Saturday, July 19, 2008

Bob Barr Meets The Netroots

AUSTIN, TX -- While it isn't as buzzworthy as Al Gore's surprise appearance, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr dropped into the Netroots Nation conference today. I spotted him at a panel discussion on House and Senate races a few moments ago, where he had sat down quietly, accompanied by a couple of staffers. After about half an hour, Barr got up to leave, but one of the panelists was sharp enough to work Barr's name into the discussion and he turned around and waved to the audience to a mild round of applause.

What was Barr doing here? The conventional wisdom is that he might be trying to draw out some fundraising support. This is one place where you'll find quite a few maxed out ($2,300) Obama donors, and those people could plausibly contribute to Barr if they think his candidacy would help the Democrat. Barr is also attending the competing Right Online Summit, which is also in Austin tonight, and where interestingly enough he was invited to deliver a keynote speech.

I think it's equally likely, however, that Barr is here simply to get a sense for what makes the netroots tick. Whereas the Ron Paul campaign very much played off the netroots model of highly networked, online-based fundraising and activism, Barr has had less success in getting his candidacy to go viral.

I still find it unlikely that Barr is going to wind up with more than about 1.5 percent of the vote. But if he learns a couple of things, and begins to cultivate support from the right-leaning netroots (an intrinsically libertarianish demographic), his threshold might be higher than that.

51 comments

Ephus said...

Nate,

Given the fact that Barr is the only full-blown anti-immigrant candidate in the race, I think that his ceiling is much higher than 1.5%. I think that approximately 12% of the electorate is virulently anti-immigrant and that Barr has a good chance at getting up to 1/3 of that vote. So I would expect him to end up around 4%, with a ceiling of 8% in states such as Georgia (his home), the Carolinas, Iowa, Colorado and Arizona. If he hits those numbers, it would be very hard for Obama to lose.

That being said, I believe that Barr's anti-immigrant message is very dangerous and do not think it is a good idea for Obama supporters to send money to Barr. I think that fanning the anti-immigrant flames is FAR too dangerous to be worth the small marginal advantage from a more well-funded Barr.

Anonymous said...

Pollster.com has Barr at 2.6%. The combined total for third-party candidates is 6.8%. Even though Nader is showing 4.2%, Obama leads McCain by a wider margin (9.1%) in a four candidate race than he does with just two major candidates.

This should be the opening to discuss whether 3rd parties will impact on the outcome this time around or if we can expect their support to erode to insignificance as the election approaches.

TeamObama said...

DONATE TO OBAMA !

WE NEED YOU

ITS EASY TO DONATE ONLINE

DONATE NOW !

*** CLICK HERE ***

Anonymous said...

does anyone have any proof that a larger ground game makes a candidate more likely to win. (I know it does, what I'm asking is to what extent it helps...if there is any set sense of that )

Another Mike said...

Perhaps Barr thinks he can get some support from the netroots who are angry about FISA? Barr and the Libertarian Party are strongly opposed to government warrantless wiretapping and disaffected with Republican contempt for the rule of law.

Anonymous said...

There's a colossal different between opposing illegal immigration and being "anti-immigrant".

Anonymous said...

The Jul 16 Reuters/Zogby poll showed the Libertarian candidate at 3% with his strongest support coming from independents 7%, 8-29 young 8%, weekly Wal-Mart shoppers 7% and men 7%. I suspect this fits the profile for Ron Paul voters.

Ephus said...

Yes, there is a huge difference between being anti-illegal immigration and anti-immigrant. Given that Barr has flyers stating that the threats of illegal immigration include "diseases borne by illegal immigrants," I think that we are well into anti-immigrant territory.

Alex S. said...

Hmm yes, it could be the FISA issue. Especially the netroots were critical of Obama´s move and Barr might try to collect a few of those. On the other hand, it will be tough for him to forge a coalition between those on the far left and disenchanted Republicans. One might say that both groups prefer a weak government, but that goes only so far on the left. And Nader is there to fill that gap to protect the rights of the individual against the free market. This year, any 3rd party attempt will probably fail to establish a clear anti-establishment agenda.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Netroots might be interested in Barr's position on surveillance. He does strongly advocate for both the constitution's 2nd (guns) and 4th (privacy) amendments.

Immigration case worker said...

Most Americans are anti-immigrant

Illegal or Legal

Americans don't like immigrants

Most Americans don't know that they are descendants of immigrants

did native Americans allow us to come in ?

NO

when Mexicans & other nationals just come in(Illegally) or with papers(Legally)

we don't like it

in 2007

1,052,415 became Legal Permanent Residents of USA

431,368 came from abroad(LEGALLY)
621,047 were already living in USA
(LEGAL)

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/LPR_FR_2007.pdf

Many people are in the line for years to come here legally

Borders are BROKEN

lets hope that Mr OBAMA can fix ILLEGAL & LEGAL IMMIGRATION

Anonymous said...

"diseases borne by illegal immigrants,"

Why shouldn't that be a concern?

Alex S. said...

Shouldn´t Barr be for more immigration? After all, it would decrease wages and should make the american worker more competetive, either legal or illegal. (slightly ironic)

Anonymous said...

AZ+2, TX+2, FL+3 EV after new census. At the expense of MI, IL, NY, PA due to illegal immigrants being counted.

Thats from the Lou Dobbs show.

Please pass me the salt shaker in regards to those gains being wholly attributed to the counting of illegals and not just the normal sunbelt shift.

camipco said...

It seems to me that Libertarians should be pro-immigration. Immigration restrictions are just unnecessary govt meddling with people's free choice, no?

Also, I think in general giving support for tactical advantage to a candidate who's you don't want to win is both immoral and unwise (since there's no guarantee it will have the intended result).

Can't maxed out Obama voters give to the DNC?

Anonymous said...

""Immigration restrictions are just unnecessary govt meddling with people's free choice, no?""

So is cramming 4000 lb worth of people in an elevator with a capacity of 1000 lbs, no?

Ephus said...

With regard to Barr as "anti-immigrant" as opposed to "anti-illegal immigration, here is a quote from a Barr fundraising letter:

"A lack of border security allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. We must be aggressive in securing our borders while also fighting the big-government “nanny state” that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity."

The Barr website also decries the fact that the Supreme Court has held that U.S. hospitals must provide emergency room care to illegal immigrants.

When you put together a description of illegal immigrants as "carriers of communicable diseases" with an attempt to ban hospitals from providing even triage to such people, it is very clear that Barr is anti-immigrant.

Mike in Maryland said...

States where Barr is NOT on the ballot, and thus cannot influence the election (except through write-in vote) in the below-listed states. Zogby is the only polling firm reporting on a state level the support for Barr and Nader. The states listed below, thus, will contribute to the Barr numbers nationwide, but should not be included.

Alabama (Zogby shows up to 4% support for Barr)
Connecticut (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
Iowa (Zogby shows up to 8% support)
Kentucky (Zogby shows up to 3% support)
Maine (No Zogby poll)
Massachusetts (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
Minnesota (Zogby shows up to 8% support)
New Hampshire (Zogby shows up to 10% support)
New Jersey (Zogby shows up to 3% support)
New York (Zogby shows up to 4% support)
Ohio (Zogby shows up to 7% support)
Oklahoma (Zogby shows up to 9% support)
Pennsylvania (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
Rhode Island (No Zogby poll)
South Dakota (No Zogby poll)
Tennessee (Zogby shows up to 7% support)
Virginia (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
Washington state (Zogby shows up to 5% support)
West Virginia (No Zogby poll)

Bryan said...

Really? The Lou Dobbs crowd is trolling it up in the comments at 538 now? Seriously? Gross. Did you bring PUMA with you?

Anonymous said...

If the people who support illegal immigration would offer up their SSN to an online database that immigrants could peruse to steal an identity, at least they'd be putting their money where their mouth is. Otherwise, all I see is hypocrisy.