Its Super Tuesday time

[Guard Dog]

Pop you win this thread. Everything you said was completely correct except one thing:

 

Third parties don't work in this system, in most cases they don't even function on the local or state levels.

 

I would interject that third parties work ONLY at the State and Local levels. On a national stage they have no voice. There are two big reasons why third parties fail nationally:

 

1) As a rule they appeal only to single issue voters. That is voters who only care about one issue, environment, taxes, drug legalization, whatever, and nothing else. You cannot build a coalition around such people since there is no unity of purpose.

 

2)Since they are small, not well funded, and therefore advertise poorly if at all, most average people know nothing about them and have little inclination to learn.

 

Now on a state and local level it requires much less effort (meaning money) to reach out to voters since there are fewer of them and chances are the name recognition will be greater for the candidates. Also some parties platforms (particularly the Libertarian Party) apply better to local issues than national ones. That is why there are over 400 Libertarians holding office in State and Local positions through out the country but not one in any national office like Congress.

[Enoch]

Now on a state and local level it requires much less effort (meaning money) to reach out to voters since there are fewer of them and chances are the name recognition will be greater for the candidates. Also some parties platforms (particularly the Libertarian Party) apply better to local issues than national ones. That is why there are over 400 Libertarians holding office in State and Local positions through out the country but not one in any national office like Congress.

That may well be true, but I don't think it dimishes Pop's point about winner-take-all elections.

 

Local elections are often exceptions to the first-past-the-post nature of American elections. For example, there may be 5 town council seats open, with 10 candidates running, and every voter gets to put 5 names on their ballot. A setup like that, which is pretty common in American county and local government systems, is quite accommodating to non-mainstream parties (especially if it allows voters to use all of their votes on one candidate). I don't know the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the 3rd-party elected officials in the country are in positions like that.

[Meshugger]

Pop: My sentiments were just wishful thinking. In reality, Obama or Clinton don't matter, since they have to have the support from the south. When the choice comes down to that, an elder white male republican, who also is percieved as a war-hero will win instantly.

[Guard Dog]

That may well be true, but I don't think it dimishes Pop's point about winner-take-all elections.

 

Local elections are often exceptions to the first-past-the-post nature of American elections. For example, there may be 5 town council seats open, with 10 candidates running, and every voter gets to put 5 names on their ballot. A setup like that, which is pretty common in American county and local government systems, is quite accommodating to non-mainstream parties (especially if it allows voters to use all of their votes on one candidate). I don't know the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the 3rd-party elected officials in the country are in positions like that.

 

I did not disagree with his point about winner-take-all elections, just that third paty candidates can't win on a local level. It is fairly common for third party and indepedant candidates to win majority vote elections in state houses, and even state executive level offices such as Attorney General (in states where such are elected positions). It is extremely uncommon for them to win nationally because of the points I made and because he is right about our election system.

 

I think it's safe to say I'm something of an expert when it comes to third party politics.

[Guard Dog]

Pop: My sentiments were just wishful thinking. In reality, Obama or Clinton don't matter, since they have to have the support from the south. When the choice comes down to that, an elder white male republican, who also is percieved as a war-hero will win instantly.

 

Not so fast. McCain is not poular in the Southern states and pro-business democrats can do well there. Contrary to what many people think (especially non-Ameicans I'm noticing) the south is not made up of "gun-totin, confederate flag wavin, beer-swillin, trailer dwellin, nascar lovin rednecks". The old confederate states have as a group the most rapidly growing poulation, the largest middle class by percentage of population, the lowest state tax rates, the largest by percentage contribution to the US GDP, and the lowest unemployment rates. It would be inaccurate to make statements like "The white republican will win the south because he's white" (not saying that is what you said Mes). LIBERAL candidates will do poorly in the south because by and large high tax big government policies are not popular here. The vast majority of voters no longer care what race you are, or what gender you are. The 1960s are over.

[Sand]

The 1990's are also over.

 

NO MORE CLINTONS! NO MORE CLINTONS!

 

 

[Guard Dog]

The 1990's are also over.

 

NO MORE CLINTONS! NO MORE CLINTONS!

 

 

AMEN. Think abouth this, since 1980 there has been either a Bush or a Clinton running for President. 28 f'ing years with either a Bush or Clinton in power. Most of the posters on this board are younger than that. Enough is enough.

[Walsingham]

I highly in favour of a change of guard, so to speak. On general principle you need to spin everything around once in a while. I'm not a Conservative, and I supported Tony Blair, but Labour have got lazy and complacent like the Tories did before.

[Enoch]

Contrary to what many people think (especially non-Ameicans I'm noticing) the south is not made up of "gun-totin, confederate flag wavin, beer-swillin, trailer dwellin, nascar lovin rednecks". The old confederate states have as a group the most rapidly growing poulation, the largest middle class by percentage of population, the lowest state tax rates, the largest by percentage contribution to the US GDP, and the lowest unemployment rates. It would be inaccurate to make statements like "The white republican will win the south because he's white" (not saying that is what you said Mes). LIBERAL candidates will do poorly in the south because by and large high tax big government policies are not popular here. The vast majority of voters no longer care what race you are, or what gender you are. The 1960s are over.

Well, there's the south, and there's the South. There are certainly stretches of the old confederacy where the stereotypes do ring fairly true. But the growth and economic productivity you're talking about isn't happening there. It's happening in the Atlanta metro area, in the big cities in Texas and Florida, in the research triangle in Raleigh-Durham, and along the Beltway in northern VA. Heck, I live in Arlington, Virginia, and, despite being the former home of Robert E. Lee, my neighborhood has a lot more in common with Massachusetts than it does with Alabama. (I do enjoy a good beer-swillin' from time to time, though.)

 

I would argue that the right's social conservatism is at least as important in maintaining its dominance in the South as its economic conservatism is. Probably more-- it's not as if the national GOP'ers they've been electing lately have done much to slow the growth of the government!

[Guard Dog]

I would argue that the right's social conservatism is at least as important in maintaining its dominance in the South as its economic conservatism is. Probably more-- it's not as if the national GOP'ers they've been electing lately have done much to slow the growth of the government!

 

That may have been true for the last 20 years or so but it is absolutley trending away from that. For example, ballot intiatives banning same sex marriage and abortion have been soundly defeated in six southern and republican dominated states (FL, AR, AL, TX, GA, NC all old confederate states) in the last 4 election cycles. The current crop fo GOPers including the President have been tried and true on social conservatisim since the 2002 elections and have utterly abandoned economic conservatisim with the exception of tax cuts. And you will note that they are so out of favor with rank and file republicans that most stayed home in 2006 and allowed the dems to sweep into congress. The social conservatives are becoming a small albeit vocal minority without the votes to actually influence an election. It is economic conservatisim that motivates republican voters. That is why the repubs are so out of favor with their base. The average american conservative thinker does not give a damn who marries who but gets very agitated when the federal govenment begins to suffocate the economy with taxes and regulation or tries to commit economic suicide by cutting taxes without fiscal discipline.

 

McCain has a very conservative voting record on most social issues including favoring banning PBA, flag burning, and gay marriage. But he is also a Rockafeller-esqe "government is here to help you" type. THAT is why he is out of favor with the base. And that is why those who will vote for him (like me) will do so only because the alternative is so much worse.

[Walsingham]

As an aside, was anyone else devastated to realise that Ru Paul, the Republican candidate was merely an aural freudian slip?

[Pop]

I'd say that Obama has a best chance of any democrat running over the last 50 years at least to take the South. The very fact that he's churchgoing will mobilize a large bloc of black voters, the kind of voters you'd only get if you were a republican. The black vote is quite sizable in a number of southern red states. And the hispanic community looks to be coming around as well, at least in those places outside city centers where there aren't hispanic elected officials who would throw their lot in with Clinton and deliver their supporters.

 

Point taken on local elections. It always seemed strange that there was a national libertarian party, you'd think they'd lose for the same reasons the socialists lose: They angle for a position in government so they can destroy it.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Pop

[Enoch]

I would argue that the right's social conservatism is at least as important in maintaining its dominance in the South as its economic conservatism is. Probably more-- it's not as if the national GOP'ers they've been electing lately have done much to slow the growth of the government!

 

That may have been true for the last 20 years or so but it is absolutley trending away from that. For example, ballot intiatives banning same sex marriage and abortion have been soundly defeated in six southern and republican dominated states (FL, AR, AL, TX, GA, NC all old confederate states) in the last 4 election cycles. The current crop fo GOPers including the President have been tried and true on social conservatisim since the 2002 elections and have utterly abandoned economic conservatisim with the exception of tax cuts. And you will note that they are so out of favor with rank and file republicans that most stayed home in 2006 and allowed the dems to sweep into congress. The social conservatives are becoming a small albeit vocal minority without the votes to actually influence an election. It is economic conservatisim that motivates republican voters. That is why the repubs are so out of favor with their base. The average american conservative thinker does not give a damn who marries who but gets very agitated when the federal govenment begins to suffocate the economy with taxes and regulation or tries to commit economic suicide by cutting taxes without fiscal discipline.

 

McCain has a very conservative voting record on most social issues including favoring banning PBA, flag burning, and gay marriage. But he is also a Rockafeller-esqe "government is here to help you" type. THAT is why he is out of favor with the base. And that is why those who will vote for him (like me) will do so only because the alternative is so much worse.

The 2006 election example is interesting, but that certainly wasn't the only thing out there repressing GOP turnout. (Hint: it begins with an "I" and ends with a "q".)

 

You may be right about the trends, but I still don't think that a purely economic conservative platform would command many majorities if it didn't also have support from people who vote primarily on social issues. Sure, everybody hates paying taxes, and general talk about "small government" gets cheers, but if you pair those tax cuts with the cuts in government programs necessary to keep the budget reasonable, it gets a lot harder to pull a majority together. People like to talk about eliminating a few well-publicized but minor examples of government waste (bridges to nowhere, $500 hammers, Reagan's mythical 'welfare queens driving welfare Cadillacs'), but when it comes to the big-ticket spending items where government-shrinking would probably have to start (Medicare, Military, Social Security, etc.), most people don't want to see cuts.

 

As for McCain, it depends on which base you're talking about. Social conservatives aren't too happy with him for being part of the "Gang of 14" Senators who brokered compromise on Bush's judicial appointments (which, in their eyes, was caving in to the pro-Roe crowd). The only conservative base that's really happy with him as the presumptive nominee are the foreign policy hawks. Mike Huckabee has a pretty weak background as an economic conservative, but he still managed to give the McCain campaign a scare here in Virginia yesterday (some of the early projections had him winning; he ended up with 41% of the GOP vote).

[Walsingham]

If Obama is elected they'll kill him.

 

I agree that there will be elements opposed to him, especially if he takes a dove-ish stance. But isn't it more likely that he'll be character undermined like whatsisface? Um.. hang on... it'll come to me. Jimmy Carter! He was surrounded by reactionary elements of the administration, particularly after Iran 'fell'.

[taks]

As an aside, was anyone else devastated to realise that Ru Paul, the Republican candidate was merely an aural freudian slip?

ron's really the closest thing to a "third party" candidate with any real presence in recent times... granted, he's running on a republican ticket, but he ain't a republican. he's got no real hope at winning the republican nomination, either, but his numbers are high enough to at least get the publicity libertarians need for future efforts (assuming he lives long enough he could attempt a run in the next election... he's 73 now).

 

taks

[taks]

oops, he'll be 73 this year...

 

taks

[Sand]

Just remember, life burns at the touch of the reaper. 73 years is pretty long in the tooth.

[Meshugger]

Pop: My sentiments were just wishful thinking. In reality, Obama or Clinton don't matter, since they have to have the support from the south. When the choice comes down to that, an elder white male republican, who also is percieved as a war-hero will win instantly.

 

Not so fast. McCain is not poular in the Southern states and pro-business democrats can do well there. Contrary to what many people think (especially non-Ameicans I'm noticing) the south is not made up of "gun-totin, confederate flag wavin, beer-swillin, trailer dwellin, nascar lovin rednecks". The old confederate states have as a group the most rapidly growing poulation, the largest middle class by percentage of population, the lowest state tax rates, the largest by percentage contribution to the US GDP, and the lowest unemployment rates. It would be inaccurate to make statements like "The white republican will win the south because he's white" (not saying that is what you said Mes). LIBERAL candidates will do poorly in the south because by and large high tax big government policies are not popular here. The vast majority of voters no longer care what race you are, or what gender you are. The 1960s are over.

 

I didn't put my point well enough, my appologies.

 

Obama and Hillary are already socially liberal enough to make McCain the perfect candidate for the south, being a minority or a woman (or in Hillary's case, just being Hillary Clinton) isn't exactly helping on the whole image part of their campain.

 

If Obama or Hillary wins, i owe you a big appology

[Walsingham]

I didn't put my point well enough, my appologies.

 

Obama and Hillary are already socially liberal enough to make McCain the perfect candidate for the south, being a minority or a woman (or in Hillary's case, just being Hillary Clinton) isn't exactly helping on the whole image part of their campain.

 

If Obama or Hillary wins, i owe you a big appology

 

Spoken like a gentleman, sir.

[Sand]

Remember, its just not Hillary. It's...

 

BILLARY!

[Walsingham]

Remember, its just not Hillary. It's...

 

BILLARY!

 

Spoken like a wombat, sir.

[Pop]

As an aside, was anyone else devastated to realise that Ru Paul, the Republican candidate was merely an aural freudian slip?

ron's really the closest thing to a "third party" candidate with any real presence in recent times... granted, he's running on a republican ticket, but he ain't a republican. he's got no real hope at winning the republican nomination, either, but his numbers are high enough to at least get the publicity libertarians need for future efforts (assuming he lives long enough he could attempt a run in the next election... he's 73 now).

 

taks

Come on now, I'm betting I'm a lot younger than you are, and I still remember Ross Perot, who had much more support than RP has now. And the Honorable Doctor General Grand Master Dragon President Ron Paul is most certainly a conservative republican activist, if the National Review editorial board is any litmus test for that sort of thing. The only real way he breaks from traditional principles is his anti-war stance, but even that is less anti-war than it is anti-internationalist, and in that he's really just a conservative Republican circa 1911.

 

Actually, most of the urbane, Economist-reading libertarians that I know are frantic about this whole RP deal. They reckon a gold / conspiracy nut who wants to back an $11 trillion economy on a commodity whose global sum total doesn't reach that worth and has a record of racialist rhetoric, confederate apologism and white nationalist advocacy occupying and representing the libertarian vanguard sets the movement back 50 years. Personally I couldn't be happier. Free market politics being in a death-like slumber on the edge of the national stage for the rest of my lifetime suits me just fine. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that young libertarians carry on Paul's easily defeatable message into the future.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Pop

[Dark_Raven]

No Clinton, no Democratic vote. I'll go Republician which is usually who I favor to begin with. McCain FTW.

[Guard Dog]

Come on now, I'm betting I'm a lot younger than you are, and I still remember Ross Perot, who had much more support than RP has now. And the Honorable Doctor General Grand Master Dragon President Ron Paul is most certainly a conservative republican activist, if the National Review editorial board is any litmus test for that sort of thing. The only real way he breaks from traditional principles is his anti-war stance, but even that is less anti-war than it is anti-internationalist, and in that he's really just a conservative Republican circa 1911.

 

Actually, most of the urbane, Economist-reading libertarians that I know are frantic about this whole RP deal. They reckon a gold / conspiracy nut who wants to back an $11 trillion economy on a commodity whose global sum total doesn't reach that worth and has a record of racialist rhetoric, confederate apologism and white nationalist advocacy occupying and representing the libertarian vanguard sets the movement back 50 years. Personally I couldn't be happier. Free market politics being in a death-like slumber on the edge of the national stage for the rest of my lifetime suits me just fine. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that young libertarians carry on Paul's easily defeatable message into the future.

 

Pop, you started out good today and actually had me agreeing with something you posted, which is a big change for me. But you just shot off high and left of the target with this one. First of all Ron Paul is neither conservative nor republican despite his party affiliation. And judging by the amount of support he has gotten from rank and file Republicans I would think that would be self evident. He does appeal to the kook fringe and I assure you EVERY political faction in America (and everywhere else) has them and they never make common cause with the mainstream in any school of politcal thought. To paint repubs and libertarians with a broad brush because a handful of nuts exist within those two parties is at best disengenous, and worst out right B.S. By the same logic i could claim the democrats are all communists simply because the US Communist Party has endorsed the democrat candidate for president in the last 2 elections. It is true but it does not mean the dems are ALL communists. See what I'm getting at here?

 

You are correct about one thing, the average libertarian party member shudders at the thought of RP attempting another presidential run with the LP because you are right, he does not represent the LP line. You posted earlier that libertrians run for govenment office in order to use the position to "destroy" government. That is completely inaccurate. The Libertairan ideal is to keep government reigned in to the scope of it's power as defined by law. Be it the US Constitution, the Constitutuon of a state, city charter, whatever.

 

Here is an example. I ran for the Florida State House as a Libertarian. One of my campaign platforms was to propose and pass a law which made it illegal for the state to sanction governing bodies other than those of incorporated townships, municpalities, or counties. We have homeowners assosciations down here and not just in jointly owned properties such as condos or townhomes but single family homes. That state sanction gives associations the power to "tax" community residents and it allows them a terrible amount of power over residents including the power to lein homes. At the same time it protected the assosciations from lawsuits brought by residents for bad business practice, etc. I argued and still believe that State sanction is a violation of Article 2 sections 3-4 of the 1968 State Constitution. So I wanted to remove an oppressive local government by forcing the state government to behave within the constraints of it constitution. That is the essence of what modern libertarian thought is all about.

 

It is not all kooks who think 9-11 was an inside job. Or that we must close all foreign bases and abrogate all treaties and build a wall around America. We understand that some government regulation of buisness is right and necassary and the constitution allows for that very thing.

 

BTW, in 1911 the Republicans were led by Teddy Roosevelt and were quite liberal compared to the much more conservative democrats.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

No Clinton, no Democratic vote. I'll go Republician which is usually who I favor to begin with. McCain FTW.

 

Why would you support the continued reign of Billary? I mean, I cannot see any redeeming factors that would make me vote for her instead of McCain -although I want Obama to win the Democratic nomination, and voted that way during yesterday's primary-, in fact she is the only one of the top three candidates that I would not want to see in the White House. It is not that she is a woman, I believe that there will be a female president within the next fifty years and do not have a problem with that fact, it is that she is both the wife of Bill Clinton (someone who I never want to see near the white house again, especially if he does not have a job to do) and that she is, in fact, Hillary R. Clinton.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade