Home General Chuck Baldwin is Constitution Party Nominee for President
formats

Chuck Baldwin is Constitution Party Nominee for President

Published on April 26, 2008, by in General.

The rollcall is finished at the Constitution Party national convention, and the results are a first ballot victory for Chuck Baldwin of Florida, for president. Baldwin was the party’s vice-presidential candidate in 2004. Thanks to the Alan Keyes web site www.alankeyes.com for broadcasting a live showing of the rollcall, and also thanks to ThirdPartyWatch. The final vote was: Baldwin 383.8; Keyes 125.7; Max Riekse 4.5; Daniel Imperato 1; Susan Duzey 1. The Keyes total was buoyed by strong support from California, and Keyes also won the most votes from Alaska, Maryland, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

Before the vote was taken, a procedural vote settled that Ron Paul, who had not sought the party’s nomination, was not a valid choice at the convention roll-call.

18 Responses

  1. Bill

    Wonder if they’ll enjoy their 200-500,000 votes and not making a difference again, they could have added seriously to this year’s poltical landscape. They could have made a lot of noise this year, with McCain not exactly being friendly to the Conservative end of the Republicans.

  2. WILL BATES

    GREAT VICTORY FOR THE CONSTITUTION PARTY IN REJECTING THE NEO-CON KEYES. BALDWIN WAS THE LANDSLIDE WINNER.

  3. Glenn Brown

    Please send alot of money.

  4. Braden

    Bill,

    If compromising for votes is the ideal, why not just vote Republican? What would there be to distinguish the two parties?

  5. Michael

    They can still make a lot of noise. Keyes For Vice President!!

  6. Bill

    Braden,
    Well, OK it may or may not be good for the CP. I come from the view that it may be hard for the CP to keep access in some states with another year of 150K in votes. And a conservative candidate with media access could pull a good deal of votes from McCain, the warmonger with a CHANCE TO WIN. Say what you will about Alan or Chuck, they won’t get to 270 EV. Assuming that, which is more important in the long run for the country (Not necessarily the CP)? Defeating McCain (McBush III to some) and keeping/expanding the ballot line for down-ballot races for like-minded candidates, or staying 100% true. If the economy was running along smooth and there wasn’t 2 wars, and maybe 4 by the time ’09 rolls around, the answer may be different.

    Another question is who will the AIPCA and the Alaska Independents put on the line? One year the Arizona LP broke with the national’s presidential candidate, could that happen again?

  7. Deran

    Bye-bye, Constitution Party! Off to the dustbin of history with you! Now that you’ve nominated, John McCain, er ooops, Chuck Baldwin, enjoy your 100,000 votes! I’ll wager he doesn’t out poll Bo Gritz in 1980!

    I suspect the Greens are headed to the same dustbin if they nominate one of their “perfected” candidates.

  8. The Alaskan Independence Party has said that it will back the Constitution Party nominee.

    It’s conceivable that the CP could cost McCain some close states.

    Bo Gritz was the Populist Party nominee in ’92, which I believe was the only time he ran. (Bob Richards and David Duke were the PP’s ’84 and ’88 nominees, respectively.)

    Anybody remember those world-renowned candidates that the Libertarians and the Greens nominated in 2004? Michael Badnarik and David Cobb!

  9. I think that all those who are predicting what the third parties will receive in vote totals this year based on the 2004 results are in for a rude awakening. I read somewhere that in 2004, in aggregate, the third parties received the lowest amount of votes percentage wise, compared to the Reps and Dems, than they ever did in history. But that was because of the polarization that Bush inflicted on the political scene. Many of those that would have normally voted third party either voted to keep him in office, or voted Democrat to keep him out. It was a true “You’re either with us or against us” kind of thing. The only people who voted third party were the hard core third party voters, and maybe a little of the fence sitters who knew that their vote wouldn’t count, such as a New York Republican. The only way that that type of polarization will show itself in 2008 is if Hillary becomes the nominee. If Obama gets the nod, then those third party vote totals will rise again.

    Having said that, it’s a shame that the Constitution Party will not make the New York State ballot once again this year. In 2004, they were denied a ballot slot due to a problem with the number of valid signatures on the petitions that they turned in. Since that time, the New York State Constitution Party had a falling out with the national organization and has become independent. It’s doubtful that they will circulate petitions to get Baldwin on the ballot. And although it says it’s trying, the national organization hasn’t replaced their former organization with a new one capable of getting the amount of needed signatures. So, it’s doubtful that the Constitution Party will have a presence on the New York State ballot this year. (I should add, and I’m guessing of course, that the Independence Party, which is ballot qualified, will probably back Nader again, as they did in 2004.)

  10. Richard

    It is not true that minor party and independent candidates for president in 2004 polled the lowest share of the vote in U.S. history. The 2004 “other” percent was slightly over 1.00%. In 1988 the presidential “other” vote was .98%. In 1984 it was .67%. Other years in which it was under 1% are 1964, 1960, 1956, 1952, 1944, 1940, 1928, and a few in the 19th century and 18th century.

  11. I stand corrected on the vote totals. Even if I could produce where I got that statement from, looking over the past vote totals shows it was in error. However, I’ll maintain my belief that the lowering of the vote totals for third parties in aggregate, in the 2004 election, was generally due to the polarization of the Bush/Kerry election. (Hey, at least I didn’t blame the EVIL party hacks and MORON lawyers for that piece of info!)

  12. Mark

    The constitution party is not the party to watch out for. it will be Barr, when he gets the libertarian party nod and Paul endorses him.

    Now, that will be fun.

  13. Ron Paul is not likely to endorse a third-party candidate, as he would run the risk of being disciplined by the House Republican Conference. This could include being stripped of his seniority.

    Steve Z: Don’t you know that EVIL party hacks are responsible for everything that’s wrong with the world?

  14. NE

    I do not see how this will ‘doom’ the Constitution Party. Why would selecting someone that they agree with ideologically doom their party? I do not get that. There is a lot more to building a political party than just getting ‘X’ amount of votes in a certain election.

  15. Tom Yager

    It’s not just the EVIL party hacks. Don’t forget about the MORON lawyers!

  16. A Tragedy of interest to supporters of the Constitution Party

    What happens if legal action is brought against John McCain that reaches the Supreme Court?

    Whether or not the court would decide in favor or against McCain’s “natural born Citizen” status, it is a no-win situation. It would be very ugly for the nation either way.

    The U.S. Constitution has been redefined too often, by the U.S. Congress, by the President of the United States, and by the Supreme Court of the United States! What part of government will stand up to the revisionists?

    Even worse (only for the short term as measured in years) would be John McCain’s removal from office after being elected. What if he were sworn into the office of the president by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, then later the case were heard in the court? It would be difficult for that court to rule against what they already endorsed by giving him the oath of office. And his first act in taking the oath is to break.

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    We already know that many in the U.S. Congress would rather blot out much of the U.S. Constitution in favor of their own words. It will likely come from the citizenry if this undermining of the U.S. Constitution is to be put down.

    The discussion continues at http://PanamaJohn.dominates.us/forum with opinion, historical documents, and more.

  17. Richard

    Article Two seems to give Congress the authority to decide whom is eligible to hold the office of president and vice-president. Congress opens up the votes sent in by the various presidential electors, and decides whether to count them or not. The only votes Congress ever rejected (based on whom the electors voted for) were the 3 votes for Horace Greeley in 1872. Greeley had died after the November election but before the December meeting of the electors. Congress decided that electoral votes cast for a dead person are not valid. That precedent could be used against John McCain if Congress thought that he was not eligible. I’m sure Congress would assume he is eligible, and count them, and that would be the end of it. Just as the courts have no say in deciding whether someone elected to Congress is eligible (Article One gives Congress power over that), so Congress also has power over determining who is eligible to be president.

  18. Mary

    There are 50,000,000 evangelical voters in the US. Time is getting short to get these voters mobilized to vote for the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate. The US is pretty much history as we know it, if either Senator McCain or Obama are elected. If you have any doubts, take a good look at what is going on in every realm – economic, political, social, aggriculturally. This is about voting according to God’s standards and neither of them come close. America stands in grave danger of God’s judgment because we, as a once Christian nation, have became a nation much like Sodom and Gomorrah, that He destroyed. No nation has ever survived that embraced the homosexual lifestyle which the US pretty much is well on the way to making (forcing down our throats) acceptable. The Bible has been removed from our schools. Yet, the US Congress in 1782 voted the resolution, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” Why has American History been deleted from our textbooks….because American History cannot be taught without Christianity. I am not talking about denominations, I am talking about Christianity and there is a world of difference between religion and Christianity. We are a nation in serious trouble because we have been and are continuing to leaving God out and this election is going to be a turning point….one to continue downward or to make a REAL change with a President who can call our nation to repentance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Protected with SiteGuarding.com Antivirus