He'll be the nominee of the Constitution Party:
On September 5, the ballot-qualified Constitution Party of Montana submitted its presidential elector candidates to the Secretary of State. The party informed the Secretary of State that its electors are pledged to Ron Paul for president and Michael Peroutka for vice-president. Ron Paul was aware that the party planned to do this, and has said that as long as he can remain passive and silent about the development, and as long as he need not sign any declaration of candidacy, that he does not object.Could Paul be a difference-maker? He's actually pretty popular up there. Paul was responsible for raising 8.4 percent of the funds raised by all Presidential candidates in Montana. By that metric, Montana is his third-best state after Alaska and North Dakota.
Highest Ron Paul Fundraising Share, as
Percentage of All Presidential Candidate
Funds Raised
Alaska 12.2%
North Dakota 8.8%
Montana 8.4%
Idaho 7.3%
New Hampshire 6.5%
Wyoming 6.4%
Iowa 6.3%
Nevada 5.3%
Kansas 5.1%
Hawaii 5.0%Paul also got about 22 percent of the Republican vote in the largely meaningless Republican primary in June, and finished ahead of McCain (but behind Mitt Romney) in the somewhat meaningful Republican caucus in February.I do think he'll steal a few votes from McCain -- particularly given the selection of Sarah Palin, who may not play all that well with libertarianish Republicans. But he'll likely also take some votes from Obama, especially among under-30 voters, as well as from other third-party candidates. And having attended a Ron Paul event in Chicago last summer (don't ask -- we don't get many presidential candidates around these parts), I also get the sense that he turns out certain folks who just wouldn't bother voting period if it weren't for Ron Paul.
My guess? He gets 5-6 percent of the vote, taking 2-3 percent from McCain, 1-2 percent from Obama, and 2-3 percent from other/nobody.
243 comments
McChain is marching to victory. Admit it, Nate.
Methinks Flordia just went Democratic.
the corruption and destruction of the GOP by neocon warmongers and Christaliban looneytunes
If you're referring to Bush, it's his liberalism that I, as a socially conservative sort-of libertarian, don't like. "Compassionate conservatism" and all that. Of course, that has been completely dropped from the narrative about Bush because it doesn't fit the left's story.
You might be right about "neocon warmongers"-- after all, libertarians are against all foreign conflict (inexplicably).
But any libertarian that supports, for example, a massive mobilization of society to respond to the "crisis" of "climate change," Al Gore-style, with no respect to the health of the economy and the freedom of individuals to live life as they choose, is not a libertarian.
And this is just one of many issues on the left that those who value their civil liberties should fear.
I maintain that libertarians are closer to the right than liberals, and if they are voting for Obama they might as well cancel that subscription to Reason and get a lobotomy.
FORGET MONTANA
MCCAIN 53
OBAMA 42
PALIN IS A BIG HELP THERE
DON`T THINK HE POLLED RON PAUL THOUGH
Is it too much to ask that posters post links to polls when they post them?
Sheesh...
"I maintain that libertarians are closer to the right than liberals, and if they are voting for Obama they might as well cancel that subscription to Reason and get a lobotomy."
I consider myself a "liberaltarian". I am doing everything in my power to get Obama elected. Not because I support all of his views and programs, but because, as Ed Koch would put it, the alternative is "scary".
Neither party in any way represents libertarianism. For every policy position you can come up with where the current bastardization of the GOP is better for libertarians than the Dems would be, I can find at least one that is the reverse.
You're worrying about Al Gore and climate change? I'm worried about John McCain starting World War 3. I'm worried about the economy collapsing due to out-of-control spending. I'm worried about one of our cities getting nuked, because 4 more years of military adventurism, and I think it will happen.
I want to see a GOP where the "G" stands for what it used to. And that will NOT happen by rewarding the party for the last 8 year of disaster by voting in another set of incompetent liars cut from the same cloth.
How about a link for those MT numbers?
Hotline/FD National Tracking Poll:
45-44 McCain.
Gallup Daily Tracking on 9/9 has McCain up 5% second day in a row. Has his post-convention bounce plateaued? Is this his high point until the debates?
Way back in November when Rasmussen polled a hypothetical Clinton/Guiliani/Paul/Nader race, he states, "Perhaps because of his position on the War in Iraq, Paul attracts more support from Democrats than Republicans", so it's far from obvious that this would on the whole benefit Obama. I thought there was a more recent Rass poll that showed something similar for the actual Obama/McCain match-up (though I think in that case Paul drew evenly from both parties), but I can't find it now.
Montana is listed as a Premium members poll on RasmussenReports.com.
This is the beginning of the end for the Obama phenomenon.
McCain, in a moment of genius, picked Palin and the libs cannot defeat her no matter how hard they try.
Palin will be remembered as the woman who saved the country from the ultra-leftist Obama, and McCain will be remembered as McGenius.
Gallup Daily Tracking on 9/9 has McCain up 5% second day in a row. Has his post-convention bounce plateaued? Is this his high point until the debates?
The number that launched him from 2 behind to 3 ahead (probably something like a +10 to a +15) drops out tomorrow.
This is the beginning of the end for the Obama phenomenon.
Another one?
When Rasmussen polled a hypothetical Clinton/Guiliani/Paul/Nader race, he states, "Perhaps because of his position on the War in Iraq, Paul attracts more support from Democrats than Republicans"
You've rather conveniently ignored something: Obama is the Democratic anti-war candidate. Clinton supported the Iraq War.
If Ron Paul had had a meaningful Democratic following, you'd have seen it reflected during the primaries, in the form of Democrats crossing over to vote for him in Republican primaries.
That didn't happen. What did happen was that Democratic primaries drew twice or more the participation of the Republican contests.
It's a big country and Montana is a little more loosely attached than a lot of places, so there'll be some Democratic votes that'll go to Ron Paul there. But not too many. The vast majority of his support is going to come out of McCain's hide.
p.s.: There's a lot of commentary about MT here from people who have obviously never stepped foot in the state.
I've been to MT...and I live in ND.
The number that launched him from 2 behind to 3 ahead (probably something like a +10 to a +15) drops out tomorrow.
According to Gallup:
"Gallup polling in recent days has been quite stable, showing McCain ahead of Obama by similar margins in each of the last four individual days of nightly tracking."
Don't expect the numbers to move much in either direction for at least a couple days.
Now I hear Obama is in big financial trouble.
Whither Obama?
How will this hurt Democrat Congressional candidates and incumbents?
According to Gallup:
"Gallup polling in recent days has been quite stable, showing McCain ahead of Obama by similar margins in each of the last four individual days of nightly tracking."
Don't expect the numbers to move much in either direction for at least a couple days.
That's nice, but numbers don't lie. If they don't move, Gallup has proven themselves either incompetent or fraudulent.
I take it you didn't bother to read the details of Nate's post about the difficulties in extracting individual results from the trackers.
If you think that Gallup's statement about their individual results are already clearly fraudulent, then why are you even watching them anymore?
Gallup went from +2 Obama on Saturday to +3 McCain on Sunday...only a huge number (much larger than +5) could have made that large a swing in one day.
If the polls had been "similar" since then, today's average would now be more or less three of that huge number averaged together, which would make today's average that huge number, not merely the +5 that it is.
I suspect the MT numbers are from Rasmussen. They are up on teh site, but only available to premium members.
Charles, your post is fair and I thank you for it. However, I think (obviously) you are wrong in your analysis of which candidate will be worse for libertarian principles.
You're worrying about Al Gore and climate change? I'm worried about John McCain starting World War 3. I'm worried about the economy collapsing due to out-of-control spending. I'm worried about one of our cities getting nuked, because 4 more years of military adventurism, and I think it will happen.
That's fair, but I think you're equating a symptom with the problem in the war. "Military adventurism" may sometimes work as propaganda for terrorists to hate and attack America, but their hatred is more fundamental than that; it is a liberal fallacy that radical Islam would be a friend to America if only we would stay away.
As far as spending goes, I think Obama's position on that is clearly articulated: more, more, and more. McCain may not be much of a small government conservative; he is famously anti-pork but earmarks are a relatively small part of the budget. He is also in favor of regulations on businesses, which ties them closer to government and constricts the free market. But on taxes, he is more of a friend of libertarians; that much is clear. Obama can talk all he wants about how 85% of Americans will see a tax cut under his plan, but that means the 15% of the richest people will be taxed MORE, meaning MORE money for government to fund Obama's inevitable do-goody social schemes.
And even that ignores that with the Bush tax cuts, the federal government saw increased revenues; "the rich" made more money and thus paid more money in taxes to the federal government, despite lower tax rates.
So what might end up happening under Obama is that despite higher tax rates for "the rich," they end up paying less money in taxes because with a higher tax environment, they make less money. And since these people are the investors and employers of our nation, that means that the 85% that are paying less in taxes, will pay even less and less because they now have less money, due to the taxes on "the rich." Which means that the federal government under Obama, despite much higher taxes overall, will have much less revenue to spend on its lavish federal programs. Which means debt, poverty, and unemployment.
To our great future!
djl wrote:
Libertarians like Sarah Palin? Really?
I've voted Libertarian in every presidential election since I turned 18, and the woman gives me the willies. Between the (alleged) attempt at book banning, the (apparent) extreme social conservatism, and the mocking of people who are concerned about civil liberties that may be infringed by the "war on terror"...man, I dunno.
While I am certainly no Libertarian, you have rattled off the short list (which could be longer) of why I would imagine Libertarians being utterly repulsed by Palin.
I have to admit, of all the astonishing things this election cycle, the apparent popularity of Palin to Independents and Libertarians is, by far, the most perplexing.
Glenn in CO,
Someone might have already corrected you on this, but -- You stated that the national Constitution Party nominated Alan Keyes, but that's not true. He tried to get the nomination but failed. Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist preacher who some anti-"New World Order" types seem to like, got the nomination. Bob Smith actually tried to get their nomination for the 2000 election, but claims that anti-Catholic sentiment within the party prevented it from happening. Perhaps Keyes, a black Catholic, was a bridge too far.
"America's Got Talent but remember, the voter lines don't open until the after the show", says Jerry Springer . . . "and then America decides". The show is the 1st debate. I bet the audience will be biger than the biggest night of the conventions. Their is a lot of support both ways that is wide and about 1/2 inch deep.
Nate and the boys are having a bad week. Montana is in:
Montana Rasmussen
McCain 53,Obama 42 McCain +11
Colorado and Nevada will follow as the ALL WESTERN, gun toting ticket dashes all Obama hopes in the Mountain Time Zone!
Nate, are you still predicting "Obama will be up a couple, three points by the end of this week", as you stated last Friday?
P.S. Keep sending Biden to Montana! That's sure to turn things around!
New Rasumussen Montana poll out. McCain is +11. That should take the pipe dream of Obama winning it off the board with or without Ron Paul.
Also new Survery USA North Carolina poll with McCain +20. Yes you heard it right +20. I think we can safely say the wild fantasy of Obama winning NC is gone, and should also start making people realise that Virginia is fools gold.
New Flordai polls show Mccain 50 to 45.
Looks like if Obama wants to win this election his only real shot is out west in Colorado and Nevada.
So much for the Ron Paul effect in Montana:
Rassmusen released,
McCain +11
This discussion seems to be over, but I thought I would point to this article at Reason that makes my point for me.
Just like people shouldn't underestimate the impact Barr with have in Georgia right? /sarcasm
Sorry, this talk about how Paul could play spoiler in Montana is about as silly as the talk that Barr would be a spoiler in Georgia. Remember all that? Now no one even mentions it as a possibility.
Sure, Paul could be a spoiler. Sure, Barr could be a spoiler. Just wake me when we have a number of polls consistently showing it.
Nate: Been reading through your blog from 28AUG to current. You miscalled it on the Palin effect and have not manned up to admit that. Also, Palin helps with libertarians. I was going to vote for Barr, but will now vote for Palin and send John McCain a duck hunting invitation from Dick Cheney after the election.
Have studied the Electoral College for hours upon hours every national election year and still haven’t a clue as to how it it has survived. It is simply tiring explaining it and studying it- almost as tiring as this country’s bogus “two party system” that we are forced to participate in IF we choose to vote. Bottom line is, if 200 million people vote, then 200 million votes should be properly counted and the winner named the winner based on popular vote - period. It is remarkable that A) This archaic system is still in place in 2008 when every tiny corner of this country is more connected via internet and cable television than ever, and B) WHY THE PUNDITS ON TV OR RADIO NEVER TALK ABOUT IT!!!! EVER! Most importantly, if everyone knew clearly that their vote TRULY counted in whatever state they lived in and that their vote could not be over ridden because they live in a “blue or a red state” then more people would vote. Absolutely nuts.
Can anyone who lives in and/or knows MT very well make a strong case for the state not being in play?
I'm a Montanan (Missoula) - and Ron Paul has a huge following here. In the Gop Primary and Caucus (we have both) Paul got 25% and 20% respectively.
Having Paul on the ballot will hurt McCain much, much more than Obama. And to those who say that Palin will win it for McCain: No. We're not gullible and we can see through her transparent facade.
I will be ecstatic to see the next MT poll that includes Paul. I'm expecting something like 45% Obama 38% McCain 17% Paul. Yes. I'm serious.
Using Pollster.com's excellent interactive feature, I've just compared Google Insights graphs of third parties' popularity with Pollster.com graphs of their candidates in the same "toss-up" states. See my Word Face-Off blog.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
I live in Helena, Montana. All I see are Obamanite hippies. Where did the libertarians go? The South.
http://offgridmontana.com
Post a Comment