How is it possible—with 2,500 U.S. solders dead, no discernible progress on the ground and a solid majority of the public now agreeing that the war in Iraq was a mistake—for the Democrats to seem so bollixed about the war and for the President to seem so confident? A good part of it is flawed strategy. Democrats keep hoping that the elections can be framed as a referendum on the Bush policy, and Republicans keep reminding the public that elections are a choice, not a referendum.
This is obviously TRUE WHEN THE ELECTION IS PRESENTED AS A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO CANDIDATES - between Bush and the GOP or Murtha/Sheehan/Kos and the doves of the Dem-Left - the GOP will win EVERY SINGLE TIME, in spite of spending too much and having a weak immigration policy.
But NOW - because of their low popularity - Bush and the GOP cannot win if a third party enters the contest. And this might be VERY likely. WHY?! Well, I see something else at play, a change which may signal something deeper: I believe the fact that the GOP have gained in the last two elections ('02 & '04) because what the elections were reduced to TWO CHOICES. The electorate is VERY diverse: there are liberal hawks and conservative doves - and each io these grous have diverse opinons on stem cells and gay marriage etc..
And as the electorate splits, elections can be WON by politicians and political parties which do NOT have the support of a majority, and which poll poorly popular overall -- as long as they come out number one. This is SORT OF LIKE IN THE UK'S SYSTEM - (OR ANY PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, PERHAPS), WHERE LABOR CAN SWEEP INTO POWER DESPITE ONLY GETTING 35% of the vote.
Bush and the GOP have pretty low numbers overall - especially considering that the economy is great and the GWOT is going well (not the MSM is reporting it!). But Bush and the GOP have low numbers MOSTLY because of leakage of conservative support (and partly because of leakage of the support of independents).
These disgruntled right-of-center voters are NOT likely to EVER vote for the doves of the Dem Left - (who want to cut & run overseas and raise taxes at home).
These disgruntled voters are more likely to (a) stay home, or (b) vote for a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE - even one who runs in a single issue, or (c) hold their noses and vote GOP. If the GOP can paint the Dems as weak on national defense and risky on traditional culture than most of the disgruntled voters will vote GOP, and the GOP will win a two=party contest.
But, I think (b) might actually be the most likely eventuality because since 1980 we've had 7 presidential elections and 4 have had third party candidates who effected the outcome (Anderson, Perot twice, and Nader in 2000).
The scenario for 2008 might be one of these: If McCain wins the GOP nomination in 2008, I'd expect a third party run for the right (an anti-immigration/anti-stem-cell/anti-campaign-finance-reform candidate) - which would lead to the election the Dem dove. If McCain loses the nomination then he, or another Left-of-center hawk, will probably run as a third party candidate and thereby elect the Dem dove.
I think some type of a repeat of the Perot/Clinton/Bush contest may very well be the norm of the next four elections. There might be a 3rd party made up of anti-immigration Righties or of Daily Kos/cut&run Lefties. And if this happens then the USA will elect Leftists as president. (As Spain and Italy have done, recently ). This will be a DISASTER for our side in the GWOT.
I also think this scenario is most likely because I don't sense that there's a candidate in either party who can unite either party - and attract independents.
Well, maybe Mitt Romney can unite the GOP: (he's a conservative and a hawk but still managed to pass some sort of universal healthcare coverage in liberal Massachusetts).
But - as far as the Dems are concerned, I think that the Kos Krowd is so loony that they're incapable of settling on a Dem moderate in order to win, and therefore will end up supporting a third party candidate; (Webb in VA is NOT a true centrist because he is a DOVE).
A third party candidate from the Left could make the Dems appear as if they occupied the CENTER if the Dems nominate DLC centrists and therefore they might win (by getting the independents and the disgruntled GOP voters - as Clinton did). I think that the only two candidates who could do this for the Dems are Warner and Richardson - or a Warner-Richardson ticket. Or Bayh. A Dem ticket made up of any two of these three would easily win a three way race and be tough to beat in a two-way race. Tyhe Kos Krowd is not likely to allow this to happen.
WILD CARD: Condi. "Romney and Rice" wins - no matter what the rest of the field looks like.
And as the electorate splits, elections can be WON by politicians and political parties which do NOT have the support of a majority, and which poll poorly popular overall -- as long as they come out number one. This is SORT OF LIKE IN THE UK'S SYSTEM - (OR ANY PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, PERHAPS), WHERE LABOR CAN SWEEP INTO POWER DESPITE ONLY GETTING 35% of the vote.
Bush and the GOP have pretty low numbers overall - especially considering that the economy is great and the GWOT is going well (not the MSM is reporting it!). But Bush and the GOP have low numbers MOSTLY because of leakage of conservative support (and partly because of leakage of the support of independents).
These disgruntled right-of-center voters are NOT likely to EVER vote for the doves of the Dem Left - (who want to cut & run overseas and raise taxes at home).
These disgruntled voters are more likely to (a) stay home, or (b) vote for a THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE - even one who runs in a single issue, or (c) hold their noses and vote GOP. If the GOP can paint the Dems as weak on national defense and risky on traditional culture than most of the disgruntled voters will vote GOP, and the GOP will win a two=party contest.
But, I think (b) might actually be the most likely eventuality because since 1980 we've had 7 presidential elections and 4 have had third party candidates who effected the outcome (Anderson, Perot twice, and Nader in 2000).
The scenario for 2008 might be one of these: If McCain wins the GOP nomination in 2008, I'd expect a third party run for the right (an anti-immigration/anti-stem-cell/anti-campaign-finance-reform candidate) - which would lead to the election the Dem dove. If McCain loses the nomination then he, or another Left-of-center hawk, will probably run as a third party candidate and thereby elect the Dem dove.
I think some type of a repeat of the Perot/Clinton/Bush contest may very well be the norm of the next four elections. There might be a 3rd party made up of anti-immigration Righties or of Daily Kos/cut&run Lefties. And if this happens then the USA will elect Leftists as president. (As Spain and Italy have done, recently ). This will be a DISASTER for our side in the GWOT.
I also think this scenario is most likely because I don't sense that there's a candidate in either party who can unite either party - and attract independents.
Well, maybe Mitt Romney can unite the GOP: (he's a conservative and a hawk but still managed to pass some sort of universal healthcare coverage in liberal Massachusetts).
But - as far as the Dems are concerned, I think that the Kos Krowd is so loony that they're incapable of settling on a Dem moderate in order to win, and therefore will end up supporting a third party candidate; (Webb in VA is NOT a true centrist because he is a DOVE).
A third party candidate from the Left could make the Dems appear as if they occupied the CENTER if the Dems nominate DLC centrists and therefore they might win (by getting the independents and the disgruntled GOP voters - as Clinton did). I think that the only two candidates who could do this for the Dems are Warner and Richardson - or a Warner-Richardson ticket. Or Bayh. A Dem ticket made up of any two of these three would easily win a three way race and be tough to beat in a two-way race. Tyhe Kos Krowd is not likely to allow this to happen.
WILD CARD: Condi. "Romney and Rice" wins - no matter what the rest of the field looks like.
3 comments:
This is an interesting analysis but it shows a BIG flaw in the host's political savvy. Any third party-whether on the Left or,particularly on the anti-immigrant Right, will also be anti-war. Unreliable's worships the Empire so much he has not been following the Buchanan/Perot
populist right grouping which has
been ANTI-WAR from the Persian
Gulf conflict on. This movement is also opposed to the globalist free trade "race to the bottom" so
beloved by the host. Strong anti-immigrant sentiment is always linked with protectionist nationalism.
globalism has UPLIFTED every economy that ever tried it.
isolationism ha never worked.
not on any level.
If Rummsfeld becomes President I'm moving to canada because I will never be proud to have such a spinelss idiot in the office of president. I can barly believe he's still in his office now.
Now, I Think that if we were to secure Iraq and establish the government there as a fully legitimant government and Finnaly supress the insurgency, then the world would be much better off.
however Rumsfeld to me appears to be far to lazy to do anything about that, All he can do is think up excuses why we don't need more troops in Iraq, and why Armor isn't neccessary.
I especially loved the one where "You can put all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can still be blown up"
apperently why that's why we shouldn't waste the money with armor that can protect agianst AK-47 armor on a convoy that could save peoples lives.
all you ever hear from rummsfeld are excuses, never any solid plans.
I think we need to get Powel back, or atleast someone with legitimant military knowlage.
God help us if he becomes president. I'm Sure it'll probably sound something like:
"Just because North Korea is threatinging us With Nukes doesn't mean we should do anything about it. You can Go to war with all the great military might in the world and they can still blow up a tank"
Post a Comment