is already the worst since 1988. Harry Browne did WAY better at all of this.
Imagine what happens if his lawsuits fail in New Hampshire and Massachussetts?
4 Mike Gillis // Aug 18, 2008 at 11:56 am
This is bad, especially since these failures aren’t happening because of legal challenges, like the attacks on Nader 2004 by Dems.
Why all the failures so far? I thought the LP had the most effective ballot access machine in the country.
5 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:06 pm
It did, under Harry Brown/Badnarik.
I suspect the lack of radicals is a big part of it. Radicals made up a decent portion of petitioners.
6 Mike Gillis // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Do you think more of them would be petitioning if Barr had picked Kubby to be his VP?
7 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Eh,maybe.
Barr has been a pretty collosal failure though. Supportive of intervention in Columbia because of “narco-terrorism”?
8 George Donnelly // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:44 pm
That’s Colombia, with an ‘o’, not a ‘u’.
9 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Apologies.
10 NewFederalist // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm
This is yet another major disappointment. Why would he think he deserves to debate McBama if he is not on the ballot in OK, WV, ME, DC and Lord knows where else. I thought this was supposed to be a breakout year not a breakdown!
11 Jeff Wartman // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:05 pm
This is off-base. Most of the petitioners who happen to be radicals would have circulated for Barr if they had the opportunity.
You’re looking at it through a bottom-up problem, when in fact it’s a top-down problem. The problem isn’t the petitioners, it’s the coordinators and staffers not knowing what they are doing.
Bill Redpath was in charge of ballot access in the past. He was probably the best ballot access coordinator we’ve had in a long time. Now that he’s chair, he’s delegating that responsibility to others.
It’s in the coordinators. If Redpath was in charge of ballot access, we’d be looking at 49 states. Instead, we’re playing catch up.
12 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Jeff,
I didnt mean to insinuate that the radicals simply DIDNT WANT to work for Barr–but that Barr’s people had screwed up ballot access by pushing them out or otherwise being incompetent.
13 Steve LaBianca // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Is Bill Redpath the LP’s shining example of the Peter Principle?
14 G.E. // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm
He’s totally incompetent as chair, and this just proves it.
Denver delegates for Barr: Happy now?
15 G.E. // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Steve - I think he’s just a shining peter.
16 George Phillies // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Trent,
I am not aware that Barr is suing in New Hampshire. What more have you heard about this? I’m not saying you are not right, but I am right here, and I think I would have heard about it. He doesn’t even know if petitioning got him on the ballot yet, to the best of my knowledge. Supervisors of the Checklist have several days yet to finish validating the healthy number of signatures that were turned in for him.
17 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm
George,
I must’ve misread something. No Lawsuit has been presented yet, but one is planned.
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/06/19/new-hampshire-libertarian-petition-for-two-statewide-offices-is-valid/
18 Steve LaBianca // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Regarding Bill Redpath, I agree with Jeff Wartman (fancy that!) In my previous post, I was simply asking a question, as Redpath was quite competent as Ballot Access Coordinator, but as Chair . . .?
19 Brandon H. // Aug 18, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Will Maine be joining Oklahoma on the list of states that won’t have any non-Republicrats on the ballot, or will the Greens or Nader get on? And will there be any others besides Oklahoma?
20 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The Greens are automatically on because of their Gubanatorial total in 2006, I believe.
and im sure Nader will make it.
21 Deran // Aug 18, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Ballot Access news’ chart shows that the McKinney and Nader are already on the November ballot in Maine.
http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html
22 G.E. // Aug 18, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I can’t wait for Barr to not make the ballot in N.H., so everyone who criticized me for saying he “might not be on the ballot” there can …. ignore it, just the way they did when they criticized Paulie for saying Barr wouldn’t be on the ballot in WV.
Barr supporters are as shameless in their denial of the truth as they are in their statist thuggery.
23 G.E. // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm
The lesson to be learned from Barr-Root: Don’t expect people to fall in line when you hijack their party. Barr won LESS THAN 50% of the credentialed delegates, and then used this ultra-narrow victory to install war-mongering Zionist neocon W.A.R. as his running mate. He’s made NO EFFORT to include real libertarians in his campaign; expecting us to obediently fall in line. Well, DeFraud Caucus: You got the nominee you want… Are you happy with the results?
Barr will score fewer votes than Harry Browne. Maybe even fewer than Badnarik. That’s my prediction and hope.
24 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I suspect Barr wont make it in NH, Maine, Oklahoma, West Virginia, DC.
They COULD also miss the ballot in Conneticut and Minnesota.
25 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:03 pm
GE,
I suspect Barr will do better than Browne in terms of vote totals–but wont break the record by any means.
I do, however, expect Chuck Baldwin to break the CP’s previous record.
26 G.E. // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I got hammered mercilessly here for saying Barr “may not” be on the ballot.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/lrc-reports-barr-whos-unlikely-to-be-on-the-ballot-at-10-in-new-hampshire/
For even suggesting that he MAY not be… As it if were impossible to conceive of the idea he would fail with Eric Dondero on the case.
How many of the people who attacked me there will off their most sincere and humble apologies if my “may be” turns out to be an actual fact? I’m setting the over/under at 0; the same number of people who ripped Paulie for reporting that Barr would not be on the WV ballot.
27 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:09 pm
So Barr could be on as few as 46.
And Nader could be on as many as 45.
I suspect Baldwin will be on 40.
28 Mike Gillis // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I think he’ll easily surpass Badnarik and Browne in votes, but I think alot of what GE is saying is absolutely true.
He squeaked out a victory at the convention over a popular party stalwart with a record that more accurately reflected the party’s ideology; and then almost immediately picked a hawkish divisive VP that was a slap in the face rather than the olive branch that Kubby would have been.
Had his nomination been a resounding one, I would have no issue with him picking the equivalent of Ron Popeil with a televangelist’s haircut as his running mate, but the issues that the radical wing had with Barr were only amplified with Root.
But given that he barely won in the sixth round, it’s silly that he’s made so little effort to win over the party’s base and that he seems so unwilling to stand his ground against pressure from conservatives. His FOX interview about the Fannie Mae bailout started with him saying “no bailouts” and under pressure from the host, ended with him backpedaling and capitulating.
While I certainly have a huge ideological difference with Ron Paul, that guy would stick to his guns, even when all of the others would dogpile him. I like that quality in a candidate. (Ralph does the same thing regularly and it’s one of the reasons I dig him so much)
So it’s not hard for me to see why Barr is having problems getting people excited enough to stand out in the hot sun and approach potentially nasty strangers on his behalf. When the guy you’re petitioning for had voted for the war, the PATRIOT Act and can’t decide whether he supports or opposes corporate bailouts and DOMA, it’s harder to get pumped up.
That said, Barr was clearly the best third party candidate in the LP primaries, with his name recognition, press coverage, record of elected service, money and other qualities, he had the best package.
Unfortunately, he wasn’t the best LIBERTARIAN candidate, and that will cost him support among the LP faithful.
29 Deran // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I’m not sure if they have legal capabilities of doing so, but I see the Colorado GP is threatening to drop McKinney/Clemente from the the CO GP November ballot line.
http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2008/08/14/denver-dnc-demonstration-drama-will-the-colorado-greens-take-cynthia-off-the-ballot/#comment-1064
I’m not sure the GP has the power to remove McKinney/Clemente in Colorado?
30 Steve LaBianca // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Mike Gillis // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I think he’ll easily surpass Badnarik and Browne in votes, . . .
it’s silly that he’s made so little effort to win over the party’s base and that he seems so unwilling to stand his ground against pressure from conservatives. His FOX interview about the Fannie Mae bailout started with him saying “no bailouts†and under pressure from the host, ended with him backpedaling and capitulating.
I’m not surprised . . . Barr isn’t trying to win over libertarians! He is working on getting conservative support, and he doesn’t care that he is confusing voters as to what libertarianism is.
He will likely get more than 700,000 votes, but so what? A few hundred thousand votes more than a political unknown (Badnarik) is progress, seeing as Barr is not running a libertarian campaign? I think not.
Lastly, when called to the mat, Barr backs down, just like W.A.R. does. Some firm commitment to libertarian principles, huh?
31 George Phillies // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Mike:
Barr was not *in* the LP primaries.
As we now know form his Washington Post interview and coverage
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/17/AR2008081702456_2.html
he had decided in February or March to run for President, but he then spent the next several months lying about his intent, so that he could have extended speaking slots at LP State Conventions without needing to confront or debate his opponents.
32 Mike Gillis // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:54 pm
IPR should really do a story on the Colorado/McKinney situation.
I’m hearing so many different things that I’d like to a a good, objective accounting of the facts and possible outcomes of this conflict between party and candidate.
33 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Barr backs down, but WAR is never in conflict to begin with.
34 Mike Gillis // Aug 18, 2008 at 4:58 pm
George,
What I meant by “primaries” wasn’t the primary elections, but the season itself. But your point is taken.
And just to clarify before this becomes the subject of debate.
I said that Barr was the best THIRD PARTY candidate up for the nomination. But that he’s been a terrible LIBERTARIAN candidate.
With a more likeminded party, he’d be far better off.
My contention is that a political party should always run that best, most visible, prominent and newsworthy candidate THAT DOESN’T REQUIRE THEM TO MAKE ANY SIGNIFICANT IDEOLOGICAL CAPITULATIONS. (I don’t know how to do italics on here)
Barr would be a better minor party nominee for another minor party.
35 NewFederalist // Aug 18, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Trent- For Baldwin to make 40 ballots will take a court victory in CA and probably one in PA as well. I think 40 is very optimistic. I am guessing more like 38 perhaps 39 with CA.
36 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I expect CA to be no problem. As for Pennsylvania..I dont know the situation there,but I hope it works to our benefit.
37 NewFederalist // Aug 18, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I live in PA and nobody is chilling the champagne!
38 Steven R Linnabary // Aug 18, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Looks like problems for Barr in PA as well.
http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=671029
Also see Ballot Access News.
PEACE
Steve
39 Ross Levin // Aug 18, 2008 at 8:24 pm
NewFederalist - where in PA?
40 johncjackson // Aug 18, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I floated the theory that Barr may have intentionally missed WV in order to sue. However, I was not serious. I was more or less joking about the depressing lack of ballot success for Barr. It’s so terrible it’s embarrassing. Barr turning in sigs with 30-40% success rate or something while people like Baldwin are easily getting the numbers at high validity rates. It’s just so sad and embarrassing, it’s hard to believe people are even trying. Michael freaking Badnarik had no trouble getting on ballots but Barr can’t? Baldwin and Nader are breezing through the process but the LP needs to sue to get on ballots? wtf.
41 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Baldwin is not breezing through. We could be on as low as 37,or as high as 41.
42 Sivarticus // Aug 18, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Part of Barr’s difficulty could also be “burnout” from Ron Paul. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and others already expended tons of energy earlier this year fighting their damnedest to elect Paul. Many have been trailing away from that effort since February completely burnt out. Sadly, this feels like a year where the main event has already come and gone for anyone on the non-Republican right or in the Libertarian Party.
43 Trent Hill // Aug 18, 2008 at 10:53 pm
sivarticus,
certainly there is SOME burnout. Baldwin is getting thousands of Paul voters telling him they’ll vote for him–but cant raise a dime! Why? They’re tapped as donors. So are his traditional base, who donated to Duncant Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and (god forbid) Mike Huckabee.
44 NewFederalist // Aug 19, 2008 at 8:11 am
Ross- central PA
45 George Phillies // Aug 19, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The Ron Paul campaign published the names of vast numbers of Ron Paul donors who gave all sorts amounts. That’s what the Terra Eclipse clock does. It was entirely possible to take that list and compare with the list of current and past LP National members, or an adequate sample thereof. This was done. The two lists are of different size, but there was about a 10% overlap. The notion that Libertarians are drained out by the Paul campaign is indefensible.
46 darren // Aug 19, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Maine is disappointing.
On the plus side, Barr and the LP are the only alternative to McCain and Obama in North Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, which hold 15% of the electorate. Combined with his higher name recognition in this region, that almost guarantees the highest vote total since 1980.
47 libertycrusader // Aug 24, 2008 at 11:26 pm
West Virginia, Maine, DC: simple.
The LP didn’t make it on the ballot in those places because LP Staff makes a conscious and premeditated decision to eschew - and thus not utilize - the most prolific and high-quality petition circulators in the business (of which I am one).
Maine is my home state. I was welcomed into Maine in 2004 to collect signatures; the LP made it on the ballot. I was dissuaded from coming into Maine in 2008; the LP failed.
You do the math.
48 G.E. // Aug 25, 2008 at 12:08 am
10% overlap? 10% of what? You mean only 10% of LP members gave to Paul? Or 10% of Paul donors are LP members?
Leave a Comment