At least 271 candidates for president in 2008

InfoZine has a feature on the “271 candidates who have announced their intentions to run and 62 more potential candidates who could run” for president this year, as listed by Project VoteSmart. In addition to Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, Libertarian Bob Barr, Green Cynthia McKinney, and independent Ralph Nader, the piece also mentions Prohibition candidate Gene Amondson and Proudican Party candidate Bruce Bongardt.

The article has a couple of errors, referring to Baldwin as the “candidate from the U.S. Taxpayers Party” and saying Nader “lost the Green Party nomination this year” to McKinney.

12 thoughts on “At least 271 candidates for president in 2008

  1. G.E.

    Those facts aren’t all that wrong.

    Here in Michigan, the Constitution Party is still known as the U.S. Taxpayers Party, which is the name it was founded under. Not that far off.

    While he didn’t seek the nomination, there was an effort by Green supporters to forgo nominating anyone in order to endorse Nader.

  2. Mike Gillis

    “While he didn’t seek the nomination, there was an effort by Green supporters to forgo nominating anyone in order to endorse Nader.”

    This one isn’t true.

    While that was a tactic in 2004, it wasn’t in 2008. I was one of a number of Greens that fought for Ralph as a draft candidate for the party’s nomination and fought to get him to run on the Green ticket.

    When it was clear that he wouldn’t , I backed him as an independent. Some Greens continued to fight for him to win the nomination, though Nader never actually sought the nomination.

  3. darren

    Great – now the CPD has its talking point. “There are 271 candidates running for president – we can’t invite them all! “.

    Everyone on this site knows it, but there are only 6 candidates running serious campaigns – and they happen to be the only ones with even a mathematical chance to win. Another 6-10 have made at least minimal campaign efforts, like obtaining ballot access in 2 states, issuing press releases, and raising money. The rest are running because their wives told them to stop screaming at the television and do something. I could declare myself a candidate right now, but why should ProjectVoteSmart care? This list just trivializes all the hard work of serious alternative candidates that have actual constituencies.

  4. G.E.

    Mike – Really?

    With Green Party delegates poised to select a presidential nominee this morning, NewsBlaze runs down the contenders and their standings, saying that “with 419 votes needed to win the nomination, former George Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney leads the delegate race with 304.5 delegates.” Ralph Nader “sits in second place with 139 total delegates” even though he is not seeking the Green nomination.

    139 is quite a few delegates. Would he have not accepted the endorsement if offered? That seems extremely unlikely.

    So how is what I said untrue? Or is this report untrue?

  5. Mike Gillis


    He won delegates because a number of Greens organized a campaign for him in the Green primaries, without his organizing.

    He overwhelmingly won the CA and MA primaries, which is where nearly all of his delegates came from. Even though he was officially recognized as a draft candidate, many Green Parties refused to put him on their state ballots for a number of ludicrous reasons.

    Both primaries were won before he even declared himself a candidate.

    And based on the rules that the GNC had set out, he was entitled to delegates, even though a number of state Green Parties, including mine, tried to strip him of them.

    But he never actually competed or tried for the nomination. He did state that he didn’t want the nomination or endorsement of the party.

    The number of delegates he got in the party was entirely done by supporters within the party, with no direction or connection to Nader.

    The equivalent would be if draft Ron Paul supporters in the LP had gotten him a large number of delegates at the convention as a means to draft him.

  6. Mike Gillis

    If that scenario had played out, it couldn’t be accurately said that Barr beat Paul, because Paul never really made an effort or officially competed.

  7. Steven R Linnabary

    Those numbers also include Republicans and Democrats – some well known and some not – who have dropped out of the race since McCain and Obama have locked up their parties’ nominations.

    Somehow the folks at CPD have always missed this qualification.


  8. darren

    Peter – you may be right about Moore. My point is to praise serious candidates and not to trivialize them by lumping them into a meaningless list of people who signed a piece of paper.

    But as for debate admission the mathematical requirement is hard to refute and I don’t think Moore’s campaign has been serious enough in terms of money and volunteers to meet it.

  9. langa

    Yeah, Moore may be running a serious campaign, but it’s hard to treat him as a serious candidate when he’s likely to end up only being on about a dozen ballots (according to BAN).

  10. Steve LaBianca

    Interesting bit about Barr in the article : “Barr said he wants to reduce the power and size of the federal government. He also said he would move to substantially reduce the number of troops in Iraq.”

    Browne and virtually every other LP prez candidate said they would, if elected work to reduce the size of the federal government by about 90%. What is Barr’s goal – reduce it 30%, 40%, maybe even 60%? C’mon Bob, grow a pair!

    Secondly, Barr would “substantially reduce the number of tropos in Iraq” . . . so would John McCain, in 20 to 50 years. Barr ought to grow a pair on this as well.

    How about a statement from Barr like, “I will substantially reduce the troop level in Iraq over the next 3 to 6 months, and then to completely pull out within two years”? (BTW I support immediate pullout, but this would at least could be substantiated because of logistical circumstances).

    Barr is THE most underwhelming LP prez candidate . . .EVER. He’s got No BA*LLS!

  11. Steve LaBianca

    BTW, McCain would NOT be the prez in 20 to 50 years (he likely won’t be alive in 20 years!) but I was pointing out his goals, as I understand them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *