Latest poll: Nader 6%, Barr 3%

The Boston Globe’s “Political Intelligence” blog notes that Barack Obama did not get much of a bump in the polls from his trip to the Middle East and Europe. The first poll conducted entirely after his return—a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey—gave Obama a 51%-44% edge over McCain, about the same as 50%-45% edge a month ago.

However:

With Libertarian Bob Barr and independent Ralph Nader in the mix, the race is closer. Obama leads McCain 46 percent to 42, with Nader at 6 percent and Barr at 3 percent.

17 Responses to “Latest poll: Nader 6%, Barr 3%”

  1. Larry Says:

    Nader will not get 6 percent. He is not on the ballot in Texas. Libertarians will be on the ballot in 5 to 10 states more than Nader. A site about third parties should know this.

  2. Arizona Indie Says:

    All it looks like to me is that a story was posted. This site never said it agreed or disagreed with it. The numbers certainly are lower than all the hot air coming out of the Barr camp, how he’ll top 10-15%, how he is third in every poll, etc, etc.

  3. Impeach Bush Says:

    Larry, its a poll. The article is stating what the poll showed.

  4. Green in Brooklyn Says:

    My kingdom for at least one poll that includes Cynthia McKinney. I guarantee that at least half of Nader’s support comes from potential Cynthia supporters who aren’t given that choice in the polls.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    Opinion polling is silly. Anyone with a background in statistics knows that how a statistical question is framed has a direct impact on the response. Most (if not all) of these opinion polls open with the R vs D question early in the poll, and only add other options as part of a question deeper into the poll. Coupled with other influences surrounding the election it’s a wonder alternative candidates pull the percentages they do during opinion polling.

    Basing debate participation on opinion polling is equally silly, and for similar reasons. Ballot access should be the only requirement to participate in early candidate debates, and would serve to narrow the field just fine. Additional or stricter requirements could be added as more and more debates are held to further narrow the field if necessary.

  6. Lou Says:

    Where on earth does the poster above get the idea that had Nader not run his supporters would vote for McKinney? Potential McKinney voters are already overwhelmingly committed to Obama. I should know, as I live in Georgia in McKinney’s former congressional district and know of what I speak. Nader supporters tend to be highly educated and concerned about the direction our country is taking. McKinney supporters for the most part are simply looking for more handouts and apologies. These are two distinctly different sets of voters.

  7. joell Says:

    so half of nader’s support , in a poll, would go to Mckinney if she was included?

    what about donations? these excluded Mckinney supporters can make financial contributions at will.

    Mckinney is at less than 150K to Nader’s $2 million.

  8. Corruption Says:

    Polling should not determine debate participation. I say, if a candidate is on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win, then they should be included in the debates.

  9. Larry Says:

    Last I checked Nader was on the ballot in 8 states. Ok maybe I am wrong but how does he get 6% when he has such ballot access problems? Does anybody out there have a clue how Nader gets on the ballot in 45 states? Look at Richard Winger Ballot Access News for July and compare ballot access. Winger says Nader is not on the ballot in California, New York or Texas. Does anybody get what I am saying? Time is running out. Look Barr is far from perfect, but if you are going to vote third party why not find out first whether your candidate is even on the ballot.

  10. Matt Walker Says:

    Larry, Nader will be on the ballot in 40+ states come November. In California he may get the Peace and Freedom Party nomination that already has access (their nomination will happen this weekend I believe). According to Nader’s website, they have turned in signatures in 15 states with enough of a buffer to safely be considered on the ballot, have completed signature gathering for 3 others, and are well on their way to the goal of 45. The only reason they can only shoot for 45 and not 50 is incredibly restrictive ballot access laws in states such as Texas and Oklahoma. I agree that any candidate with sufficient ballot access should be in the debates. This time around you’d have Barr, McKinney, and Nader in addition to Obama and McCain.

    Polls are inherently a poor way of evaluating small party and independant candidate’s viability. It takes access to the public through debates to build awareness, which in turn will help with poll numbers. With the lack of press coverage given to Nader, Barr, and McKinney, it’s amazing they do as well as they are performing now in polls. Put them all in a debate so the American public can hear alternative viewpoints and we could really shake things up. That, of course, is exactly what the establishment wants to avoid, so I doubt it will be allowed to happen. Sadly, our best debate moments were probably last fall with Gravel, Kucinich, and Paul.

  11. Donna Miller Says:
    1. joell Says:
      July 31st, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    “so half of nader’s support , in a poll, would go to Mckinney if she was included?

    what about donations? these excluded Mckinney supporters can make financial contributions at will.

    Mckinney is at less than 150K to Nader’s $2 million.”

    We won’t know until we do a poll.

    Gavin Newsom outspent Matt Gonzalez by ten to one in the San Francisco Mayor’s race in 2003. He only beat Gonzalez by 5 points in spite of bringing in Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Jesse Jackson in to campaign for him.

    Rich Whitney raised $80,000 in the Illinois Governor’s race in 2004 compared with millions for his opponents. In spite of being shut out of the debates and fear of the “spoiler” effect, Whitney still got 10% of the vote.

    Obama outspent Clinton three to one in Pennsylvania. She still beat him by nearly 10 points in the primary.

  12. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hmmn? Interesting. Nader made the ballot in Texas in 2004. Him not making the ballot in such a large state this time around is an indication that his support is declining.

  13. AJA Says:

    Nader will be on Ballot in California…checkout Peace and Freedom Convention Results after 4PM on Sat., August 2.

    I’ll take Nader on the Ballot in California in 2008!

  14. Donna Miller Says:
    1. Eric Dondero Says:
      July 31st, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    “Hmmn? Interesting. Nader made the ballot in Texas in 2004. Him not making the ballot in such a large state this time around is an indication that his support is declining.”

    Nader made the ballot in Texas in 2000 when he ran as the Green candidate, but not in 2004 when he ran as an independent. The signature requirement is substantially higher and the petitioning window is shorter for independent candidates than it is for parties. Nader needed to file paperwork with the state by January 2nd stating his intention to petition as a party. Since he waited until late February to declare, this was out of the question, unless he knows something about the Special Theory of Relativity that Albert Einstein doesn’t. The independent route was the only option available to him, and he decided from previous experience that it wasn’t going to happen.

  15. Matt Walker Says:

    Texas also has restrictions that state that anyone who voted in the presidential primary, can’t sign a ballot access petition. In a year such as this with an extremely high voter turnout in the primary, the possible field of eligible signatures is much smaller than it has been in the past.

  16. Larry Says:

    I forgot Nader could go Peace and Freedom Party for California. I was thinking he had to go Independent. I was wrong. Nader is on California ballot.

  17. Ed Brandt Says:

    We are not a democracy (unless you consider Iran and Russia to be democracies) unless all candidates with a distinct set of policy ideas (and have more than about 1000 relatives and friends willing to vote for them) have easy access to the ballot. Neither Canada nor any European democracy (and probably none in Latin America) require petitions to qualify for being on the ballot. In both Iran and Russia, your vote is secret and counted honestly. But only approved candidates can run in Iran (which is exactly what our major parties are trying to accomplish), while in Russia Putin controls the media, so no opponents can reach a large audience. In the US media self-censorship has the same effect. In every country with which I’m familiar (and I worked in five overseas countries and was a political science professor), you find more than two parties on the ballot, although sometimes they will join in a coalition to have a better chance of winning the contest for the most powerful position, whether it’s called a prime minister, a chancellor or, in France, the president. Since I grew up in Canada, I’m most familiar with that country. Four parties (and sometimes more) have seats in Parliament (Conservative [sometimes more liberal in financial policies than the Liberals], Liberal, New Democrats (who favor a welfare state), Bloc Quebecois (separatists who want Quebec to secede from Canada), and Green (elitists who are worse there and in Germany than those in Minnesota). In Britain there are at least four, maybe five: Conservative, Labor, Democratic Liberal, Scottish Nationalists(who seek independence) and British (anti-European Union) Nationalists. In Germany five parties have seats in the Bundestag: Christian Democrats (with their unique Bavarian wing), Socialists, Greens, Free Democratic Union (the party of big business) and the alternative alliance, a combination of two small parties with a degree of compassion never found in other parties, but despised by them because it includes the democratic successor to the former Communist-controlled party (theoretically a union of parties).
    A good basis for deciding who should be in presidential debates would be to include all those who are on the ballot in enough states that they could win the presidency: Nader, Barr, McKinney and Baldwin.
    The notion that Nader candidates would vote for McKinney if he wasn’t on the ballot is inaccurate. Some of them would, some (including me) would cast write-in votes (although not necessarily all of them for Nader), and some would not cast a vote for any candidate. Only a tiny majority would vote Democratic, just as a tiny minority of Barr voters would vote Republican.
    Since the president is the primary decision-maker in foreign policy but Congress is the primary decision-maker in domestic pollicy (and would pose an obstacle for any president), my vote is based primarily on foreign policy. Nader, McKinney and Barr would all refuse to attack Iran. (I don’t know enough about Baldwin, whose support seems to be mostly in the South and Southwest) to know what he would do. But there will never be a lasting peace in the Middle East until we pressure Israel to end the occupation of Palestine, the Syrian Golan Heights and a small area in Lebanon, as well as find a solution to the refugee problem, which would mean paying them enough that they would see a better future elsewhere, if Israel does not want to give their homes and land back to them. (If we did that, all of those whom the major parties call “terrorists,” except for al Qaeda, would end their violence and in some countries, as already in Lebanon, become democrats.) As the son of Lebanese Christian immigrants, Nader understands that better than any other candidate, since McKinney’s platform is overwhelming oriented toward domestic issues, especially actual racism and much more often classism, which affects a disproportinate percentage of blacks. In the ultra-left neighborhood where I live, it would be extremely difficult to find even one voter who is a bigot regarding race or religion, but the neighborhood group vehemently opposes letting poor people live here.

Leave a Reply