humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 3, 6:41 am, Mark Sieving wrote:
> On Apr 3, 8:26 am, Agent Cooper wrote:
>
> >http://snipurl.com/23cz4 [www_washingtontimes_com]
>
> I'd be surprised if either Barr or Nader got more than 1% of the
> popular vote in the general election.  I wouldn't be surprised if they
> got less than 1% of the vote, combined.  I don't think either will
> have a significant effect on the election.

Ross Perot pulled 8% in an unexceptional year, and that was *after*
people realized he was a nut. He cost Bob Dole the election. Nader
cost Al Gore the election in 2000.

But the key is not national percentages, but electoral college votes.
A third party candidate can tip but not take, in a battleground state.
How many votes does it take to tip Florida one way or another? In
2000, it was a few hundred. And this year, the black turnout in the
South will be huge. A significant dent in the unity of the white vote
could put the South in play. Even without this kind of assist, Obama
puts Virginia in play. Even with my cynic hat on, there's more here
than you might think. He can not only pull protest votes just by
showing up, but he can inherit Ron Paul's fundraising apparatus and
ground game. He can impede Republican unifying, already in trouble
because McCain is the nominee. I think that this makes McCain's VP
choice even more important; if he misjudges where the threat lies by
picking someone not credible as an economic conservative (e.g.,
Huckabee), the problem is worse. If he allows his emotions to get in
the way of his judgment (McCain? unthinkable!) by not picking Romney,
the problem is worse.

Stay tuned.