In a Zogby online survey of 2,248 likely voters nationally, conducted August 23-24 (+/- 2.1%), Libertarian Bob Barr is at four percent in the presidential race, with Green Cynthia McKinney and independent Ralph Nader each at one percent. Barack Obama is at 45%, John McCain 42%.
24 Comments
Comments are closed.
First, are Z Poles just bouncing around like political ping pongs? Seems that way to me!
Go ahead and joke and josh —-but the radical center is just crying out for a viable alternative.
Really, Crazy ole Frat Boy Insane McCain and [the LDS vote] Romney?
Really, Slick Willie II [Obama] and Mister Plagierist [Biden]?
And the Dem and GOP conventions: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Opportunities misses, massive!
2.1% margin of error is also not factoring in apathy levels, which I expect to see rise and thus lead to a disappointing turnout for all those new “Generation Y” voters. So, you’re probably looking at 1.2% for Barr after all that, if lucky.
The online polls mean far less than the phone ones which are far more random and at least try to be scientific.
GiB: I’m sorry, but McKinney will not get Nader’s endorsement. He’s made it clear that he’s in this race until the end, and even so, in what reality would he endorse McKinney, a candidate on fewer ballots, with far smaller support (volunteer-wise and financially), running a lackluster campaign? And why would he bow out for a candidate with shallower accomplishments and an unimpressive VP?
In nearly a year since announcing, she still hasn’t qualified for matching funds, and her supporters were some of the nastiest folks fighting against democratic reform within the GP and who fought the hardest to toss Nader off of Green primary ballots. Not to mention her appearance at the PFP convention, where she all but went all out to toss the nomination to North Korean apologist La Riva to block Nader’s ballot access in CA.
The McKinney campaign is a disaster, as it’s failed to get on a number of ballots from Kansas to Alaska to New Hampshire to Connecticut… Their campaign BARELY got on the ballot in WA, which only requires 1,000 good signatures.
In the year she’s run, she’s almost overtly avoided mainstream press and run a campaign with a running mate that unprofessionally drops F-bombs in most of her speeches and a campaign that OVERTLY courts the lunatic 9/11 Truth Movement (referencing it both in her Newsweek interview and her acceptance speech) and has no fewer than 3 links to 9/11 Truth websites on her campaign site, including links to right-wing xenophobic reactionary Alex Jones’s sites. What with the unprofessionalism, the almost non-existant structure and williness to off-handedly talk about violent revolution, to court fringe and lunatic political nuts, I’m shocked that the Greens even take this ticket seriously.
For McKinney 1% will be a distant fantasy, let alone 5%.
By what objective standard is McKinney running a better campaign than Nader? Nader clearly has far better chance of forcing his issues into the debate and running a campaign that will inspire post-election activism – as he’s pledged to grow the Peace and Freedom Party outside of the state of CA after 2008 and beyond.
The Greens ran to “grow the party” in 2004 and I bought into that argument then and voted for David Cobb. And I saw the delusion of many Greens in actually trying to convince themselves that they HAD grown the party in the face of shrinking membership rolls and money.
The Zogby poll differs from other four- and five-way polls conducted in and around the same time. Check out the link below and notice the list of poll results below the graph:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-pres-ge-mvoand3s.php
Barr plus Baldwin should be over Nader and McKinney in votes. I’m confident this is the year the sun sets on the far left as the main force in American third party politics.
The Zogby email polls also list all these candidates and leave out Baldwin. Luckily, they have the “other” option which I kept selecting.
Baldwin gets the lowest poll inclusion out of the top six candidates. He has only been included in one national poll so far.
Nice to see another poll with McKinney in it. I somehow doubt that McKinney is equal to Nader at this point – most people I know don’t know she’s running, in part b/c of the 3rd party media blackout, but that will change.
I’d like to think that in November, when people make a decision to vote between Nader and McKinney, that they’ll choose the candidate trying to build the Green Party, and not the independent who’s been running since the 90’s. I also think that Nader + McKinney >= Barr by the time all is said and done, although state by state this will differ widely, depending on ballot status and party organization by state.
If Nader and McKinney are both doing very well (say 3-5%) in late October, I’d love to see Nader endorse McKinney to get the Greens over 5%, but I doubt in this environment that is possible.
Although third party candidates always show much less in the vote totals, this poll is, by itself, excellent news.
The difference between Obama and McCain in this poll is 3%. Barr is at 4%. And the margin of error is 2.1%. This means that if the Repugnant candidate could appeal to Barr voters by adopting Barr’s positions on many issues, he could beat Obama – according to this poll, and if the election were held today, etc.
Unfortunately, Barr’s positions are libertarian on most issues, so it doesn’t help the libertarian movement at all. And, I don’t think McCain has the sense to modify any of his positions – he’s extremely arrogant by all accounts.
But, then, there is time for McCain to drop dead suddenly, or be completely incapacitated by stroke, before the GOP convention. So, there is time for the GOP leadership to continue to ignore the results of this poll.
Wouldn’t McCain choosing Lieberman be a major blunder by one of the major parties?
I don’t think you will see an endorsement. He is trying to reform his party and to endorse someone outside it would be suicide. That’s why won’t endorse anyone running against incumbent republicans in local elections. (That’s also why I couldn’t get his endorsement)
http://www.nks2008.com
Mind you, the fat lady, who is actually a thin guy, may yet sing.
A Ron Paul endorsement for any of the above will have a significant effect, especially if it is the day after the Republican national convention.
Barr 2008 fundraising is running about even with Badnarik 2004, but Badnarik 2004 raised little money pre-convention and Barr raised something approaching $200,000 by the end of May.
I think I no longer have the file, but there was a firm doing daily large phone polls for several months preconvention, reporting them to the nearest 0.1%, meaning you could easily see the random scatter, and a cubic splines fit up to near to election day came in fairly close to the final outcome…iirc moderately above 400,000 votes, when Browne was modestly below 400,000 votes.
Zogby collects a sample, and then does demographic normalization, so his approach is not as odd as an internut volunteer poll. If it were, we would see Barr and Paul tied at close to half the vote. (8^))
Two disclaimers . . . if McCain chooses Joe Lieberman, or either major party candidates makes a major blunder or “coup” before election day, then the whole scenario changes significantly. The results prediction would likely be like throwing darts, blindfolded!
Sivarticus // Aug 25, 2008 at 3:18 am
It’s almost a given that both Barr and Nader will at least break 1% each this time.
In 2004, Badnarik got about 0.36%, and Nader got about 0.42%. Obviously 2008 isn’t 2004, so circumstances are different. However, one thing is nearly immutable . . . polls/surveys taken 3 months before election day are indicative of nothing. In 2000, Harry Browne was “polling” in major, national polls at 1% and more. His vote total was less than 0.4%.
My SWAG and loose “prediction is that if the election is generally perceived as reasonably close between the Dems and GOP, you can take the poll #’s for third party and other alternative candidates and divide by 3 or more.
With Badnarik in New Mexico, the factor was divide his poll #’s by 7. BTW, New Mexico was considered a strong sate for Badnarik . . . he got less than 0.7% there.
IMHO, ABSOLUTE best case for Barr, 1.2%, or something like 1.4 million votes. I think its highly likely he gets 700,000 to 1,200,000.
Zogby sends out email surveys. I get them. I don’t always participate.
Zogby also asks, along with the survey questions, if the respondent knows of anyone else who would like to participate.
So, Zogby’s “methods” from what I can determine, aren’t random, and are mostly geared around self selecting participation.
On the Zogby website, the Barr results are referred to as the ‘horserace question’. I could not find the list of questions, but that makes it sound more like ‘what percentage of votes do you expect the candidates to receive?’ than ‘who are you voting for?’
Does anyone have clarity on Zogby’s methods/questions? I know they are a panel-based survey rather than a random poll.
I doubt very seriously that the combined popular vote totals of all alternative candidates combined will approach 5%. Too much fear and hate to overcome with any sort of logic.
There is enormous pressure on voters to choose between the dem & rep putting them near 50% on election day.
I agree. I think Nader and Barr have a good shot at breaking 1%.
I don’t know if I’d call it a given, but I think it’s quite plausible.
Oh, come on. It’s almost a given that both Barr and Nader will at least break 1% each this time.
libertarians just have to wake up.
Mike Theodore, something like that.
Milnes 40%, behind a write in victory unprecedented in American history!
Election day: Barr .4%, McKinney .1%. Nader .1%.