<p>Much as gottaloveucla is fantastically biased and bigoted himself, his latest post does have a point. The fractures between Hillary, Edwards and Obama, much as they play out in a lot of open bickering, are based on more nuanced issues than those between the leading Republicans. The Republicans are indeed significantly more divided with respect to their leading candidates - Evangelical Christians represented by Huckabee, neoconsveratives by Giuliani and to an extent McCain, Wall Street by Romney, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Not that I think this represents any particularly permanent fracture, but the division on issues of choice is certainly more pronounced among Republicans than Democrats. I think it could potentially lead to a Democratic victory, as Republicans could be unable to mobilize their base in 2008, but it’s certainly not unrecoverable for the Republicans.</p>
<p>The distinction is that we republicans tend to be more pragmatic and less likely to form a circular firing squad than democrats do. I think the party will unite behind the nominee. Heck, who knows? Maybe Mikey B. will enter the race and suck votes from the democratic nominee.</p>
<p>True, but pragmatic in that sentence may better be replaced by partisan. ;)</p>
<p>I actually think that the most realistic possibility for sucking votes away from the Democrats is a Ron Paul independent run, though that could potentially hurt Republicans as well.</p>
<p>I think that’s right 1of42. Also, Mike Bloomberg isn’t as intimately known outside of New York, whereas Ron Paul has had a lot of attention lately. </p>
<p>I’ve seen the “what if” polls. Bloomberg makes a couple of states more competitive for Republicans but the overall effect is of benefit to the Democratic candidates. </p>
<p>B&P, the below-the-fold polling data says the Republican party is fractured and Republicans aren’t happy with their choices. You don’t have to be a Republican to know this, it’s not as if they’re a secret society, though now that I think of it, that certainly would explain some strange things. </p>
<p>The economic conservatives (those wanting to make America safe for multimillionaires), the would-be ayahtollahs, the neocon thugs, and the nativist anti-immigration nuts all strongly dislike different candidates and conversely tend to be for different candidates.</p>
<p>x-posted: Kluge, I’d put Grandpa Fred below Clinton.</p>
<p>"I’ve seen the “what if” polls. Bloomberg makes a couple of states more competitive for Republicans but the overall effect is of benefit to the Democratic candidates. "</p>
<p>I respectfully submit to you that’s only because those polls were conducted before Bloomberg was very well known. He’s theoretically much better than he is in actuality.</p>
<p>All heavily pro-Christian sites. I think people who throw around the word ‘bigot’ should open their eyes a little. As if Christians have anything to fear from bigotry in this country anyway. The churches have been the perpetrators often enough.</p>
<p>ZM, the polls have also been run blind, with descriptions in lieu of names.</p>
<p>The short of it is, there is no great outpouring of passion for a third party. Sometimes you get people saying “we want less divisive, less partisan, more united.” It breaks down when you ask them to identify which alleged goals in common that they support. Your “perfectly reasonable” is my “no way, Jose” and vice-versa.</p>
<p>“short of it is, there is no great outpouring of passion for a third party”</p>
<p>Oh that I do agree with. But I think Mayor Mikey is just egomaniacal enough to run if he decides he’s going to, regardless of polling, and if he does he’ll do more damage to the democratic nominee because he is, after all, a pretty traditional northeastern liberal.</p>
<p>If he’s an NE liberal, the Democratic nominee will satisfy those who would happy with an NE liberal. Whereas no matter who gets the Republican nomination, large numbers of Republicans will be disgusted. For some, Bloomberg might be an alternative.</p>
<p>So, now, let’s pop the cork on a good bottle of champagne and drink a virtual toast to “That Woman,” eh?</p>
<p>If Hillary wins, there’s going to be a great demand for elocution instructors and speech therapists for those who can’t get the syallables “Prez-ee-dent Hill-ah-ree” out their mouths.</p>
<p>I’m sorry to see all the name-calling here.</p>
<p>I thought it was pretty obvious that the GOP is more fractured than usual. Here are the signs:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Polling indicates the Reps are less satisfied with their choices than are the Dems.</p></li>
<li><p>As a group, the GOP candidates seriously trail the Democratic ones in fund raising. I realize that at least some of this shortfall will be made up once the GOP has a clear front-runner. However, the Dems don’t have a clear front-runner, either and I seem to remember that they raised more money than the GOP in the '06 elections.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It looks like the Clinton and Obama camps have smartened up and decided they do not want to continue to make race or gender an issue between them. Last night’s debate was downright civil compared to last week. For the moment, the GOP is the party that most resembles the WWF.</p>
<p>I don’t think the Reagan coalition is dead, but it is broken. It is likely to come back together, but not enough to win the WH this time. I wouldn’t rule it out for '10 and '12.</p>
<p>Now that would be interesting. And a VERY real possibility. As an insider to the Revolution, I will tell you that Paul’s Apostles will not give up easily. An independent run is the logical conclusion if he doesn’t get the nomination.</p>
<p>I would welcome Ron Paul running on Libertarian/Constitution/Whackjobs United party lines.</p>
<p>Dadguy, another metric with which to gauge the Republican party is candidate recruitment for the down-ballot races. US Senate recruitment for the Republican is scary for an election that’s 10 months off. The Democrats have something like 5 House members retiring…2 for health, three seeking higher office. The Republicans already have 20 and there’s no sign they’re done.</p>
<p>Also, Democratic turnout where elections are contested are just killing the Republicans.</p>
<p>ZM, btw, if things are still a train wreck in terms of the GOP nomination after Super Tuesday, the odds that Newt Gingrich gets the nomination via a brokered convention drop under 200-1, maybe under 100-1.</p>
That’s one way to look at it. The other is that the Dem candidates are so loved by their base because they ARE the base which is quite far left. The reason that many of the R candidates are suspect by their base is because they have some beliefs that are more centrist in nature (this is particularly true for McCain and Rudy and a lesser extent Huckabee). So, which nominee has a better chance in the general election - the one who has veered hard left, or the one who has some appeal to the center?</p>
<p>I disagree. I would say the only politician in the Republican primaries who could legitimately be called a moderate would be Giuliani (and Ron Paul in a sense, but with respect to Paul the whole left-right-center system doesn’t work so well, which is one of the reasons I think our political discourse should really adopt a system like the one the political compass at [The</a> Political Compass](<a href=“http://politicalcompass.org/]The”>http://politicalcompass.org/) uses). The others simply represent to varying extents the various constituencies in the modern Republican base.</p>
<p>If you want to claim that the Democrats have veered far left, that is all well and good, but with respect to what? To a stereotypical neocon social conservative, maybe, but with respect to the average American voter? Can you back that statement up?</p>
<p>I actually think that only Giuliani and Hillary have any centrist appeal (once you get past all of the I-hate-Hillary reactions), regardless of party.</p>
<p>Universal Healthcare. Ending the war in Iraq. Civil unions. The protection of woman’s reproductive health. These issues all have majority support in the USA. These views are only far-left at a meeting of the Heritage Foundation. The reason the R candidates are suspect by their base is that their base is far-right and the candidates are still way right of center. Huckabee is a moderate. ARE YOU MAD? Maybe on the Rush Limbaugh show he is, but not in America.</p>
<p>“If he’s an NE liberal, the Democratic nominee will satisfy those who would happy with an NE liberal. Whereas no matter who gets the Republican nomination, large numbers of Republicans will be disgusted. For some, Bloomberg might be an alternative.”</p>
<p>I respectfully disagree, but time will tell, right?</p>
<p>“So, now, let’s pop the cork on a good bottle of champagne and drink a virtual toast to “That Woman,” eh?”
Chocolate martini. Several, actually. Heck, I’m a good loser and I’ve certainly had time to get used to the idea.</p>