Saturday, June 28, 2008

Bob Barr Not Going Viral

The New York Times ran a feature today on Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr being a spoiler. But there is little evidence so far that Barr is gaining much traction in this election.

Consider, for instance, the rather modest fundraising goal established on Barr's webpage. He seeks to raise $88,000 by July 4, of which $27,000 has been raised so far. Candidates generally do not set fundraising goals that they do not expect to meet, so let's say that Barr succeeds and raises another $61,000 over the course of the next week to beat his goal. In fact, let's say that Barr beats that goal by 50 percent and raises $90,000.

A candidate who is raising $90,000 per week will raise approximately $1.7 million dollars between now and Election Day in November. How would this compare to the amount of funds raised by other recent third-party candidates? The amounts below reflect the total amount of individual contributions to third-party candidates in 2000 and 2004, ignoring PAC money, self-loans, etc.:

2004
Nader Independent $2.5 million
Badnarik Libertarian $1.0 million
Cobb Green $0.5 million
Peroutka Constitution $0.3 million

2000
Buchanan Reform $15.3 million
Nader Green $10.8 million
Brown Libertarian $2.1 million

There was a huge reduction in the amount of funds available to third-party candidates between 2000 and 2004, perhaps because Ralph Nader's impact on the 2000 election led voters to realize that third party candidacies weren't such a cute little idea. But a fundraising haul of $1.7 million would be relatively modest, even by the standards of your typical third-party candidate. Of course, this is just the roughest guesstimate of what sort of money Barr is bringing in, and fundraising may be a relatively small part of the story for a third-party candidate -- Pat Buchanan got more than $15 million from individual contributors in 2000, and had all of 0.43 percent of the vote to show for it. But so far, the Ron Paul money has not been flowing in.

In fact, Ron Paul's website is still getting two or three times as much traffic as Barr's, and appeared to be getting something like 30-40 times as much traffic at its peak in January versus what Barr's is getting now.

It's still early in this election, but perhaps less so for a third-party candidate than for a major party one. There's really very little going on right now on the campaign trail, making it a good time for a third-party candidate to get some free media impressions from a bored press corps. But once the Beijing Olympics begin on August 8th, the country will be distracted for two weeks by those and then we begin the mad dash to the finish, with the conventions and the debates and both sides ramping up their advertising and their opposition research. So Barr has about five or six weeks left to do something newsworthy, or he's going to find it hard to get media oxygen later on.

38 comments

Ephus said...

The bigger news about Bob Barr is that he attacked both McCain and Obama for being pro-comprehensive immigration earlier this week, and did so in nativist terms. Barr will be running a strong anti-immigrant campaign, which likely will find traction among some on the right. It was telling that the NY Times did not mention Barr's immigration stance, which likely was due to an editorial concern about fanning nativist fervor.

Even if Barr does not attract money on the same scale as Ron Paul (and I think he will), he is going to have a real impact in states that have a sizable anti-immigrant vote (Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Iowa and Georgia for starters).

Anonymous said...

TYPO: "He seeks to race $88,000. . . ."

John said...

I feel this is a moment for the right 3rd party candidate. If a serious female candidate ran as a 3rd party with a centrist message (perhaps under the banner of liberal economic issues and conservative military issues), that person and party could be a real spoiler

I would imagine the candidate could get at least 8-10% of the vote simply by reaching disaffected supporters of Hillary Clinton who don't feel symbolically represented by either Obama or McCain (since neither one is a woman).

Don't know if it will happen, but a smart 3rd party wanting to make an electoral dent should think about nominating an energetic, qualified woman.

Anonymous said...

All he has to do is have an affect on Georgia to change the outcome of this election and there's little doubt he'll at least be able to do that - even if he's broke.

Another Mike said...

It's time for some maxed-out Democratic donors to get out the checkbook for Barr.

Juris said...

I would think Barr and Nader both need to get some traction if they're to have any case for being invited to debates against McCain and Obama on national tv. Though I kinda doubt either would be invited no matter what.

judas_priest said...

John,

Now is clearly not the moment for the candidate you hypothesize, since ballot access laws make it just about impossible for a such a late starting campaign to get onto the ballot in most states.

hosertohoosier said...

Dead-on analysis, I have been watching Barr's numbers on his site since he got the nomination and it just isn't happening. He raised about $10,000 in a money bomb - these are Mike Gravel numbers.

As to the person saying "this is the election cycle for a third party", absolute rubbish.

1. The economy is not in long-term trouble. There has been robust economic growth and productivity growth since the mid-90's. The present problems are short-term, and small - it looks like economic growth will come in at 1%. A bad year, but not a recession. Compare that to the early 90's which featured high levels of unemployment, and long-term economic malaise.

2. Unlike 1992 foreign policy issues are still a big deal. Most of the political real estate there is occupied by the big two parties. Since Obama is already lying about how fast you can withdraw troops from Iraq (see the Samantha Power interview where she admits this) one simply can't outbid him on that front. Moreover, third parties are rarely credible on national-security issues. You can get some crazy billionaire to run and talk a good game on economic issues, but not foreign policy. You get foreign policy experience from government, or in other words, from being part of the major parties.

3. Americans are angry at Bush, not angry at the state of America. Want an example? McCain is thus far competitive with Obama, in what should be the worst election cycle in a long while. Obama realizes that, which is why his central message is this McSame thing that his faithful robots keep spewing. That is also how Obama can run on "change" without, you know, changing anything.

4. Ross Perot was credible because he drew centrists. Some Alan Keyes or Ralph Nader can never win the presidency because they are competing for the extremist rump of the GOP and Democrats, respectively. There are more centrists, however. Perot had a chance - a small one - of being president because he was positioned where the votes are. Save Bloomberg, I don't think there are many prospective independent candidates that are so situated - moreover they would have to run against a senator with a reputation as a maverick, and another that likes to talk about bipartisanship, who has always done well among independents.

Juris said...

Hoser: You lost me at #1, but rescued me with the rest of your analysis. The economy is simply a big question mark -- if one could be as certain as you are about how bad things are/might be there wouldn't be nearly the turmoil in the markets as we are now seeing. There is huge risk of a continued inflation cycle on an international scale, with energy costs being just part of the problem. At the very least, this remains a big uncertainty.

However, the "major" third party candidates of record are not only lacking funds but don't have an ideological leg to stand on -- or rather not one with any substantial followings. At least Barr has a potential regional (i.e., Georgia) base, and that could matter even if he only got a few percentage points there.

mtvcdm said...

You know what I think would be a cool idea?

I've always wanted to see the results of individual simulations, but you're the only guys who can hit the 'run simulation' button right now. So I think after you do the 10,000 simulations for the day, open the current model up to the readers and let them run the numbers.

When they do, the results of each simulation get added into the day's projections. The number of simulations would vary from day to day, however, 10,000 was likely picked because it would take that many to get a suitable average. Any more may not change the numbers much or be statistically significant, but A, at the very least it wouldn't HARM the projections since we're still using the same numbers, and B, it'd just be fun.

KQuark said...

I live in GA and Barr will have his biggest impact in this state. GA will be very close and could go Democratic for the first time in a long time because of Barr.

BTW what is up with the Gallup tracking poll. They seem to be the only presidential poll where Obama does not have a lead. I just wonder why they are the only poll different than the others if 538 could investigate that issue it would be of great interest to me and others.

Anonymous said...

Anti-immigration seems like a decidedly non-libertarian stance. Are Barr's positions on immigration in sync with that of the Libertarian Party?

obsessed said...

Even if Barr does not attract money on the same scale as Ron Paul (and I think he will), he is going to have a real impact in states that have a sizable anti-immigrant vote (Texas, Arizona, North Carolina, South Carolina, Iowa and Georgia for starters).

From your lips to the ears of the nativists. This issue will drive a deep, emotional, and financial wedge between the corporations and a large segment of Republican electorate. It's something that Karl Rove would love to use against the left but he can't because his corporate masters can't stop drooling over all that cheap labor.

Checkmate, Karl. And the best part is that the states with the largest "nativist" blocs are at the top of Obama's battleground list. If Obama wins the Kerry states + Iowa, all he needs to push him over the top is North Carolina, OR Georgia, OR C0+NM, OR VA+NM. This is without OH or FL.

obsessed said...

Anti-immigration seems like a decidedly non-libertarian stance.

I'm not a libertarian so maybe someone who is can clarify, but I think they see it as an extension of isolationism. They want to seal off the country first, and then, within that closed system, let "the markets" have their way. It seems stupid to me, given the size and power of modern corporations, but I'm for anything that takes votes away from the Strayed Hawk Express.

JGabriel said...

Nate,

Was there another methodology refinement? If so, I think this one may be the ticket.

First, most of the concerns I raised in comments to the previous post have been alleviated. VA is now showing as a solid toss-up, rather than the light red of the previous simulation; and ND has slightly, but significantly, lower R win percentage in line with it's low polling information.

Also, NV is showing as slightly redder, which also seems more in line with current polling trend.

From a personal point of view, as an Obama supporter, I can't say I'm crazy about the simulation results - for instance, I thought (hoped?) PA would run a little bluer, but I can't think any of sound arguments to support that contention either.

So, whatever the last two packages of changes were - and I hope you'll post a comment describing them soon - this looks like a pretty solid projection and methodology. At least, it seems to match up with polling and intuition - whatever that's worth.

.