Barr Campaign is in Debt!

[The_Orlonater]

Mary Ruwart would have secured automatic ballot access. Not only that, she would have doubled Bob Barr's votes because Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters would actually have voted for Mary Ruwart.

I estimate more than 200,000 write-in votes for Ron Paul that would have gone to Mary Ruwart if she was the candidate. And that doesn't count the number of Libertarians who stayed home or voted for Nader or other candidates because Bob Barr was the ticket.

Only reason why Bob Barr got more votes than Harry Browne is because that many more people hated the other choices.

Bob Barr prevented a record-breaking year for the Libertarian Party.

Even if every Paul supporter voted for Ruwart, we wouldn't have won. This year was about automatic ballot access, and bringing in new voters and supporters. We did a little bit of that, but since everyone hated Bob "Satan" Barr we were back to our usual measly status.

 

[mport1]

Won't give them a dime.

+1

 

[nickcoons]

In fact, a Mary Ruwart would have raised $1,000,000 rather than the $10,000 Bob Barr was able raise with a money bomb because Mary Ruwart was a trusted champion of Liberty, like Ron Paul. It would have energized the campaign to where the media couldn't completely ignore it.

And she would have received a solid endorsement from Ron Paul.

 

[The_Orlonater]

I don't think she'd get that much media attention.

 

[mitty]

bump

he supported government bailouts. he should be asking for one now

lol bob barr. the true champion of liberty

 

[Kraig]

hahahaha


soooo glad I didn't vote for that loon

 

[The_Orlonater]

bump

he supported government bailouts. he should be asking for one now

lol bob barr. the true champion of liberty

Lmfao, is this a joke? He supported bailouts. I have a few videos of him inveighing against the bailout.

 

[Conservative Christian]

he supported government bailouts. he should be asking for one now

lol bob barr. the true champion of liberty

Your statement is false.

Bob Barr opposed the bailout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5waL8brexY

 

[Conservative Christian]

Mary Ruwart would have secured automatic ballot access. Not only that, she would have doubled Bob Barr's votes because Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters would actually have voted for Mary Ruwart.

I estimate more than 200,000 write-in votes for Ron Paul that would have gone to Mary Ruwart if she was the candidate. And that doesn't count the number of Libertarians who stayed home or voted for Nader or other candidates because Bob Barr was the ticket.

Only reason why Bob Barr got more votes than Harry Browne is because that many more people hated the other choices.

Bob Barr prevented a record-breaking year for the Libertarian Party.

Keep dreaming, little buddy.

Your assumptions and conjecture are meaningless.

Bob Barr STILL did better than Harry Browne in 2000, and Badnarik in 2004. Barr received more total votes, a larger percentage of the overall vote, and secured more ballot access for the next election---than either Browne or Badnarik.

Ruwart would've crashed and burned like the Hindenburg.

 

[Kludge]

From an email sent just over an hour ago:

"We have a modest debt and about $50,000 in accounting and compliance-related expenses still to address." To make that more comprehensible, the campaign raised ~$1,000,000 total.

 

[libertarian4321]

That was 1996, which would be LESS relevant than Browne's MOST RECENT 2000 showing.

Incorrect. The 2000 race was razor thin. Many Libertarians chose to vote for the "lesser evil" rather than vote Libertarian.

The '96 and '08 races were not close- hence, they are similar in that there was less reason to vote for the "lesser evil" since the outcome was pretty much known before the race.

I'd be much obliged if you guys would start posting something RELEVANT.

Here's something relevant.

This was the first time in almost 20 years that I didn't vote Libertarian.

The ONLY REASON I DIDN'T vote Libertarian was Bob Barr.

I would have voted for Ruwart, Badnarik, or Harry Browne's corpse if they had run as the LP candidate, but vote for an arrogant neocon ass like Bob Barr? Not a chance!

I'm sure I'm not the only long time Libertarian who refused to hold his nose and vote for Bob Barr...

The only good news: I just saved $2,300 by switching away from the Libertarian Party (Bob Barr only- voted Libertarian for all down ballot candidates). I didn't send the Barr any money.

 

[libertarian4321]

Barr received more total votes, a larger percentage of the overall vote, and secured more ballot access for the next election---than either Browne or Badnarik.

Also incorrect and irrelevant.

Ballot access rules vary by state, but in most states, the LP Pres. candidate has NEVER earned ballot access - either because it isn't possible or because the percentage of the vote is too low. In most states, we still have to get ballot access by filling out petitions.

Most states that DO allow future ballot access based on prior election results do so based on any candidate in a statewide election receiving a certain percentage of the vote. For example, in Texas, a candidate must receive 5% in a statewide election (2% for governor or Pres).

Obviously, no LP Presidential candidate has ever come close to that number- we win ballot access by getting 5+% in down ballot elections. Barr got 0.7% in Texas (one of his best states)- and ONLY because there were no other third party guys on the ballot (we usually have at least 3 third party candidates).

I don't know of any state that allows ballot access based on the piddling numbers that Barr pulled in- he was below 0.5% in almost every state.

Also, fyi, Barr was on the ballot in less states than any candidate since before 1992- that ain't impressive.

Barr was a bad candidate (he isn't libertarian) who ran a dismal campaign. Despite his "name recognition", he did about as well as the "generic" Libertarians in previous elections.

The LIBERTARIANS SOLD THEIR SOULS FOR NO REAL GAIN!

Someone explain to me how that is "good."

 

[constituent]

Mary Ruwart would have further alienated the Libertarians from the average voter with her radical stance on child porn. Mary Ruwart is an unknown left libertarian professor from Colorado, not exactly the kind of person the average joe could rally behind.

...never was much of an average joe

 

[dannno]

Does this officially make Bob Barr a neocon yet?

 

[nobody's_hero]

How much were they paying Shane Corey and Russ Varney?

Firing those fools would have saved them some cash, and some face.

 

[mitty]

Lmfao, is this a joke? He supported bailouts. I have a few videos of him inveighing against the bailout.

its pretty sad you are so in bed with this guy but apparently know nothing about him. there are all kinds of threads here that talk about how he said he thinks the government needs to do bailouts sometimes.

 

[mitty]

Your statement is false.

Bob Barr opposed the bailout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5waL8brexY

apparently barr is bipolar or schizophrenic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag-kkq_vKHA

or an arrogant liar neocon. no wonder his campaign loves bush so much

 

[Conservative Christian]

Also, fyi, Barr was on the ballot in less states than any candidate since before 1992- that ain't impressive.

Which was the fault of the Libertarian Party itself, not Barr.

And I would say it IS impressive. Barr garnered MORE OVERALL VOTES and a LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL VOTE than both Browne in 2000 and Badnarik in 2004---even though he was on the ballot in FEWER STATES.

If the Libertarian Party rank-and-file would've got off their worthless duffs and gotten Barr ballot access in as many states as Browne and Badnarik had---Barr would've BEATEN THEIR TOTALS BY EVEN MORE!

Barr was a bad candidate (he isn't libertarian) who ran a dismal campaign. Despite his "name recognition", he did about as well as the "generic" Libertarians in previous elections.

Barr did BETTER than Browne in 2000 and Badnarik in 2004, even with the "dismal" campaign and ballot access in FEWER states.

The LP is dismal. Can't blame Barr for that.

The LIBERTARIANS SOLD THEIR SOULS FOR NO REAL GAIN!

They can't sell something they never had.

 

[libertarian4321]

If the Libertarian Party rank-and-file would've got off their worthless duffs and gotten Barr ballot access in as many states as Browne and Badnarik had---Barr would've BEATEN THEIR TOTALS BY EVEN MORE!

You seem to think of them as separate and distinct. They are NOT.

Many Libertarians such as myself, who are normally significant financial backers of the LP simply did not open our wallets this year BECAUSE OF BARR.

Money equals ballot access.

Barr equals Libertarians closing their wallets.

Hence, Barr meant less money for ballot access efforts.

Get it?

He didn't just lose my vote, Barr caused me to sit the election out- no time, no money, and no vote.

Get enough Libertarians refusing to give their money, time, and vote, you get a tepid performance like we got from Barr- a "big name" candidate who only managed the fourth highest vote percentage.

Wasn't the "big name" guy, in a "ron Paul year" supposed to BLOW THE DOORS off previous totals? Instead, he finished a bit above average- because he was a neocon and an a-hole.