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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?”