The Real Ralph Nader of 2008: Bob Barr

Now that the nominees for both the major parties are settled, it's time to talk about another nominee who has largely escaped notice: Bob Barr.

In late May, the Libertarian Party nominated for president former Republican Congressman Bob Barr. Barr's nomination will undoubtedly cause John McCain problems come November, and he may very well play the role of spoiler that Ralph Nader did in 2000.

McCain is viewed warily at best among conservative Republicans, particularly those who are religiously conservative. But he is also viewed with suspicion among Hayek-espousing libertarians who don't support the war in Iraq. These folks, of course, contributed heavily to Ron Paul's campaign and routinely delivered 20 percent of the vote or more in late Republican primary states well after the nomination had been all but delivered to McCain.

The problem for McCain is these Ron Paul supporters are clustered in states where he needs to do well to win in November. Additionally, it is interesting to note the relationship between Ron Paul's support to Ross Perot's support in 1992.

The following table looks at Perot's 10 best states in 1992, lists the percentage of the vote George Bush got in 2004, and Ron Paul's performance in the Republican primaries (or caucuses, as the case may be) this year:



I then added the latest polling in these states on the matchup between Obama and McCain. The highlighted states, four in number, represent those states where Barr might possibly draw enough votes to tip the balance away from McCain in favor of Obama. Voters here have displayed a propensity to support third party candidates in the past, and have indicated a willingess to support a maverick member of the Republican Party this year. You can add Kansas to that list should Obama pick popular Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

The point of all of this is to say that Barr can help Obama in his effort to increase the number of states in play this fall. If McCain can't win Nevada, Alaska, and Montana, not only will he lose, he will likely lose big. Even more troubling from his perspective is Minnesota, a state that Republicans have tried to put into play since 2000. The latest polls indicate that Minnesota is again a swing state, but if Barr can pull even 5 percent of the vote (certainly not inconceivable given Perot's 26 percent in 1992 and Jesse Ventura's surprise gubernatorial victory a few years later), McCain's ability to put more "blue" states in play to force Obama to play defense himself will be severely hampered.

Add to this Obama's decision to opt out of public financing, and suddenly, the hill for McCain to climb becomes even steeper.

I should note that it appears that the Obama campaign has noticed this, too. Their recent ad buy reintroducing Obama to voters covers 18 states. Two of those states, Alaska and Montana, are Ross Perot-Ron Paul friendly states. One of those states, Georgia, is home to Bob Barr's former congressional district.

Nomination Rules Matter

As the 2008 race for the Democratic primary continues to play out and Obama strings together victory after victory, some have reported that Texas and Ohio on March 4 are do or die for Hillary Clinton (see here). I tend to agree.

What is more interesting from my perspective, however, is how the differences between the Democratic and Republican nomination rules have produced very different delegate count outcomes between the two parties. I tell my students that rules matter, and this is yet another example. A series of winner-take-all rules in a number of states have allowed McCain to magnify the effect of close, plurality victories in the popular vote. The Democratic Party, however, does not allow winner-take-all contests. Rather, the vote in each nomination event must be apportioned proportionately.

If the Democrats had winner take all rules for their contests, could that alter the dynamics of the nomination fight?

What I've done in this chart is to calculate the culmulative delegate total under two scenarios: a winner take all scenario for each nomination contest and the proportional rules that currently exist. Then, I totalled the number of delegates each candidate wins on each day of the election calendar thus far. CWTAC and OWTAC are the culmulative vote totals for Clinton and Obama under a winner take all scenario at the end of each election day, and CP-C and OP-C are the proportional vote totals for Clinton and Obama, respectively.





What are the consequences of winner take all rules? Look at Super Duper Tuesday. By the close of business that day Hillary would have had a 300+ delegate advantage over Obama. But under the existing arrangements, Obama had the pledged delegate advantage by 16.

Under Winner Take All, Super Duper Tuesday would have clearly given Hillary the Big Mo. Under the plurality system, Barak is able to claim to have carried his momentum from South Carolina into Super Tuesday and beyond.

Now, let's do a little predicting. Let's see what competing under each set of rules does to the February 19 and March 4 contests. I've awarded wins to Obama in HI and WI (Feb. 19) and in Vermont on March 4. Hillary wins Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island. For the sake of argument, let's say Barak wins WI and HI with 60 percent of the vote, and Hillary wins her states with 55 percent. Obama wins VT with 60 percent.

Now, look at the next chart. Under winner take all, Hillary moves ahead of Obama in the delegate count by more than 200. Under the existing rules, Obama is still the front runner.






The consequence of the Democratic plurality rules is clear: it makes it very hard for a candidate in a competitive two-way race to break away. The end result of the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses might be a decision made by the superdelegates. What an irony in a system that was devised, initially, to be more responsive to the will of the people. Had winner take all rules exist, Super Duper Tuesday--as the Clinton's had argued all along--probably would've had sealed the deal for Hillary as the nominee.

I'll leave it up to you to decide whether the superdelegates should ratify the choice of the electorate or to select the nominee based upon their own set of criteria (which, of course, is the classic delegate versus trustee tradeoff members of Congress make all the time).