Political analysis is a slippery slope that leads from linking to drinking

M. Simon is a proud 1%er who voted for Gary Johnson, and his recent post made me do some homework.

Like other people, I too have been curious about whether Gary Johnson was a factor in Obama’s victory, so I went to the Reason article’s link to a wonderful interactive state-by-state database and looked at each state to determine whether it was possible for him to have been the kingmaker either way.

No way. Gary Johnson could not have swung any state to either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

Unless I missed something, according to my analysis, only Ohio and Florida came close to making Gary Johnson even a theoretical factor. Here’s how the Ohio vote would have looked had all of Gary Johnson’s votes been added to Romney’s total.

OBAMA
2,672,302
ROMNEY
2,620,211

Closer, but not enough.

And here’s Florida with the Johnson vote added to the Romney vote:

OBAMA
4,129,360
ROMNEY
4,126,800

Even closer. But still not enough. The above, of course, is all based on the assumption that 100% of Johnson’s voters would have voted for Mitt Romney had Gary Johnson not been on the ballot. But isn’t such an assumption against common sense? IMO, Johnson was at least as likely to draw from potential Obama voters — especially those who felt betrayed on the marijuana issue but believed Romney was worse — as from potential Romney voters. Johnson has a long history of doing well with Dems; he was elected governor twice in a heavily Democratic state. But more importantly, Gary Johnson voters knew damn well they were voting for a guy who could not win, and by voting for him they were essentially thumbing their nose at the system. Such outlier voters are maverick types. Common sense suggests to me that many of them would just as likely not have voted at all rather than be forced to choose between two unacceptable candidates.

Bear in mind that my analysis does not factor in any of the other third party candidates, from Jill Stein on down. In the interest of being at least fair if not completely thorough, here they all are:

Jill
Stein
0.3%
396,684

Roseanne
Barr
<0.1%
49,508

Rocky
Anderson
<0.1%
34,521

Thomas
Hoefling
<0.1%
28,655

Tom
Hoefling
<0.1%
28,655

Jerry
Litzel
<0.1%
12,984

Jeff
Boss
<0.1%
12,984

Merlin
Miller
<0.1%
12,984

Randall
Terry
<0.1%
12,895

Jill
Reed
<0.1%
12,108

Richard
Duncan
<0.1%
12,108

None of these candidates
<0.1%
5,753

Andre
Barnett
<0.1%
4,737

Chuck
Baldwin
<0.1%
4,737

Barbara
Washer
<0.1%
4,737

Tom
Stevens
<0.1%
4,013

Virgil
Goode
<0.1%
3,970

Will
Christensen
<0.1%
3,970

Stewart
Alexander
<0.1%
3,897

James
Harris
<0.1%
3,512

Jim
Carlson
<0.1%
3,166

Sheila
Tittle
<0.1%
2,504

Peta
Lindsay
<0.1%
1,526

Gloria
La Riva
<0.1%
1,526

Jerry
White
<0.1%
1,139

Dean
Morstad
<0.1%
1,107

Jack
Fellure
<0.1%
519

Time does not permit me to Google each candidate and discuss his or her merits. For that I apologize. However, I was intrigued by the bottom man on the totem pole, Jack Fellure, simply because of his incredibly small vote total. I assumed he must be some obscure nut (which he is), but by God, the man is determined. And unlike most of us, he can boast a Wiki page all his own!

Lowell Jackson “Jack” Fellure (born October 3, 1931) is an American perennial political candidate and retired engineer. He is the presidential nominee of the Prohibition Party for the 2012 presidential election.

Fellure has formally campaigned for President of the United States in every presidential election since 1988 as a member of the Republican Party.^[1] He asserts on his campaign website that his platform based on the 1611 Authorized King James Bible has never changed.^[2] As a candidate, he calls for the elimination of the liquor industry, abortion and pornography, and advocates the teaching of the Bible in public schools and criminalization of homosexuality.^[1] He has blamed the ills of society on those he has characterized as “atheists, Marxists, liberals, queers, liars, draft dodgers, flag burners, dope addicts, sex perverts and anti-Christians.”^[3]

Wow. I didn’t know the Prohibition Party still existed. Nor did I know that it is the oldest third party in the United States.

The Prohibition Party (PRO) is a political party in the United States best known for its historic opposition to the sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages. It is the oldest existing third party in the US. The party was an integral part of the temperance movement. While never one of the leading parties in the United States, it was once an important force in the politics of the United States during the late 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. It has declined dramatically since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. The party earned only 519 votes in the 2012 presidential election. The Prohibition Party advocates a variety of socially conservative causes, including “stronger and more vigorous enforcement of laws against the sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, against gambling, illegal drugs, pornography, and commercialized vice.”^[1]

The Prohibition Party was founded in 1869. The same year that the famous “Little Brown Jug” song was written.

“Little Brown Jug” is a song written in 1869 by Joseph Winner, originally published credited to “Eastburn” (Winner’s middle name).

It was originally a drinking song. It remained well known as a folk song into the early 20th century. Like many songs which make reference to alcoholic beverages, it enjoyed new popularity during the Prohibition era. In 1939, bandleader Glenn Miller recorded and broadcast his swing instrumental arrangement of the tune with great success, and the number became one of the best known orchestrations of the American Big Band era.^[1] His version did not have the lyrics.

I’d say this calls for a song. But as almost everyone has heard the Glenn Miller version of “Little Brown Jug,” I thought I would dig up something a bit more in tune with the original score.

Here’s Gid Tanner and his Skillet Lickers doing their Prohibition era version:

I’ll drink to that.