FWIW ... I believe you are correct.
Seems that the, so called, "independent" voter, who we have been told is miniscule, in other elections, is about to take on gigantic proportions.
Posted on 05/31/2006 6:00:16 AM PDT by rhombus
FWIW ... I believe you are correct.
Seems that the, so called, "independent" voter, who we have been told is miniscule, in other elections, is about to take on gigantic proportions.
Not sure it's such a stupid idea. Prime the pump of the economy by leaving more money in people's wallets. Tell us why it is stupid.
The problem with Mr. Hill's logic is that he seems to assume that President Bush's base will turn out in similar numbers no matter if he appeals to the base or runs to the left. It was clearly demonstrated in 1992, 1996, and 2000 that a significant portion of the base will "sit it out" if they do not feel the party is governing to the right.
Yah, that was really a pitiful analysis. Dole lost because a) he was Dole, and b) Clinton was Clinton. It was a personality contest in which one guy didn't have one.
Only 3 to 4 points? I would put him a lot further below corn that that.
Care to expand on that?
I do not mean to hijack your thread
Without the middle, the Republican Party is doomed to the Goldwater candidacy. You have to appeal to all those mioderate Republicans and Reagan Democrats. GWB has barely pulled that off twice. He has upset enough of his own party to cost the GOP seats in 2006 and even the Presidency in 2008, unless they wake up and smell the tacos.
I strongly disagree - the people at the polar extremes are in the minority. Most people hover somewhere in between. There are many people who are strong fiscal conservatives - but are for gun control or are environmentalists. There are many other people who are strong social liberals - but who are opposed to gun control or are anti-abortion.
You can't neatly package everyone into two convenient pigeonholes. Fifty different Americans are likely to have fifty different opinions. We are not two monoliothic blocs.
In general Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. This phrase was brilliantly constructed. It appealed to the middle and seemed not to lessen AT ALL a perspective of conservative positioning.
The problem Bush ran into is he decided very early that he would never depart from personal principles. The enemy killed 3500 Americans a few months after he was elected and this event defined his presidency by firming his resolve to under no circumstances depart from principle. He has been a rock withstanding enormous pressure.
The overspending has been badly finessed, but in an economy that grows, has a brand new ENORMOUS government department (Homeland Security), and a war spending was going to grow inevitably. It was badly finessed, but it's not the core problem.
Immigration only hit the radar screen a few months ago and it has evolved to be an issue only because Bush's principles on this matter diverge from the hardline right. He is not going to change his spots. His perspective on principle will not change. He will accept a compromise that reduces numbers for his GW program to very low levels, but he's not going to abandon it because he's a principled president.
The correct thing to do is pressure the House so that the negotiations move everything to the right. Bush will accept a compromise. Then make damn sure we hold the House in November by volunteering our time to vulnerable House district candidates.
I think he's right. There's more than one "base." I consider myself part of W's base, but I'm clearly out of step with the anti-immigration crowd. For one thing, I'm not sure I'll vote for Santorum this fall. Based on some of his recent mouthings on the port deal and immigration, I've become quite blase' about the man. I'll definitely not vote for Rep. Peterson (though he doesn't need my vote to win this district).
Wait, when was it *ever* not about getting elected?
That's kind of a silly statement. Can you think of any compelling reason why he couldn't give in on immigration? "You can't have eveything" makes a catchy proverb, but it's hardly a fundimental law of the universe.
The last time the base got like this was over the Miers nomination, but that was facing the loss of almost thirty years of work on the part of the republican base. The Ports deal "looked" similar, but I don't think that was as much "base" as the opposition would like everyone to believe.
So far as I see, his loss of the base didn't become real, in the sense of the base wanting to injure him politically, until "Uno de Mayo."
Yeah, we were mad about the spending, but that could even be understood as a way to keep democrats at bay. But then when you add illegal aliens marching in the street, and the fundimental challenge to the concept of the rule of law such a display demonstrates, it calls into question why we supported the administration on anything.
America is nothing if it is not exceptional!
Worth repeating (emphasis mine)!
I think Bush & Rove have mistakenly assumed that the illegal invader issue (please don't call it immigration) only affected the border states, which Bush lost anyway with the exception of Texas, where the GOP is safe. What they failed to see is that the illegal invaders have penetrated the entire country, and have hit a major nerve in the GOP voters.
Add to that the idea that John McCain is diametrically opposed to the conservative viewpoint on border protection and you have a large block of voters who have been hung out to dry.
The violent crimes institute of Atlanta estimates that there are around 240,000 illegal alien sex offenders in America with an average number of 4 victims each. Each of those victims has relatives who are most likely rather angry about what's going on.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50441
Things like that are anything but a minor issue with voters.
This guy actually has a record with some credibility, but I wonder how he got it. In his article Hill writes that after Dole's loss:
"I recall doing some post-election analysis in suburban Detroit counties. It was clear that even young conservative families, many that would have richly benefited from the child tax credit that Dole proposed, were uninspired. They didn’t even bother to go to the polls."
What an inside-the-beltway chucklehead. Doesn't this guy learn? Tax cuts are important, but so are other conservative issues that Dole failed to adopt to motivate the base. The lesson for Hill should be that Dole lost becuase he did not motivate his base enough, not that he should abandon it.
And just to keep everyone informed, from Hill's polling business web site:
http://www.hillresearch.com/index.htm
Well known political clients of the firm have included:
- Former Vice President Dan Quayle
- Elizabeth Dole
- Jeb Bush
- Katherine Harris
- Tom DeLay
And his profile
David B. Hill, HRC Director, received his Ph.D. from The Florida State University in 1975. His graduate studies included the prestigious methodology training program at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Dr. Hill spent ten years as a faculty member at Kansas State University, Florida Atlantic University and in a tenured position at Texas A&M University where he also served as Director of the Public Policy Resources Laboratory and founding Director of The Texas Poll. In 1984, he became a principal in Tarrance, Hill, Newport & Ryan before founding his present firm.
In 1991, CAMPAIGN magazine named Dr. Hill the second most effective major political consultant overall, and best political pollster in the nation. In addition, CAMPAIGNS & ELECTIONS magazine named him one of its 1991 class of "Rising Stars" in American political campaigns. CAMPAIGNS & ELECTIONS singled him out as one of the "Big Winners" of the 1998 campaign election cycle, as well, for directing Peter Fitzgerald's victory over Carol Moseley-Braun in the Illinois U.S. Senate race.
A scholar as well as a campaign operative, Dr. Hill is the author or co-author of many academic journal articles as well as well as a book, chapters in books and monographs. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of THE PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE, a publication of The Roper Center at the University of Connecticut.
Dr. David Hill writes a weekly column on polling and campaigns for The Hill, a newspaper for and about the United State Congress.
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.