A Zogby poll of 1,237 likely voters across the U.S. conducted October 3-6 (+/- 2.8%) shows Libertarian Bob Barr at 1.3%, independent Ralph Nader 1.0%, Green Cynthia McKinney 0.1%, and “other” at 1.0%. Barack Obama leads John McCain 47.7% to 45.3%.
14 Comments
Comments are closed.
I took an online Zogby poll that gave me several options for president. I received a phone call follow up that only listed the Republicrats. I told them I was voting for McKinney. Most people would probably just pick their preferred out of the two choices offered to them. Most people will actually have several choices on the ballot. Zogby doesn’t acknowledge that in their phone polls though.
I would make the prediction that Nader is old news, and is not going to get much better results than he did in 2004. I think he peaked in 2000. Given some name recognition and marginally greater panic, noting that he is on in a lot of states this year, and assuming the votes are even counted, I predict on the close order of 600,000 for Nader.
Barr has a very short name. Short names do well in elections. He also has a lot of name recognition in Georgia. I doubt if there are very many libertarians who haven’t heard some of the issues surrounding this guy. But, even so, he’s probably good for as many votes as Harry Browne in 1996, plus a few for having a short name. I predict on the close order of 500,000 votes.
Charles Jay is not on very many ballots. He has had very little money for his campaign. He has an exceptionally short name. And he’s done very well in all the debates where he was invited. I’m going to predict 20,000 votes, including write-in votes in states where those are counted (in some states they are prohibited!). I admit to some optimism in this regard, and that the write-in numbers won’t come in early.
I think Chuck Baldwin is new, and thus not thoroughly hated yet by very many people. He has the Ron Paul endorsement. I think that’s probably good for 100,000 votes nationwide. I’m going to predict 125,000 votes for Baldwin.
Finally, Cynthia McKinney. I think the Greens are pretty well organised. I’m going to predict 150,000 votes for her.
I would be very surprised if more than a few hundred vote for Tom Stevens in Colorado, or anywhere else. I would be surprised if any of the other candidates who are on the ballot in just a few states get more than a few thousand votes altogether, with one exception.
Ron Paul is, as I understand it, on the ballot in Louisiana and in Montana. He had a huge amount of support this year. He did a lot of media appearances. He continues to get press. And I think there are enough unhappy people in those two states for him to get on the order of 200,000 votes, just in those two states. Probably wildly optimistic, but I’m calling it.
I’m having a tough time getting over 1.6 million votes for third party candidates.
I have no dog in the race between McCain and Obama, but I’m going to predict Obama by a landslide. Call it 300 to 350 electoral votes, maybe more.
Just unlikely?
I’m willing to wager they might at least break a 3% threshold and that’s total – everyone combined. Which isn’t so far fetched at all to consider. It’s kinda sad in a way, seeing as how every 8 years third parties seem to have their best shot at winning. This year, even with all the hype, “celebrity” candidates, and numerous endorsements, the whole movement seems to have taken a step back.
There are too many factors to name, but to me, you can pretty much sum it all up and come up w/ two names: Ron Paul and Barack Obama.
But then Perot did run as the candidate of the newly formed Reform Party in 1996 so even then his 8% of the vote is something that third parties are unlikely to achieve this year.
Besides, if you don’t want to include independents in this then you should remove Nader from your totals because he is independent other than a few small state parties.
Ross,
I don’t really include Perot because he ran as an independent.
I’m talking about 3rd parties total votes. I believe we could get more than 5%. People are utterly disgusted and it is only getting worse with more bailouts to come.
I was in that poll, among the “other” tally (that was within statistical error of all but the two War Party wings). Wake me when this is over
Record year? No matter what, it will be a very weak year for third parties. Maybe a record year if you’re just talking about this election and 2004. But even in 2000 Nader got 2.7% of the vote. A record year for third parties would be closing in on 30% of the vote. If you’re just talking about the past couple of decades, to get a third party record you’d have to get at least 20% of the vote.
So third parties are still in a lull. But why do you think we’re here? We’re trying to change that.
I think Barr will get 1% and Nader will probably get more than that. I believe the bailout has ensured this is going to be a record year for 3rd parties.
Except with Nader with a higher vote total/%age than Barr. The total third party vote will likely be lass than 2%.
Does anyone else see that on election day Barr and Nader will get about 0.5% to 0.8% of the vote?
Although you could say the same thing about Clinton being a woman.
I think it is going to be interesting to gauge the effects of the Obama campaign on McKinney’s. Obviously her initial lure was that she was a congresswoman, but i’ll bet they were also aiming for the black vote too,and probably considered this a VERY big future constituency if Clinton (or anyone other than Obama) won.
Odd how Barr only seems to outpoll Nader on Zogby polls, while Nader outpolls him in most of the other ones.
I wonder why that is.
These numbers sound right based on previous election results. If 1% is roughly 1 million people, then that’s 3 million people voting Third parties, which is pretty good. Much better than in 2004 . Hopefully more Americans are waking up , we must continue to wake them up
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5127.html