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?