39 Comments

1. Gahrie:

Tell that to Ross Perot. All third party candidates do is cripple one of the major party candidates, and/or fade into obscurity.

Jan 29, 2006 - 12:39 pm 2. Jack Okie:

Roger, imagine if we had a press / media that did its job. The only reason the country is anywhere near 50 / 50 is the relentless propaganda of the old media. If the only agenda of the press were to report as accurately as possible, we would be much better informed and less likely to elect the charlatans of both parties. I hope to see it in my lifetime, through the efforts of Pamajas Media and others.

Jan 29, 2006 - 12:44 pm 3. Roger:

Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are disqualified from argument here. I was talking a serious candidate like Giuliani.

Jan 29, 2006 - 1:00 pm 4. David Thomson:

ìTell that to Ross Perot. All third party candidates do is cripple one of the major party candidates, and/or fade into obscurity.î

Third parties are a complete waste of time. Whether one thinks it fair or not, our political system favors the Democrats and the Republicans on election day. It far more sensible to join one of these two major political organizations and try to covert it over to your way of looking at things. My prediction is that perhaps by 2012 the Republican Part could split into two major factions—and the Democrats will simply disappear.

I guess Iím something of a prophet (I may have to start growing a beard and wear a long robe). Many people now realize what Iíve been saying for a long time: the Daily Kos represents the mainstream of the Democratic Party which possesses the veto power over that partyís presidential nominee selection.

Jan 29, 2006 - 1:17 pm 5. flenser:

In our system, as it is currently constructed, the majority more often than not gets screwed.

The assumption here seems to be that the majority of people have views which are not represented by either of the two major parties. But I know of no studies which indicate that this is true.

People who talk of a large “moderate center” flanked by “extremes” seem to envisage the electorate as forming a bell curve, with the bulk of people in the middle.

I think it is more accurate to see it as a scatter graph, with dense clusters of points located in the bottom left and top right hand corners, with a small scattering of points in other positions.

Jan 29, 2006 - 1:55 pm 6. Curmudgeon:

Giuliani can’t be a serious candidate; his last name ends in an “i”.
Seriously, I would vote for him if he were the Republican candidate, even though I disagree with some of his positions (as inferred from things he did as mayor). I would almost certainly not vote for him as a third party candidate. The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that the two parties represent the extremes and that there is some reasonable position in the middle that we all can agree on. From my own perspective, this is seldom true. When I examine what the press refers to as a “moderate” republican, I usually find that means a Republican who favors tax increases and affirmative action, maybe “reasonable” gun control. “Centrist” Democrat means somewhat prolife and maybe willing to pose with a gun in his hands (It used to mean semi-serious about defense, but they are being defenestrated from Democratic headquarters rapidly).
In fact, there are many polarized issues in American politics, and most of us are as extreme as we can get away with on any given position. If I formed a third party that agreed with me on most positions, it would represent maybe 10% of the voters, and that’s probably true of most people who think seriously about government.
Third party candidacies in this country seldom coalesce around a well defined set of positions. They tend to involve a (frequently demagogic) populist with at least temporary charisma. In fact, I woul argue that Ross Perot got as far as he did because George Bush was too “centrist” or “moderate”.

Jan 29, 2006 - 2:17 pm 7. Greifer:

The center can’t ever exist as a political power, except in times of great largesse where no threats are seen on any foreign or domestic horizon.

The “center” is basically defined as “somewhat liberal” on social issues and “somewhat conservative” on fiscal ones.

But that *can’t* work–those goals are in fundamental opposition to each other (at least at any time where people recognize there is only a finite amount of money to spend.) Being socially liberal creates social issues/needs/ills. Such issues then reflexively cause people to want to use money to solve the problem. But the fiscal conservatives don’t want to use money to solve all of those problems, and at best, want them prioritized. No one will ever agree on the priorities, and the conservatives see this and say “so shrink the whole pie”–a solution that doesn’t work as long as the socially liberal solutions are still present.

Look at the 90s. W J Clinton DID rule from the center (whether forced or not, he did: welfare reform, “dont’ ask don’t tell”, China’s MFN status, only air raids in Kosovo, no boots on the ground, etc. etc. etc. ) and look what that led to in the political parties. Dislike, anger, disillusion on all sides. Why? Because it satisfies no one who actually cares about politics. It’s arguable that GWB is also a centrist, and his presidency will do as much for creating fringe groups in the GOP as Clinton did in the Democrats. His own base is unhappy with spending, with immigration, with Medicare prescription drug spending, with No Child Left Behind, etc. etc. The largesse in spending made it seem workable as long as no one looked too hard at the real issues of our time. Even now, domestically, we keep ignoring those issues and hoping growing our economy will be enough.

The center sounds reasonable only if you don’t think too hard about it. The center wants its cake and to eat it too: it wants nice utopian solutions to be funded by no one. Whichever side of the political coin you’re on, if you’re serious about what you believe, you hear the insanity of the above: either the utopian solutions are going to require massive funding (or some other broken eggs), or you believe that clearly without funding, utopian solutions don’t exist (if they ever did.)

Jan 29, 2006 - 2:28 pm 8. Peter G.:

Rudy G. could win the Republican nomination. That’s certainly more plausible than anyone winning the Democratic nomination who was a foreign policy hawk. There’s been growing support for him within the Republican base. If he wins the nomination, he wins the presidency. I wouldn’t make him the favorite, but the other candidates would be splitting the social conservative vote, so he’d have a chance.

Jan 29, 2006 - 2:35 pm 9. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

The Dems are not going to nominate Russ Feingold. The Republicans are not going to nominate Rick Santorum. Your scenario of a two far end of the spectrum candidate elction is not going to happen. I am an ex-fanatic democrat who has been voting Republican for the last 5 years who is a registered Independent. But that isn’t because I think the two party system is wrong. It’s just a self defense mechanism for keeping me from treating my political party as a substitute for religion.

Look at the history of this country. Third parties fail. This isn’t a parlimentary governing system. Individual parties die and they are replaced but you would have to overhaul the entire system of government that we have to bring about the change that you want. And neither party is going to sign onto a mutual self destruction pact because they think that if they can achieve power using the system that is in place they can still do good.

Look furhter back into our history. Other then the presidency of George Washington large segments of the American public has been disgusted with the “politicians”. And there were even a fair share that were not to pleased with Washington, who despised the idea of factions and warned the country of their destructive nature. But Jefferson and Madison believed that the country would be ruined if Hamilton and Adams achieved power and Hamilton and Adams had the same worries about the former pair. So they each presented their arguments and sometimes they won and sometimes they lost.

Roger, you are a brave man and you and your Pajama partners got disgusted enough about the MSM you formed your challenge to them. You should start defining exactly what this “centrist” party is going to be. I think defining this “third’ way is going to be a tough nut to crack. Even among your regular posters there are a multitude of political positions that don’t have a middle ground. This isn’t bad. The nature of politics is division. It doesn’t have to be uncivil. It often is but this has more to do with the nature of Man rather then the number of parties we have to choose from.

I can’t say what is in your heart but from what I have read your concern about the nations security was a major factor in your support of Bush. Many of his positions on social issues make you ill. And I think you did what every citizen has to do. You made a hard choice.

If one of the major parties is replaced I won’t mourn it. If your centrist party presents a better platform I could vote for it. But only if I thought it had a chance of victory and the ability to pass it’s programs. You can’t have a Centrist President who doesn’t have a centrist party structure in congress. I am not afraid of change. I just don’t think your idea will work under the current format. Present your platform, figure out which party you are going to eliminate, and I will have an open mind.

Jan 29, 2006 - 2:47 pm 10. Ed Poinsett:

Guliani splits the republican vote just like Perot, maybe not the same percentages. That maybe allows Hillary to win with a 42% plurality like Slick in 1992. OTH the dems might not be able to gather 42% as confused as they are. Things will be clearer in about 15 months.

Jan 29, 2006 - 2:54 pm 11. Terrye:

I like Rudy and to a certain extent I think Roger is right. The bases of both parties should not underestimate the importance of the middle, without them Bush would not be president. The self identified of each party are not large enough by themselves to win.

I think partisan Democrats and Republicans have no idea how sick a lot of people are of the constant bickering, the self righteous posturing and the in general inability for people to see beyond themselves and their own desire to beat the other guy.

I voted for Bush because I am disgusted with the Dems. I refuse to even listen to Howard Dean, he comes on TV I hit the mute. But damn, I get tired of the right wingers acting as if they own damn place.

No offence, some of my best friends are right wingers.

But I don’t think a third party can make it. Too much money and influence in the established parties.

And besides a lot of people like Rudy are loyal to their parties. Politicians are after all partisans themselves.

Jan 29, 2006 - 3:46 pm 12. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

I come from a family with 6 children and we have kids who represent all shades of the political spectrum. One sister is a Mother Jones, Utne Reader,”the war is all about oil” Democrat. 2 of the boys are Conservative Christian Republicans, and 2 are ex- Democrat bomb throwers who have seen the error of their radical leftist ways and tend to skew Republican.
Then there is my sister Sue. A wonderful women who I dearly love. If she heard your call for a third party she would jump in the air and scream amen. She hates both parties, she hates the politics of personel destruction, she felt bad for the hounding of hounding of President Clinton over his zipper problems and the Roberts and Alito hearings turned her stomach too. She thinks all the evils of our political life stems from the fact that we don’t have enough choices.

And she seems to be the person that your plea for a centrist party is aimed at. She is a non-demonitional Christian who is pro choice. She backed Arnold. She thinks the war on drugs is a waste of money and though she isn’t for legalization of drugs she feels the current system is a joke. Sounds pretty positive, eh? She votes from her gut and she has no problem switching parties depending on the election.

But hold on. She isn’t for gay marriage.Civil unions are fine but nothing else. Not in a ‘you can become a heterosexual” stance but she thinks the way we have it now is best. She was against the war in Iraq from day one. Not because of the WMD question but because she thought we should stay out of the area and that it would never work. She is a non-racist isolationist. And because of this her loathing of President Bush matches my other Mother Jones sister. She is disgusted with the Immigration stance of both parties and her solutions lean towards a strict crackdown on illegal aliens and the companies that hire them. She is generally for increased public spending but wants a complete reworking of the way the money is spent. she is not to kean on the union movement.And she is in love with Hillary. I mean non sexual lust. She doesn’t agree with all of her political ideas but she has bought into HRC’s whole spiel.
The center is hard to define sometimes.

Jan 29, 2006 - 3:52 pm 13. RogerA:

Hmmm-I bet the Holsteins are being brutalized in Indiana tonite (Inside yargbian joke)

I have been extraordinarily impressed by the insights in this thread–some really great points that are going to force me out of my political science 101 position that third parties cant make it. LOTS of food for thought here from every poster

Think even more outside the box: a Guiliani-Feingold ticket (or vice-versa)–of course there are egos involved and party loyalties–but consider the possibilities!

THANKS!

Jan 29, 2006 - 3:54 pm 14. David:

I’ll have whatever Roger is drinking. It would never work that way, as a previous commenter has said I would hold my nose and vote Rudy as a Republican but never as an independent. Finally you cannot claim that TR and the Bull Moose party was not serious.

Actually out of curiosity, how would you vote if the Republicans nominated a economic conservative and the Democrats a social democrat? I think this is a little more likely than your scenario.

Jan 29, 2006 - 4:26 pm 15. TheRealSwede:

Roger,

I realize you’re being even-handed in support of your thesis here, and I don’t dismiss the idea of a third party candidate – particularly Rudy Guiliani, whom I admire greatly. But I just don’t think the Republican Party has a partisan base with anything like the fervor or influence than that which we see in the Democrat Party at present. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that both parties are in the same place in that regard.

Jan 29, 2006 - 5:02 pm 16. markus:

Legislatures will always be Democratic or Republican. Even if a third party legislator is elected, he or she will need to caucus with one of the two parties to be able to have any influence.

Several states, however, have elected an Independant as governor, and it doesn’t seem out of the question on the federal level. Biggest obstacle, of course, is the damned electoral college, which divides the country into regional powers blocs. I don’t see how McCain or Giuliani could beat Hillary or Warner in NY, California, or Illinois; nor how they would outpol George Allen in the South. I could imagine them, however, winning upwards of 40% of popular vote, maybe even coming in first place, and throwing the election into the House of Representatives.

I remember back in May and June of 1992, when Perot was far ahead of both Bush 41 and Clinton in the polls. David Gergen was on some show and he commented that Perot was either going to implode, or he was going to win in a landslide. We all know what happened. But what if he had turned out not be a fruitcake?

Jan 29, 2006 - 5:11 pm 17. packerfan:

Maybe,but I’m skeptical even though I wish it would happen. This kind of shift would amount to a fundamental party realignment that has not happened since the New Deal (Reagan shifted the terms, but not the basic structure of party coaltions). I hope you’re right, but I suspect we are in for more years of 1940s and 1970s stalemate, with the real shift occuring only after a major shock. The two-party system has been around since the 1850s, with only a couple of major realignments. Shrillness among politicians and increasing polarization will not do it.

Jan 29, 2006 - 7:55 pm 18. WichitaBoy:

Some related thoughts here.

Jan 29, 2006 - 8:11 pm 19. Yehudit:

“Guliani splits the republican vote just like Perot, maybe not the same percentages.”

Guiliani keeps walking away with Republican straw polls by a wide margin, even among social conservatives. The People want Guiliani and Rice for 2008.

Now, if they were the candidates, would they actually vote for them? I don’t know.

(I know Condi’s not running, this is hypothetical.)

Jan 29, 2006 - 8:58 pm 20. Kevin Peters:

Roger:

It may be political science 101 but it is reality. “That “damned electoral college” isn’t going away( Winning Iowa and New Hampshire will be a tough job if you run on changing the system that gives them there only chance of political influence) and the rest of the smaller states will not be keen on making New York and California more powerfull then they already are. You would also have to change the whole system of division of power in the various sections of congress. If someone was serious about a third party they would have had to have started it two years ago. Even if Rudy or anyone else won a third party bid they would be a President without a dependable power base in Congress. I get just as sick of the system as the next guy. Barring a major depression or some kind of devastating terrorist attack the third party dream is just that, a dream. There has been talk of a third party for every year that I have been politically aware and everytime and everytime i heard it is paired with the comment “the two system party is broken and things are so bad that the country will flock to the notion if we can just get the right person to head it.’ And every year it isn’t tried or the attempts have been abject failures. Both McCain and Rudy would give anything to be President. Both are good guys. Both are politically astute. And both them reject the notion of a third party everytime they are asked about it. Why? Not because they can’t stand the thought of leaving the Republican party. Because they can count.

Jan 29, 2006 - 9:41 pm 21. klrfz1:

California would be the perfect place to start a third party. The California Republicans are mostly too conservative and the California Democrats are so corrupt they can’t even hide it anymore. California has a large middle whose interests aren’t being served by either party. With a solid base in California, a third party could slowly metastasize to the whole country. But who would plant a tree that might take 20-30 years to bear fruit.

Once the Roe decision is overturned in a few years, both national parties are going to be a lot less successful at fund raising. The abortion battle will have to go local. I think there’ll be a lot more campaign funds flowing into local politics. There might be a window of opportunity for a third party to convince campaign donors to support a better (or at least a different) way.

Jan 30, 2006 - 4:14 am 22. Knucklehead:

Kevin Peters,

Well said. Thank you.

Jan 30, 2006 - 7:38 am 23. markus:

Sorry to go slightly OT at length, but the EC is one of my hobbyhorses, and as Kevin and others point out it is the key reason third parties (and independent candidates) are non-starters.

Kevin is correct that abolishing the College is highly unlikely, but he seems to accept the myth upon which its longevity rests: namely, that electing the President by popular vote would “make New York and California more powerfull then they already are.”

What a popular vote would do is make every vote really important: from Nome, Alaska to Key West, Florida to the Upper East Side. What the electoral college does is effectively make the votes of tens of millions of voters in every state completely irrelevant.

Under winner-take-all rules, there is no representational accounting in the College of the votes that make up the plurality for the winning candidate, and also no representation of the voters for the losing candidates. For instance, if 10 million people in a given state voted in 2004 for Bush or Kerry, and Bush got 6 million of those votes, to Kerry’s 4 million, then the 2 million (minus 1) Bush voters that make up his plurality, and all 4 million Kerry voters, in effect may as well have stayed home: had they done so, the EC tally for the state would be identical.

Voters in small states put up with this because of the mistaken notion that they would lose power under a direct vote. In fact, a single direct vote would make every vote in every state vitally important for each candidate. How Utah or North Dakota votes in the Presidential race would be neither more nor less important than how Staten Island votes in a New York mayoral election. Of course, earlier in American history, the low population density and underdevlopment of communications technology in certain areas would mean that candidates would be likely to ignore them. But today, much lower cost of media advertising and other campaign costs outside of the huge metro areas, as well as the spread of the internet, makes it actually likely that it would be MORE cost-effective for candidates to harvest votes OUTSIDE of New York, California and other big, expensive population centers. It would be especially more effective for candidates and parties whose BASE is in “Red”, rural America.

This would especially be the case given that two things that are largely irrelevant in current presidential campaigning — piling up as big of a plurality as possible in solid blue or red states; and getting supporters of the minority party in those states to the polls — would suddenly become very important to presidential candidates. And that means that a President and other presidential candidates, would be much less likely to take, say, Utah, for granted than they are now.

In any case, candidates ignore 40 states anyway these days, including a large bundle of small ones.

Jan 30, 2006 - 9:27 am 24. Keith_Indy:

Actually a proportional EC is much closer in keeping to our Consitutional Republic.

Win 33% of the popular vote in a state, get 33% of the electoral vote from the state.

But you wont see the EC change much because

“Too much money and influence in the established parties.”

****

I am socially libertarian, economically conservative, and seek a foreign policy that A) protects America, B) makes the world more democratic. What party do I belong to??

How about we start by agreeing what the Federal government should be doing, rather then what it has evolved into. Start there and we would weed out many of the politically unpalatable functions because those are more a state or local issue.

I’ve always felt that the closer money stayed to a particular problem or issue, the better, and less corrupt the decisions.

Just some thoughts, excellent comments as usual.

Jan 30, 2006 - 9:43 am 25. WAmom:

The Independent ticket: McCain Lieberman!

Jan 30, 2006 - 12:19 pm 26. flenser:

markus

I believe that Maine and Nebraska currently divide their EC votes based on how the popular vote is split. In other words, this is something that each state can change on its own.

Realistically though, NY and CA are not going to change the way they assign EC votes. If this was to be done then all states would need to do it simultaneously. Otherwise one party would be placed at a disadvantage.

I don?t really see that it?s a problem. It does give rise to the possibility that the winner of a presidential election might get fewer popular votes than the loser. But I don?t see that as an issue myself. It helps to remind people that we are s federal republic and not a pure democracy, which many tend to forget.

Jan 30, 2006 - 12:49 pm 27. markus:

flenser –
maine and nebraska assign two electors to the winner of the vote statewide, and their other electors to the candidate with the plurality in each Congressional district. I used to think that this was an improvement on statewide winner take all. Then I saw some book on the EC that did the math and showed that was such a system implemented in all states, Nixon would have won in ‘60, and Ford would have won in ‘76. Also, the same problem with pluralities not being counted: a Congressional district is represented in the EC identically whether the winning candidate gets 100% of the votes, or whether the candidate wins by a single vote.

To me, this is unjust at face value: forget pure democracy, its not REPRESENTATIVE democracy either.

I acknowledge thought that many others tend to agree with you that it is no big deal.

Jan 30, 2006 - 1:08 pm 28. dclydew:

I’m currently in a politics class (focused on discussions of non-traditional political systems/views) and one of the questions posed was:

“If something exists between black and white, must we consider it “shades of grey”?”

A discussion ensued over the question of colors… after all, the real world doesn’t exist in “Black/White” and “Shades of Gray” it exists in a spectrum (or at least light seems to exist in a spectrum of frequencies, which our neurological system interperts as colors). In the end, it seemed to many of the students that “shades of gray” was a decent linear compromise between Black and White. So, if you could accept Black, or White, it wasn’t all that difficult to accept gray.

The Republicans of today, seem like a “gray” party between true conservatives and true liberals. The Democrats today, (as much as we like to think of them as extreme) also appear more like a gray party.

So how could a third party differentiate itself between the Gray Republicans and the Gray Democrats? Another Gray Party would seem hard pressed to claim a superiority of grayness.

However, in the real world, we have the perception of a full spectrum. I think for a thrid party to make any headway in the US, it would have to be a party of color, not a party of Black/White compromise. Stateless Socialism, for example, might be able to hold out as a potential party, simply because it acts in neither a conservative or liberal way.

Jan 30, 2006 - 1:11 pm 29. Terrye:

When the country was founded there was no popular vote for President, in fact there were no tickets like we think of today. In a Republic it is not unusual for representatives to do the voting.

Jan 30, 2006 - 1:48 pm 30. Knucklehead:

Stateless Socialism, for example, might be able to hold out as a potential party, simply because it acts in neither a conservative or liberal way.

That’ll get ‘er done.

VOTERS: “Why should we vote for you?”

NEW CENTRIST PARTY: “Because we are neither conservative nor liberal!”

V: “Then what are you?”

NCP: “We are stateless socialists.”

V: “Meaning?”

NCP: “When you elect us we will abolish the state…”

V: “Which one?”

NCP: “All of them, the whole thing. No more USA – no U, no, S, no A.”

V: “What we will have instead?”

NCP: “Socialism.”

V: “No state?”

NCP: “Who’s gonna sign the checks?”

Jan 30, 2006 - 2:10 pm 31. markus:

I think “stateless socialism” exists only in the realm of imagination, or on a commune.

Georgism and distributism are two political ideologies that seem to be neither left nor right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

Jan 30, 2006 - 2:39 pm 32. Pat Curley:

Back in the 1980s, I signed on board with the Republicans, which was certainly a startling thing for anybody that had known me. I was mostly an economic conservative, in that I believed that Reagan’s tax cuts would result in a strong economy. But I didn’t trust him much with the foreign policy keys; indeed at one point I suggested that we needed two presidents: One to handle domestic issues, the other to handle foreign relations.

Of course this is the opposite situation with Roger; I get the sense that he trusts Republicans with the foreign policy but not as much on domestic issues. Eventually I came around on the foreign policy front (it was pretty hard not to with the breakup of the Soviet Union). I suspect that something similar will happen with Roger; that the lies on social issues coming from the left (how ’bout them stem cell lines?) will eventually push him away.

Not trying to be patronizing here; I just think you trust one side long enough on one thing, you start to decide that they deserve your trust on others. And it’s not just Roger & me going rightward; it has happened with others headed in the opposite direction as well.

Jan 31, 2006 - 7:40 am 33. thibaud:

The best and most exhaustive survey of US public attitudes I’ve seen is from Pew in 2004-05. They asked respondents to agree, agree strongly, disagree or disagree strongly with about fifty statements cutting across economics, business, government regulation, religion, envronmentalism etc.

About 23% of the population is hardcore religious conservatives who aren’t terribly pro-business but who line up solidly behind Bush. Unlikely that a centrist, prochoice party would get any of these voters. Another 10% are hardcore probusiness conservative Republicans (10% of registered voters). I doubt more than a few of either of these groups would vote for a centrist candidate instead of a Romney or an Allen.

OTOH a very large part of Bush’s support came from what Pew calls “New Prosperity Independents”, a group of secular independents who, interestingly, are both pro-business and pro-government. These independents form 13% of registered voters and voted overwhlemingly for Bush in 2004. Their defining characteristic is their optimism, related in no small measure to their 1) youth and 2) financial success. These are the winners in the new economy, and they tilted heavily toward Bush (13% of reg voters). I’m certain that most of these types would favor McCain or Giuliani; these voters would likely form the core of a centrist third party.

About 34% of registered voters are liberals or “New Dealers” (pro-government but slightly more conservative socially than liberals). A centrist party that was not dominated by gay and feminist issues or Bush hatred would pull a significant percentage from the New Dealer groups, perhaps a smaller % of liberals– maybe 40% of the former and 20-25% of the latter. (nb that despite my strongly pro-interventionist and pro-military responses, I, the quintessential centrist and Giuliani supporter, was placed in the liberal group by Pew’s online survey.)

Finally, the wild card groups are people on the bottom rungs of the latter, whom Pew calls “Disaffecteds” (10%) and “Disadvantaged Dems”. The former tilted heavily Republican, the latter tilted heavily Democratic. How these folks would regard a centrist party? It’s more likely that they would favor an outsider, third-party platform, especially if the candidate had the right anti-insider posture. These are Perot voters, and many of them would support a third party led by a tough, straight-talking candidate like Giuliani, perhaps McCain as well. (Condi’s doubtful. These are not among the nation’s more racially enlightened folks.) So assume 50% from this group also, or 10% of total registered voters going to a new centrist party.

So let’s tally it up. If the centrist party gets 80% of the New Prosperity Independents, that’s .8 x .13 = 10% of total voters. Add another 25% of liberals: 5% of total. And 40% of New Dealers gives you .4 x .15 = another 6%. Add 10% from the Disaffected groups and you’ve got 31% of the total, or neck-and-neck with the Republican social conservative candidate– even assuming that the Republican carries the three hardcore conservative groups at the same level that Bush did!

Bottom line: leaving aside the organizational questions– how to build an organization nationally, recruit candidates, get enough $$$, get on the ballot etc– in political and ideological terms, there is absolutely no question that a centrist party that rejected the evangelical/fundie agenda would be competitive. The challenges are technical, not political.

Jan 31, 2006 - 11:07 am 34. thibaud:

Details from Pew’s Political Typology survey
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949#enterprisers

ENTERPRISERS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/Lean Rep)

DEFINING VALUES: Assertive on foreign policy and patriotic; anti-regulation and pro-business; very little support for government help to the poor; strong belief that individuals are responsible for their own well being. Conservative on social issues such as gay marriage, but not much more religious than the nation as a whole. Very satisfied with personal financial situation.

Key Beliefs:
–Most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profit: 88% agree (vs only 39% of general populn.)
–Stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy: 74% (vs only 31% of general populn.)
–Using overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat terrorism around the world: 84% (vs only 39% of general populn.)
–Poor people today have it easy because they can get government: 73% (vs only 34% of general populn.)

WHO THEY ARE: Predominantly white (91%), male (76%) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide). Nearly half (46%) have a college degree, and 77% are married. Nearly a quarter (23%) are themselves military veterans. Only 10% are under age 30.

2004 ELECTION: Bush 92%, Kerry 1%. Bush’s most reliable supporters (just 4% of Enterprisers did not vote)

SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 82% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 0% Democrat (97% Rep/Lean Rep)

BASIC DESCRIPTION: Somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment.

DEFINING VALUES: Conservative on social issues ranging from gay marriage to abortion. Support an assertive foreign policy and oppose government aid for the needy, believing people need to make it on their own. Strongly worried about impact of immigrants on American society. More middle-of-the-road on economic and domestic policies, expressing some skepticism about business power and profits, and some support for government regulation to protect the environment. While not significantly better-off than the rest of the nation, most express strong feelings of financial satisfaction and security.

Key Beliefs:
Homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society 65% (vs 44% for general populn)
The growing number of newcomers from other countries threatens traditional American customs and values 68% (vs 40%)
Poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return 68% (vs 34%)
Business corporations make too much profit 66% (vs 54%)

WHO THEY ARE: Predominantly white (91%), female (58%) and the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older); nearly half live in the South. Most (53%) attend church weekly; 43% are white evangelical Protestants (double the national average of 21%).

2004 ELECTION: Bush 86%, Kerry 4%.

PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 58% Republican, 40% Independent/No Preference, 2% Democrat (86% Rep/Lean Rep)

BASIC DESCRIPTION: Strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They also express broad support for a social safety net, which sets them apart from other GOP groups. Pro-Government Conservatives are skeptical about the effectiveness of the marketplace, favoring government regulation to protect the public interest and government assistance for the needy. They supported George W. Bush by roughly five-to-one.

DEFINING VALUES: Religious, financially insecure, and favorable toward government programs. Support the Iraq war and an assertive foreign policy, but less uniformly so than Enterprisers or Social Conservatives. Back government involvement in a wide range of policy areas, from poverty assistance to protecting morality and regulating industry.

WHO THEY ARE: Predominately female (62%) and relatively young; highest percentage of minority members of any Republican-leaning group (10% black, 12% Hispanic). Most (59%) have no more than a high school diploma. Poorer than other Republican groups; nearly half (49%) have household incomes of less than $30,000 (about on par with Disadvantaged Democrats). Nearly half (47%) are parents of children living at home; 42% live in the South.

2004 ELECTION: Bush 61%, Kerry 12%. Fully 21% said they didn’t vote in November.

UPBEATS (”New Prosperity Independents”)
11% OF ADULT POPULATION
13% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 39% Republican, 5% Democrat (73% Rep/Lean Rep)

BASIC DESCRIPTION: positive views about the economy, government and society. Satisfied with their own financial situation and the direction the nation is heading, these voters support George W. Bush’s leadership in economic matters more than on moral or foreign policy issues. Combining highly favorable views of government with equally positive views of business and the marketplace, Upbeats believe that success is in people’s own hands, and that businesses make a positive contribution to society. This group also has a very favorable view of immigrants.
Religious, but decidedly moderate in views about morality.

Key Beliefs: Government often does a better job than people give it credit for 68% (vs 45% for general populn)
Most elected officials care what people like me think 64% (vs 32%)
Most corporations make a fair and reasonable profit 78% (vs 39%)
Immigrants strengthen our country 72% (vs 45%)

WHO THEY ARE: Relatively young (26% are under 30) and well-educated, Upbeats are among the wealthiest typology groups (39% have household incomes of $75,000 or more). The highest proportion of Catholics (30%) and white mainline (Episcopalian, Methodist and Presbyterian) Protestants (28%) of all groups, although fewer than half (46%) attend church weekly. Mostly white (87%), suburban, and married, they are evenly split between men and women.

2004 ELECTION: Bush 63%, Kerry 14%.

DISAFFECTEDS
9% OF ADULT POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 68% Independent/No Preference, 30% Republican, 2% Democrat (60% Rep/Lean Rep)

BASIC DESCRIPTION: Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.

DEFINING VALUES: Despite personal financial strain ≠ and belief that success is mostly beyond a person’s control, ≠Disaffecteds are only moderate supporters of government welfare and assistance to the poor. Strongly oppose immigration as well as regulatory and environmental policies on the grounds that government is ineffective and such measures cost jobs.

WHO THEY ARE: Less educated (70% have attended no college, compared with 49% nationwide) and predominantly male (57%). While a majority (60%) leans Republican, three-in-ten are strict independents, triple the national rate. Disaffecteds live in all parts of the country, though somewhat more are from rural and suburban areas than urban.

2004 ELECTION: Bush 42%, Kerry 21%. Nearly a quarter (23%) said they didn’t vote in the last election.

LIBERALS
17% OF GENERAL POPULATION
19% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)

BASIC DESCRIPTION: This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.

DEFINING VALUES: Strongest preference for diplomacy over use of military force. Pro-choice, supportive of gay marriage and strongly favor environmental protection. Low participation in religious activities. Most sympathetic of any group to immigrants as well as labor unions, and most opposed to the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

Key Beliefs:
Relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism 90% (vs 51% of general populn)
I worry the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality 88% (vs 51%)
Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost 89% (vs 60%)
Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don’t go far enough to help them live decently 80% (vs 52%)

WHO THEY ARE: Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal. Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

2004 ELECTION: Bush 2%, Kerry 81%

CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS (”New Dealers”)
14% OF ADULT POPULATION
15% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 89% Democrat, 11% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican,(98% Dem/Lean Dem)

BASIC DESCRIPTION: Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats’ views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.

DEFINING VALUES: Less extreme on moral beliefs than core Republican groups, but most oppose gay marriage and the acceptance of homosexuality, and support a more active role for government in protecting morality. No more conservative than the national average on other social issues such as abortion and stem-cell research. Most oppose the war in Iraq, but views of America’s overall foreign policy are mixed and they are less opposed to Bush’s assertive stance than are other Democratic groups.

WHO THEY ARE: Older women and blacks make up a sizeable proportion of this group (27% and 30%, respectively). Somewhat less educated and poorer than the nation overall. Allegiance to the Democratic party is quite strong (51% describe themselves as “strong” Democrats) but fully 85% describe themselves as either conservative or moderate ideologically.

LIFESTYLE NOTES: 46% attend church at least once a week, 44% attend Bible study or prayer group meetings, a third (34%) have a gun in their house.

2004 ELECTION: Bush 14%, Kerry 65%.

DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS
10% OF GENERAL POPULATION
10% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 84% Democrat; 16% Independent/No Preference, 0% Republican (99% Dem/Lean Dem)

BASIC DESCRIPTION: Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals.

DEFINING VALUES: Most likely to be skeptical of an individual’s ability to succeed without impediments and most anti-business. Strong belief that government should do more to help the poor, yet most are disenchanted with government. Strongly supportive of organized labor (71% have a favorable view of labor unions).

2004 ELECTION: 2% Bush, 82% Kerry

BYSTANDERS
10% OF ADULT POPULATION
0% OF REGISTERED VOTERS

PARTY ID: 56% Independent/No Preference, 22% Republican, 22% Democrat

BASIC DESCRIPTION: These Americans choose not to participate in or pay attention to politics, or are not eligible to do so (non-citizens).

DEFINING VALUES: Cynical about government and the political system. Uninterested in political news.

2004 ELECTION: 96% did not vote in presidential election.

Jan 31, 2006 - 11:12 am 35. thibaud:

Correction re. my tallies, above: assuming the probusiness, social conservative Republican candidate carried all of the three hardcore Republican groups that form 33% of registered voters, the centrist candidate would lag the Republican, roughly 40% Repub to 33% Centrist. Nationally, the Dems would be the big losers from a third party: they’d be left with only 27% of registered voters and would have to scramble to convince the New Dealers and the very uneducated Disadvanteged types not to abandon them in large numbers. Economic populism, however, is not likely to be a winning card for the Dems in a future 3-way presidential race unless the economy collapses– not bloody likely.

But note that the Repubs are vulnerable as well, in the electoral college. The social conservatives are heavily concentrated in the states that are not in play and that would not even require a centrist party presence: the deep South and pockets of the rural and north central midwest. These states by and large (with the exception of high-tech leaders like Texas, NC, GA and of course Florida) are not growing or even shrinking. Louisiana and Oklahoma are not crucial swing states.

But Colorado, Arizona, NM, NV are swing states, and a centrist candidate would probably capture New York and would certainly show strength in California and across the northeast.

So the battleground would be high-growth, increasingly purple, large sunbelt states: Texas and Florida mainly, also Virginia and NC. Is it really so likely that a Giuliani or a McCain would be defeated by a social conservative of lesser stature in these battleground states?

Maybe Allen could carry Virginia– though I doubt he could vs McCain– but not Florida. A third party candidate is likely to carry an absolute majority of the 10 largest states in the Union, with an excellent shot at carrying 3 of the top 4: New York and Florida for sure, and either California or Texas depending on the strength and attractiveness of the Dem and REpub candidates.

Jan 31, 2006 - 11:39 am 36. thibaud:

Pro-choice, pro-school choice, pro-military, and pro-immigration: that’s source of a new coalition that would be competitive in every purple state and in the largest sunbelt states as well. Win over the centrist yuppies and the conservative black and white and hispanic working class folk who want better schools for their kids, and you’ll capture the White House.

Jan 31, 2006 - 11:44 am 37. Pat Curley:

Thibaud, interesting analysis, but I’ve always said that moderates don’t win because there’s nobody with a passion for moderation. What’s the activist base of your party?

Jan 31, 2006 - 12:36 pm 38. thibaud:

Good point, Pat. Northeastern suburban moms will be pro-choice and pro-school vouchers. Northern and midwestern blue collar New Deal Dems will be pro-vouchers. Hispanics, techies and liberal idealists will be pro-immigration.

The overarching vision is of a party that’s focused on the needs of working families who are struggling to ensure a bright future for their kids rather than carry on a cultural crusade– as opposed to single yuppies and Party of Righteousness (D) or affluent pro-corporate and Party of God types (R). People who are tired of the bullshit emanating from Washington and from the internet and who simply want some real economic security so they and their kids can have a decent shot.

Don’t underestimate how important abortion rights are to the economic prospects of any young woman, whether single or married. And don’t underestimate the importance of the hispanic vote in 2008. I believe it will make the difference to the outcome in at least AZ and CO– win those and you don’t need Ohio– and probably FL and maybe even TX as well.

Jan 31, 2006 - 8:03 pm 39. thibaud:

Oh, one more crucial element: focus squarely on the obscene spectacle of CEOs being paid themselves multimillion-dollar packages even when their companies are floundering– the ridiculous 500:1 salary ratio of CEO salary:lowest-paid employee salary. And of course, nail both of the corrupt, dessicated old gerrymandering parties for their DC to K street revolving door.

That’s an surefire winner for an attack strategy, everywhere and against both parties. Giuliani could bring it off nicely; McCain could not. Only Feingold on the D side, perhaps Romney on the R side would be relatively immune. But these two will not be at the top of the ticket. Very unlikely that either of the reactionary old parties will go for a religious minority candidate, be he jewish or mormon.

On that last point, note that Catholics represent about 25% of the population and now express social and political views that are identical with the majority view on nearly every issue. Can’t get much more mainstream than that. Another advantage for Rudy.

Jan 31, 2006 - 8:15 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: