Back to the op are these new poll numbers, more for what there when you dig than the headline figures.
Overall the Democratic Party is as unpopular as its ever been and the GOP is holding with just as unpopular as they’ve been, both about 48% and both with a favorable to unfavorable of about -4. The TP is a bit less popular overall than they’ve been, running 47% unfavorable to 32% favorable with a -15 fav/unfav spread.
But the story is in the details. One question is enthusiasm, and I’ve already made the case that as unemployment goes down and disillusionment of the TPers already in goes up, the TP’s ability to rev enthusiasm goes down. The other issue is the independents and the moderate voters, who swing elections. There the TP numbers are a fav/unfav spread of -17 and -38 (!) respectively.
In so far as running for the primary means identifying with the TP, a GOP candidate hurts themselves very much with potential swing voters, both “independents” (who are often more conservative) and moderates.
Richard Hernstein of The Bell Curve? I (and most of the regulars of this Board) look askance on that book, and with good reason. A quick search shows that Crime and Human Nature attempts to prove the thesis that certain groups are genetically predisposed towards crime. That’s not a generally accepted idea, and is gonna be a really tough sell here.
None of which disproves the assertion, but I have to admit that I’m not going o uncritically accept it, by any means. The well is suspect.
I don’t have time for a good search, but the searches I’ve run portray 1960s Chinatown as being home to gangs, with gang violence spilling over onto tourists. It’s not at all clear to me that the premise of a crime-free Chinatown is even true:
In essence, it’s going to take a GOP candidate who can play that poker game better than Obama can play his Hand.
I am cautiously optimistic that there is no GOP candidate who the Tea Baggers will support who can beat Obama in 2012. Mitt, and Gingrich are going to make runs for it, but if either pick a Tea Party VP it’s over.
If Obama is reelected he will win by default. The Republicans are likely to nominate someone who energizes the Republican base while scaring moderates, and convincing the majority that they do not have better ideas about the economy.
During the War in Vietnam the country moved to the right, but there was more energy on the left. Since 1973, when Richard Nixon ended the draft and the Supreme Court legalized abortion, there has usually been more energy on the right.
and smiled as I realized it could just as easily apply to the TP:
“The TP was always going to marginalize itself over time: they’re fanatics, don’t believe in compromising, have no platform to govern anyone, and they’ve caused more Republicans to lose elections than Democrats.”
In any case NDD, that’s how most elections roll. One candidate wins only because there was no one else who appealed to more and repulsed fewer of those who actually vote. Obama has been labeled a leftist, a socialist, a … gasp … liberal, but he ran accurately as a moderate on most issues. Those more than just a bit left of center thought he was just saying that but that he’d really be far left when he got in, and so did their counterparts on the Right. Those Left will still vote for him as a moderate is better than a Conservative who has pandered to the TP … as you say “by default”. Many of us in the middle will vote for him but we tend not to be the excited group. “Energy” is only a small part of the result … mass matters more.
I voted for Barack Obama too, and intend to again. I am not disappointed with his policies, but with his inability to out think and out maneuver the Republicans the way Franklin Roosevelt did.
Energy matters because those who take their political opinions with passionate seriousness are more likely to vote; they are more likely to contribute money to the political parties they support; they are more likely to contribute lots of money.
Energy only becomes a liability if a political movement inspires a backlash. So far the Tea Party does not seem to have. During the 1960s and early 1970s the civil rights and anti war movements did inspire a right wing backlash that destroyed the New Deal coalition, and lead to a Republican ascendancy that still seems ascendant.
During the 1960s and early 1970s the demonstrations of the civil rights movement and the anti war movement made the news. However, the important movement was of white blue collar workers from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. There really was a “silent majority” that supported Richard Nixon, lacked enthusiasm for racial integration, and wanted the United States to win the War in Vietnam.