newsobserver.com projects - spoilers - Comments

Re: Barr was a spoiler after all

dahedgehog — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:11:37 -0500

The facts, while interesting....

Re: Barr was a spoiler after all

ryanteaguebeckwith — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:34:22 -0500

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, but I'm sticking with my definition of a spoiler.

— RTB

Re: Barr was a spoiler after all

dahedgehog — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:32:17 -0500

RTB, you should change the post. "Barr was possibly a spoiler" or "If you make some unrealistic assumptions on the behavior of Barr voters, then Barr was maybe a spoiler". Either are better than the declarative statement "Barr was a spoiler after all."

Re: Barr was a spoiler after all

ryanteaguebeckwith — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:10:27 -0500

True. It's impossible to know how people would have voted, but it's worth pointing out when the third-party candidate gets more votes than the margin.

— RTB

Re: Barr was a spoiler after all

dwcatty — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:08:21 -0500

It's just math.

Re: Barr was a spoiler after all

dahedgehog — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:04:02 -0500

The only way that Barr was the deciding factor would be if (1) all Barr voters cast a vote for president, and (2) those Barr voters favored McCain by at least 19,957 (78%) to 5,765 (22%).

Those are two big "if's". Particularly, there's no reason to think Barr voters would favor McCain by such a large margin.

Barr didn't spoil anything except the Libertarian Party

ConMax — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:00:14 -0500

"That puts Barr into elite company in North Carolina."

It sure did! It proves that Barr is no voter getter period! My dog would have got 25 thousand votes by simply having his bone on the ballot! Where did you political training at? The Ed Cone reverse school of new age establishment math!