In large, Americans have forgotten the race of 1992. The world went on and eight years later the Gore v Bush battle would dominate the American media, debates, and even lawsuits at the turn of the century. Ultimately, the United States would once again become “Bush Country”. Then, eight years after “Bush Country,” American media would stumble across the great debates, lawsuits and arguments for and against Obama.
Suddenly, enter The Tea Party. Supported and encouraged by many Republicans, the party appeared to support Republican candidates at first. Their message is clear, they want less government, fewer taxes, and support of the United States Constitution. On the outside, they sound Republican, but something is gradually changing those lines. While initially supporting certain Republican candidates, the Tea Party gradually started supporting their own candidates over Republican candidates. As of this morning, headlines on Yahoo’s news feed scream “Tea party victory endangers GOP’s goal of retaking the Senate”Yahoo Link. A Tea Party backed candidate who happens to also be a Republican in Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, defeated Representative Mike Castle, a Republican. Not only was Mike Castle a Republican, but he was also a longtime Representative. The Tea Party has effectively gone from a “party” or demonstration group to what could be considered a viable “third party” capable of swaying votes within the Republican lines severely.
An old saying is “history repeats itself.” If that saying is true, and it has been argued to be so on several occasions, then the American political landscape may well be on its way to a repeat of the 1992 Presidential elections. Considering that Sarah Palin, current Republican, supports Tea Party candidates. It is possible that if Mrs. Palin does not obtain a position on the Republican ticket for 2012 that she may option out to represent the Tea Party. It would be an easy transition for her considering that she will have the rest of 2010, 2011 and early 2012 to support both Republican and Tea Party candidates. She can basically walk the line until it is time to represent one group or the other. To further propel the Tea Party, not only do they have the victories right now in 2010, but they also have all of 2011 and part of 2012 to build support, financial resources, and the momentum needed to push their third party candidate into the spotlight.
If the Tea Party becomes the third party of the 2012 race, they will no doubt pull their support largely from Republican voters. Once they pull voters from the Republican supported ticket, they will force the same outcome that Ross Perot forced in 1992. States that Republicans should win will suddenly become won or lost by small percentage margins. In the end, a split of Republican support between a Tea Party candidate and a Republican candidate will allow the Democratic party to carry the needed votes on both the popular level and the electoral level. The end result will be four more years of Obama in the White House, and that is a result that neither Tea Party or the Republican Party supporters want to endure.
A better subject for an article would be "The Fall Of The Establishment", as they are the only ones that have any reason to feel "threatened" by the tea parties, which are no party at all, but a venue for the groundswell of grassroots republicans to express and even act on their frustrations with a liberal party apparatus that has long disregarded their wishes.
ReplyDeleteThe party's reaction to the Delaware Senate Primary results was very telling. Withholding support simply because their preferred candidate was beaten by an outsider????
I would ask you to reevaluate who the real threat is here;
The Majority of the party rank & file, who are standing on principle?? OR the out of touch elites that will bury a candidate & lose the seat rather than accept the people's choice???
Very good points all around.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that Republican Chairman Steele issued a statement supporting O'Donell in Delaware now. Sounds like you may be onto something here.
Thank you for reading and commenting!
Oops...I meant O'Donnell (n on keyboard got stuck.
ReplyDeleteYes, and John Cornyn(NRSCC)ran out to do some damage control, offering support & $40,000 dollars. Although fundraising & endorsements will reveal their sincerity. Funny thing is she may not need them! In one day(yesterday) she raised $500,000 from around the country & also in one day her poll numbers in a direct match-up with Koons went from 25 points behind to only 11 points.
ReplyDeleteYet, she cannot win???
By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
Now 2/3rds of the states and voters are ignored -- 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. The current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states, and not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, ensure that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Re "Rise of the Tea Party" post: Dr. Thomas, your point regarding the effects of third parties is well taken. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly distressing to continue holding my nose while voting for RINOs. If only the GOP would support candidates who actually agree with the party's platform...
ReplyDeleteRe Toto's post concerning the National Popular Vote bill. With all due respect, I believe it is false that this bill "uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president." It is my understanding that it was the intent of the electoral college to give the less populated states a slightly greater voice in choosing the President; otherwise, the few most populated states would always determine the outcome of the election. If I am wrong, please show me why.
The problems in New York or California or Florida are not the problems in Arkansas or Texas. Both urban and rural voters should have voices which can be heard at election time.
State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award electoral college votes were eventually enacted by 48 states AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe Founding Fathers only said in the U.S. Constitution about presidential elections (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.
In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.
There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states. Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district -- a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the President is elected.
Under National Popular Vote, when every vote counts, successful candidates will continue to find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support . It would no longer matter who won a state.
ReplyDeleteNow political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. Eight state legislative chambers in the smallest states have passed the bill. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
Of the 22 medium-smallest states (those with 3,4,5, or 6 electoral votes), only 3 have been battleground states in recent elections-- NH(4), NM (5), and NV (5). These three states contain only 14 of the 22 (8%) states' total 166 electoral votes.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
With National Popular Vote, big states, that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates' attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split -- five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
In 2004:
• 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
• The 6 states that provided the Democrats with their largest vote margins in 2004 were CA, IL, MD, MS, NJ, and NY.
• All 11 of the Southern states (the old Confederacy) voted for Bush.
• The 11 southern states provided Bush with a bigger margin (4,653,558) than the 6 states with the largest Kerry vote margins (4,428,268) in 2004.
If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.