Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Disenchantment with major parties plagues presidential runs
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, June 02, 2007

Rasumussen is reporting that there are now more self-identified independents than ever before:
For the fourth straight month, the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has decreased. For the third straight month, the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has also decreased (see history).

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 15,000 adults in May found that just 30.8% now say they’re Republicans. That’s down slightly from last month and down more than six percentage points from the GOP peak of 37.3% during Election 2004. The number of Republicans has been falling fairly steadily since the middle of 2005.

However, the survey also found that the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats has fallen to its lowest level in seventeen months (since January 2006). Democrats gained about two percentage points of support during 2006 and peaked at 38.0% in December of last year. Since actually taking control of Congress, Democrats have given back most of those gains. Today, 36.3% say they belong to Nancy Pelosi’s party.

As a result, the number not affiliated with either major party has jumped to another all-time high—32.9%. That’s up nearly nine percentage points since Election 2004 and means that there are now more politically unaffiliated adults than Republicans.
Of course the obvious points are that Americans are less and less enamored of the major political parties and that makes a third party run even more plausible (such, as the article points out, a Bloomberg self-financed independent run).

Rasumussen feels, given this breakdown, that such a run, if successful, could have the effect of deadlocking both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives.

I think that's a pretty far-fetched scenario frankly, especially if we're talking Bloomberg. But it does point to the fact that events and dissatisfaction are building for the possibility of a third party candidate run which could serious hurt the chances of victory for either party depending on who the candidate is. Bloomberg, for instance, would probably hurt the Republican candidate more than the Democratic candidate. Nader (who has essentially said he'd run only if Hillary runs) would probably hurt Democrats more than Republicans.

But the bottom line is almost 40% of the electorate is disavowing a connection with the major parties. That reminds me a bit of how the first Clinton managed to get elected. And if there should be a Bloomberg run coupled with a Nadar run, it is possible, given which independent candidate would draw the most disaffected independent votes away from which major party candidate, that history could repeat itself and another Clinton could reach the White House with less than a plurality.

Just an interesting point to ponder.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"For the fourth straight month, the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans has decreased."

This meshes nicely with the previous thread about the RNC firing phone solicitors.

"that events and dissatisfaction are building for the possibility of a third party candidate run"

Let’s hope it’s not a Perot.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Bloomberg, for instance, would probably hurt the Republican candidate more than the Democratic candidate
Wanna bet? Nanny Bloomberg wouldn’t attract many republicans/right leaners, especially in light of his rabid anti-gun activities. His nannyism sure would appeal to left-leaners though
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Nah. Just make room in the tent for the independents. The NYT signals a possible rather dramatic change in the Liberal Narrative:
” Liberalism...What It Now Means”
So, which direction are the liberal sheeple going to be herded in 2008? Well, it looks like family values and a proactive government:
”...liberal intellectuals and writers are doing some soul-searching ... Not only are they trying to figure out what “the L word” now means, but also whether it could become a guiding philosophy in the 2008 presidential campaign by embracing the very ideas that are often seen as its greatest weaknesses: family values and a proactive government.”
And how can they justify such heresy? Why it is only practical politics needed to attract the independents:
”... adopt the tactics of the Republican strategist Karl Rove and challenge their opponents’ greatest strengths on their own ground.”
But how to start backing down on the heretofore sacrosanct pillar of rectitude concerning the war in Iraq?
”...liberal doves [should] acknowledge that their dislike of the Bush administration colored their judgment of the war and affirm that “we are not realists,” in the sense that tough-minded realpolitik should not necessarily override moral and humanitarian concerns.”
Thus we observe the liberal tail [the need to get elected] wagging the liberal dog [what “we believe”]. Will the sheeple buy into this drastic change? Of course. The only issue is whether or not this is a trial balloon or is vetted and ready to be taken up by the rest of the opinion guiders to become the official LN. Look for confirmation in the WaPo.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Rasumussen is reporting that there are now more self-identified independents than ever before:
I’m leaning in this direction.
Nah. Just make room in the tent for the independents. The NYT signals a possible rather dramatic change in the Liberal Narrative:
This "Liberal Narrative" thing is hilarious. I wish you could read your conspiratorial bilge from an objective point of view and enjoy the humor. I wish liberals were clever enough to pull off having their own "narrative", then they might be clever enough to be competent.

What you are doing is taking the facts on the ground, and fitting them into your tinfoil hatted theories.

But keep it up, it saves me the trouble of clicking on the link to Australia’s Evil Koala Army for a laugh.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Note to Democrats:

It’s economics, stupid.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider