Will 2008 be a turning-point election?

You seem to think that Hillary-haters will make the election go to anyone other than Hillary. Does that mean you think Obama or Edwards or who will be the candidate?

I think Hillary Clinton can win in the general election despite all of the Hillary-haters arrayed against her, I just don't think it would be the kind of turning-point election that, for instance, 1968 was. And there aren't enough Hillary-haters in the Democratic Party to affect the outcome of the primaries, so that won't have any significant effect on who the Democrats choose as their nominee.

It was nimh who said something about Edwards being the most electable of the dems, or something like that. You seem to think that Hillary-haters will make the election go to anyone other than Hillary. Does that mean you think Obama or Edwards or who will be the candidate?

I'm not sure that the aversion to Hillary is as legitimate as you make it out to be, although I know some people feel strongly about her...

I really don't know why nimh (if it was he) who claimed that Edwards was the most electable.

nimh: And these [Rockefeller Republican types] are people that you submit might well go for John Edwards, the populist, but not for Hillary?

joefromchicago: Yep.

nimh: Huh? Thats an article about Warren Buffet supporting... Hillary, not Edwards. Your point is?

joefromchicago: My point is that it is not at all implausible to think that rich people, who had previously supported the GOP, would be willing to support a liberal Democrat in 2008.

nimh wrote:

You're missing the point. Polls never, ever, predict, or claim to predict, such a thing, so that shot goes off into leftfield.

Actually, that's the only thing that such matchup polls do. They certainly don't attempt to measure the current levels of support for the candidates polled.

Huh? How do you even come to that conclusion? Any cursory reading about what polls do shows this to be exactly backwards. Opinion pollsters never, ever claim to predict the election result, least of all a year out. What they do is exactly to "measure the current levels of support for the candidates polled".

Like New Hampshire Institute of Politics Director Paul Manuel says: "It's not a predictor. It's a useful way to understand what's happening at that moment and nothing more."

I'm kind of baffled by this conversation. You talk with great authority or at least self-confidence about the subject of what polls do - with great condescension even - but you seem to be unhampered by any actual knowledge about it. What gives?

King: Giulani nomination would undermine GOP

Washington, D.C. � Rep. Steve King of Iowa warned today that the conservative underpinnings of the Republican party platform would be "sacrificed" if Rudy Giuliani is the Republican presidential nominee.

King, a leading conservative from western Iowa's heavily Republican 5th District, said that in addition he fears the nomination of Giuliani would spur a third-party candidate on the right who would "sink" GOP chances of winning the White House.

"I don't know anybody else who has spoken publicly about that concern," King said in an interview in his office at the U.S. Capitol. "What's it take to be a spoiler? Not much."

roger wrote:

Hate to disappoint you again, joe, but when you talk to these people on the subject water projects, it's government first, last, and always. President Carter's hit list of water projects cost him the second before the term "hostage crisis" had entered the language.

No disappointment here. Most people who complain about "big government" temper their criticism when it comes to government programs that help them, and western "libertarians" are no exception. Indeed, government largesse tends to flow disproportionately toward Republican congressional districts, which makes one wonder how GOP voters would react if they elected someone who actually followed through on promises of cutting the size of the federal government.

Kudos on this post Joe. In many ways excellent.

Now:

What is "the theory of turning point elections?"

While the Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians may not be as enamoured of the GOP as has been the case in the past, there is absolutely no reason to believe that either bloc will come to the conclusion that (any) Democrats represent a better chance for the fulfillment of their goals. It is possible that one or both of these blocs will gather around a 3rd Party candidate and thus assist the Democratic candidate in winning the election, but that would hardly constitute a "turning point election."

As for Suburbanites, I think your analysis, herein, is superficial at best. Unfortunately you display a typical Liberal's bias in your assessment that because suburbanites no longer fear integration that they will, perforce, be less inclined to vote Republican. The Soccer Moms who voted for Bush in the past two elections didn't do so out of racist motivations. It is also indicative of a Liberal bias that you associate level of education with political inclination - with the canard being that the educated are naturally Liberals. In any case, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the demographics of suburbanites have substantially changed over the last eight years. I would bet a sizeable amount of money on the fact that the percentage of Soccer Moms with college degrees is essentially the same now as it was in 2000.

If the GOP fails to retain the White House because of disgruntled former supporters, it will be because they have sought a 3rd Party alternative or decided to stay home on Nov 2, not because they have defected to a Democratic Party that is obviously tacking to the Left far more than it did in the halcyon days of Bill Clinton.

I doubt that the core policies of either the Republicans or the Democrats would change that much. The Shrub's administration represents a departure from traditional party politics among the Republicans, and although one might see Guilie as a moderate Republican, that's not unusual other than in the context of the extremism of the supporters of Bush--moderates have always had a home in the Republican Party.

Although i find your analysis interesting, Joe, i don't see how this election would qualify as a turning point. I doubt that the core policies of either the Republicans or the Democrats would change that much. The Shrub's administration represents a departure from traditional party politics among the Republicans, and although one might see Guilie as a moderate Republican, that's not unusual other than in the context of the extremism of the supporters of Bush--moderates have always had a home in the Republican Party.

I don't see Miss Clinton as representative of any dramatic shift in the basic policies of the Democrats, either. I rather think any turning that gets done will be to turn away from the confused and atypical policies of the Shrub's administration.

Maybe you could explain it again for me, slowly, and in simple terms. Perhaps there would be a turning point, but i don't see it--certainly no watershed in traditional party politics.

And it is why the PR tact of the Republicans will be to suggest that Hillary represents anything but change.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Kudos on this post Joe. In many ways excellent.

Now:

What is "the theory of turning point elections?"

A turning-point election (or realigning election, or transformative election -- they're all the same) is an election in which there is some significant shift in the electoral alignments. It's where one segment of the electorate switches from one party to the other, or where the party lines are redrawn. So, for instance:

1800: Jeffersonian Republicans take over. Federalists reduced to a northeastern regional party. Result: Republicans become the dominant national party for the next 30 years, with the Federalists marginalized and ultimately absorbed into the Republican Party during the "Era of Good Feelings." [color=red]Again, I understand the definition. You referred to the theory. ("If there is any validity to the theory of turning-point elections...") They could be phenomena or the predictable result of some social or political dynamic. The latter would suggest identifiable underlying causation. Do you have a theory about why they occur?[/color] [quote="Finn dAbuzz"]While the Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians may not be as enamoured of the GOP as has been the case in the past, there is absolutely no reason to believe that either bloc will come to the conclusion that (any) Democrats represent a better chance for the fulfillment of their goals. It is possible that one or both of these blocs will gather around a 3rd Party candidate and thus assist the Democratic candidate in winning the election, but that would hardly constitute a "turning point election."

As for Suburbanites, I think your analysis, herein, is superficial at best. Unfortunately you display a typical Liberal's bias in your assessment that because suburbanites no longer fear integration that they will, perforce, be less inclined to vote Republican. The Soccer Moms who voted for Bush in the past two elections didn't do so out of racist motivations. It is also indicative of a Liberal bias that you associate level of education with political inclination - with the canard being that the educated are naturally Liberals. In any case, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the demographics of suburbanites have substantially changed over the last eight years. I would bet a sizeable amount of money on the fact that the percentage of Soccer Moms with college degrees is essentially the same now as it was in 2000.

If the GOP fails to retain the White House because of disgruntled former supporters, it will be because they have sought a 3rd Party alternative or decided to stay home on Nov 2, not because they have defected to a Democratic Party that is obviously tacking to the Left far more than it did in the halcyon days of Bill Clinton.