gah, I was writing a response and it got deleted
Rdr4evr - sorry if you felt insulted, that wasn't my intention.
The thing to keep in mind is most third party supporters DON'T feel Kerry will stop the country from going downhill. From my perspective, both candidates will spend spend spend and allow the government to intrude on my life. Both candidates then, for me, are losers.
pan - I simply don't believe that the media coverage is representative of actual support. Perot got coverage because he as rich and famous, and both parties thought they could use him to their advantage. Nader got coverage, again, because he's fairly wealthy and famous. Most third party candidates do not have the fame or the wealth to compete on that same level however.
If media coverage were representative of support, as you imply, then explain to me why Nader has gotten so much coverage this election as compared to Badnarik? Explain to me why Nader is included in polls so often - even in states where he's not on the ballot - as opposed to Badnarik. Nader is FIFTH in terms of the number of ballots he is on. FIFTH. Badnarik is THIRD - on the ballot of all but two states, one of which due to the creation of EXTREMELY difficult ballot access laws. Badnarik has more <a href="http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=3m&size=large&compare_sites=votenader.org&url=badnarik.org">internet interest</a> as well. He is polling higher than Nader in many states. Yet, Nader is the one mentioned in the polls, Nader is the "spoiler" that is discussed, and Nader is the one with all the media coverage.
Oh right, that was another thing I had been typing about (grr). Badnarik is THE most passionate presidential candidate I know of. The man gave up his job, put all his belongings in storage, and set out to campaign in a KIA. As far as I'm aware, he is currently without a place of residence. Furthermore, he's doing every interview he possibly can, but it's not like many media outlets are interested. And it's not for lack of support as the case above shows. Most of his interviews are radio and newspaper, which aren't able to reach an audience very well. When his campaign got enough money to run some national ads such as on Fox News Channel, they conveniently started to be a bit more interested in having him on the network. So, what did they do? They gave him 2 minutes. 2 minutes. Of course most people think he doesn't have a platform! He barely gets a chance to discuss it! Not to mention that it was 2 minutes with a terrible interviewer, but that much is expected from Fox News Channel. And, if money wasn't an issue, why is it so convenient that some media outlets are FINALLY starting to cover the third party candidate with the MOST support only AFTER he has been able to buy ad time?