Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Declaring Independence
#1
There are a goodly number of members here, who are more than fed up with the existing two party system. And I am in the forefront of this attitude. I have never felt more "left out" and "let down" in my entire politically educated life. I am at the point of "Turning Off" and "Tuning Out".

Well, here is a new book out that appears to speak my thoughts. it's entitled Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System. And here is a book review, by a fellow Classical Liberal, from the Radical Academy, a Philosophical think tank, dealing with classical philosophy, politics, and the Human Condition. It's a great site if you are looking for logical thinking. It's worth chewing on intellectually, because the two party system is breaking down, and in need of realignment. Perhaps this will happen soon.


[Image: 51jAF2dVI%2BL._SL500_AA240_.jpg]

Quote:BOOK REVIEW

Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System


by Douglas E. Schoen



Reviewed by Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty

Douglas Schoen argues, in his book "Declaring Independence," that the two-party system in American politics is breaking down and I couldn't agree with him more. He suggests that the time is ripe for a third political party which has real clout and a real chance to win the White House. Again, I completely agree. Furthermore, Schoen cites statistics that show more and more American voters are leaving the Democrat and Republican parties and declaring themselves to be "Independents." I have seen that happening myself among my own friends and acquaintances.

Call it Synchronicity or just plain coincidence, but it was only seven or eight months ago that I was discussing the field of candidates for the presidential race in 2008 with some of my fellow political junkies and I made the (at the time) bold remark that "if there was ever a time for a third-party candidate to make a successful run for the White House, 2008 could be that year because of the polarization of political thought in this country by the politicians themselves and the widespread dissatisfaction with the performance of both major political parties." I did not know that others were thinking along the same lines. I'm pleased to see that my proposition has been somewhat validated by a political professional such as Douglas Schoen. I don't feel like a such a "kook" now.

I left the Republican party myself many years ago and refused to join any other party simply because of what I perceived to be a failure of a principled response to the major issues I saw impacting our society. I could not determine a real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans when it came to actually "doing" something as opposed to simply "talking" about it. From that time on, I guess I looked on myself as an "Independent," but without an independent party to join. As close as I came during one election cycle was to think about signing up with the Libertarian party because I was impressed with its candidates at the time. Schoen informs us that independent voters now constitute the largest group of the electorate, so I don't feel so alone now. I'm finally the member of some majority for once!

This book provides the reader with an excellent general background of the third-party movements which have occurred in our history and why most of them failed. He also provides an excellent overview of the problems which any third party is going to face, including the very serious problem of getting on the ballot in the first place (and the shameful practices of both major parties in trying to prevent ballot access to other parties). The author also provides the reader with extremely helpful charts and graphs to illustrate the statistics relevant to his topic.

I think one of the most valuable chapters in the book deals with the role of the Internet in national elections and the possibilities it presents for third-party enhancement. The growth of so-called "social networking" on the Web, as well as the development of "interactive" websites and specialized websites, search engine optimization, instant video, text messaging, and, especially, the proliferation of "blogging" will undoubtedly play significant roles in making it possible for formerly unknown candidates and third parties to take their case to a large public. And to do so on the cheap, so to speak. As Schoen points out: "All these items add up to one incontrovertible conclusion. We'll have access to campaign news all the time. You'll know more than you ever did before about any potential candidate, and you'll know it sooner and in greater detail."

Deliberate or not, the timing for the publishing of "Declaring Independence" couldn't have been better. I see more enthusiasm among young people for politics and the upcoming election than I've seen in years. And I've been around more elections than I suspect Mr. Schoen has. (I can recall vividly the Truman-Dewey race from the newsreels we kids saw at the Saturday matinees.) With the sort of interest that now seems to have been generated among the young voters in our country, I would urge these young voters to read Schoen's book and consider the possibility of going from a rather dull and dingy two-party system to supporting the idea of a three- or even four-party system that could provide a broader range of candidates and solutions to the issues before us.

The author is to be congratulated for bringing this important subject to the public at this time. His book is timely, informative, provocative, and insightful. Can't ask for much more than that. Highly recommended.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#2
It's happened before,but eventually 2 parties emerged again.

I would be happy with a strong military view,non interventionist foreign affairs totally,free enterprise,low tax/regulatory/interventionist regime,neutrality on "moral" questions,leave them up to local states,etc. Want gay marriage? Live in Vermont or Oregon,leave me alone with that,I leave you alone with it there.

I'd say I represent about 1% of the population. How about you John,what is your line? I don't see us being able to form a party honestly.

I'm more prepared to form a new nation,I really don't want to associate with those who believe in collective thought at all. I don't think another party rescues me,I want a nation w/o the leftists that make up 50% of this nation. I'd peacefull and gladly accept 1/2 of this nation,east or west and split it in 2 between left and everyone else. I'd even let the communist side have the old name,I'll figure out something new.
Reply
#3
Political parties should be banned from running or supporting candidates. George Washington was right about political parties.
George Washington Wrote:It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
At least, the Presidency should be a non-partisan office. He/she does not represent a Republican/Democrat enclave but the entire nation.
Different eyes see different things. Different hearts beat on different strings.
But there are times for you and me when all such things agree.
-Geddy Lee, Rush.
Reply
#4
Ole George had tons of wisdom. He also advised us to mind our own business in foreign affairs(he likely already felt the diplomatic push of France for help against the Brits over there), today that is seen as lunacy,but that idea seems to pay off for Switzerland,Argentina,Chile,etc.

I find it intelligent,but since I can't understand the desire to control the world but not pay for the consequences of it as 99% of Americans think like,maybe it's just that I'm too ignorant to figure out what all the rest of us know. Silly me.
Reply
#5
Palladin Wrote:It's happened before,but eventually 2 parties emerged again.

I would be happy with a strong military view,non interventionist foreign affairs totally,free enterprise,low tax/regulatory/interventionist regime,neutrality on "moral" questions,leave them up to local states,etc. Want gay marriage? Live in Vermont or Oregon,leave me alone with that,I leave you alone with it there.

I'd say I represent about 1% of the population. How about you John,what is your line? I don't see us being able to form a party honestly.

I'm more prepared to form a new nation,I really don't want to associate with those who believe in collective thought at all. I don't think another party rescues me,I want a nation w/o the leftists that make up 50% of this nation. I'd peacefull and gladly accept 1/2 of this nation,east or west and split it in 2 between left and everyone else. I'd even let the communist side have the old name,I'll figure out something new.

I agree with you Patrick. And I would like to think that there are far more than you think, as we do. Incidentially, the Classical Liberal movement is really growing. Ten, twelve, years ago, it was almost completely unheard of. Not anymore. Thank Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher for most of that. They got their inspiration from Frederick von Hayek, an Austrian CL.

Quote:What Do I Believe, Where Do I Stand

In the updated foreword (1976) to a new issue of The Road to Serfdom, Hayek writes:

Quote:'I use throughout the term "liberal" in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means very nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.'

I am grateful to Hayek for rescuing my political identity from that awful confusion that would otherwise have raged on in my own mind: if I am a conservative, how come I feel uneasy with being identified as one? That uneasiness is again explained by Hayek in that same foreword:

Quote:'Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place.

A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.'

The famous British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, has been similarly inspired by Friedrich A. Hayek, and considers herself to be a leader who followed in the footsteps of Gladstone. In her own words:

Quote:'The kind of Conservatism which he and I ... favoured would be best described as 'liberal', in the old-fashioned sense. And I mean the liberalism of Mr. Gladstone, not of the latter-day collectivists. That is to say, we placed far greater confidence in individuals, families, business and neighbourhoods than in the state.' (Margaret Thatcher, Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture, 11 Jan., 1996.)

'Our inspiration was ... books like ... Hayek's powerful Road to Serfdom, dedicated to "the socialists of all parties". Such books not only provided crisp, clear analytical arguments against socialism, demonstrating how its economic theories were connected to the then depressing shortages of our daily lives; but by their wonderful mockery of socialist follies, they also gave us the feeling that the other side simply could not win in the end. That is a vital feeling in politics; it eradicates past defeats and builds future victories. It left a permanent mark on my own political character, making me a long-term optimist for free enterprise and liberty ...' (Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years, New York: Harper Collins, 1993, pp. 12-13.)

How strongly Margaret Thatcher holds to the liberal views of Hayek is described by J. Ranelagh:

Quote:'... the new Party Leader [Margaret Thatcher] reached into her briefcase and took out a book. It was Friedrich von Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Interrupting [the speaker], she held the book up for all of us to see. 'This', she said sternly, 'is what we believe', and banged Hayek down on the table." (John Ranelagh, Thatcher's People: An Insider's Account of the Politics, the Power, and the Personalities. London: Harper Collins, 1991.)

I can tell you with authority that day by day, there are more people coming to associate themselves with this proud heritage, and I am more than happy to have done my fair share of pointing many of you in the direction of True Liberal Ideals.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#6
Armadillo Wrote:Political parties should be banned from running or supporting candidates. George Washington was right about political parties.
George Washington Wrote:It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
At least, the Presidency should be a non-partisan office. He/she does not represent a Republican/Democrat enclave but the entire nation.

It's a noble ideal, but won't work. The country started out by running the election process, where the winner became president and the loser took the vice-presidency position. That didn't work either.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#7
John,

That didn't precipitate parties,it just precipitated the deal that the top candidate CHOSE his veep instead of default voters doing it. I'll tell you what could happen this year,though it isn't what you wish for,it's a start.

McCain MIGHT choose Lieberman as his veep.

I admire Lieberman myself even though he's a little left of me,not that much. McCain of course is eclectic,not a repub,not a democrat really by party standards.

If McCain did,in a way,this would be a dagger into the heart of party solidarity,which is already waning from the early part of the 20th century anyway.
Reply
#8
McCain cannot afford to pick Leiberman. He HAS to pick someone who will be more than acceptable with the Right base of the party. If he screws this up, I don't give him a real chance.

The S&Gs really need someone like Bobby Jindal, who is young and a Reagan Republican.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#9
Bobby just hasn't been in office long enough though I live the guy,too.
Reply
#10
Here is an article by the author, about the emerging crisis in American Politics.

Quote:February 6, 2008
The Emerging Crisis in American Politics


by Douglas Schoen



There is a crisis occurring in American politics.

The American people's confidence in our government is gone. Only 25% of Americans are satisfied with the state of their country. We are growing alienated from the Democratic and Republican parties, which are dominated by ideologues who offer simplistic solutions. Their members care only about election and reelection, and how to frame issues to benefit their status within their party. At the same time, voters are craving real solutions to the real problems we face -- affordable health care, the war on terror, energy independence, the environment, jobs and national security. This gap between the voters' needs and what the two parties actually provide only grows with the uncertainty that surrounds the 2008 presidential race, as the economy heads towards recession.

The electorate thinks America has gone in the wrong direction. Both President Bush and Congress are at close to record-low levels of popular approval. Large portions of the American people do not think the political system can be fixed. The two major parties are unpopular and the electorate is polarized, as they have come to believe that neither side is willing or able to address important issues. The voters want change.

The electorate does not want simply a change in leadership; for the Democrats to take over the White House or the Republicans to take control of Congress. Rather, they want something new and different; they want an independent candidate to run for president. A Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation/Harvard University survey in the summer of 2007 found that 58 percent of voters said they would seriously consider voting for an independent in 2008. Furthermore, in recent polls, 60 to 80 percent of registered voters say they want an independent presidential candidate in the upcoming election. The 2008 presidential election offers an unprecedented opportunity for the right third-party ticket.

Independent voters now constitute the largest segment of the American electorate. According to the American National Election Studies at the University of Michigan and Stanford University, independents made up 38 percent of the electorate in 2004. In swing states like Florida, the number of unaffiliated voters has more than tripled since 1994, while in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, the number has increased threefold. In New Jersey, unaffiliated voters now make up 58.7 percent of the electorate. The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are ignoring the widespread desire for fundamental change, paving the way for a third-party candidate to lead the charge for transformation.

Much overlooked polling underscores the appeal of a third party candidacy. A USA/Gallup poll conducted last summer reported that only a third of the electorate felt that the major parties adequately represented the American people. The percentage who believed that a third party was needed because the major parties so poorly represent the people has increased from 40 percent in late 2003, to 48 percent in the fall of 2006, to 58 percent in July 2007.

The numbers don't lie: We are a nation of political moderates who want intelligent, workable solutions to the serious problems we face. The current cynical and dysfunctional political system divides us into red and blue Americas, making government less effective, responsive and efficient. Today 61 percent of Americans say they are not living the American Dream, and 75 percent say this dream is no longer realistic. 9 in 10 Americans agree that it is harder than ever before to achieve the American Dream.

Historically analysts have minimized the appeal of third-party candidates, and they are making the same mistake again. The last three independent movements -- George Wallace in 1968, John Anderson in 1980, Ross Perot in 1992 -- have garnered more support than anyone realized. Further, evidence shows that if voters thought the third-party candidate could actually win, his support would increase dramatically. Ross Perot actually led the 1992 race for several months before the election, and dissatisfaction with the government is has high, if not higher, now than it was in 1992.

To gain an idea of which states a third-party candidate could do well in, one can look at the results from when Ross Perot ran in 1992. Perot did best (measured by places where he received at least 20 percent of the vote -- remember only 34 percent is needed in a state to win in a three-way race) in the Northeast in states like New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Maine. In Maine he did his very best, winning 30 percent of the vote. Perot also had strong support from the Far West in California, Washington, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. He did well in the Plains states, including Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota and South Dakota, along with the Upper Midwest in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The challenge for Perot, and the challenge a third-party candidate would face today, comes in the South, the Midwest, the border states of the old Confederacy, and the lower Northeast.

So what are the prospects of a third-party run? While I cannot say with certainty how any third-party candidate would fare in the upcoming election, recent polls have shown a moderate degree of initial support for independent runs. Ron Paul could receive 8 to 10 percent of voters, taking away conservative independents from John McCain. Ralph Nader could collect 5 to 7 percent from voters on the far left. And my detailed analysis of polls have indicated that Michael Bloomberg could receive close to 30 percent of the vote in a three or four-way race, with this number increasing if voters believe he has a real chance to win.

Of course, serious challenges stand in the way of a third-party candidacy. Candidates need an enormous amount of money to be competitive, viable and afford media buys. Third-party candidates often struggle to obtain as much media attention as the major party candidates, and even worse, they face an incredibly difficult battle to get on each state's ballot. However, these obstacles have become less insurmountable largely due to advances in technology, specifically the Internet, and the 24-hour news cycle.

Even if the third-party candidate did not win the presidency, he or she could have a significant and far-reaching impact. If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, a third-party candidate could play the role of the kingmaker, using his electoral votes to bargain with one of the major parties and form a coalition government. This government would govern in a bipartisan manner, promising a genuine division of responsibilities between the parties. At the very least, a third-party candidate can have a fundamental influence on policy debates, shaping the political agenda and encouraging consensus between the two major parties.

Regardless of whether there is a third-party candidate, we are in a time when politics have changed and where people are looking for different alternatives. The American electorate has reached a threshold -- they are tired of the fighting among our political leaders and desperate to find someone who is not locked into the weary partisan debates. Whether he or she prevails and wins the election, builds a coalition government or simply influences the race by causing the candidates to adopt bipartisan, consensus-building solutions, the influence an independent candidate would have will be greater than ever before.

Douglas Schoen is the author of Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System (Random House, 2008). During the 1990s, he was a strategic advisor to President Bill Clinton. More recently, he has advised New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his 2001 and 2005 successful campaigns for Mayor. More information about Mr. Schoen can be found at http://www.douglasschoen.blogspot.com.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#11
John,

I think the guy is dreaming. A third choice that is sort of libertarian,yet strong on defense is not going to be that popular. Look,we've gotten into our statist mess because our grandparents started buying what the left was selling. Not so fast as Europe,but they did buy.

Progressive income tax was VOTED into authorization by our grandparents,social security was,medicare and medicaid by our parents,these things weren't forced down their throats,neither was TVA and you would lose any election since 1932 if you state I am going to outlaw SS for example,Goldwater got blasted in Teneessee in the 64 elections over anti TVA comments.

Are we sick of it? maybe,but we WANT what we got coming now that our lives are spent having our money stolen to pay into SS and medicare,right?

It's an intractable problem,there is no fix because there are too many leftists in America ever to privatize SS for example. They'd rather die than change that program.
Reply
#12
A third party will only split the right-wing vote, like Ross Perot did. You want that? The Dems wont leave the Democratic Party Plantation for another left party. So what you get with a third party is leftist wins forever and the end of America as we know it.
No thanks.

The solution is no political parties. The President and VP could still run as a team, but they would run on what they believe not what a committee believes.
Of course, our party-politicians arnt going to change anything. A Constitutional Convention would change that.
Yes, I know that's not going to happen either. So, the current system is better than a 3-party system that ensures leftest victory.
Different eyes see different things. Different hearts beat on different strings.
But there are times for you and me when all such things agree.
-Geddy Lee, Rush.
Reply
#13
I agree with Armadillo. Bush senior was a moderate, and Perot gave the election to Clinton.

Those who relish Classical Liberal ideas are mostly on the right, and are not democrats. The left has plenty of ideological zeal and these folks are never going to vote for anything approaching a classical liberal.

Spokesmen for the "rational classical liberal" point of view do not come along very often, quite obviously. They are vehemently attacked when they do, and have to find some way to rise above the attack and communicate with the populace. How can that be changed?
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#14
Armadillo Wrote:A third party will only split the right-wing vote, like Ross Perot did. You want that? The Dems wont leave the Democratic Party Plantation for another left party. So what you get with a third party is leftist wins forever and the end of America as we know it.
No thanks.

That assertion, about Perot ruining the S&G chances is false. It has been an urban myth, just as the Clinton tax hike was the biggest in history. At best it was a modest hike, AND the percentage of voters for Perot came from both sides of the isle on pretty much an equal amount. The myth that Perot was the reason for Bush Senior losing is just that: a myth. Bush lost because of Bush, and taxes.

Quote:The solution is no political parties. The President and VP could still run as a team, but they would run on what they believe not what a committee believes.
Of course, our party-politicians arnt going to change anything. A Constitutional Convention would change that.
Yes, I know that's not going to happen either. So, the current system is better than a 3-party system that ensures leftest victory.

You are correct, it's not going to happen. A two party system is a natural thing as humans tend to complain and argue with each other. Washington's dream of no political parties was not possible.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#15
jt Wrote:Spokesmen for the "rational classical liberal" point of view do not come along very often, quite obviously. They are vehemently attacked when they do, and have to find some way to rise above the attack and communicate with the populace. How can that be changed?

By finding more people, such as Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher. People who love Liberty, have the ability to articulate their ideals, and have faith in the people who make this country great. Almost all of them come from anywhere BUT Washington.

They are out there, and my favorite is Bobby Jingle, governor of Lousianna.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#16
Bobby Jindal looks like such a person. Let's hope his philosophy bears fruit in Louisiana. But your suggestion proves my point: such people are rare.

There should be a way to open the political process to those other than party hacks. That, to me, is the tragedy of US politics. We are smothered with party hacks who want to, and can, remain in power as long as they like (with few exceptions). They also control the "development" of new leadership in their respective parties. You must get in the party, and kiss butt to whomever is higher up to progress. Evidence: I have seen Ohio Republicans screw over good politicians just to enforce the "rule of the party regualars". (Lived there for 29 years.) Obama is an exception, and that may be why he is so popular, especially with the young.

Unfortunately, the party hacks are only going to give up power when we pry it from their cold dead hands, with only a few notable exceptions. My challenge to all of you is: propose a way to get around this all to human urge of the professional politicians.
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#17
John L Wrote:That assertion, about Perot ruining the S&G chances is false. It has been an urban myth ...

What fact set do you base that on? Perot got about 19% of the popular vote. Are you saying that if Perot had not been in the race that Slick Willie would have won by over 60%??!! Shock Pardon, but that strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Perot got votes from both parties ... but he ran mostly as a fiscal conservative ... so you're telling me that most of his supporters were jackasses?? Sorry, but I'm not buying.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#18
mr_yak Wrote:
John L Wrote:That assertion, about Perot ruining the S&G chances is false. It has been an urban myth ...

What fact set do you base that on? Perot got about 19% of the popular vote. Are you saying that if Perot had not been in the race that Slick Willie would have won by over 60%??!! Shock Pardon, but that strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Perot got votes from both parties ... but he ran mostly as a fiscal conservative ... so you're telling me that most of his supporters were jackasses?? Sorry, but I'm not buying.

Macht nichts. It is still fact. I remember a report, about two years after the election, just before the S&Gs took over congress, and the percentage of S&Gs voting for Perot, over Jackasses was so slight that it would not have made any difference, assuming that party members voted for party candidates.

I have looked for the study, but can't find it. It could have been by the Pew Foundation.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply
#19
Well, I don't know how accurate Wikipedia is, but the article on "Ross Perot" states:

Quote:A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates.

Following that statement, in the same paragraph is the following:

Quote:Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home in his absence on the ballot[9].

So, he either drew the same percent from both, or 7% more from conservatives.

Dunno.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
#20
It's just another one of those Urban Legends, from the right wing, just like that "Greatest tax increase in history" when talking about Bubba's 1993 hike. Remember that one? Hannity is still using that tired old lie. He's said it so many times he probably earnestly believes it.

My ex is a CPA, and she studied the bill. She is a staunch right wing person, and her conclusion was that it was far more rhetoric than action. The ones who really got screwed were the Social Security people, who had the taxes on their checks increased.

When my side of the isle comes up with Whoppers, as the Left does all the time, I will shoot them down as well. In fact, what my side does makes me even madder than the Kooks, because I EXPECT that from them, and not my side.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" - David Horowitz

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)