The Old Eighteen

United we stand, divided they fall

For the past few weeks, the pundits have been hammering away at the idea that the Democrats might have a unity problem this fall in the aftermath of the contentious battle for the party's presidential nomination.  But with the nomination now all but settled, the two candidates have begun making gestures toward unifying the party.  Meawhile, the GOP, which settled the question of its nomination weeks ago, could be the party with the unity problem going into the fall.  First, there's the Christianist wing of the party, headed by Mike Huckabee, who appears to be setting himself up for 2012 even as he puts on the public face of a McCain supporter:

An element of the Christian community is not reconciled to McCain's candidacy but instead regards the prospective presidency of Barack Obama in the nature of a Biblical plague visited upon a sinful people. These militants look at former Baptist preacher Huckabee as "God's candidate" running for president in 2012. Whether they can be written off as merely a troublesome fringe group depends on Huckabee's course.

Huckabee's announced support of McCain is unequivocal, and he is regarded in the McCain camp as a friend and ally. But credible activists are spreading the word that Huckabee secretly allies himself with the bitter-end opposition. That hardly seems possible considering his public backing, but critics of Huckabee's 10 years as governor of Arkansas say he is all too capable of playing a double game.

[...] One experienced, credible activist in Christian politics who would not let his name be used told me Huckabee in personal conversation with him embraced the concept that an Obama presidency might be what the American people deserve. That fits what has largely been a fringe position among evangelicals that the pain of an Obama presidency is in keeping with the Bible's prophecy.

According to this activist, at the heart of the let-Obama-win movement is longtime Virginia conservative leader Michael Farris -- the nation's leading home-school advocate, who is now chancellor of Patrick Henry College (in Purcellville, Va.) for home-schooled students. Best known politically as the losing Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1993, Farris is regarded as one of the hardest-edged Christian politicians. He is reported in evangelical circles to promote the Biblical justification for an Obama plague-like presidency.

[...] Even taking Huckabee's professions of support for McCain at face value, he is not leaving politics for the lecture circuit. He has formed the Huck PAC to back Republican candidates, his supporters have established a Website (Huck4America.com), and Huckabee backers are behind the Government Is Not God PAC to discourage McCain from naming Romney as his vice president.

Meanwhile, the libertarian wing of the party, led by Ron Paul, appears to be ready to revolt:

Virtually all the nation's political attention in recent weeks has focused on the compelling state-by-state presidential nomination struggle between two Democrats and the potential for party-splitting strife over there.

But in the meantime, quietly, largely under the radar of most people, the forces of Rep. Ron Paul have been organizing across the country to stage an embarrassing public revolt against Sen. John McCain when Republicans gather for their national convention in Minnesota at the beginning of September.

[...] In the last three months, Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upward of a million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi. Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.

[...] They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a long-term revolution for control of the Republican Party.

So eager are they to follow their leader's words, that Paul's supporters have driven his new book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto," to the top of several bestseller lists.

And as I mentioned here earlier, Bob Barr is running for president as a libertarian.  If the dominionists stay home this November, and the libertarians flock to Bob Barr, Obama could win big.

::

(via Poll Dancing)

Bob Barr running for president as a Libertarian

The last week or so hasn't been all that good for John McCain.  First, Barack Obama all but clinches the Democratic presidential nomination.  Then, McCain loses two of his campaign aides, who are forced to step down because their lobbying firm lists the military dictatorship of Myanmar as one of its clients.  And now this:

Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr launched a Libertarian Party presidential bid Monday, saying voters are hungry for an alternative to the status quo who would dramatically cut the federal government.

His candidacy throws a wild card into the White House race that many believe could peel away votes from Republican Sen. John McCain given the candidates' similar positions on fiscal policy.

Barr, who has hired Ross Perot's former campaign manager, acknowledged that some Republicans have tried to discourage him from running. But he said he's getting in the race to win, not to play spoiler or to make a point.

"I've heard from Americans from all walks of life ... they want a choice," he said at a news conference in Washington. "They believe that America has more and better to offer than what the current political situation is serving up to us."

Bob Barr isn't exactly a household name, but he is well enough known to be pretty much a lock for the Libertarian nomination.  As to how his presence on the ballot will affect the race, that's anyone's guess.  During the last election cycle, the party's nominee, Michael Badnarik, drew less than 400,000 voters and scored a measly 1/3 of 1 percent of the popular vote overall.  But Barr's name recognition will almost certainly make that number higher, and Ron Paul's relative success as a Republican candidate, even after McCain clinched the party's nomination, shows that there are a sizeable number of Republicans who are looking for an alternative to the pro-war, fiscally irresponsible brand currently being pushed by the party.  If a sizeable number of Paul's supporters swing their support to Barr, it could potentially have a huge impact on the outcome in several key swing states.  Add to that, however, the fact that Barr could draw additional independents, some of whom might have been previously inclined to vote for Obama as a lesser of two evils.  And Ralph Nader is making a run, too - depending on how successful he is in obtaining ballot access, his presence in the race could negate whatever advantage Obama gains by Barr being in the race.  Or he could flame out like he did in 2004.  It's way too early to say how all this will affect the race, but it'll be interesting to see what the polling shows when Barr begins to be included as an option.

And on that note, I decided to take a hypothetical look at how Barr's candidacy could change the race.  For purposes of this exercise, I took my data from Electoral-vote.com, averaging poll numbers for head-to-head matchups between McCain and Obama in each state for the months of April and May.  For states where polling was not conducted in those months, I used the newest poll available.  I then took these numbers and subtracted 2 points from McCain's popular vote total in each state to reflect the hypothetical average net effect of Barr's candidacy.  And finally, I rated the states based on how competitive the races were: states where one of the candidates outperformed the other by 10 points or more were considered a "lock" for that candidate; states where a candidate had a 5-10 point lead were considered "strongly leaning" toward a candidate; for a 2-5 point lead, they were considered "leaning" toward a candidate; and for a 0-2 point lead, they were considered "barely leaning" toward a candidate.  And I considered any states where the margin is within 5 points to be in play.

What I found is that a Barr candidacy that reduces McCain's numbers by a net average of 2 points per state would affect the status of 12 states with a combined total of 98 electoral votes:

• Utah, with its 5 electoral votes, went from a "lock" for McCain to "strongly leaning" for McCain.
• 5 states with a total of 29 electoral votes - Alaska, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, and North Dakota - went from "strongly leaning" to "leaning" for McCain.
• 3 states with a total of 33 electoral votes - Nebraska, Ohio, and South Carolina - went from "leaning" to "barely leaning" for McCain.
• New Mexico and its 5 electoral votes was the only state that switched sides, going from "barely leaning" for McCain to "barely leaning" for Obama.
• Michigan and its 17 states went from "barely leaning" to "leaning" for Obama.
• And Colorado, with 9 electoral votes, went from "leaning" to "strongly leaning" for Obama.

In all, under this scenario, a Barr candidacy put 5 McCain states with 29 electoral votes into play for Obama, and took one Obama state with 9 electoral votes out of play for McCain.  However, I don't think that this scenario truly reflects the full ramifications of a Barr candidacy, because it will play out differently in states depending on their political culture.  I could see Barr performing better in the Rocky Mountain states and the Midwest, for example, than the southern states (with the exception of his home state of Georgia, but that's a solid lock for McCain at this point).  Regardless, I think that having Barr in the race could force both candidates to make changes to their gameplans, and might tip a close race in Obama's favor.