Libertarians for Nader?

I noticed an interesting nugget of information while going over David Kirby and David Boaz's study of the libertarian vote. In both 1992 and 1996, a significant portion of the libertarian vote was for third party candidates, which I assume was largely for Ross Perot. By the time 2004 and 2008 comes around, the level of support for third parties among libertarians is virtually nothing. But 2000 shows 8% of libertarian voters supported a third party candidate. Of the total election, third parties were barely at 1.53% in 2008 and only 1% in 2004. The story in 2000 was Ralph Nader's 2.73% compared to just over 1% for the rest of the third party field. So there was a spike in libertarian support for third parties right as Ralph Nader, not any sort of Libertarian Party candidate, saw a spike. Libertarians for Nader? What gives?

It's probably not too surprising:

- As you said, only 8% of libertarians voted for a third party in 2000; perhaps you should be asking "what gives?" that 92% voted for Bush or Gore
- Most libertarians don't have faith in the Libertarian Party or its candidates (even though Harry Browne was a gifted spokesman for the cause).
- They would most likely want to send a "protest vote"
- They would also like to send a protest vote with a meaningful impact, meaning the third-party candidate most likely to get the most votes (explaining votes for Perot in 92 and 96), which means a vote for a well-known third party candidate
- In 2000, there were two celebrity candidates among the third parties: Nader and Pat Buchanan
- Today, Buchanan often comes across as non-interventionist and anti-Fed; but in those days, Buchanan's reputation was a) socially conservative, b) anti-trade, c) anti-immigration - whereas Nader could at least come across as pro-peace and socially liberal.

I'm certainly not a Nader supporter... but, keep this in mind. The Libertarian slate in 2008 was a combination of Barr/Root - both of whom started their careers as Republicans, then got turned off by the NeoCons. We didn't really have a "pure" libertarian on the ticket, although I certainly would take Barr/Root over either Obama or McCain. Yet, Nader's heart is in the right place. He seems to have genuinely wanted what's right for the people over his career, but for some reason, hasn't really understood that the special interests (moneyed corporations) have recently supported the Democratic party in droves. In addition, Nader doesn't really get that despite the rhetoric, career politicians will say one thing and do another. Yet, Nader's rhetoric is often synonymous with great ideas for individual well-being - he just never got the point that socialism is more an ideal than viable. I can identify; his rhetoric is a compelling argument - yet idealism and reality diverge.

Anyway... Obama has seduced the general public, and I fear his oratory has convinced the masses that his way is best. Makes me actually long for Bill Clinton.....