Divide and Conquer

[Superman]

The liberal vote has been split before, with excellent results for the conservatives. Actually, the liberal vote is not difficult to split. There is a very wide range of ideologies encompassed within that term "liberal," (unless of course, you get your information from Faux News).

But the conservative party is pretty darned rock-solid. Monochromatic. There is not a wide range of ideologies there. Instead there is some very parallel thinking. That's good in terms of political cohesion. But that's changing, isn't it? The Great Uniter (George Dubya Bush) has found a way to divide not just the nation, but his political party as well.

How many conservatives out there are noticing that their party is divided into the folks that will never withdraw their support for Dubya, versus the folks who are DEEPLY disappointed at his decidedly non-conservative behaviors? And what impact do you folks think this might have on the next election?

[legion]

Funny, all the liberals were rock solid behind Clinton, despite his quagmires in Somalia and Eastern Europe...

And many argue that the reason Clinton was even elected was because Ross Perot split the Republican vote.

On the other hand, liberals seem to vote in lock step for the "party guy" in the presidential elections. They've even backed off of Ralph Nader as they fear him splitting the vote.

[Superman]

It is widely recognized, whether you know this or not, that the great political liability that the liberal party has is its diversity. White Christian business owners know which party represents their political interests. Black Muslim social workers know better than to vote for a Republican. Generally speaking.

Within the Democratic party, there is always a hellacious debate about platform. The Republican platform is simple and does not change. The Democratic platform is.......well.......there isn't one. The Dems have a very difficult time achieving consensus. That's just a widely recognized political reality.

[djmcmath]

Maybe quagmires are good for uniting the vote?

[Superman]

Yes, they are. They are good at uniting the OTHER party.

Gosh, the Dems are pretty much assured of victory, as long as their ticket does not include a woman or a black man.

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm in the camp of the deeply dissapointed. That said, both parties have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in polarizing America. Card-carrying members of both sides no longer vote for their man because he/she represents the best man for the job. They vote for them because at least they're not some goddam ____ (fill in the blank - "liberal" or "conservative"). So division within the party is a non-issue.

It's always down to the "swing vote". In that regard, it's the Dems to win or lose next time. All they need is some one less repulsive than whoever the Republicans put forward. All I can say about that right now is that Hillary clearly ain't their man.

[RoninLB]

I read awhile ago that independents are a larger group no matter how they registered.. meaning once you have the base locked you have to court the independents.

parties are always in flux anyway. One thing both sides say is that you can't win without support of the party's base. The far left has the $ to control the Dem base.


Hillary vs Rudy in 2008

[MichiganMat]

Quagmire? Last I checked our humanitarian relief efforts to stop the genocide of a newly independent people in Bosnia were a resounding success.

Mission Accomplished.

If only we could be so involved in Darfur (Mission Denied?) or so successful in our latest military, oh what shall I call them (certainly not quagmires right?)... how about adventures, it makes it seem so much more rosey doesn't it?

[dd74]

I'd vote for Nader before I'd vote for Hillary. I'm not into Obama, either. Richardson is mildly interesting.

No one on the Rep side interests me.

Many feel the same as I.

So by candidate choice alone, both parties seemed to have polarized and divided themselves, while conquering only voter discontent.

[kach22i]

R = Exclusive

D = Inclusive

When you include everyone or try to be accomidating it does make you less cohesive, just a natural fact.

On the other hand, pounding others around you so that you can remain above them and have an air of exclusivity has a degree of internal corrosion and self-destruction too.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
I'm in the camp of the deeply dissapointed. That said, both parties have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in polarizing America. Card-carrying members of both sides no longer vote for their man because he/she represents the best man for the job. They vote for them because at least they're not some goddam ____ (fill in the blank - "liberal" or "conservative"). So division within the party is a non-issue.

It's always down to the "swing vote". In that regard, it's the Dems to win or lose next time. All they need is some one less repulsive than whoever the Republicans put forward. All I can say about that right now is that Hillary clearly ain't their man.

Very well said. I think the average American is so damn fed up with both parties, whoever puts forth the candidate that distances themselves furthest from the politician persona will win handily. In general, both sides have proven that they will do and say whatever it takes to win. Their "platforms" are nothing more than a carefully calculated image designed to appeal to the most people. This applies to BOTH sides. After a fed-up nation voted in a bunch of Dems to Congress, the "Party of Change" has shown themselves to be no better than the Repubs than they replaced.

Can't we just fire them all and start over? Put in a bunch of self-made men, small business owners, etc? Warren Buffet for president?