Skip to comments.Libertarian Badnarik May Cost Bush Support, Poll Finds
Posted on 07/24/2004 11:44:46 PM PDT by Commie Basher
Democratic strategists have long fretted that Ralph Nader could draw votes from their presidential candidate. But a new survey suggests that President Bush faces a potential threat of his own from a more obscure spoiler: Michael Badnarik.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Naw, he'll draw other moral-liberal voters from their fellow ideologues in the Democratic Party.
I went to the article.
Here is the link: (your link didn't take me to the article, even after I signed in)
It sounds more like Dem wishful thinking than anything else. But that said, those who would vote for Bush in a two-way race, need to realize, that if they vote for Bodnarik, or anyone else except Bush, they are helping Kerry, and their votes may be what gives Kerry the additional few votes to win.
"In the survey, conducted in three Midwest battleground states, some voters who said they would choose Bush over Sen. John F. Kerry in a two-candidate race also said they would pick Badnarik, the Libertarian Party nominee for president, if he were added to the ballot.
The numbers for Badnarik were small: He drew 1% to 1.5% of the vote in a four-way race with Bush, Democratic candidate Kerry and Nader, an independent."
Losertarians are worse than the french.
This libertarian is voting for Bush.
So Bush owns my vote by default?
Bush does not own your vote, it just depends on what you want. Say the family choice of pizza tonight is very close between pepperoni and anchovies. Well if your favorite pizza is sausage slightly over pepperoni, but you really do not like anchovies, you might well vote pepperoni rather than vote sausage and suffer through yet another anchovy topped pizza.
It is of course your choice as to whether you prefer Badnarik to Bush and if so by how much. And if you prefer Badnarik to Bush but Bush to Kerry, the question becomes where you think the bigger gap is? That is is your second choice Bush so much better than the alternative outcome Kerry that you will forgo voting for your first choice. This is called strategic voting.
Kerry is promising to expand socialized medicine (just as Bush did for old people) even further... IMO, both are moving in the wrong direction.
The choice is between anchovy pizza and extra anchovy pizza.
I've been told voting Libertarian is like a mouse giving the finger to a pouncing cat. You get impaled in the end any way, but at least you didn't go down without a fight. You can let the big government bastards know you won't continue supporting them unconditionally. If the republicans haven't EARNED your vote, you are truly wasting it by voting for them.
The last three presidential elections, I've voted for the libertarian cantidate. I live in the state of Missouri, and I didn't like voting for Dole, especially after he shafted 2nd Amendment supporters with the Brady Bill quick vote. And since MO went strongly for Bush last time, I had no problems voting my concience without worrying that Gore might carry MO.
But this time, it's going to be too close. I disagree with much that President Bush has supported during his first term, but I don't want to take a chance that Kerry might win. So I will be voting for Bush this time, and I've been trying to convince everyone else I know to do the same.
Right that is what my little example says. You still control your vote. Do you think there is not "a dimes worth of difference" between Bush and Kerry, to coin a phrase. If so I can, see your vote.
But if you think the War on Terror had to be fought after the US was attacked, if like me you think the Libertarians have the abortion issue all wrong, if think Kerry is particularly bad, then you might vote strategically. Personally this semi Libertarian who thinks we should legalize drugs, limit government, protect property rights etc plans to vote for Bush.
With regard to the Bush/Kerry race, voting for a lesser party is no different from staying home. If having someone positive to vote for in the Presidential race (even if that person has no chance of winning) causes someone to go to the polls and vote Republican for other offices, that would seem better than having that person simply sit out the election altogether.
If the AWB is gone and hasn't come back in any way, shape, or form by November, I'll probably vote for Bush (even though it's not apt to matter in Illinois). But if the AWB isn't gone, I'd see no reason to.
This Conservative is voting for Bush.
And just how would a Libertarian government have dealt with the post 9/11 islamic-terroristic world?
Would they have acted any differently? Or would they have blindly held to their notion of not getting into 'foreign entaglements?'
I'm tired of hearing the Libertarians play Monday morning quarterback.
Face it, by voting Libertarian you are voting for Kerry. Period. You'd think that some of you would have learned that back in 1992 when the Perot factor ushered in the "Great Clintonian Era".
You guys really need to get your head examined.
Is it true Michael Badnarik was unemployed when he ran for the nomination? Also, is it true that Michael Badnarik is single and periodically lives with his mother?
Libertarianism: Anarchy with low self-esteem.
Ernst Vann de haag had it right when he called Libertarianism anarcho totalitarianism. Vann de haag explained that with a regular totalitarian the government can do whatever it wants and with the Libertarian the individual can do whatever he wants (including child molestation).
So what you're saying is you have convictions but when the chips may fall differently, you then have no convictions?
By opening up the borders completely.
Can you explain how any vote isn't a vote for the 'lesser of two evils'?
Yes. Also, he doesn't have a driver's license because he says he is not a "driver". He claims that filing taxes is voluntary, and he doesn't use ZIP codes because using them acknowledges federal sovereignty and might obligate him to pay taxes.
These are typical positions taken by the tax protest/constitutionalist crowd. Judges don't find this legal approach compelling; they find it tendentious and add to the sentences for wasting the court's time.
This is probably true! I'm sure this jerk can get his mother to vote for him.
Seriously this is ratmedia psyops nothing more!
From one Libertarian to another, you will be disappointed. Bush is not significantly different from Kerry on any important issue. There really is no lesser evil this time. If all the people who are scared of Bush but will vote for him because they are more scared of Kerry, were to vote for Badnarik, we will have real regime change in this nation and the constitution will be restored.
Both of the clowns are big spenders. We get the inflation, no matter what the money is spent on. Both will continue the war and probably spread it to Iran. This will require a draft. They are truly both horrible choices and Badnarik is the one and only hope this year.
No it seems the pro-gay marriage, pro-drug, and pro-terrorist appeasment Badnarik does.
"So what you're saying is you have convictions but when the chips may fall differently, you then have no convictions?"
So what you're saying is, you think you can influence someone's point of view by gratuitously insulting him?
You are wasting your vote by backing Dubay (which can't make a difference anyhow). Aint' a dime's worth of difference between Dubya (a more big government president than Clinton!!!) and Kerry.
I see that the perpetual cynic is back.
Here's how it works: Say in the primaries that 44% of the voters went to the Democrats, 44% went to the Republicans, 6% to the Greens, 3% to the Socialist Workers, 2% to the Communists, and 1% to the Libertarians.
Then, in the GENERAL election, the Democratic candidate can look at the numbers and say: "Gee, 12% of my important constituents feel really strongly about moral-liberal issues, so in this upcoming GENERAL election I will alter my message accordingly."
Man, are you ever delusional. There's a HUGE difference between PRESIDENT BUSH and John F'n Kerry. Are we to follow your troll droppings and waste our votes to get Kerry elected via the Purists?
Troll droppings: Always grow in size and end in a pile of o o o o o
The only liertarian I know of is Neal Boortz and to my amazement he is pushing President Bush to win.
In 2000 he went out of his way to talk up the libertarian candidate.
I haven't decided who I will vote for. Maybe I'll just leave that particular race blank, or maybe I'll vote Libertarian or Constitutionalist. But I cannot vote for Bush. I like the guy personally (at least as much as I can tell based on the image I see on the TV screen). But I need more than that. Politicians should be evaluated based on what they DO rather than what they SAY. And George Bush's outright pandering to the left has been outrageous.
Maybe he'll convert enough soccer moms and already-rich seniors looking for more government handouts to make up for my vote. But I cannot vote for 4 more years of this. With Kerry and a Republican Congress, the tide of socialism will at least be restrained by partisan bickering and territorialism. As it is, the Republicans are running roughshod over the constitution and for the most part the party loyal are helping them do it.
Well, I'm a conservative before a Republican. And I remember when this place had more than a few of us. Now it's become a neocon cheering section. But like a lot of cheerleaders, I think not enough of us are asking what we are cheering for.
So if Bush loses because he lost PA by one vote, here is that vote. When they look at the vote maybe they will see a write in "PAT TOOMEY" with a little note scribbled underneath: "I just couldn't hold my nose one more time".
If I were to vote 3rd party it wouldn't be the Libertarians, it would be the Constitution Party.
So is this one...that said, Republicans and democrats should bitch less about third party candidates drawing votes away from them and target the other half of the country that doesn't vote at all.
I'm a libertarian, a born-again Christian, and I will be voting for Dubya this fall.
Libertarianism and Anarchism are not synonymous! The goal of anarchism is total freedom, wheras the goal of libertarianism is relative freedom.
The former has no respect for the rights of others: might makes right, if you think you can get away with it, do it, etc.
The latter promotes freeom with respect for the freedom of others. I can't hurt you through force or fraud, and you can't do such things to me, either. The main tenent of libertarianism is: "My body and my property are my own, and I may do with them as I wsh." The same applies to others. Meaning government can only step-in if my actions are directly harming other people without their consent.
Anarchism promotes the absence of geovernment. Libertarianism promotes government that protects it's citizens from invoulantary harm, and ideally does little else.
Under such a principle child molestation would most certainly be illegal (as children cannot, by nature, consent to anything.) Murder, theft, rape, assault, arson and vandalism would all be illegal, as they violate the rights of others. Speed limits on the roads would still exist, as driving too fast directly puts others in danger.
However, injecting black tar herion into one's eyeball would not be illegal, just as breaking your own window would not be illegal. You can't commit a crime against yourself, only against others.
And to answer your question, no, I don't smoke weed and I never have.
Me too. Guess I'm not "French" enough. Damn.
Don't worry -- the AWB is DEAD.
I think conservatives/libertarians/anyone who isn't a flaming liberal who stays home, instead of getting out and voting for Bush is also helping Kerry.
AFter the close election in 2000, people do have to realize that even a few votes count.
In states where the margin is not going to be close, Bush still needs the votes, so he can have a majority in overall votes too, not just in electoral votes. I am sure you recall how the Dems were trying to use the popular votes against Bush.
I think we need to give Bush everything we can: first of all electing him, then making sure to elect him with sufficient margin, to be considered a mandate and give him a strong Republican Congress, with more Republicans, so that in his 2nd term he really can have a better chance to implement a more conservative agenda. But he needs all of the above.
I think we have a chance, and shouldn't blow it.
Do you have a dictionary handy? If so, please look up "anarchy", then tell us how that applies to libertarianism.
Last time I looked, the LP party platform did not advocate getting rid of all government and authority positions.
I don't agree with the platform, but I'm still a member, and with the exception of Bush, my votes will go to LP candidates.
There are hardcorp LP(Libertarian), CP/USTP(Constitution Party/US Taxpayers Party), and GP(Green) who will vote for their parties every time.
Then there are those on the fence that may vote GOP or LP, Dem or Green, etc.
I've always said that no one is entitled to a vote. Bush needs to earn those votes that otherwise may go to the LP or CP. Kerry needs to earn those that go to the Greens.
In some cases, "The other guy" can cause it by default. Other times, it can't.
I'm a big Boortz fan, and he helped convince me to waste my vote on Bush. So we're not all bad, after all.
So is this one. I just wish he'd make it easier.
Hurray ! Some Libs are actually patriots !! Thank you for your service to the country.
That may be all that's needed in some states. Bush needs to keep Ashcroft in check and avoid any more freedom grabs.
While surrogates on the grassroots level need to keep bringing up Kerry's vote for banning the .30-30, the Patriot Act(neutralization), and selling out the US to the UN.
I'm voting for Bush as well - or against Kerry mostly.
No, the premise is Kerry is the winner, and Bush can only win if he steals votes from third parties...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.