Zogby: Nader 2.2%, Barr 0.8%, McKinney 0.3%, Other 1.5%

The latest Zogby tracking poll of 7,000 likely voters across the U.S. (+/- 2.9%) has independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader at 2.2%, Libertarian Bob Barr 0.8%, and Green Cynthia McKinney 0.3%. No other alternative presidential candidate was included, but 1.5% said they would vote for someone else, and 2.8% said they were undecided. Democrat Barack Obama is at 51.3%, and Republican John McCain 41.0%.

28 thoughts on “Zogby: Nader 2.2%, Barr 0.8%, McKinney 0.3%, Other 1.5%

  1. Spence

    Given that there are numerous claims to support the fact that the duopoly has seized the electorate in a deathly grip this year, it still does not explain why Barr is not able to break Nader’s consistent levels.

    Why is this? Because the LP has been “reformed”? No. Because people aren’t interested in liberty? No.

    So in the following comments, please don’t make these accusations. The LP has at last exhausted all opportunities in its “short” 30-year history and should go the way of the dinosaurs.

  2. NewFederalist

    Two comments- First, I think Ralph Nader is running perhaps his best campaign to date this year. With a virtual media blackout he has managed to raise about 4 million bucks and attained ballot access in more places than the LP. His campaign team is remarkable, his emails very light, witty and persuasive. I think that is why he is in 3rd place.
    Second, I doubt the LP is going away. It might more closely resemble the Prohibition Party in years to come but I don’t think it is going away. If lessons are learned from this year’s probably disappointing results, there is no reason the party cannot grow and move forward. All it takes is people working together rather than scorning one another. That is the real challenge.

  3. Gladly Anon

    [q]1.5% going to “someone else”? I’m assuming that’s split mainly between Baldwin and Heartquake.[/q[]

    I’m inclined to bet that Charles Jay will get more votes than heartquaker Jonathan Allen. And hell, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, & socialists even more than they.

  4. Hugh Jass

    Maybe we’re looking at 1.5 million write-in votes for Ron Paul, most of which won’t be counted.

  5. Gladly Anon

    Yet the three states that allow votes for Ron Paul will count more third-party votes than those states Heartquake and Boston Tea are in.

  6. Richard Shepard

    Nader has been a household name since “Unsafe At Any Speed” more than 40 years ago. I suspect that counts for at least half of his support.

  7. Thomas M. Sipos

    The LP will survive because it’s primarily a social club, like the Elks or the Rotarians or the Lions.

    Even many “votes getters” stay in the LP primarily for personal validation and identity, although they’d be loathe to admit it, even to themselves.

    Apart from that, the LP is useful for its educational functions, like Cato or Reason.

    The LP is a social club with an educational mission (much like the Lions collect old eyeglasses for the poor), which some LP members have confused for a major political party.

    Third parties are in reality social clubs with educational missions. That’s what a third party is.

    The LP has been here for nearly 40 years, and it can easily keep going for 40 more, at the same level of “success.” And 40 years more after that.

    The LP’s survival depends not on its vote getting ability, but on its ability to attract dues-paying members. And there are too many people (radicals and reformers) whose personal identity is tied up with being an LP officer or activist or candidate for the LP ever to collapse.

    The difference is, some of us see us for what we are. And some of us insist on seeing the fantasy of being a major political party.

  8. Jeremy Young

    Third parties are in reality social clubs with educational missions. That’s what a third party is.

    With the exception of state-based third parties, like the Vermont Progressives or the Minnesota Independence Party.

  9. Deran

    I completely agree that this is Nader’s best campaign, and, as I have said, it’s a pity this isn’t the 1996 campaign. Or even 2000. Nader in 2000 as an independent, he would have easily broke the 5% national vote barrier.

  10. Gladly Anon

    [q] some of us insist on seeing the fantasy of being a major political party. [/q]

    Kudos! In any event, government should be the last place people look to to solve problems. For now, there’s an election, with some candidates closer to my principles than others.

  11. paulie cannoli

    I think they try to push them once or twice before they give up and call them undecided. Also, some of the people who express a preference do change their mind, or are not very firm in their opinion.

  12. JimDavidson

    NewFederalist, in part, “…I doubt the LP is going away. It might more closely resemble the Prohibition Party in years to come…” but, um, dude. Have you checked out the Prohibition party lately? What aspects of the 2008 Prohibition party are not closely resembling “going away”?

    “In 2007, the two separate Parties held separate nominating conventions. The Dodge group again kept secret their low attendance, perhaps some three or so. The public was not invited. In contrast, the historic Party welcomed the public, and had over ten times the attendance.”

    Excuse me, but isn’t ten times three just thirty? If that isn’t “going away” what is?

    Amondson, their nominee this year and in 2004, got all of 378 votes in Colorado. Their party was founded in 1872. If it were going to grow and prosper, one would think it would have done so by now.

  13. Spence

    Very good analysis, Tom. I wonder where that puts you.

    Only problem is the idea that all third parties are. what did you say? “Third parties are in reality social clubs with educational missions”?

    I reject that statement completely. If that’s what you believe, why are you even part of the LP?

    Just because a bunch of failed socialites can’t make real policy change on their own doesn’t mean that’s how the whole concept should be viewed.

    I agree that today’s third parties are a joke, but honestly, both current parties started out as third parties before. Were they “clubs” then, too? You might as well broaden your definition then, cause in essence, that’s the only way that it will work.

  14. Spence

    “There is no reason the party cannot grow and move forward. All it takes is people working together rather than scorning one another. That is the real challenge.”

    Except that the party has had 37 years already to do that and rejected every opportunity to. It should die.

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    The Prohibition Party still elects the occasional local official (I think they elected a city councilperson in New England in 2002 or something). In the early part of the 20th century, they elected a lot of public officials, including the governor of Florida. And, of course, they ultimately achieved their goal of prohibiting alcohol in the US for 15 years.

    They’ll probably never go away completely. Hopefully, they’ll never be greatly successful again either.

  16. Thomas M. Sipos

    If that’s what you believe, why are you even part of the LP?

    I already answered that in my post, but here it is again: I’m in the LP for the same reason the vast majority of members are in the LP. It’s a good social club.

    And I believe in the LP’s educational mission.

    Don’t delude yourself. I’ve followed the LP for some 30 years. Most of its members are in it for personal validation, identity, socializing, etc. They many not admit it, even to themselves, but it’s so.

    First thing I did when I came to L.A., and didn’t know anyone, was join the local LP, for the socializing. Some admitted to me of doing the same, for the same reason.

    So I’m in the LP for the people, and for the educational mission. Both are great reasons to join the LP. I recommend the LP to anyone looking for a good social lodge, or who wants to educate people about liberty.

    And if you, Spence, want to “win elections,” guess what — nobody’s stopping you.

    I keep hearing the “vote getters” whine as if the educationists are preventing electoral success. We’re not.

    You wanna win an election, Spence? Go win a U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Do it. I won’t do a damn thing to stop you. Prove me wrong.

  17. Trent Hill

    “Amondson, their nominee this year and in 2004, got all of 378 votes in Colorado. Their party was founded in 1872. If it were going to grow and prosper, one would think it would have done so by now.”

    As Knapp said–they DID grow and prosper, now they’re on the downswing.

    They prohibited drinking in the US by Constitutional Amendment, passed and held onto many local and state levels (until the 90s this was true), elected the Sydney Catts governor of Florida in 1916, elected Charles Randall to Congress for 3 terms from California’s 9th District (that was 1910s area I believe).

    -In 1884 their Presidential candidate was John Pierce St. John,a former State Senator and Governor from Kansas.
    -In 1888 their Presidential candidate was Clinton B. Fisk, whom had a University named after him (while he was living). He was a senior officer in the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands and was commissioner of the Bureau in Kentucky and Tennessee. He also served on the Board of Indian Commissioners, having been appointed by Ulysses S. Grant.
    -In 1898 their Presidential candidate was John Bidwell, a former Republican Congressman from California.
    -In 1916 their Presidential candidate was Frank Hanly, the former governor from Indiana.
    -In 1934 their Presidential candidate was William D. Upshaw, a former 4-term congressman from Georgia.

  18. Ross Levin

    It should also be said that a lot of the Prohibition Party’s success came not from electing officials, but from “spoiling” elections. So many Republicans were switching their registration and voting Prohibition (and splitting the votes of the Republican base) that the Republican party adopted prohibition as their own policy. That’s what gave prohibitionists (small and big ‘p’) the political clout to put the policy into effect.

  19. Spence

    “I’m in the LP for the same reason the vast majority of members are in the LP. It’s a good social club.”

    Then guess what. There’s a simple solution isn’t there? Stop calling yourselves a party.

    “And I believe in the LP’s educational mission.”

    No reason you can’t be successful AND educate at the same time. How successful has the LP been at “educating”?

    “I keep hearing the “vote getters” whine as if the educationists are preventing electoral success. We’re not.”

    The last 30 years history seems to prove you wrong there, buddy. Whenever someone wanted to run a candidate that could bring in mainstream members so they could then be educated, they were chased out of the party. “Educationists” didn’t stop them on the way out, that much is true. They just openly denied their attempts.

    “You wanna win an election, Spence? Go win a U.S. Senate seat in 2010. Do it. I won’t do a damn thing to stop you. Prove me wrong.”

    Happily. Though 2010 might be a bit pushing it. And I won’t be doing so under the failed brand the LP is either.

    So in conclusion: Happy “partying”, Tom.

Leave a Reply

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