Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Science of Spoilerage
Michael Goldfarb counterintuitively argues that Bob Barr will hurt Obama.
Ron Paul voters would seem to be the irreconcilables of the Republican party. They aren't going to vote McCain no matter what, but they might have voted Obama to punish their party and force a withdrawal from Iraq. If Andrew Sullivan is any indicator, supporting Ron Paul and Barack Obama are not mutually exclusive.
Look, I love Andrew Sullivan, too, but using him as a demographic indicator is like using a black swan to make a point about water fowl. Ron Paul's coalition had three main sectors: anti-war leftists, Bob Taft conservatives, and unreconcilable political outcasts. The anti-war leftists will move over to Obama. You can guess what will happen to the unreconcilables. The Taft types will be extremely gettable for Bob Barr, who will be building a coalition that won't look exactly like Paul's.
Where does a lot Barr's potential base come from? Embittered white conservatives who will not vote for McCain but could never vote for Obama. Some of these people are racists (or people who put too much faith in the e-mails their cousins forward them); most, hopefully, will be talk radio listeners who consider McCain a quisling on immigration, taxes, free speech, etc and etc. They've spent the primaries casting protest votes for Paul or Huckabee, or putting on Operation Chaos fatigues and voting for Clinton. I'm a huge skeptic about the salience of the immigration issue, but with a Republican base this depressed and angry, immigration can be effective wedge for Barr. He doesn't have to finesse his position very much to attack the guy talk radio calls "Juan Amnesty McCain."
The effect this will have on the election, of course, isn't just a zero-sum vote-for-vote effect. It has the potential to box in McCain the way Ralph Nader boxed in Al Gore. How much can McCain brag about his immigration reform cred in public, to Hispanic voters, without Barr rallying the talk radio vote? How much time or money does Barr make McCain waste in a gimme state like Georgia or Alaska, the way Nader made Gore waste time in Oregon and Minnesota? Republicans are avidly hoping that Paul does not rent his donor list to Barr (or Chuck Baldwin) because they see the potential here.
(Obviously, the calculus changes a little if the LP nominates Root, or a left-libertarian like Gravel or Ruwart.)
Neil|5.19.08 @ 12:16PM|#
Barr still has to get the nomination doesn't he?
The Republicans won't have to worry about Root or Gravel.
David Weigel|5.19.08 @ 12:23PM|#
I'd say 50 percent chance of Barr, 25 percent for Root, 20 percent for Ruwart, 5 percent for anyone else. The media blitz is really aiding Barr.
lunchstealer|5.19.08 @ 12:23PM|#
Look, I love Andrew Sullivan, but using him as a demographic
indicator is like using a black swan to make a point about water
foul.
You mean like "Some isolated populations of waterfowl may have
marked variations in coloration relative to the norm for the
species"? Cause I think you could make that point using the black
swan as an example. Indeed, if you add a white squirrel, you can
expand that not only to other fowl, but to the whole of classes
Aves and Mammalia.
Also, I don't feel leftist.
Episiarch|5.19.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Neil, who was hotter, Heather Thomas from The Fall Guy or Heather Locklear from T. J. Hooker? Note that there is only one acceptable answer to this question.
joe|5.19.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Good analysis about Paul's voters, but why assume that Barr's
pull on Republicans would be limited to Paul voters?
Various stripes of anti-McCain conservatives had plenty of other
conservative candidates to vote for in the primaries.
David Weigel|5.19.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Various stripes of anti-McCain conservatives had plenty of
other conservative candidates to vote for in the
primaries.
Uh, that's my point. Those voters, along with conservative
independents and Democrats who hate Obama, are gettable for
Barr.
|5.19.08 @ 12:29PM|#
I don't buy that anti-war leftists made up a significant portion of Paul supporters. Anti-war leftists were voting in the dem primaries. Anti-war, fiscal conservatives and small government types are NOT leftists.
Guy Montag|5.19.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Dang, almost got to use my favorite Ann Coulter quote*, but it
does not quite work here. Have to use mine "just because it is
counterintuitive does not mean it's right." Nice catch,
David.
*"Just because it is not counterintuitive does not make it
wrong."
Bingo|5.19.08 @ 12:35PM|#
I don't think it matters too much at this point who gets the nomination. The GOP is hemorrhaging voters. It doesn't matter if they go to Paul, Barr, or Obama because either way they are not going to vote for McCain. The lack of fiscal conservatism for the last 8 years has turned a lot of people off to the party completely.
robc|5.19.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Can Barr get the Huckabee vote?
I dont see Barr attracting many of the evangelicals.
Abdul|5.19.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Look, I love Andrew Sullivan, too, but using him as a
demographic indicator is like using a black swan to make a point
about water foul.
Certainly, the fowlest analogy I've seen.
Not Neil|5.19.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Heather Thomas was much hotter than cute and Heather Locklear was much cuter than hot.
Bingo|5.19.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Neil: Considering McCain's appeal to independents and moderates you would think that he would have a large lead. I'd assume that the numbers he is making don't include the small government-types that normally would have voted GOP but are now looking at other candidates.
Neil|5.19.08 @ 12:43PM|#
Did you know that my abilities to overcome cognitive dissonance are unmatched by any other living thing on this planet?
Neil|5.19.08 @ 12:47PM|#
That was not me above.
Remember folks: Obama is relying on the two most unreliable types
of voters: the young and blacks. The only reliable block in his
coalition that will turn out will be federal government workers
sucking off the big government tit.
Episiarch|5.19.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Heather Thomas was much hotter than cute and Heather
Locklear was much cuter than hot.
This is an acceptable answer.
I'm sorry but I believe the reverse to be true.
This is not, Neil. What's wrong? You blew the Scritti Politti
question from yesterday, and now this?
Neil|5.19.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Joe maybe you can tell us how reliable young college voters
are.
They'll say they're going to the polls, and on election day hit the
bong and down a bag of cheetos instead.
|5.19.08 @ 12:54PM|#
"Obviously, the calculus changes a little if the LP nominates
Root ...."
Come on, dude! If the LP nominates Root, the whole world changes!
It's a totally different f*cking reality if Root's the nominee!
Wake up! Wake the f*ck up!
|5.19.08 @ 12:55PM|#
More reliable than your predictions to date, Reverend
Wrong.
Believe it or not, this isn't actually a thread about Barack
Obama.
Bingo|5.19.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Neil: Well he does promise to bring some transparency to the
table, even while implementing a lot of socialist policies. Maybe
once people get a clear view of the inner workings of government
they might have second thoughts about the consequences of all the
pork.
Anyways, you completely ignored my point. Since McCain actually
does appeal to a lot of moderates and independents his lead would
be much larger if he hadn't completely alienated the small
government faction of the GOP.
Untermensch|5.19.08 @ 12:59PM|#
is like using a black swan to make a point about water foul
Is David just being poetic here and saying that if you see a black
swan you know the water was dirty, or does he, perchance, mean
"water fowl"? It seems only Abdul noticed the strange formulation
here.
Neil|5.19.08 @ 1:00PM|#
LOL nothing says "transparency" like a background in corrupt Chicagoland politics hanging out with characters like Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Richard Daley Jr., and Reverend Wright.
Urkobold™|5.19.08 @ 1:03PM|#
NEIL, YOU FOOL OF GREAT FOLLY, ARE YOU INSANE? THEY JUST STARE AT THE URKOBOLD, HYPNOTIZING HIM. . . .
Guy Montag|5.19.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Is David just being poetic here and saying that if you see a
black swan you know the water was dirty,
That is the charitable version I was going with, until he fixed
it.
David Weigel|5.19.08 @ 1:05PM|#
I made a homonym error. Thanks for the reminders - I would have left the error up otherwsie.
Guy Montag|5.19.08 @ 1:08PM|#
DW,
I liked it better the old way. Oh well, I will have to find a new
favorite poet :)
B|5.19.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Republicans are avidly hoping that Paul does not rent his
donor list to Barr
Based on my inbox, I'm pretty sure that ship has sailed. I can't
think of where else Barr's campaign would have gotten mine.
|5.19.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Weighing in on the Heather Locklear vs. Heather Thomas
controversy racking this thread:
Heather Locklear is cuter than hot.
Heather Thomas is hotter than cute.
I'd say Neil failed the Turing test here.
|5.19.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Since McCain actually does appeal to a lot of moderates and
independents his lead would be much larger if he hadn't completely
alienated the small government faction of the GOP.
If McCain had done stuff to appeal to the small government faction
of the GOP, the votes he gained by that would be more than offset
by his plummeting support among moderates and independents, and
someone else would likely be the Republican nominee.
|5.19.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Obama is relying on the two most unreliable types of voters: the young and blacks. The only reliable block in his coalition that will turn out will be federal government workers sucking off the big government tit.
Yay! I fit all three categories!
But about the military vote. Obama has more support than ye might
expect from a Dem (the Clinton years brought drawdown and soldiers
walking around at NTC with signs that said 'I'm a Tank'). So even
though Dems don't fund the military like Republicans tend to, many
in the military (esp. the Army) are getting sick of deploying for a
year every other year into a war with no end in sight.
Apologies, this isn't an Obama thread (but it's like you can't
mention politics without mentioning the guy).
the innominate one|5.19.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Some of these people are racists (or people who put too much
faith in the e-mails their cousins forward them)...
I think you mean their cousin-spouses.
|5.19.08 @ 1:37PM|#
And the visibility of Heather Thomas' camel toe in that one pic cannot be a product of my perverse imagination.
|5.19.08 @ 1:49PM|#
I know there aren't that many libertarians/Libertarians, but I
wonder how many votes Barr will LOSE from libertarians if he is the
nominee.
I am a ( capital L) Libertarian, and I will not vote for Barr or
McCain. If Barr is the nominee, I have about a 90% of not voting at
all and maybe 10% for Obama.
Lee|5.19.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Locklear vs Thomas
Oh the answer is you're both wrong. Because they're both really
old
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=kat+deluna+pics&um=1&ie=UTF-8
Welcome to 2008.
(How the hell do you make a link like that prolefeed?)
|5.19.08 @ 2:04PM|#
I'd say Neil failed the Turing test here.
I'd show both Heathers my infinite-length memory tape, if you know
what I mean. I'd show them my 3-state busy beaver, nudge nudge. I'd
turn them into o-state oracle machines, giggity. I'd show them the
Halting Problem in action.
Ok, enough.
Taktix®|5.19.08 @ 2:13PM|#
I still don't see why people still think Ron Paul is going to
make a third party run. He made it clear before Barr jumped in, and
I doubt he'd split the votes with a high-profile Libertarian
(big-L) candidate.
I'll bet a large stack of fiat money he'll pass the torch to Barr,
and hopefully, if Barr wins, that money will be worth
something.
Also, I'll see your pair of Heathers and raise you a
Misa Campo...
None|5.19.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Where's Reason's coverage of the Tucker Carlson for the LP nomination rumour?
|5.19.08 @ 2:34PM|#
"Remember folks: Obama is relying on the two most unreliable
types of voters: the young and blacks. The only reliable block in
his coalition that will turn out will be federal government workers
sucking off the big government tit."
The only reliable block of voters for McCain are those from the
military industrial establishment sucking from the government
tit.
Duckman|5.19.08 @ 2:38PM|#
I think Barr has the potential to attract many Republicans. This
is true because of the unique situation with this year's Republican
Party and its unpopular nominee, John McCain, and the fact that
Barr has more name recognition and experience than most other
Libertarian candidates (except Gravel, but he's an 11 on the kook
scale for most people).
However, there are some problems for conservatives who want to
support Barr. Barr is not, as far as I can tell, one of these
people who is foaming at the mouth about illegals. Remember, alot
of the reason McCain turned off core conservatives last year was
because of McCain's position on amnesty. The LP is probably further
left than McCain is on that issue, and Barr doesn't say much about
it on his web site.
However, the cynical side of me suspects that amnesty and drug
legalization may be two issues that Barr is trying to straddle both
sides of the fence on, hoping to get through the LP convention
without people really paying attention to where he is on those
issues before coming out with non-libertarian stances on those
issues for the general election.
|5.19.08 @ 2:42PM|#
"The lack of fiscal conservatism for the last 8 years has turned
a lot of people off to the party completely."
Also the public's wariness of war.
|5.19.08 @ 2:48PM|#
"Can Barr get the Huckabee vote?"
Not if Huckabee is running for VP under McCain.
|5.19.08 @ 2:51PM|#
"Hemmoraging voters? McCain is tied with Obama."
"Tied!"
It depends on what poll you look at. According to Gallup, it's a
virtual tie when considering the 3 point margin of error, but the
Zogby poll has Obama over McCain by 7 points with just a margin of
error of 1. Zogby, historically is alot more accurate than
Gallop.
B|5.19.08 @ 3:00PM|#
"Look, I love Andrew Sullivan, too..."
Christ, do I feel sorry for you. That guy has singlehandedly given
hysterics and hyperbole a bad name.
B|5.19.08 @ 3:01PM|#
"It depends on what poll you look at. According to Gallup, it's
a virtual tie when considering the 3 point margin of error, but the
Zogby poll has Obama over McCain by 7 points with just a margin of
error of 1. Zogby, historically is alot more accurate than
Gallop."
Firstly, polls six months from an election are worthless. Secondly,
you need to do a little more research into poll accuracy. Zogby has
been the most inaccurate pollster of the past eight years. His
polls have become somewhat of a running joke.
B|5.19.08 @ 3:04PM|#
"The only reliable block of voters for McCain are those from the
military industrial establishment sucking from the government
tit."
Christ it never ceases to amaze me how stupid some of the
ridiculously-broad generalizations on this site are. Anyone who
honestly thinks the above quote is accurate makes joe look like a
fucking genius. Go back to reading your Chomsky and sipping your
fucking lattes and leave the political commentary to people with
more than four brain cells.
|5.19.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Christ it never ceases to amaze me how stupid some of the
ridiculously-broad generalizations on this site are...Go back to
reading your Chomsky and sipping your fucking lattes...
ha ha
svf|5.19.08 @ 3:12PM|#
the calculus changes a little if the LP nominates Root, or a
left-libertarian like Gravel or Ruwart.)
yes, it does... from a 50% chance at something resembling relevance
to a 100% chance at the usual 0.5% LP "educational" campaign.
|5.19.08 @ 3:29PM|#
"Barr will get about as many votes as Ralph Nader got in 2004:
next to none."
Polls have shown him getting as much as 4% plus the Libertarian
Party will be on the ballot in 48 states.
|5.19.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Not if Huckabee is running for VP under McCain.
If McCain taps an emptyheaded populist like Huckabee as his running
mate, he's really going to lose old-time conservatives. He's
already got the sociocons in the bag, so he'll probably choose an
ostensibly conservative governor like Sanford or Crist.
Stephen the Goldberger|5.19.08 @ 3:47PM|#
so he'll probably choose an ostensibly conservative governor
like Sanford or Crist.
I think if Crist, the very popular gov of Florida wants it, he's
got it.
|5.19.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Crist would be the smart choice.
Should just about nail down Florida for the Repubs (I don't think
the wink-and-nod "The old guy's lost his bearings" cracks are going
to go over big there), and force the Dems to fight like dogs for
one of those "states in the middle" Obama has so little use
for.
|5.19.08 @ 4:06PM|#
I'm not sure McCain has enough theo-con cred to pick someone
like Crist as his VP.
You know.
A bachelor.
Not after Foley.
Taktix®|5.19.08 @ 4:18PM|#
However, the cynical side of me suspects that amnesty and
drug legalization may be two issues that Barr is trying to straddle
both sides of the fence on...
Amnesty aside, Barr has been working as a lobbyist for the
Marijuana Policy Project for a while now.
This is like the 20th time I've said this. Does anyone do any
research before opening their mouths (or iBooks, in this case)?
|5.19.08 @ 4:18PM|#
(How the hell do you make a link like that
prolefeed?)
Type in a left arrow (the thing sharing the comma key) followed by
an "a" and a space
then "href="
then the link address
then a right arrow (the thing sharing the period key) followed by
whatever title you want to appear
then a space, a left arrow followed by "/a" followed by a right
arrow.
To get the pictures, google something after first clicking on the
"images" button in the upper left corner.
Go to chap 4 at
Davesite.com
for a primer on creating these links if what I said doesn't make
sense.
|5.19.08 @ 4:23PM|#
"He's already got the sociocons in the bag"
Are you sure about that?
McCain Rebuffs Dobson: Will Evangelicals Bolt?
Sunday, May 18, 2008 6:05 PM
By: Phil Brennan Article Font Size
Sen. John McCain's campaign has so far turned a deaf ear to
invitations to meet with politically powerful evangelical leader
Dr. James Dobson at his Focus on the Family headquarters in
Colorado Springs, Colo., raising the possibility that the nation's
sizable evangelical bloc will sit out the presidential race in
November.
The move would all but assure the election of Sen. Barack Obama,
columnist Robert Novak argues in a recent column.
Noting that Dobson has indicated he can't support McCain for
president, Novak writes that Dobson's opposition to McCain
"reflects continued resistance to the prospective presidential
nominee among Christian conservatives who are unhappy with McCain's
current positions on stem-cell research, immigration and global
warming, not to mention his past sponsorship of campaign-finance
reform."
But conservatives are surprised that, despite the differences
between McCain and some key conservatives, McCain hasn't responded
to their olive branches and sought meetings.
As a result of their dissatisfaction, Novak reports that many of
Dobson's followers "are looking beyond 2008 to seek a new leader of
the conservative movement for the 2012 election."
In another column, Novak questions Mike Huckabee's announced
support of McCain. Though Huckabee has been unequivocal in his
backing of McCain, telling Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" Sunday
that he thought McCain was his nominee during their primary fight
if Huckabee himself could not clinch the nomination, Novak has
heard otherwise, citing sources that suggest Huckabee has secretly
allied himself with the bitter-end anti-McCain opposition.
Novak writes that while that seems hardly credible given Huckabee's
very public support of McCain, Huckabee's critics point out that
during 10 years as Arkansas governor, Huckabee proved "all too
capable of playing a double game."
Novak writes that McCain could not be where he is today had not
Huckabee mobilized born-again voters to upset Mitt Romney in the
Iowa caucuses, and that "all efforts by Romney to overtake McCain
in conservative Southern state primaries were stifled by Huckabee's
success in those contests."
Moreover, even though Huckabee lost no time in endorsing McCain
once he clinched the nomination, evangelical community sources
dispute the veracity of Huckabee's support.
One unidentified source long-active in Christian politics told
Novak that many evangelicals have embraced the concept that an
Obama presidency "might be what the American people deserve."
That, writes Novak, "fits what has largely been a fringe position
among evangelicals - that the pain of an Obama presidency is in
keeping with the Bible's prophecy."
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
CFroh|5.19.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Why do you call Ruwart a "left" libertarian? She's a pure
libertarian, while Barr's a conservative with a couple newly formed
libertarian views, such as opposing (some parts of) the Drug War,
ending (after the obligatory timetable) the Iraq War (but having no
problem creating more War on South America) and respecting
constitutional Rights. I blogged about my preference for Ruwart at
my blog, http://dcflow.gaia.com/blog, and invite comments
there.
Ruwart's website is great too: http://votemary2008.com/. I used her
classic, "Healing Our World," when teaching a civics class in India
in 2004. It's an incredible itemization of the solutions for all
our problems. Her environmental solutions need to be memorized for
anyone caught in those tough ecological discussions. (It boils down
to restitution and property rights).
Of course, if Barr were to win the LP nomination, I'd be tempted to
vote for him, as opposed to not voting at all which is what I'd do
if forced to choose between McManiac or Obamination. Ah, who am I
kidding - I probably won't vote.
Blessings,
CFroh
Stormy Dragon|5.19.08 @ 6:14PM|#
One difference I've noticed about the people likely to end up voting Barr: most of Nader's voters in 2000 were horrified that they ended up ruining the election for Gore. I think a lot of Barr's voters would be ecstatic if they ruined the election for McCain.
|5.19.08 @ 7:06PM|#
Does anyone do any research before opening their mouths (or
iBooks, in this case)?
Are you disparaging Mac owners again?
|5.20.08 @ 11:28AM|#
I don't know why fiscal conservatives would have a problem with
Republicans now. The GOP has been the deficit party for 40 years.
Nixon began the tradition of deficits, Ford made them bigger,
Carter shrank it in his single term, then Reagan reversed this
trend and made them much bigger. Bush I took a baby step towards
perhaps reigning them in a bit and was crucified for it. Clinton,
like Carter, reduced the deficit in his first term and got a
surplus in his second. Bush quickly restored the deficit but has
(so far) been unable to beat Reagan's record.
Since Reagan, deficits have been part of the Republican brand. As
Cheney says, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter
|5.20.08 @ 11:57AM|#
As a christian conservative I have voted republican since I
could first vote in 1984 for Reagan. However, after the last 20
years or so, I'm truly sick of voting for the lesser of 2 evils. I
now regret my votes for "W" in 2000 and 2004. These last 8 years
have solidified my anger - I will no longer vote for a republican
or a democrat. I won't stay home, but I will cheerfully "throw" my
vote to a third party candidate from now on. In fact, I look
forward to voting libertarian for the first time in my life no
matter who the nominee is.
Unlike the nader voters in 2000, I will not be shocked at the final
results. Even if obama gets into the white house, he couldn't
possibly be any worse than bush 43.
Mccain cannot depend on the religious right (people like me) to
help him win this fall. And without the church, he's basically
toast.
|5.20.08 @ 12:35PM|#
I'd spend a week or two driving around the south and listening
to "news"/talk radio if you want to see whether the immigration
issue is huge for Republicans right now.
Executive summary: it is.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245