Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Classic Hit & Run

Jesse Walker | 10.23.2008 6:59 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

From the vaults.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: He Looks Guilty

Jesse Walker is books editor at Reason and the author of Rebels on the Air and The United States of Paranoia.

PoliticsEconomicsThird PartiesBob Barr
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (23)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. robc   17 years ago

    Probably not enough to cost him any safe Republican EVs, but enough to drive his popular vote totals way down from 2000.

    Popular vote for Bush in 2004 vs 2000:
    62M in 2004, 50M in 2000
    53.7% in 2004, 47.9% in 2000

    Wrong in the very first post.

  2. robc   17 years ago

    While his percent was slightly down (.36% vs .32%), Badnarik got more raw votes than Browne did in 2000. Browne did much better in 1996 however.

  3. joe   17 years ago

    Yeah, Barr flopped bigger than I expected in 2004.

  4. Warren   17 years ago

    Barr would be more effective as a libertarian advocate if he hadn't spent ALL his time in the house hate'n on teh gheys, voting vast new powers to the government (especially the executive), and tirelessly crusading to keep chronic pain sufferers from getting any relief.

  5. joe   17 years ago

    Er, Badnarik. Not Barr.

  6. Warty   17 years ago

    I wonder how well Harry Browne would have done in 2004. Badnarik was an annoying lunatic who turned lots of people like me off.

  7. Mo   17 years ago

    53.7% in 2004, 47.9% in 2000

    Wrong in the very first post.

    Actually, Bush only had 50.7%, which is still more than he got in 2000. Also, wrong in the first post. Is this a corollary to Joez Law?

  8. Mo   17 years ago

    By the way, I was hoping the link to a classic H&R post would be a link to "The US must invade Canada Now!"

  9. robc   17 years ago

    Woo hoo, typo in the first post.

    Probably is an example of joez law. But my history suggests I cant type at any time.

  10. Warty   17 years ago

    It's not joez law, it's Muphry's law. Much funnier.

  11. Warren   17 years ago

    But what about Cole's Law?

  12. R C Dean   17 years ago

    It's not joez law, it's Muphry's law.

    Mot sure this is a joe'z law (in that the writer wasn't insulting another poster's intelligence), but I will call it a minor violation of R C'z Law.

  13. BDB   17 years ago

    Joe was right about Bush not losing any red states.

  14. BDB   17 years ago

    Well, on second thought, he lost New Hampshire.

  15. Mo   17 years ago

    RC'z law?

  16. joe   17 years ago

    It's not joez law, it's Muphry's law, you moran.

  17. R C Dean   17 years ago

    RC'z law?

    Typos tend to be funnier/more insightful than the correct/intended post.

  18. bigbigslacker   17 years ago

    I only read the thread to make sure I wasn't in there saying something stupid. Not that I do that too often...

    But Jesse, this sort of swift-boating is really unfair;)

  19. Yerbaff   17 years ago

    Interesting how "dude" (the commentor) wanted Bush to lose in order to *save* the Rep party. Similar to how some small-govt Reps are hoping a McCain loss will allow a little libertarianism to creep back into the Rep party.

  20. Dog\'s New Clothes   17 years ago

    Um, RC...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

  21. robc   17 years ago

    DNC,

    We dont accept Australian terms around here.

  22. wizard of oz books   15 years ago

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  23. wizard of oz books   15 years ago

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Is the Supreme Court Really That Divided? The Facts Say No.

Billy Binion | 6.5.2025 5:21 PM

Milton Friedman Disproved Trump's Argument for Tariffs Decades Ago

Joe Lancaster | 6.5.2025 4:35 PM

If Viewers Love PBS So Much, Let Them Pay for It

Robby Soave | 6.5.2025 3:20 PM

Florida Woman Fined $165,000 for Trivial Code Violations Takes Her Case to the Florida Supreme Court

Autumn Billings | 6.5.2025 3:05 PM

Nathan Fielder's 737 Stunt Involved Elaborate Workaround of Ridiculous 1,500-Hour Rule

Christian Britschgi | 6.5.2025 2:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!