Bush Campaign Writes off Libertarian Party

The following is a press release dated August 12. I would have posted it sooner, but I have only recently been put on the press release list:

WITH BLINDERS ON? BUSH CAMPAIGN WRITES OFF LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 12, 2004
P.O.C. Stephen Gordon
(256)227-8360
[email protected]
www.badnarik.org

SANTA FE, NM - In a close presidential election which may turn on the results in a few "battleground" states, every vote counts. Or does it?

Despite the 2000 Florida voting fiasco, which held up election results and ultimately sent them to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush's re-election campaign seems to have overlooked the potential effect of
"third party" candidates this November.

"This is a race between the president of the United States and John Kerry," Bush spokesman Danny Diaz told the Santa Fe New Mexican on Wednesday when asked about the prospects of Libertarian presidential
candidate Michael Badnarik, "and voters will make their decision between those two candidates."

Typical reaction -- but not so fast, say Badnarik staffers.

"Our candidate was at 5% in New Mexico last week," says campaign manager Fred Collins, referring to a recent Rasmussen poll of the state. "Now he's visiting the state and advertising. He will be the decisive factor in New Mexico -- and other states -- come election day."

And the candidate himself? "I'm not surprised," says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas. "The typical approach of Republicans and Democrats is to ignore Libertarians. If they acknowledge us, they have to debate us. If they debate us, they lose."

"The 'ignore the man behind the curtain' approach won't work this year, though," he says, "We're speaking loudly enough to be heard over the bipartisan white noise."

Previous polling shows Badnarik at 3% nationwide and covering the gap between Kerry and Bush in several swing states. His campaign hopes to build momentum by positioning itself as the alternative to two very similar candidates on foreign policy, civil liberties and economic issues.

"A choice between Bush and Kerry is no choice at all," says Badnarik. "And their heads we win, tails you lose pitch to the voters won't play this time. They're telling voters 'you have no choice.' I'm telling voters that their votes count. And they're listening."

Then he backs off a bit. "Correction: Some of them are listening. It doesn't surprise me that Bush's people aren't. They hear what they want to hear. Does 'WMDs in Iraq' ring any bells? Maybe he's staffing his campaign with former intelligence operatives."

Badnarik will appear on the ballot in 49 or 50 states this year. The Libertarian Party is America's third largest, with more than 600 appointed and elected officials serving in public office under its banner.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

Previous polling shows Badnarik at 3% nationwide and covering the gap between Kerry and Bush in several swing states

Does the US have a preferential voting system (ie does Bush/Kerry need a simple majority or do they need to collect 51% through primary votes and preferences)? Only in that case would 3% of the vote be in any way important other than as a protest vote.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The US has a "special" way of picking the President. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes. The candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote in each state wins the electoral votes for that state (except Maine, which goes by district plus 2 at large votes). A candidate must have a majority of the electoral votes (270) to win, otherwise the House of Representatives decides.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What madine said. In each state, the winner must get, at a minimum, a plurality of votes (if less than 50%, the largest number). If Bush gets 45%, for instance, and Badnarik gets 3%, and Kerry gets 46%, Kerry wins the state. If this happens enough times, then a candidate that doesn't represent the preferred views of the American public may win. This has happened twice in the last twelve years; in 1992, when Ross Perot siphoned off enough votes from George H.W. Bush for Clinton to win, and in 2000, when Ralph Nader siphoned off enough votes from Al Gore for George W. Bush to win.

The fact is, it's not about Badnarik's 3%. What most people don't realize is, he's polling at that despite the vast majority of Americans not being exposed to his message. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he could pull off a win in this year's election, but the idea of the LP platform being presented to the American public clearly and cohesively, in a manner that sets the stage for future candidates, is the goal of having Badnarik recognized. Both he and David Cobb of the Green Party have reached the ballot in 49 or 50 states -- which means either are technically, electable; as such, I feel that their voices deserve to be heard.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If you get a certain percentage of the vote, aren't you recognized as a major national party or something? I think it's like 5% or so...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, at a certain percentage, you are eligible for federal matching funds. That is, in my estimation, one of the reachable goals, and it would go a long way towards assisting us in getting proper recognition in 08.

Successfully updated karma reason!