A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Excuse me george, but could you please point to that organized and distinct component of the Dem party which constitutes some 25 or 30% of Dem voters whose leaders are presently threatening to break away and form a third party?

Merely change the details and the same observation could be made about the Democrats. In both cases the extreme elements of the respective parties have nowhere else to go - unless a third party candidate emerges

Merely change the details and the same observation could be made about the Democrats. In both cases the extreme elements of the respective parties have nowhere else to go - unless a third party candidate emerges (such as Ross Perot, who got Clinton elected in 1992). [b]No third party effort appears likely for the coming election, so in both parties we are seeing a struggle between their centrist and extreme wings for the selection of candidates. [/b] The more uphill the final election appears to the candidates, the more centrist will be their platforms during the primaries. I believe this explains the relatively more centrist positions of the Republican candidates this year.

Right now the odds appear decidedly with the Democrats. However they do have the somewhat unpleasant chore of choosing between a relatively centrist candidate who is burdened in some quarters with strong negatives, and another candidate who is more appealing to their extreme wing, but far less likely to win the election.

unless a third party candidate emerges (such as Ross Perot, who got Clinton elected in 1992)

I don't believe that there is a rationally "discernable" difference in the inherent potential of the Republican and Democrat parties to spin off third party groups. An historical analysis...

Subdued Thompson Stirs Few Sparks on Stump


Fred Thompson addresses supporters and undecided voters Tuesday in Coralville, Iowa.

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't believe that there is a rationally "discernable" difference in the inherent potential of the Republican and Democrat parties to spin off third party groups. An historical analysis...

Blatham did not ask about the parties' "inherent potential", but about the situation now, this year and next year when the elections are up. Do you believe the Democrats are as divided now as the Republicans are?

You guys are rather argumentative over some rather trivial points. I didn't address Blatham's specific point on the last page about unusual divisions in the Republican party at all. Instead I affirmed there are (as always) divisions within both parties, usually involving their centrist and extreme wings, but that I don't see any likelihood of a third party candidate emerging from either party in the coming election.

I challenge your implication that the contest between the extreme and centrist wings of the Republican party are any more severe - and likely to generate a spin off movement - than those in the Democrat Party. You have a particular focus on and interest in the "religious right". However you could just as well focus on 'Move On' and other like organizations that are equivalently putting radical pressures on the Democrat candidates. One could argue for days about which is likely to be more powerful or divisive within its respective party. I don't know the answer to that, but I certainly don't see a great deal of difference between the two in terms of their respective potential to affect the primary election outcomes.

I'll add that, in my view at least, the right wing evangelical political movement is a bit past its peak - a fading star - while the various single issue groups and new Move On like coalitions appear to be a growing force.

Overall, I believe the present situations of the two parties and their leading candidates over this matter are about equivalent.

However, in my view the situation in both parties in this respect is about the same.

My strong recollection and impression is that Ross Perot took a very substantial portion of the Republican electorate with him in the 1992 election. I'm not familiar with the polls you claim to remember, but do know that most of his political organization for the campaign consisted of disaffected Republicans.

I challenge your implication that the contest between the extreme and centrist wings of the Republican party are any more severe - and likely to generate a spin off movement - than those in the Democrat Party. You have a particular focus on and interest in the "religious right". However you could just as well focus on 'Move On' and other like organizations that are equivalently putting radical pressures on the Democrat candidates. One could argue for days about which is likely to be more powerful or divisive within its respective party. I don't know the answer to that, but I certainly don't see a great deal of difference between the two in terms of their respective potential to affect the primary election outcomes.

I'll add that, in my view at least, the right wing evangelical political movement is a bit past its peak - a fading star - while the various single issue groups and new Move On like coalitions appear to be a growing force.

Overall, I believe the present situations of the two parties and their leading candidates over this matter are about equivalent.

blatham - Excuse me george, but could you please point to that organized and distinct component of the Dem party which constitutes some 25 or 30% of Dem voters whose leaders are presently threatening to break away and form a third party?

george - There is none. I have no idea where you got the notion that I suggest the contrary. Read my post again.

John McCain: Constitution Established a 'Christian Nation'

Has the candidates' personal faith become too big an issue in the presidential race?

Questions about that are very legitimate.... And it's also appropriate for me at certain points in the conversation to say, look, that's sort of a private matter between me and my Creator.... But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

It doesn't seem like a Muslim candidate would do very well, according to that standard.

I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it. I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what's basically an honorable religion. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles.... personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn't mean that I'm sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don't say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would--I just feel that that's an important part of our qualifications to lead.* [..]

A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?

I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn't say, "I only welcome Christians." We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

For years, you've been identified as an Episcopalian. You recently began referring to yourself as a Baptist. Why?So the baptism is something you still might do?

*McCain contacted Beliefnet after the interview to clarify his remarks: "I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values."

[Then we disagree. I'd say the Democrats, for all the wide ideological divergences between Blue Dogs and MoveOn liberals, are to all practical effect more united now than they have been in a decade.

The Republican Party on the other hand, although I dont believe for a second that the religious right will really split off, definitely seems more divided than it has been in a decade. Gone is the disciplined and triumphantalist machine that marked GWB's first five years in office.

[T]he national polls raise important questions for the Romney and Obama campaigns. It's not as if these two have not been campaigning already. [W]hile most of their efforts have been spent in the early primary states, [..] both have been all over national television, in newspaper coverage, and both have appeared on the cover of national news magazines. [..]

The national numbers must be particularly disappointing to the Romney campaign team. While Romney strategist Gage dismisses Giuliani, McCain and Thompson as "celebrity candidates", it's important to note that in fact Romney is at this point still better known [than] Thompson nationwide, and Thompson's name ID among Republicans is just 4 points higher than Romney. Yet Thompson gets 22% of the Republican vote in our latest survey compared to 7% for Romney.

A second disappointment for the Romney campaign that is difficult to dismiss is the fact that Romney has the most negative image at this point of any of the major candidates for president. Our mid-September poll shows him with a 27% favorable and 35% unfavorable rating. That makes Romney the only candidate we tested (including Hillary Clinton) who has a higher unfavorable than favorable rating. Among Republicans, while Giuliani's favorable to unfavorable net difference is +54, and McCain's is +47 and Thompson's is +45, Romney's is +19. In other words, Romney is much less well liked among Republicans nationally than any of his three chief competitors.

Plus, as my colleague Jeff Jones has pointed out, Romney has a significant problem among highly religious Protestant Republicans - who will form a not insignificant block of voters in some early primary states.

I believe you are confusing your subjective preferences with objective reality.

We all evidently agree that the likelihood of a splinter effort in either party is equally low. What the hell then are you guys arguing about?????? You are looking for distinctions in the absence of a difference.