The two lists are of different size, but there was about a 10% overlap.

10% overlap? 10% of what? You mean only 10% of LP members gave to Paul? Or 10% of Paul donors are LP members?

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.

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.

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.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/ap?articleID=671029

Also see Ballot Access News.

PEACE
Steve

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?