This is one of the first essays that I have seen about this, although I have been chuckling about the phenomenon since Pennsylvania. It reminds me of watching John Ashcroft lose an election to a dead guy.
And the inherent truth of this article is born out locally as we are seeing even in the city council race with theresa graham and the desire of the local republicans to have a candidate besides the religious wing nut run against the democrat.
John McCain will do well here in Jax, because he reflects the moderate business oriented reality of our politics, but I can guarantee you the religious right is going to stay home. He seriously pissed off the entire group with his comments about choice even though hes anti abortion.
QuoteJohn McCain has been the nominee of his party for over a month now. He has no active opposition, no figure on his side of the aisle contesting him for leadership of the Republican party and the conservative movement.
And yet, Republicans are still voting against him. In Indiana McCain pulled in 77% of the vote, and he made an even worse showing with 73% in North Carolina. Even more troubling for McCain is that Huckabee is the leading protest vote. That's the religious right vote, the anti-choice crowd and the bedrock of President Bush's re-election victory.
In 2004 the GOP got the vote out by riling up the religious right and wooing the moderate middle. Post-Katrina and post-Iraq they have lost the middle. The press image of McCain as a maverick helps them with the middle, but they've still lost it. The religious right is mostly disgusted with the GOP - they haven't kept up their end of the bargain. The religious right lined up behind the GOP to ban abortion, negate gay rights, and violate the separation of church and state. In exchange for that, the religious right was okay with allowing the business class to take their pound of flesh. But the GOP had the House, Senate, and White House and while they did enough at the edges of those issues they did not remake America into a theocracy.
John McCain does not inspire these people. Ambivalent at best about his faith, he is not the "God warrior" Bush pretends to be. He is very much the Bob Dole candidate. McCain is the "his turn" guy and in Obama he is going up against the first Democratic candidate in a long while who has the base of voters who are really for their guy.
The religious right is not going to move Democratic, but like in 2006 they are probably going to stay home while the Democratic base is poised to make the turnout in 2004 seem like training camp. The religious right's relationship with the GOP isn't just yet a divorce, but Mommy and Daddy are for sure on a break.
true, mccain IS uninspiring. but not too much too look at on the other side of the fence either. at least with mccain we would keep favorable cap gains and we could stay the course on the war on terror.
Check this out...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/06/republicans-hold-primary-too/
Quote from: stephendare on May 07, 2008, 10:48:27 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 07, 2008, 10:46:19 PM
true, mccain IS uninspiring. but not too much too look at on the other side of the fence either. at least with mccain we would keep favorable cap gains and we could stay the course on the war on terror.
that should really pack the voters in the aisles.
Of course no one thinks he can figure out a way to PAY for that 3 trillion (and running) dollar IOU from China thats paying for that war.
It is untrue that China holds $3 trillion in US govt debt. This UPI story is about a year old but it is significantly less than you claim. Actually, roughly 1/10th what you claimed:
QuoteThe United States owes some $2.2 trillion and officials in China have bought up some $321 billion -- about 15 percent -- of it.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/66038.html
China does hold $1.4 trillion in US dollar as cash reserves but this is something they own as an asset, not something which we must repay:
QuoteDollar to stay anchor of China's reserves: Chinese official
Nov 14, 2007
WASHINGTON (AFP) â€" The US dollar will remain the anchor currency of China's massive foreign reserves despite suggestions that they were too heavily skewed toward the weakening greenback, a senior Chinese central bank official said here Wednesday.
Yi Gang, the assistant governor of the People's Bank of China, said the dollar had to continue as key component of the country's 1.4 trillion dollar reserves because it was "the largest currency that we use" in terms of trade and foreign direct investment as well as financial clearances and settlements.
"It is also a very firm policy for China that in our reserves, that the US dollar is the main currency in our reserves and that policy is very firm," he said to a question at a forum in Washington.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibhPYyc-ifNr4ni18X_R6ekczbuw
So, in the past year has China's share of US government debt increased 10 times?
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2008, 12:00:05 AM
no but their confidence in the dollar has decreased by that much.
um...since when have the chinese had any confidence (or lack thereof) in the us dollar??? they have never cared one way or the other. their currency has not been pegged to the us dollar...JUST STARTED FLOATING IT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!! and they definitely ain't been buying US Treasuries.
now spekulat and prahgnostikat.
Here is a video that might make you think about Mccain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nREIkkhJJBY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nREIkkhJJBY)
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2008, 01:04:41 AM
i love drivels comments. they provide such a welcome break from the actual conversations. There you are, thinking wow. what a great conversation this is, I wonder what next brilliant point is going to be made, and then lo. There it is.
A comment that glitters like paste diamonds on a cheap gold ornament hung around the neck of ali g.
Its impossible not to notice it. You stare. You blink a little. You ponder whether it would be rude to comment on it, and then ultimately you pass it by, a little peice of kitsch just kindof laying around there like a discarded party favor.
Mo, obviously this is one subject you simply just don't know anything about. So you choose to wax poetic. Alas, we have found the ONE THING IN LIFE that stephendare is not the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY on. Who would've thunk it?
I think it's a big leap to assume that all the people voting for Huckabee are even aware that Huck has dropped out or that McCain is the nominee. Remember - EVERYONE can vote - not just the people who actually know anything about politics.
A lot of these people were probably shuttle-bussed over from the senior citizens center and they vaguely remember that Huckabee was the guy that their pastor supported.
Someone ought to tell those officials with the DNC to improve their handwriting, dig up a typewriter, or invest in Microsoft Office.
RE: McCain's recent vote totals, let's look at a little history...(hat tip: corner.nationalreview.com)
1. In 2000, GWB had the nomination completely sewn up, yet McCain and others were still on some primary ballots in May/June. Here were GWB's totals:
North Carolina (May 2): Bush 79% (Not too much different than McCain's 74% on Tuesday)
Indiana (May 2) : Bush 81% (vs. McCain's 77% on Tuesday)
Nebraska (May 9) : Bush 78%
West Virginia (May 9): Bush 79%
Idaho (May 23) : Bush 73% (19% for Keyes!)
New Jersey (June 6): Bush: 84% (16% for Keyes!)
South Dakota (June 6) : Bush 78%
2. In the 1980 cycle George H.W. Bush beat Ronald Reagan in Pennsylvania (April 22) and Michigan (May 20), both well after Reagan had sewn up the nomination. Reagan carried these states, and 42 others mind you, in November.
Conclusion: McCain is fine. On the other hand, I'd be worried about Indiana and NC exit polls that showed that ~50% of Hillary voters stated they'd either vote for McCain or stay home in the general election if Hillary wasn't the nominee. That's quite interesting, even if you consider that some portion of these voters are Rush Limbaugh "Operation Chaos" devotees.
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2008, 02:26:11 PM
Thats true Pavers, except that W 'won' because 21 thousand primarily democratic ballots were tossed into the garbage here in duval county
surely you have proof of this. may i see it?
well i heard that Orange county threw out like 68,000 of Bush's votes. heard they burned them to heat the Magical Castle at Disney World in the winter.
I'm not sure what Florida ballots in 2000 have to do with McCain's vote percentages in these recent primaries. The point is, 15-20% of voters will vote for "someone else" on a ballot even with the nomination sewn up. Watch what would happen if Hillary were to drop out of the race tomorrow. She'd still get very sizable percentages in WVa and Kentucky - maybe even win them both. Would that be a sign of a pending Democratic apocalypse? No.
As for the ballots in Duval County, if recall correctly, the issue was with the design of the ballot. The presidential ballot extended over two pages because of numerous candidates. Many voters voted on page 1. Then again voted on page 2. Overvote. Thus, vote invalidated. Is this an accurate interpretation?
This happened in a lot of places. I voted in Chicago in 2000 and thousands of ballots were chucked because of sloppy ballot design there as well. Overvotes galore. And of course, there's the infamous butterfly ballot in south Florida, where Pat Buchanan had his highest vote tally state-wide thanks to mistaken votes.
Who woulda thunk that history would be affected by a handful of bureaucrats who "designed" (that's giving them credit that thought was put into the process) these ballots?
Quote from: stephendare on May 08, 2008, 05:27:04 PM
what i mean to say is that bush lost. probably both elections.
If mcCain is mirroring the same trend in the primaries it wouldnt be a great paralell to draw for McCain.
But doesnt the 1980 Reagan landslide totally invalidate your theory?
well, at least all the Disney characters will have a warm place to sleep at night.
Let's look at the primaries:
The Reps have settled their primary fight with less than 30% of voters still registering protest votes against McCain.
Meanwhile, the Dems are in the middle of a heated primary war in which probably 50% of Dems hate the other 50%. Also, large numbers of Hillary voters indicate that they will vote for McCain if Obama is the Dem nominee.
Now, which party appears to be in worse shape based on their respective primary situations?
More erroneous information. Dems always vote in higher numbers in primaries than Reps, as I recall. So, this stat in and of itself means nothing.
Quote from: RiversideGator on May 08, 2008, 11:33:29 PM
Dems always vote in higher numbers in primaries than Reps, as I recall.
I've never heard that, and I have followed politics religiously for 25+ years. That's not to say that it isn't technically true, but I would think I would have heard it, if it were.
In nearly all presidential elections, one party has an incumbent President or Vice President which depresses turnout. The 'out' party has the higher turnout in any given year.
Regardless, the voter turnout for Democratic primaries has surged in virtually every state, in some cases exponentially. Even in a ruby red state like SC, where both parties had competitive primaries, the Dem turnout bested the best trunout ever for EITHER party.
Many signs point to a Democratic year. Fortunately for the GOP, the Democrats are very adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The 'protest' votes against McCain, aren't neccesarily something for the GOP to worry about, IMO. The percentages of Clinton/Obama supporters that claim to prefer to vote for McCain versus their Dem preference will drop significantly as well. IF the Dems are united, admitedly a big if, they will be difficult to beat.
Perhaps I should amend my previous post. Dems usually vote in greater numbers that do Reps because of their traditionally higher numbers in the party. Also, the party which accumulates the most primary votes does not appear to be the one who always wins. See the chart below:
QuoteFigure 1. Battle of the Ballots: Primary Turnouts by Party Since 1972
Since the current primary-dominated era of presidential nominations began in 1972, more primary votes have been cast in the Democratic than the Republican contests in all but two elections, 1996 and 2000. Part of this is due to the lingering Democratic advantage in party registration in much of the country, as well as the Democrats' penchant for high gusto nominating contests.
Number of Votes Cast (in millions) Major Candidates
Election Primaries Dems. Reps. Total Democrats Republicans
1972 21 16.0 6.2 22.2 McGovern, Humphrey, Wallace Nixon*
1976 27 16.1 10.4 26.4 Carter, Brown, Wallace Ford*, Reagan
1980 36 18.7 12.7 31.4 Carter*, Kennedy Reagan, Bush, Anderson
1984 30 18.0 6.6 24.6 Mondale, Hart, Jackson Reagan*
1988 37 23.0 12.2 35.1 Dukakis, Jackson, Gore Bush, Dole, Robertson
1992 39 20.2 12.7 32.9 Clinton, Brown, Tsongas Bush*, Buchanan
1996 42 10.9 14.0 24.9 Clinton* Dole, Buchanan, Forbes
2000 43 14.0 17.2 31.2 Gore, Bradley G.W. Bush, McCain
2004 38 16.2 7.9 24.1 Kerry, Edwards G.W. Bush*
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2008011701