Although the impact of the Libertarian Party in presidential elections has been muted since first appearing on the ballot in 1972, the expectations for the Party are high in 2008.

This election cycle, the LP has nominated its most high profile candidate to date – former Georgia Republican Representative Bob Barr. Barr is also the Party’s most controversial figure: Democrats remember him (not so fondly) from his days as one of the outspoken House managers in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. The Republican Party resents him, naturally, for leaving the GOP. And the Libertarian Party establishment did not embrace him warmly – what with Barr announcing his candidacy just a few weeks before the Party’s National Convention (it also took Barr six ballots to earn a majority of the vote to secure the nomination).

Despite this backdrop, the political environment is ripe for Barr to make waves in the 2008 election. Libertarians, especially in the West have already played King Maker in statewide U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial races in recent years. Votes for Libertarian candidates have propelled Democrats to victory in 10 high-profile races since 1998 (with votes for the Libertarian exceeding the Democrat’s margin of victory over the Republican nominee):

1998 Nevada U.S. Senate race
2000 Michigan U.S. Senate race
2000 Washington U.S. Senate race
2002 South Dakota U.S. Senate race
2002 Arizona Gubernatorial race
2002 Oregon Gubernatorial race
2002 Wisconsin Gubernatorial race
2002 Wyoming Gubernatorial race
2004 Washington Gubernatorial race
2006 Montana U.S. Senate race

In the nine presidential elections since 1972, Libertarians have received 1 percent of the vote just once (1980) and a half of one percent of the vote on only one other occasion (1996).

1972 = 0.0%
1976 = 0.21%
1980 = 1.06%
1984 = 0.25%
1988 = 0.47%
1992 = 0.28%
1996 = 0.50%
2000 = 0.36%
2004 = 0.32%

Libertarians have been very successful, however, in getting on the ballot in most states. The Party has achieved ballot access in at least 46 states in every year since 1980, with the exception of 1984 (36 states). In 2008, Libertarians have already received ballot access in 30 states, with more to come.

In a little known fact about the controversial 2000 election, the Florida outcome only came into play because Libertarian nominee Harry Browne had already tipped the state of New Mexico to Al Gore. Gore defeated George W. Bush by just 366 votes, while Browne pulled 2,058 votes away from its closer ideological cousin, the GOP.

In 2008, Libertarian nominee Barr has already made noise by polling at 4 percent or more in three surveys in his home state of Georgia, tightening that reliably deep red state. But Barr’s impact is most likely going to be felt out West, in states like South Dakota, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Alaska. John McCain and Barack Obama are both polling quite competitively in these states – most of which have a history of supporting third parties.

Although traditional Libertarian supporters may not be full of enthusiasm for their nominee, some Republicans (e.g. the Ron Paul wing) are disgruntled enough with the GOP to lend significant support to Barr. Barr’s campaign platform advocates the cutting of corporate welfare, cutting taxes (including eliminating the income tax), adopting a policy of non-intervention for foreign affairs, and championing individual rights (though the abortion issue remains tricky for the former Congressman).

In recent years, successful third party campaigns (e.g. Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000) have been an outgrowth of dissatisfaction with the ruling party in the White House (Perot drawing support from economic conservatives unhappy with George H.W. Bush’s performance and Nader drawing support from environmentalists and consumer advocates dissatisfied with the Clinton/Gore administration). Barr therefore hopes to recruit supporters among traditional Republicans who are disgruntled with both the economic and foreign policies of President George W. Bush.

Barr, like many third party candidates, faces financial hurdles to get his message out. But even if Barr receives just 1 or 2 percent of the vote, he could tip key states in favor of Obama to assure a Democratic victory in 2008.

When I was on Sirius Satellite Radio’s “The Blog Bunker” yesterday I was asked how the Democratic-led U.S. Senate approval of the latest FISA legislation would have on the presidential election – and whether the left wing of the party would feel betrayed (by Barack Obama’s support of the bill).

I explained to the host that the Democrats that supported the measure (including Obama) realized that they would risk losing the center of the country (political independents) by voting against a high-profile piece of legislation with ‘national security’ ramifications. The vote was smart politics.

And what will happen to the potentially disaffected far left who are seemingly bashing Obama all over the blogosphere? I told the host that Obama has little to worry about in the end, as the risk of these liberals flocking to Ralph Nader is very slim.

And that is when I explained how Ralph Nader’s presidential candidacies have mirrored The Matrix Trilogy:

The first Matrix film received very good notices, but did not hit the box office with a big bang – it was a grower. “The Matrix” debuted with just 37 million in North America – solid and respectable, but not stopping the country in its tracks. Critics and fans who did take note of the film raved.

Likewise, Nader’s first presidential campaign, in 1996, did not have much of an impact, although the consumer advocate’s favorable reputation remained intact. Nader garnered just 0.7 percent of the vote on the Green ticket that year. As “The Matrix” was seen as perhaps the best sci-fil film of its time, Nader was still largely viewed by those who were aware of him as a tireless fighter for the environment and consumers.

The second Matrix film (“The Matrix Reloaded”) received a lot of press build-up, and made a big impression at the box office – grossing 134 million in North America in its first weekend – bringing in moviegoers who had not seen the first installment at the theaters, but had learned about it through media buzz and on DVD. However, fans were not as pleased with how the plot unfolded in this second installment. After all the hype, the film was a letdown.

Likewise, Nader’s second run at the White House, in 2000, generated enormous media buzz, and voters flocked in much greater numbers to his campaign at the ballot box. Nader won 2.7 percent of the nation-wide vote (nearly four times more than in 1996). In the end, however, many voters (i.e. Democrats) who supported his campaign were disgruntled with the outcome – the plot of this story unfolded with a George W. Bush presidency.

The third Matrix film (“The Matrix Revolutions”) saw a huge dropoff of nearly 40 percent in its opening weekend from its predecessor (83 million) and went on to make less than half of “Reloaded” and 40 million less than the original. There was much less hype for “Revolutions” and critics and fans alike were unmoved by the film. The trilogy ended with a whimper.

Similarly, Nader’s third run at the White House, in 2004, went barely noticed by the press, and the reformist also won the lowest number of votes of his three campaigns – just 0.4 percent. The campaign was considered a disaster.

Ralph Nader may not know this yet, but there was no 4th Matrix. If it had been made it would likely have performed the poorest of series; a 4th Nader candidacy, competing against Obama and his nearly unblemished liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, would undoubtedly fair just the same.

The Center for the Study of Politics and Governance has released a report studying the potential impact third parties may have on the 2008 presidential race. From the report:

"Third parties may determine the outcome of the 2008 presidential contest between the presumptive Democratic and Republican Party candidates, Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. Careful review of recent presidential and statewide elections reveals two central findings that may provide the key to the 2008 presidential race:

· Third party candidates may impact the Obama-McCain contest by shaping the debate and, more dramatically, by playing King Maker by capitalizing on third party successes in as many as 28 state-wide races in 2006.

The report, co-authored by Center Director Larry Jacobs and Smart Politics' Eric Ostermeier, examines how third parties played King Maker in 17 gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races from 1998 through 2006 (a third party is 'King Maker' when it receives more votes than the margin of victory and the losing major party was ideologically related to the King Maker (e.g. Libertarian/Republican; Green/Democrat)).

The report details that while Democrats fear the "Nader effect" from 2000, Libertarians have denied numerous GOP victories in statewide races over the years (e.g. Maria Cantwell's 2000 U.S. Senate victory in Washington, Jon Tester's 2006 Senate victory in Montana). From the report:

In the 2002 South Dakota U.S. Senate election, the 3,070 votes for Libertarian candidate Kurt Evans were enough to upend Republican John Thune’s effort to beat Democrat Tim Johnson. When it became apparent that Evans might tip the race to Johnson, the Libertarian actually dropped out of the race in mid-October 2002 and endorsed Thune, stating, “I’ve suspended my campaign and endorsed John Thune in the race for the U.S. Senate. I’ve always had more agreements than disagreements with Congressman Thune on the issues.” Nonetheless, Johnson prevailed thanks to lingering statewide support for Evans.

The attention to Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr has increased in recent weeks after two surveys by InsiderAdvantage found him polling at 6 and 4 percent in his home (deep red) state of Georgia, causing McCain's lead to fall within the poll's margin of error.

The full report can be found here: http://politicsandgovernance.org/reports/2008/Third_Party_Impact.pdf