Posted on 05/08/2012 6:54:16 AM PDT by xzins
Tuesday's primaries are three of the nine contests in the 2008 and 2012 cycles held when the presumptive GOP nominee and Ron Paul were the only active candidates left in the race
While the most closely-watched contest on Tuesday may be the Indiana Republican U.S. Senate primary battle between six-term incumbent Dick Lugar and Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock, there will still be a few things to keep an eye on at the top of the ticket in the Hoosier State, North Carolina, and West Virginia.
For these three presidential primaries will be the first in which Mitt Romney faces only one opponent on the ballot who has not yet suspended his campaign - Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
Paul's campaign has had a bit of a resurgence of late, with strong showings in the delegate selection phase in caucus states like Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine.
The primaries on Tuesday in Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia will be a good test both of Mitt Romney's popularity at this stage of the campaign vis-à-vis John McCain in 2008, as well as Ron Paul's own base of support.
These three states, along with the upcoming primaries in Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, and South Dakota, each also featured two-man races in 2008 with McCain and Paul.
And so, with Congressman Paul's support significantly higher this cycle throughout the primary season, as well as voters not coalescing around Romney's campaign compared to other presumptive nominees in Republican Party history, expect more scrutiny over Romney's ability to turn out the GOP base in November if he fails to receive at least two-thirds of the vote Tuesday.
Only one of the remaining 12 primary states, Montana, is in classic "Ron Paul country" - the Texas congressman has excelled in both cycles in northern border states - although he also may perform particularly well in Oregon and South Dakota in the coming weeks.
So how much of a boost can Paul expect to receive in his one-on-one challenge against the former Massachusetts governor?
In 2008, Congressman Paul averaged 7.4 percent in the 41 state primaries and caucuses held before Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race on March 4th - leaving the field open to just McCain and Paul.
That left just two active candidates in the race (with the occasional ex-candidate still lingering on the ballot) for the remaining 12 contests.
Paul averaged 12.4 percent of the vote in those dozen primaries, or an increase of only 5.0 points when he had a one-on-one matchup against John McCain.
In 2012, Paul has averaged 15.7 percent of the primary and caucus vote through the first 37 contests (excluding U.S. territories).
Representative Paul has at least doubled his percentage of vote received from 2008 to 2012 in nearly half of these contests (17 states): Ohio (+100.0 percent), Arizona (+104.8), Iowa (+114.0), Florida (+118.8), Georgia (+127.6), Wisconsin (+138.3), Delaware (+152.4), New York (+153.2), Missouri (+171.1), Oklahoma (+190.9), New Hampshire (+197.4), Connecticut (+221.4), Massachusetts (+251.9), South Carolina (+261.1), Rhode Island (+266.2), Vermont (+283.3), and Virginia (+800.0).
That includes double-digit improvements on his 2008 tally in seven states: Iowa (+11.4 points), Maine (+17.8), New Hampshire (+15.2), Rhode Island (+17.3), Vermont (+18.7), and Virginia (+36.0).
The only two states in which Paul has received a lower percentage of the vote in 2012 compared to 2008 are Idaho and Pennsylvania.
However, when Paul won 15.5 percent in Pennsylvania in 2008, he was the only active candidate in the race other than McCain. Paul fell just shy of that mark in April with 13.2 percent with Gingrich still officially in the race tallying 10.5 percent.
The same is true in Idaho, where Paul and McCain were the only candidates on the primary ballot in 2008 when he notched 23.7 percent of the vote. In the 2012 Idaho caucuses, Paul was one of four active candidates on the ballot when he won 18.1 percent.
In Tuesday's primary states four years ago, Paul only received 7.7 percent in Indiana, 7.2 percent in North Carolina, and 5.0 percent in West Virginia.
Functionally, it is a two-party system, but it’s certainly not a requirement. Third parties have, in the past, made tremendous headway (see Republicans over Whigs).
It is functioning as a two-party system purely because they have achieved legal dominance and have engineered all to fit the template of 2 parties.
There is no reason, for example, why the Constitution Party could not wait on its convention until after the Republican and endorse that candidate if conservative enough to suit their principles. They would, in that case, not run their own candidate.
This would be a way for alternative parties to flourish. It would provide a means to grow, attain an identity, and stand for a set of conservative principles. (A conservative caucus within a party could not then run its own candidate if they did not support the chosen candidate...as with Romney this time.)
However, the system is set up so that ballot access is virtually impossible to attain, much less at a late date.
There is absolutely no reason the above process should be legally impeded in any way. As an illustration, having GW Bush’s name on, say, BOTH the Republican Line and the Reformed Line should gain a vote for Bush whether from a Repub voter or a Reformed voter.
I am betting that is legally impeded.
Is it legally impeded? I know there are ballot requirements, though I don’t know what they are. My impression is it has always been about exposure. Republicans and Democrats get the exposure; third parties do not.
Just remember the weird rules Virginia has for our own well-known candidates to get on their flippin’ ballot, and you’ll see just the tip of the legal-impediment iceberg that has been thrown up in the parties we do have, and that will give an idea how hard it would be to make the nation NURTURE alternative parties rather than MAINTAIN THE POWER of only 2 parties.
You’re talking a state-by-state fight there. About the only card to play would be the “fairness” card since the Republicans and Democrats in power have zero incentive to relax the rules.
A legal fight might win under equal access????
The problem is that our system is winner take all with no possibility of coalition government. Such a setup will almost always produce a 2 party system. Doesn't matter if it was by design or not, the result of this type of electoral setup will almost always be 2 competing party's trying to get 50%+1 of the ballots cast.
The Constitution describes ... our Federal structure of Government, and its powers, yes, but not all aspects of how politics works.
2 parties is a logical consequence of first-past-the-post elections and a country divided between govt givers and govt takers. It’s that simple.
3rd parties are extremely ineffective at influencing political outcomes. They dont work, period.
“Because of the insistence by some that the US is a 2-party system. “
We are simply stating a historical fact, that’s all.
Yeah, we’ve had 3rd parties as well for our history, and yeah, they almost never win any elections, least of all the President.
I’m just talking reality. Romney has a 100% probability of being the nominee.
As reagan put it, facts are stubborn things.
Romney got like 65% of the vote in the 3 states that voted last night. His nomination is not in question. Paul got like 10-15% and barely even edged out candidates that have already quit the race. In WVA, Paul actually lost to Santorum.
“All this “vote Paul to stop Mitt “ has been fantasy from the beginning. It is completely obvious that most conservatives/Republicans that want to cast a protest vote against Romney would prefer voting for candidates that already quit the race than cast a ballot for Ron Paul.”
Yup. I’m one of them. Would have been Newt for me, and might still be (in Texas) just to show conservative colors.
But if the only choice was Ron Paul or Romney, I’d vote Romney just to shut the fantasy down. Ron Paul is actively disapproved of by a majority of GOP voters for his looney stances on marriage, drugs, and foreign policy, and he wont ever get even close to being the nominee.
I don’t know—do you have “standing”? :0)
Ballot access makes 3rd parties more difficult than does a winner take all system.
The 2 parties in power must submit zero for their candidates to appear on a ballot.
A 3rd party must submit, in a national campaign, a total of something like 1.3 million signatures, depending on the states and their terribly non-uniform requirements. This is not counting the legal hurdles that must be overcome just to qualify to submit the petitions. Then there are requirements about signatures, collectors, forms, etc.
IF 3rd parties were so innocuous, there would be no good reason to have these legal hurdles in place preventing others from joining the game.
More fair, probably, is for all slots on the ballot to be write-in slots. Period. That leaves it entirely up to the voter whom to vote for. Those who run solid campaigns will be known, and those who don’t won’t.
A serious 3rd party should have no trouble with ballot access. The Libertarians often don't even get .5% of the vote, yet I believe they are on the ballot in all 50 states most cycles. There are too many fringe nutters and vanity candidates to loosen ballot access too much.
The Tea Party, for example, has millions of supporters and could easily have become a real political party. It isn't because the vast majority of people realize it would be a dumb thing to do as it would simple split the right of center vote. Actually, that is an example of just how easy it is to get on the ballot. Many fake Tea Party's sprung up (funded by the left) designed specifically to split their opposition.
Geeze, American's Elect doesn't even know what they stand for other than "moderation" and don't have any candidates lined up at all, yet they are already on the ballot in like half the states and working to be on the ballot in all 50. Ross Perot's party even hung around for awhile.
3rd party's just don't work in our winner take all system that doesn't allow for coalition building.
What exactly is wrong with a blank ballot and everything done by write-in?
President
Senator
Congressman
My sense is that if people don't have a clue who is running to remember their names, then they probably shouldn't be voting in that race in the first place.
Ballot access would then cease to be an issue. The only difficulty would be in counting ballots. I have no problem with the counting taking a few days. What with the court challenges on many races, it already does anyway.
Too bad you don’t want him stopped instead of using the typical leftist media/party establishment narrative. Reagan had a name for people like Willard... he called them “Democrats.”
Now you are just being ornery for no good reason and using the pathetic ‘you’re a lib’ to avoid the point: It’s over. Romney will be our nominee. Just because I’m telling you reality doesnt mean I wanted it to happen. Dont be obtuse.
I’m just telling it like it is and calling you out on it. Willard is not MY nominee and never will be. He is a disgusting, pathological liar, unethical and immoral, a reprobate and a Socialist. You may be in love with him and get a thrill up your leg when he appears on tv, but Conservatives of conscience will NEVER support such an abomination. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.