Cohesion At A Real Cost
Rasmussen Reports has a poll result up about the electablity of a possible third party candidate if one is backed by Christian conservative leaders. Bottom line: no chance at all and hand the win to the Democrat. It is 1992 all over again.
If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%. In head-to-head match-ups with Clinton, Giuliani is much more competitive.
One of the reasons I cite Rasmussen fairly regularly is that they do provide some thoughtful perspective on their results rather than pure spin the way a lot of news organizations do.
The latest poll highlights the potential challenges for Giuliani, but the numbers must be considered in context. A generic third-party candidate may attract 14% of the vote in the abstract at this time. However, if a specific candidate is chosen, that person would likely attract less support due to a variety of factors. Almost all third party candidates poll higher earlier in a campaign and their numbers diminish as election day approaches. Ultimately, of course, some Republicans would have to face the question of whether to vote for Giuliani or help elect a Democrat.
What this means is that a doomed third party run would hand the election to the Democratic nominee. Which is what James Dobson appears to be quite happy to do:
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged…..
…..If the major political parties decide to abandon conservative principles, the cohesion of pro-family advocates will be all too apparent in 2008.
I pointed out that I thought this was a bad idea here.
That is the looming disaster: losing the courts. We already see the Democrats blocking judicial nominees. You know they are balking so that they can pack the courts if they win the White House. And activist, leftist courts are already a problem. Conservatives watched all of this play out before. They watched as the courts leaned farther and farther to the left. They watched as third party candidates split the votes at a crucial time.
Dobson appears to be willing to lose the courts and cheerfully lead the march over the cliff. Because no matter how you slice this one, it is political suicide. One that many people are going to regret on their way to the bottom.
By Old Time Repubican, Thursday, 4 October , 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Wake up and smell the coffee. This is one of about a dozen reasons the GOP is headed for a fall that will take decades to rectify. They sold their souls to a fickle base to get elected called it a majority and then wonder why it all falls apart.
By syn, Thursday, 4 October , 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Christian Right/Christian Left are screwing each other.
That said, Republicans may be the party of stupid however perhaps re-visitng the four years of Carteresque Socialist policies with bring such economic misery, Americans will once again be reminded why Democrats are the party of evil.
I’m thinking of staying out of the election just to screw the Centrist ‘independent’ voter who likes low taxes but want all the entitlement goodies the government has to offer; at least Democrats are honest about higher taxes/ greater entitlment spendin.
By feeblemind, Thursday, 4 October , 2007 @ 5:08 pm
My thinking is that the people who will vote for a prolife third party candidate are the people who will not vote for Rudy G in any event due to his stance on abortion. By nominating Rudy, the repubs are making the calculation that they will pick up more politically ignorant voters, than they will lose from the prolife community. If that is a losing proposition they need to nominate a different candidate.
By Mwalimu Daudi, Thursday, 4 October , 2007 @ 7:18 pm
To be honest - I have been hearing about a “Christian” third party for decades, and have yet to see any indications that one will come about. Perot ran as an independent in 1992, and much of his appeal was to so-called moderates in the GOP. Same for John Anderson in 1980. I wonder how many of these “moderates” would have simply stayed home in those election years if their respective candidates were not on the ballot.
It’s not enough to simply put a well-known conservative Christian like Dobson on a few campaign TV ads and think that that will siphon of a large number of Republican votes. At best I suspect that such an effort would attract a handful of voters who would not otherwise vote.
While I don’t discount the possibility that a Christian third party could capture enough votes to tip a presidential election towards the Democrat party, it does not worry me half as much as the possibility that Democrats will be able to do in 2008 what they failed to do in 2000 and 2004 – namely, use a variety of tactics like voting fraud, bogus “recounts†and good old-fashioned threats of violence - to steal the elections.
If that happens, Hilly the Hun’s judicial appointments will probably be the least of our worries. The Democrat party is on the brink of becoming a purely fascist entity – authoritarian, dishonest, corrupt, and with a dose of anti-Semitic gasbags like Carter thrown in for good measure. Get ready for a crackdown on civil liberties in the guises of “campaign finance reformâ€, “hate-crime†laws, the “Fairness Doctrineâ€, kangaroo courts and political witch hunts. And don’t think that we can vote them out in 2010 – given their totalitarian impulses, what guarantees do we have that the Hun would even hold sham elections?
If you have ever wondered what it is like to live in a country like Zimbabwe, I think that we are just about to find out.
By terrence, Thursday, 4 October , 2007 @ 9:14 pm
I think you are right, Mwalimu Daudi.
The Dems do a lot of projection (complain about what they do); and they are ruthless like all good do-gooders. They are showing a real Stalinist streak right now, and the MSM is in lock-step with them.
By syn, Thursday, 4 October , 2007 @ 9:44 pm
I wonder if the Christian Left will join this ‘Christian Party’ or is the Christian Right just a little too Christian for the Christian Left?
Actually, what is the Christian doctrine these days and if there were a Christian Party what would be their political platforms?
Would they be the Christians like George W Bush who believes Israel has a right to exist or would they the Christians like Jimmy Carter who believes Israel is an oppressive state, the Zionists are evil and should be wiped off the face of the planet?
Which Christian doctrine would this Christian Party support?
By Gaius, Thursday, 4 October , 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Syn,
I would not get hung up on the labels. This is sort of like falling for Andrew Sullivan’s “Christianist” foolishness (that he seems to have finally stopped.) Leave the titles aside and think about whether you want a single issue to control everything else.
A perfect compromise is one where everyone is equally unhappy - but able to live with it. The alternative, where one party to a dispute is in abject misery and the other is triumphantly ecstatic is where tyrannies originate.
Think Burma.
By Mwalimu Daudi, Thursday, 4 October , 2007 @ 10:40 pm
The MSM tends to see “right-wing fundamentalists” under every bed. So in the event that a (presumably) conservative Christian party were to be formed, the reaction of the MSM would be interesting - in a morbid sort of way.
Would the MSM take the usual line that involvement of conservative Christians in the political process represents a prelude to a theocracy run by “Bible thumpers”? Or would they see advantages for their Democrat pets in a strong conservative Christian party and fawn over the candidate in hopes of draining voters away from the GOP? I am skeptical of a Christian party’s chances under the former scenario, but the latter could be a problem.
If I had to guess, I suspect that the tried-and-true “conservative Christian = theocrat” equation will carry the day in the MSM’s editorial offices. Old habits die hard.
By Jamelle, Friday, 5 October , 2007 @ 12:13 am
So there’s a nice range of adjectives used to describe the Democratic Party: fascist, anti-Semitic, ruthless, evil.
I’m curious, why do you feel it necessary to label your fellow citizens as if they are a danger to the various existence of the nation?
I consider myself a liberal and I vote Democratic, but I do so because I think that on the whole, the Democratic party will benefit the country the most. That doesn’t mean though that I think conservatives and Republicans (on the whole) are out to destroy the country, or are evil, or are fascists.
Now, there are particular Republicans and particular conservatives that I would consider dangerously authoritarian, but of course, data isn’t the plural of anecdote.
So again, my question. Why describe your fellow citizens as (almost) subhuman? If we are both trying to help the country, why not engage in a constructive dialogue?
By Mwalimu Daudi, Friday, 5 October , 2007 @ 6:09 am
Why describe your fellow citizens as (almost) subhuman? If we are both trying to help the country, why not engage in a constructive dialogue?
What do you mean “constructuve”? Does it mean ignoring Democrat attempts to crack down on civil liberties in the name of “campaign finance reformâ€, “hate-crime†laws, and the “Fairness Doctrineâ€? How about Democrat attempts to steal the 2000 and 2004 elections? I’ll tell you the result that will bring: Burma.
Democrats like yourself tossed down the marker long ago - its your way or the highway. Perhaps we call Democrats fascists because they act like fascists. What a novel concept - calling something what it is! No wonder “Jamelle” hates it.