As an independent moderate participating voter, I can assure the parties...it makes a considerable difference who is nominated and, if its not a 'teaparty darling' which are never viewed as viable candidates, what contortions, a la Romney, they had to go through to get the nomination.
When I was a boy, about 12 years old (1960), the mother of my best friend (who was also my 8th grade English teacher) explained to me why a voter votes for a candidate selected by her party. She said - more or less - that she might not like the individual that much but her party had a set of principles and policies which she endorsed, and by voting for her party's candidate that individual was more likely to implement the policies of his party. In most parliamentary systems, the government is constructed out of the party or a coalition of parties who have elected the majority of the parlimentarians, i.e., parties are very important is those systems. Modern day Americans have forgotten why parties exist and have forgotten that an election is not a popularity contest based on who has the most handsome face or the best TV ads. Could Lincoln have gotten his party's nomination and won the presidency in the age of TV with his looks? Could Roosevelt, the cripple? Of course, it is clear that today, the Democratic and Republican "tents" are too large to contain the fractured electorate in this (and many other) countries. The electorate in this country and many others breaks down as far left (progressive), center left, center right, far right (originalists, fundamentalists), but our system makes the formation of additional parties beyond the two that we have extremely difficult. Voters stay home because they don't feel they are represented by the people who are elected.
This is the biggest problem with politics and elections.
People vote for The Party, not the country.
Politicians represent The Party, not the country.
People vote for The Party, not the country.
Politicians represent The Party, not the country.
2
I'm Independent. I vote for the candidate, but they're usually not Republican.
3
Just thinking back to Republicans I thought were worthy of the Presidency. Bob Dole was a very decent guy- I'm sure he still is- honest, honorable, conservative but with a good heart. Growing up, there was Eisenhower who warned us about the military-industrial complex. Nelson Rockefeller, a politician and a philanthropist from an era when service was not an antiquated idea.
There used to be Republicans that didn't make me cringe. Jeb is now the moderate? (Terri Schiavo- nothing moderate about that.) Republicans who want the job are so extreme. Some because that's what they truly believe, others because they're pretending really hard. How nice it would be if there was a real choice to be made. Not likely very soon.
There used to be Republicans that didn't make me cringe. Jeb is now the moderate? (Terri Schiavo- nothing moderate about that.) Republicans who want the job are so extreme. Some because that's what they truly believe, others because they're pretending really hard. How nice it would be if there was a real choice to be made. Not likely very soon.
6
As I said, I USED to be a Republican, 20 years ago. Lots of people USED to be Republican, but that does not mean they vote for every Democrat.
1
I was a Republican till Republican Party adopted it's Southern stategy, and sucked up so many Southern racist Democrats.
The problem is three fold. First, with all surveys and polls is whether the individual is telling the truth or not. Read just about any poll that asks the question whether they are likely to vote and overwhelming majorities will say they will vote but the data is quite different. Second, regardless of the ultimate nominee, those extremist nominees drag the ultimate nominee in one direction in order to get through the primary and the ultimate nominee then has to pivot back towards the middle to carry the general election. Third, the party system more or less keeps that 90% voting for their own party candidate regardless of the quality or qualifications of the candidate. Elections are decided by those of us without party affiliation.
1
Apart from Goldwater and McGovern there is Alf Landon in 1936 (36% of the vote. Dorothy Parker said if he made any more speeches FDR would have carried Canada). Since the halcyon days of Goldwater as we all the know the electorate has become far more polarized (the NYT regularly refers this phenomenon) so the tendency to tribalism is greater than it's ever been. One can predict now with a reasonable degree of certainty what the maximum Republican vote will be (~62 million) in 2016 whoever is their candidate. This is the maximum for the optimum candidate who is actually someone rather bland like Romney. Both Bush and Cruz would probably get somewhat but not massively less. Bush because the entire Bush 2 presidency is going to get re-litigated and Cruz because like Goldwater there is a lingering suspicion he's nuts. Btw 1964 was the first election I ever voted in. In their hearts a large majority of Americans did not know he was right
Or as the Democrats said in 1964, "In your guts you know he's nuts."
1
Right wing-nuts have pushed voters, like me, away and further left. Frankly, the both parties can kiss my grits. They are ruining my country, and I'm sick of them.
3
Or as Jules Feiffer wrote
"I was told if I voted for Goldwater we would have half a million troops in Vietnam. Well I did and by goodness they were right."
"I was told if I voted for Goldwater we would have half a million troops in Vietnam. Well I did and by goodness they were right."
American candidates identified at "the extremes" of their Party have usually either not received their Parties nomination (McCarthy) or been decisively beaten in the general election( Goldwater). This seems to be an accepted principle of American politics. When voters sense an "extreme" set of positions ( or even one),in a candidate during a general election, the independent voters tend to avoid the candidate, thus they are the voters the Moderates vie for.
Cruz and Cotton and Huckabee will generate lots of excitement within Their party especially among the "rabid" , but the more sensible voters who actually want to win, see Bush as a much better bet. He is not perceived as an irrational, loose tongued attention getter like Cruz,nor a religious fanatic like Huckabee.
Cotton, not in the running, but a Cruz imitator, looks like the next wave republican nincompoop.
If anyone can steal the republican nomination from Bush it might be Paul who attracts the young voters. Paul is the dark horse in the race. He is already bending some of his extreme libertarian positions toward the middle ( of republican positions) and will be taken more seriously than Cruz and Huckabee because he sounds more rational at every turn.
The Dems process this election seems much more boring. Unless someone "appears out of nowhere", they will sink or swim with Clinton. Many fewer laughs than the republicans will provide, but probably much more rationality.
Cruz and Cotton and Huckabee will generate lots of excitement within Their party especially among the "rabid" , but the more sensible voters who actually want to win, see Bush as a much better bet. He is not perceived as an irrational, loose tongued attention getter like Cruz,nor a religious fanatic like Huckabee.
Cotton, not in the running, but a Cruz imitator, looks like the next wave republican nincompoop.
If anyone can steal the republican nomination from Bush it might be Paul who attracts the young voters. Paul is the dark horse in the race. He is already bending some of his extreme libertarian positions toward the middle ( of republican positions) and will be taken more seriously than Cruz and Huckabee because he sounds more rational at every turn.
The Dems process this election seems much more boring. Unless someone "appears out of nowhere", they will sink or swim with Clinton. Many fewer laughs than the republicans will provide, but probably much more rationality.
5
Ronald Reagan's campaign strategists calculated that if he was able to obtain the Christian Right vote which amounted to about 15% of overall population but about 30% of the registered voters, he could, and did, win the general election. What has happened since has warped into an extremist position that would make Goldwater blanch.
I'm a devout Christian but what the politicians do with religion makes me want to upchuck.
I'm a devout Christian but what the politicians do with religion makes me want to upchuck.
17
The numbers that the studies used, 45,000, rather than the typical 900-1,200, gives the rise to accuracy over 'normal' polls, which are represented by the smaller numbers cited.
I only vaguely remember Goldwater, as I was just 10 years old, whereas I was heavily involved in the McGovern campaign in both my hometown and on my college campus. McGovern won the City and County of San Francisco, one and the same. As I recall, Goldwater won his state of Ariz0ona, but not much more.
I only vaguely remember Goldwater, as I was just 10 years old, whereas I was heavily involved in the McGovern campaign in both my hometown and on my college campus. McGovern won the City and County of San Francisco, one and the same. As I recall, Goldwater won his state of Ariz0ona, but not much more.
2
I don't think it will matter at all. Either one of them will probably lose. Cruz worse than Bush.
1
I am surprised that the Professor does not discuss the fact that people may make different choices in a hypothetical poll compared to an actual election. In particular, party-line voting may be much more common than party-line poll-responding.
3
But the Republicans in 2016 will be embedded in their Party Line, their Party Platform, which, following the Republican budget proposals now on the table, would dismantle the U.S. social safety net, cut taxes on the rich to about zero ("for growth") and promise war all over the world. That is, their positions will look pretty extreme.
16
A person can make the difference between a close win and a larger win, or a close loss and a larger loss, but is there anything in the literature to suggest a past example where a close loss could have been a close win (or vice versa) with Candidate B instead of Candidate A? We could look at relatively recent close presidential elections, I suppose, and ask the following questions:
2004: Does a different Democrat than Kerry defeat Bush?
2000: Does a different Republican than Bush defeat Gore?*
1976: Does a different Republican than Ford defeat Carter?
1968: Does a different Democrat than Humphrey defeat Nixon?
1960: Does a different Republican than Nixon defeat Kennedy?
*Or would someone like McCain have won the popular vote (plus the EC) against Gore in 2000?
The 2012 CCAP study was very impressive and hopefully it or an improved successor will be used for 2016 and beyond. We now know, for all of his awkward campaigning and supposed game-changing gaffes, that no other declared GOP candidate could've done better than Romney's performance in 2012, at least for the popular vote margin. I do think there is a lot to suggest that winning your party's contested presidential primary is a real indicator of your strength as a candidate. No other GOPer running for president in 2012 *should* have had a better number than Romney's.
The Rockefeller '60 and Reagan '76 campaigns would have scrambled races, much more so the latter, I would think. Too bad we don't have a CCAP for those.
2004: Does a different Democrat than Kerry defeat Bush?
2000: Does a different Republican than Bush defeat Gore?*
1976: Does a different Republican than Ford defeat Carter?
1968: Does a different Democrat than Humphrey defeat Nixon?
1960: Does a different Republican than Nixon defeat Kennedy?
*Or would someone like McCain have won the popular vote (plus the EC) against Gore in 2000?
The 2012 CCAP study was very impressive and hopefully it or an improved successor will be used for 2016 and beyond. We now know, for all of his awkward campaigning and supposed game-changing gaffes, that no other declared GOP candidate could've done better than Romney's performance in 2012, at least for the popular vote margin. I do think there is a lot to suggest that winning your party's contested presidential primary is a real indicator of your strength as a candidate. No other GOPer running for president in 2012 *should* have had a better number than Romney's.
The Rockefeller '60 and Reagan '76 campaigns would have scrambled races, much more so the latter, I would think. Too bad we don't have a CCAP for those.
6
McCain's big mistake was getting involved with Sarah Palin and her wing-nuts. If not for her, he might have won. Today, I'm glad he didn't, but I liked him when he was younger and more open minded.
1
In light of how little political defection, as stated here, takes place and factoring in the real dollar costs of a presidential campaign, especially now with ‘Citizens United,’ and into how few, relatively speaking, pockets all that money goes …it would be (with tongue in cheek) far cheaper, far more efficient, yet financially beneficial to far more people if the federal and state Congresses would decriminalize “vote buying.” Exchanges could be organized, records could be kept and everything, including counting the payments as taxable income. “Voter fraud” would disappear overnight making the voter restriction laws and illegal registered voter data base purging moot and no longer necessary to win elections.