Staff Vote 4 Dummies (Get it??)

In my column from four years ago imploring other journalistic outlets to show us who they're voting for, I boiled down our more expansive 2004 presidential survey into the responses of 13 key reason contibutors. The breakdown then:

only one certain vote apiece for Bush, Kerry and Badnarik. Two principled non-voters and two more probable non-voters (one of whom leans Badnarik); two I'll-never-tells, two undefined undecideds, and two undecideds who will either vote for Badnarik or a major-party candidate.

I was the sole loser for Kerry, BTW, though it was because "Bush needs to be fired." Go to the link to see an easily digestible list of how the 13 responded.

For the purposes of symmetry I thought I'd do the same boiling-down exercise from our just-published 2008 survey. So here goes, with 18 staffers and regular contributors this time around:

Peter Bagge: Barr; Obama if close
Ronald Bailey: Obama
Radley Balko: Barr
Drew Carey: "Anybody but McCain/Palin"
Tim Cavanaugh: Obama
Shikha Dalmia: Nobody
Brian Doherty: Never votes
Nick Gillespie: Barr, if he votes
Katherine Mangu-Ward: Never votes
Michael Moynihan: Won't vote
Charles Oliver: Won't vote
Bob Poole: McCain
Damon Root: Probably nobody, maybe Barr
Jacob Sullum: Barr
Jesse Walker: Barr
David Weigel: Obama
Matt Welch: Probably Barr
Cathy Young: Probably Barr

By my count that's three definitely for Barr, three definitely for Obama, one definitely for McCain. Five won't-votes, four probably-Barrs, one probably-nobody, and one "anybody but McCain/Palin." What does it all mean? You tell us.

Comments

RL | October 29, 2008, 4:45pm | #

It means:

1. You folks are highly atypical (which is unfortunate)

2. Barr would do much better if the general public knew as much about him as you folks do.

3. "None of the above" would win in a landslide if allowed on the ballots.

You tell us | October 29, 2008, 4:45pm | #

Katherine Mangu-Ward is HOT !!!

Redstate Regular | October 29, 2008, 4:47pm | #

It means you're all Obama fanboys (and girls)!!!

Fluffy | October 29, 2008, 4:48pm | #

It means that the Republican / Libertarian divide is so wide now that it's wider than the Democrat / Libertarian divide.

And if you had predicted that to me in 1980 or 1984 I would have laughed in your face.

joe | October 29, 2008, 4:48pm | #

It means that you are the sort of fake "libertarians" who live in cities and use deoderant.

lunchstealer | October 29, 2008, 4:49pm | #

My tally of the whole list including the Brins and Benfords and other less regular folk ended up with Obama in front, with McCain coming in 4th behind the "Don't vote, it just encourages them" tally.

hotsauce | October 29, 2008, 4:49pm | #

That most of you don't apply the same principle when voting year to year (I'm guilty myself, and only recently became a principled nonvoting convert).

Jack | October 29, 2008, 4:51pm | #

It means libertarians shoudln't write about horserace electoral politics because they rarely have anything to contribute to the conversation

sage | October 29, 2008, 4:56pm | #

Uh, drink!

Citizen Nothing | October 29, 2008, 4:57pm | #

Jack, I'd think libertarians have more to contribute to stories about horserace electorial politics since they don't have a horse in the race.

I, Kahn O'Clast | October 29, 2008, 4:58pm | #

It means that I have been reading this blog for too long since the last internal poll (Kerry/Bush) feels like yesterday.

Mike | October 29, 2008, 4:58pm | #

"It means that the Republican / Libertarian divide is so wide now that it's wider than the Democrat / Libertarian divide."

The R/L divide was never that close in the first place, IMO.

madmikefisk | October 29, 2008, 5:00pm | #

It shows there's quite a bit of diversity in libertarian thought, and that all the candidates running, to be frank, suck this year...

Boston | October 29, 2008, 5:05pm | #

It means what the Libertarian vote means ever election...



Nothing.

Boston | October 29, 2008, 5:06pm | #

*every

Kyle | October 29, 2008, 5:07pm | #

I think it means it's time for a drink (and it's 5:00).

Warren | October 29, 2008, 5:08pm | #

It means Bob Barr brought nothing to the LP and has in fact diluted the brand. Can I have my party back now?

John | October 29, 2008, 5:10pm | #

Weigel is going for Obama. That is a shock. If Obama wins, the ones who voted for him better not bitch. It is not like there will be any surprises or they didn't have the option of voting for Barr. I expect Reason to be solidly in support of the Obama agenda since they overwelmingly will vote for it and choose to do when there was a third party protest vote available.

xMan | October 29, 2008, 5:11pm | #

No love for McKinney? No R. Paul write-in attempts?

It's about what I expected otherwise.

Asharak | October 29, 2008, 5:15pm | #

Notice how John just zeroes in on Weigel's choice and believes that it represents Reason, its entire staff and most of its readers in general. That is a shock.

fyodor | October 29, 2008, 5:15pm | #

John,

You've never bitched about anyone you've voted for?

Pdrama | October 29, 2008, 5:19pm | #

It means that your ideas are worthless and I should have never strayed from The Economist in the first place.

James Ard | October 29, 2008, 5:21pm | #

It means ya'll need to hire some actual libraterians to write for Reason. Hopefully some of you non-voting losers will at least go and vote for some down-ticket LP candidates. Hey, I have an idea, why don't we build a political movement based on picking up all of the non-voting types and see how that works out.

Boston | October 29, 2008, 5:23pm | #

It seems to be some confusion about those people voting in DC. Weigel can't vote for Barr. Though Welch (who i thought lived in DC as well) says he is. I of course could be mistaken.

Don the libertarian Democrat | October 29, 2008, 5:23pm | #

It means that not enough of you are reading my posts.

Libertarian | October 29, 2008, 5:26pm | #

After tilting at windmills for about 30 years, the $850B bailout bill this year was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Anyone who votes for Obama or McCain is part the problem.

lunchstealer | October 29, 2008, 5:28pm | #

If Obama wins, the ones who voted for him better not bitch.

Why not? I've bitched about everyone I've ever voted for before. Although none of them ever won. Except Bush, but I only did that as a protest vote in case Gore won, which he probably did.

the liberal-tarian | October 29, 2008, 5:33pm | #

Good, I have finally coop--er, uh converted most of you to the religion of the Obamessiah.

John Thacker | October 29, 2008, 5:39pm | #

It means that libertarians, as much as anyone else, vote on the basis of personality and someone being "like us" and not the hated Other, and only occasionally on the basis of stated policy, rhetoric, and voting history.

For most Reasonoids, Obama is much more "like us," whereas McCain (from a military family) and Palin are much more the Other. (Also, certainly, is Barr.) Reason writers are no different from anyone that way.

That's all quite reasonable. The argument of "He's smart, he's like me, he listens well, I'm smart and I'm right, so once he hears all the facts he's actually do the right thing and agree with me, no matter what he's been saying" isn't actually the worst possible argument.

Also, it says that Reason writers are not particularly exercised over issues like free trade, agricultural subsidies, health care, school choice or education in general, or Medicare spending (such as the prescription drug benefit Sen. McCain voted against). Or, again, merely doubt most all of Sen. Obama's voting and campaign rhetoric, and assume that he won't actually spend what he claims, and what he says about Pakistan and Afghanistan are also lies. (Don't trust me, though, I'm linking to nasty Cato Institute papers.)

Also, living in DC, perhaps Reason staffers are very pro-Amtrak spending, pushing them towards Sen. Biden and away from Sen. McCain.

Another possibility is that Reason writers want to punish Sen. McCain for things that other Republicans did, even when (like on spending, the Medicare drug benefit, ag subsidies) he voted against them and Sen. Obama voted for them.

texas_libertarian | October 29, 2008, 5:42pm | #

Hey Matt, uh, where the fuck is Kerry Howley?!

The Angry Optimist | October 29, 2008, 5:44pm | #

So, Shikha Dalmia has the nerve to call Barr duplicitous? Isn't she the one who verbatim-repeated that bullshit "Hummers are more environmentally friendly than Prisuses" "study"?

Give me a break.

| October 29, 2008, 5:46pm | #

Hey Matt, uh, where the fuck is Kerry Howley?!

Grad school

Boston | October 29, 2008, 5:52pm | #

Has Mises or CATO done anything like this?

Matt Welch | October 29, 2008, 5:56pm | #

For most Reasonoids, Obama is much more "like us," whereas McCain (from a military family) and Palin are much more the Other. (Also, certainly, is Barr.)

If Barr is like "Other," and Reasonoids vote for people "like us," why are so many Reasonoids voting for or leaning toward Barr?

Matt Welch | October 29, 2008, 5:57pm | #

Also, living in DC, perhaps Reason staffers are very pro-Amtrak spending, pushing them towards Sen. Biden and away from Sen. McCain.

I note that you failed to provide any link to our pro-Amtrak coverage....

James Ard | October 29, 2008, 6:07pm | #

I think his point, Matt, is many of you guys are voting for someone who is sure to continue the Amtrack scam.

Waquoit | October 29, 2008, 6:13pm | #

How can anyone vote for a ticket that includes that shady character Wayne Root?

Daze | October 29, 2008, 6:19pm | #

You guys are just sucking up in hopes of getting ambassadorships in the Barr administration.

prolefeed | October 29, 2008, 6:24pm | #

It means y'all have at least four people on staff who think it's a good idea to vote for politicians who are the opposite of libertarian.

I thought the recent article in Liberty magazine giving four POVs (vote Obama; vote McCain; vote Barr; don't vote) was more informative, especially in the way the vote Obama and vote McCain pieces read like hit pieces about the politicians ostensibly being supported.

Scott66 | October 29, 2008, 6:30pm | #

As a Reason reader and occasional blog poster it strikes me as a pretty disappointing tally.

I worry more about Obama's Cult of Personality support and socialist rhetoric than a coming theocracy from the right. A minority position here to be sure. Add Obama's rhetoric to the balance of power in Congress and you have a recipe for abuse and abuse we will get.

Regardless of the above, Barr seems a reasonable candidate. Libertarians not supporting Barr seems counterproductive. As a NC resident I will be voting Barr, Munger and Dole (to hopefully prevent a filibuster proof Senate).

ginsocal | October 29, 2008, 6:32pm | #

I say it means a substantial number of you are, for lack of a more genteel term, idiots. I've always been a strong believer in the idea that, if you don't vote, you should subsequently STFU. I hereby submit that request to your non-voting staff.

Second, no one voting for the wannabe tyrant O! has any business being anywhere near a Libertarian outfit. You people also need to STFU from here on. In addition, you should quit your jobs. Fat, stoned, and hypocritical, is no way to go through life.

Jerry | October 29, 2008, 6:33pm | #

For a Washington DC outfit, this is a decent result I guess.

someone | October 29, 2008, 6:33pm | #

Will Bob Poole now get purged, whoops I mean resign from staff?

economist | October 29, 2008, 6:37pm | #

I need a drink.

jj | October 29, 2008, 6:39pm | #

Reason editors: anyone care to explain how you can vote for Obama or McCain after the 700 zillion dollar bailout? Or perhaps it's no biggie?

robert capozzi | October 29, 2008, 6:39pm | #

it means reasonoids are, for the most part, paying attention and yet not prone to groupthink.

joshua corning | October 29, 2008, 6:42pm | #

It means that you are the sort of fake "libertarians" who live in cities and use deoderant.

I am surprised any one but Matt voted for McCain. Who is Bob Poole anyway?

The Obama Votes are disappointing but the strong Barr support makes me Happy.

David Weigel: Obama

This is no surprise.

economist | October 29, 2008, 6:50pm | #

I disagree with the "torture is like rape" comment. Some people deserve it. Personally, I agree with all the people who say they would like to have had Woodrow Wilson waterboarded. He was truly the most loathsome piece of shit to ever occupy the White House. Even worse than Jackson, the Roosevelts, or Bush (who at least had past ill-conceived interventionism as a precedent).

economist | October 29, 2008, 6:51pm | #

Crap, I forgot to include LBJ in the list of presidents that I considered loathsome sacks of shit.

economist | October 29, 2008, 6:52pm | #

Damn, some of these people haven't written for reason in a long time.

SIV | October 29, 2008, 7:01pm | #

Who is Bob Poole anyway?

A transportation fascist with a lot of crackpot ideas and deep pockets.Good to see he is voting for McCain though!

Craig | October 29, 2008, 7:02pm | #

The "don't vote" contingent has been wearing me down, but I'll still show up to write in Ron Paul and vote against all the new spending (i.e. bond measures) my fellow Californians want to stick me with.

On a philosophical level, I see the "don't vote" argument. On a practical or strategic level, it makes no sense.

If you convince 1% of the population to join you in not voting, it won't even be noticed, just like convincing 1% of the population to vote for a pro-freedom candidate.

If you convince 5% more to not vote, it still won't be noticed, but a pro-freedom candidate getting 5% would be noticeable and significant.

If you convince 10% more to not vote, you might hear something vague about "low voter turnout", but if you convince 10% to vote for a pro-freedom candidate, it would be real news.

Eventually, some level of non-voting starts to shake up the system, but the 50% we're at now isn't doing it. On the other hand, getting 10% or 15% or 20% to vote for a pro-freedom candidate would send a message that's a lot clearer and more powerful.

Elemenope | October 29, 2008, 7:05pm | #

I forgot to include LBJ in the list of presidents that I considered loathsome sacks of shit.

I've always tempered my hatred for him by remembering that he committed legislative and party suicide in order to pass the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

He gets points for that.

Woodrow Wilson, he gets no points. For anything.

The Wine Commonsewer | October 29, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Weigel is on board the Obamamobile?

Why, I'm shocked. ;-)

Actually, I expected a bigger turn out for Obama and I'm pleased to see that I was wrong.

mccleary | October 29, 2008, 7:43pm | #

Here is my libertarian calculus regarding the most important legislation of the decade and the people to always vote against:

1) HJres 114 (Iraq War authorization). McCain, Barr, Biden (plus also-rans: Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Dodd, Hagel).

2) Patriot Act (HR 3162). McCain, Barr, Biden (plus also-rans: Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Dodd, Hagel).

3) Wall Street bailout (PL 110-343): McCain, Obama, Biden.

So McCain is 0-3, Obama is 0-1, Biden is 0-3, Barr is 0-2. So I can easily understand a) the lack of Reason enthusiasm for voting (and I also understand the statistical reasons, but I actually enjoy it!), b) the split barr/obama votes in the "less bad than McCain" category.

I hope that McCain supporters who believe that there is other legislation more important to libertarians will use McCain's voting record (with bill numbers) to tell me why libertarians should even consider him. Typing "Obama is a socialist" doesn't count.

Personally, I'm writing in Ron Paul for Prez (3-3, bitches!).

Otherwise, I plan to vote a fairly straight libertarian ticket in NC (though I'm happily voting for Ron-Paul-Repub BJ Lawson for Congress).

The Wine Commonsewer | October 29, 2008, 7:44pm | #

Who is Bob Poole anyway?

A transportation fascist with a lot of crackpot ideas and deep pockets.Good to see he is voting for McCain though!

Bob Poole is the beloved founder of Reason and I believe his decoder ring has a serial number of 00000001.

Calling him a fascist is fairly ludicrous and if I didn't like you SIV I would say far harsher things.

He's actually one of the premier transportation experts in the known world and has worked tirelessly to promote market reforms in aviation and other transportation.

sage | October 29, 2008, 7:46pm | #

Hey everyone, I'm a bit late, but here is how I'm voting this year. The big winner will be "Giant Douche" or "Turd Sandwich" depending on how the coin toss goes.

The Wine Commonsewer | October 29, 2008, 7:53pm | #

I plan to vote NO on any proposition in Californicate that will result in spending tax money.

I will vote against any sitting judge who is up for confirmation.

Those are the really important votes Brian.

For Pres? Barr or maybe I'll write in Ron Paul.

Statewide offices: A straight LP ticket.

Local gangsters: Vote against the incumbent.

The Angry Optimist | October 29, 2008, 7:53pm | #

Personally, I'm writing in Ron Paul for Prez

Jesus Christ. I wish I could be Ron Paul...I'd have groupies and hot gold-groupies throwing themselves at me, even though I'm entirely ineligible as a Presidential candidate!

RP's cult of personality can't go away fast enough.

sage | October 29, 2008, 7:57pm | #

TWC, are there LP candidates on all your statewide offices? There wasn't a single on on mine (WA state).

If not, what to do? May I suggest also voting against the incumbent for them as well?

Peterson | October 29, 2008, 8:01pm | #

It means you are a bunch of cowards.

cunnivore | October 29, 2008, 8:16pm | #

I'm still wondering why writing in Ron Paul is seen as superior to writing in your own name. If the point is to vote for the person you most agree with...

cunnivore | October 29, 2008, 8:20pm | #

TAO, it's a shame too, because RP is seemingly a good and strong-willed man, even if he's a terrible politician. I want to be happy that people like him, but then they have to go too far...

chroma | October 29, 2008, 8:46pm | #

I'd like to see the same tally/survey done with the regular commentors here: Elemenope, joe, JsubD, etc.

mccleary | October 29, 2008, 8:47pm | #

Hey Angry Optimist,

You quoted me, so I assume that you are referencing me. I specified three bills that were important to me as a libertarian. I broke down the votes of the various of the various candidates. I concluded that Ron Paul (who was in fact running for president) voted correctly 3 out of 3 times. Everyone else, based on their votes, is turd sandwich.

Frankly, I think Ron Paul has zero personality.

Who, again, are you voting for, and why?

The Angry Optimist | October 29, 2008, 8:54pm | #

I'm voting for Bob Barr. For one, it's silly to take those three bills and just "apply" the voting record as a test. It drops the context and the nuance of the situation (especially WRT Barr's fight for sunset clauses in the PATRIOT Act).

Here's part of the problem: Ron Paul votes "no" on freakin' almost everything...which at first you think (as a libertarian) "yeah, that's cool man! I mean, no on everything!"...but what we forget is that Paul has made no effort to move the country incrementally more libertarian.

Finally, when you go write in RP, are you even sure he's eligible?

The Wine Commonsewer | October 29, 2008, 8:56pm | #

I'm still wondering why writing in Ron Paul is seen as superior to writing in your own name. If the point is to vote for the person you most agree with...

It's not, but it sounds better than writing in your own name. Besides, nobody else is going to write in TWC, but at least twelve people will write in Ron Paul. See the diff?

Elemenope | October 29, 2008, 9:06pm | #

I'd like to see the same tally/survey done with the regular commentors here: Elemenope, joe, JsubD, etc.

It basically was on the other thread that talked about how Reason staffers would vote. Most of the regulars gave their voting histories and intended 2008 pick.

Ironic | October 29, 2008, 9:08pm | #

Charles Jay for me.
I live in Florida, a swing state.

The Wine Commonsewer | October 29, 2008, 9:16pm | #

Sage, we are fortunate here in the Golden Fleece State to have fielded a nearly full slate of LP candidates for statewide office since the beginning.

That makes it easy for me, as some have pointed out here at H&R in the past. When the race is strictly between the GOP and the Dems, it does leave you in a quandary.

Interestingly, my GOP Congressman, Ken Calvert, sent a mailing to the registered libertarians in his district asking us to vote for him in the upcoming election. Because we share some common values.

And, there is no LP candidate.

So, there you have it, I'm stuck with: Calvert is better than the Dem versus writing in myself or Ron Paul.

Big Sigh.

cunnivore | October 29, 2008, 9:27pm | #

The curvaceous shadow of Howley looms large in the minds of Reasonoids, it appears.

Gene Berkman | October 29, 2008, 9:51pm | #

There are no statewide races in California this year, except for President.

I live in Ken Calvert's district, and he is worse than the Democrat. Calvert voted for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and the Bailout, and Bill Hedrick, the Democrat running against him is opposed to the war, favors restoring civil liberties, closing Guantanomo, and he opposes the Bail-out.

Brandybuck | October 29, 2008, 10:55pm | #

The bailout may finally be factor that tips me over into outright anarchism. Virtually every Democrat and Republican in congress voted for it. Obama and McCain not only voted for it, they actively promoted it.

I've already voted and I voted for Barr. I can understand those who are voting for Barr or for None of the Above. But for the life of me I can't understand any libertarian who votes for Obama or McCain. "We must punish the Republicans" is an absolutely stupid idea. It's like punishing the guy who kicked you in the nuts by hiring another guy to kick you in the nuts instead. Stupid.

John | October 29, 2008, 11:17pm | #

It means that libertarians that will bitch about Barr voting for the Patriot Act and refuse to vote for him will turn around and vote for Obama who voted for FISA. And despite McCain having a less than five percent of winning, many libertarians are still seduced by "the lesser of two evils" and "we have to hold Republicans accountable." I'm just sure these "libertarians" will vote for Romney, Palin or Jindal in 2012 to "hold Obama accountable.

It also means that libertarians who don't vote are like high schoolers who don't go to the prom. They say it's because it's "stupid," but it's really because they couldn't find a date. They'll spend election day/prom night playing D&D in the basement.

Count me as a Republican for Barr and long live the new, responsible Libertarian Party!

economist | October 29, 2008, 11:29pm | #

John,
Part of your statement makes sense, and part of it is utter twattery.

Elemenope | October 30, 2008, 12:36am | #

I thought he was doing decently (for John, anyway) until the gratuitous swipe at D&D players. Vin Diesel is going to find him and kick his ass.

Katie Snell | October 30, 2008, 1:45am | #

There are no statewide races in California this year, except for President.

Guess I haven't been paying attention. This does not bode well.

Mike Laursen | October 30, 2008, 2:48am | #

So, Shikha Dalmia has the nerve to call Barr duplicitous? Isn't she the one who verbatim-repeated that bullshit "Hummers are more environmentally friendly than Prisuses" "study"?

You know, I ragged on her for that. We all did. But come on, the statute of limitations has kicked in by now.

Mike Laursen | October 30, 2008, 2:51am | #

Also, living in DC, perhaps Reason staffers are very pro-Amtrak spending, pushing them towards Sen. Biden and away from Sen. McCain.

You know they don't all live in D.C., don't you? Reason is a bit of a virtual organization.

PicassoIII | October 30, 2008, 3:07am | #

Craig wrote:
Eventually, some level of non-voting starts to shake up the system, but the 50% we're at now isn't doing it. On the other hand, getting 10% or 15% or 20% to vote for a pro-freedom candidate would send a message that's a lot clearer and more powerful.

Another thing.
How does one tell principled 'non voters' VS civic slackers?
Most people i know who don't vote, it's a case of apathy.
I suppose one could go in, take a ballot and leave it blank. Your name is checked off as having voting, yet none of the candidates actually received them.
That seems like it would be more principled, a vote of 'no confidence' as opposed to 'blowing it off'.

Loupeznik | October 30, 2008, 8:40am | #

What the F*** is the point of having a Libertarian party if even libertarians won't vote for it. All these words mean nothing if we cannot unite for those common principles. This movement shares so little with the founding of this nation. I'm disgusted. Grow a spine and stand for something.

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 8:52am | #

Matt,

I am sticking with my comment from a previous thread.

You tell us.

It means that the difference between Slate and reason is the spelling of the title.

Are we going to see some coverage of that 'secret' LA Times tape of Sen. Obama toasting a PLO mouthpiece sometime after you guys help get him elected and are 'shocked' that he pushes for the largest welfare state in the Northern Hemisphere? Maybe it will run sometime after reason covers the Sen. Webb pistol-in-a-bag story? LOL

Mike Laursen | October 30, 2008, 9:43am | #

What the F*** is the point of having a Libertarian party if even libertarians won't vote for it.

Of the entire broad spectrum of libertarian thought, the Libertarian Party, for most of its history, has represented only a small segment.

Yesterday, Brian Doherty posts a very good video by British scholar, Norman Barry:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/reason/HitandRun/~3/FsV8loIHaA4/129730.html

It's well worth watching. Especially, in regards to your question, the part where he talks about the distinctions between classical liberal and libertarian views. The Libertarian Party has traditionally often been hostile to classical liberalism views.

a name before submitting the form | October 30, 2008, 10:11am | #

The Angry Optimist
Finally, when you go write in RP, are you even sure he's eligible?
He wasn't born in Panama or Kenya if that's what you mean. What do you mean? In California he is registered write-in.

Invisible Finger | October 30, 2008, 10:17am | #

Not one staffer gave the correct answer: IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Reformed Republican | October 30, 2008, 10:24am | #

I am a proud non-voter, at least regarding the political offices. I will vote on amendments and referenda, but that is it.

I would have like to have cast my vote for Bob Barr, but since he does not seem to support many libertarian ideas, I am not going to give him my support. Voting party affiliation, even when you dislike a candidate, is just stupid.

economist | October 30, 2008, 11:02am | #

Invisible Finger,
One person that they surveyed plead the 5th.

lunchstealer | October 30, 2008, 11:10am | #

To clarify, I want to see Nixon or LB Johnson waterboarded. I can't remember what Andrew Johnson did. And I fully supported Howard Johnson's rule.

Loupeznik | October 30, 2008, 11:35am | #

Thanks Mike. I'll check it out.

John | October 30, 2008, 12:46pm | #

Clearly not everyone at reason stuck to the Libertarian Voting Strategy Chart:

http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2008/10/libertarian-voting-strategy-graph.html

Guy Montag | October 30, 2008, 1:54pm | #

I can't remember what Andrew Johnson did.

He prevented a bunch of Indians from creating an autonomous Socialist State (before Socialism had a name) within the confines of the United States.

For that, many of the Leftoid commentors here will never forgive him.

economist | October 30, 2008, 2:30pm | #

@Guy Montag,
First of all, that was Jackson, not Johnson. Second, if you spin kicking people off their land, seizing property, and driving them onto a crappy reservation as "preventing them from creating an autonomous Socialist State" then you are a douche of unbelievable proportions. I mean it, if you were serious, you truly do suck ass.

I guess that means I'm now a "leftoid". Funny thing that.

economist | October 30, 2008, 2:30pm | #

Andrew Johnson didn't do much, except become the first president to be impeached.

cram | October 30, 2008, 2:34pm | #

It means, as usual, that libertarians are ridiculous people who have an infantile idea how governance/politics work in the real world. You people are fools.

Aaron | October 30, 2008, 2:34pm | #

Wow. Should I stop reading this blog? Could someone please tell me why I'm wasting my time reading political writings by people who don't even vote? REASON should be ashamed. Do the nonvoters really think that their lack of a voice will accomplish anything? Are they cynical? Are they lazy?

You may have lost a viewer, Hit and Run. I'm very disappointed.

Aaron | October 30, 2008, 2:35pm | #

Cram,

get a life. don't like libertarians? don't read the fucking blog.

economist | October 30, 2008, 2:36pm | #

Goddammit I hate it when people call me a leftoid. It's usually used in response to the fact that I'm not a fucking neocon. Dammit I'm pissed off now.

bakum | October 30, 2008, 2:44pm | #

I'm not sure what the vote tally says about Reason staff, but I can see from the comments that calling oneself a Libertarian doesn't imply greater intelligence or wisdom. Which shouldn't surprise me considering most of the self-described Libertarians I know think through issues about as far as their own immediate needs.

dwb | October 30, 2008, 2:51pm | #

That almost 40% of the staff of a politically oriented magazine is too apathetic to vote?!

None of the above is not an option.

One of these guys is going to be president.

Have the gumption to choose, or I don't ever want to see the staff of REASON complaining about the result!

Mike Laursen | October 30, 2008, 2:55pm | #

Thanks Mike. I'll check it out.

The video is forty minutes long. I think the part where he talks about the differences between classical liberalism and libertarianism is about thirty minutes in, if you want to watch just that part.

Mike Laursen | October 30, 2008, 3:09pm | #

Could someone please tell me why I'm wasting my time reading political writings by people who don't even vote?

If all one does is vote, it's a minuscule participation in politics. There's way more one can do: influencing public opinion, influencing "policy makers", circulating petitions, buying off or blackmailing legislators, etc. Reason does a lot in the influence department, along with occasionally plying beltway denizens with alcohol.

Philomath | October 30, 2008, 3:37pm | #

Pdrama

It means that your ideas are worthless and I should have never strayed from The Economist in the first place.

Pdrama, care to revise?

TallDave | October 30, 2008, 3:52pm | #

Who the hell is Bob Poole?

TallDave | October 30, 2008, 3:55pm | #

David Weigel: Obama

I am shocked, SHOCKED.

Benjamin Lukoff | October 30, 2008, 4:04pm | #

You really SHOULD vote, those of you who aren't. Seriously. It's not that hard.

b-psycho | October 30, 2008, 5:32pm | #

Considering that the essential point of libertarianism is in opposition to politics in and of itself, I expected more non-votes.

John-David | October 31, 2008, 7:28pm | #

From 2004:

"John Perry Barlow

Barlow is a songwriter for the Grateful Dead and other bands, the co-founder and vice chair of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a Berkman Fellow at Harvard Law School.

2004 vote: I'm voting for John Kerry, though with little enthusiasm. This is only because I would prefer almost anything to another four years of George W. Bush. I don't believe the Constitution, the economy, or the environment can endure another Bush administration without sustaining almost irreparable damage."

Ok, retard. The Constitution, the economy, and the environment have all undergone irreparable damage over the last 4 years. NOT. Prediction FAIL.

Pieter | November 1, 2008, 6:04pm | #

Good God. Obama is our National Delusion. What the hell is wrong with you people. If you actually look at the complete list, which is about 40 names long, 25% of them are firmly pro-Obama.

Yes, please, reject McCain. But how the hell can you justify rejecting McCain for his anti-libertarian views and voting Obama, who's just as bad if not worse?

HAL-9000 | November 2, 2008, 11:40am | #

I once heard a friend say the libertarians could never be successful as a political movement because it involves a tight organization, and libertarians by nature hate organizations. It also hurts that libertarians don't vote - pretty tough to elect libertarians when they don't vote.

It's like that piece on The Onion about Barr's stand on the issues. For health care it reads:

"Pro–medical marijuana stance guarantees him solid support among those not registered to vote."

Thanks for proving punchline by not voting folks...

More here:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/84933

PapayaSF | November 2, 2008, 4:25pm | #

Pieter: I agree. I just don't see how anyone who calls himself a "libertarian" can support a maxi-statist like Obama. McCain is no prize, but he's not that bad.

Well, it'll be interesting to see all the shocked disappointment among these "libertarians" when Obama and Pelosi and Reid try to drag the country leftward.

Funny | November 3, 2008, 6:52pm | #

"Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity."

Talk about lip service.

J. Gravelle | November 4, 2008, 12:47pm | #

It means there are at least four Reason staffers who would (or will) side with the candidate endorsed by the Communist Party USA, Hamas, Al Qaeda, Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, Chavez, and Castro.

To name a few...

-jjg
DailyScoff.com