Third Party & Independents Archives

August 07, 2006

More signs of Anti-Incumbent Wave

Over at Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, David Wasserman and Larry J. Sabato
of the U.Va. Center for Politics, write: “To be certain, the 2006 midterm election cycle promises to feature the most strongly anti-incumbent mood since 1994, a fact Republicans might argue cuts both ways, though the Crystal Ball maintains it will disproportionately debilitate the ruling party.”

The evidence I am seeing in the polls confirms this view. However, in the Sabato article entitled: The 2006 Midterms: Guilt by Association?, Wasserman and Sabato indicate victory for Democrat majority in one or both houses of Congress may depend on their ability to link their GOP opponents to Bush policy and doctrine. While that may or may not be true, I believe this view masks an underlying extreme dissastisfaction on the part of voters toward Congress regardless of party. Further, it masks the poll results showing a dramatic numeric rise in self-identified independent voters, and an exodus of voters from both the Republican and Democratic parties.

If this exodus is proved out by poll analysis in November, third party and independent organizations will need to entirely remake their strategy to take advantage of this new receptiveness by 10's of millions of voters to an alternative to the Republocrat Parties.

In my correspondence with Green and Libertarian Party leaders around the country in recent months as President of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, attempting to sell the idea of third party cooperative coalitions, I have learned that there are some cooperative coalitions already created between them and other third parties including the likes of the Constitution Party and Reform Party. Some of these coalitions are agreeing to vote for each other's candidates in districts where they don't have each other's candidates runnning head to head. Other multiple 3rd party coalitions are forming also focused on lowering ballot access restrictions controlled by Republocrat machinery in their states or districts. This is true in Pinellas, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas.

It is clear there are some new dynamics underway. One is in the way 3rd Parties, once utterly uncooperative with each other, are now beginning to form coalition partnerships with each other to bring down the Republocrat machinery which, has for so long, marginalized third parties to the sidelines. Another is showing up as an Independent voter party, and organizations springing up around the country which are solidifying independent voter action against the Republocrat party's candidates.


And lastly, is the incredible increase in disgruntled voters who, in the past, would simply stay home and not vote. But, one poll shows 20% of disenchanted Republicans may vote for a Democrat this November. This is a remarkable turn of events, for these voters are not changing their party, just the party of the candidate they will vote for. This may be an historical precedent if November's poll analysis bears out that a majority of these actually showed up to vote for candidates of the opposing party.

(June 27, Pew Research poll supporting many of the trends remarked upon above.)

Posted by David R. Remer at August 7, 2006 12:23 PM
Comments
Comment #173815

David

“Further, it masks the poll results showing a dramatic numeric rise in self-identified independent voters, and an exodus of voters from both the Republican and Democratic parties.”

I guess I’m an example. A life-long Democrat, raised by New-Deal, FDR Democrats, went down to the supervisor of elections last Friday and changed my affiliation to independent.

I did it with much regret. I expected political nonsense when Bush stole the 2000 election, but did not anticipate the degree of cronyism, corruption and deceit that we’ve seen. But, I never would have believed the lack of a real opposition by the Democrats to disasterous policies like Iraq, the national debt, the dismantling of governmental oversight agencies and defiance of Constitutional law.

I’m angry with the Republicans and their looney neo-cons—I am absoulutely furious with the Democrats for their lack of intestinal fortitude, their miasma of indecision and hand-wringing.

I think the American voter has had ample evidence in the last six years that this country is essentially leaderless. And the leaders we have, from both parties, do not have a clue about how to address the problems we’re facing. They are afraid of the polls, they are afraid of each other, they are constantly raising money for their next race so they won’t have to get a real job.

But, most of all, they are afraid to level with the voters. They are afraid to tell them the truth—that some of the issues this country is facing will necessitate real sacrifice, hard work, and compromise.

I think the most damaging legacy of the Newt Gingrich/Lee Atwater/Karl Rove school of politics has been the incredible devisivness and partisanship, the dirty tricks, the law-breaking, the ‘anything goes’ school of politics. We as a country are the most divided now that I have ever witnessed. That includes the issues of civil rights, Vietnam, equal rights for women,nothing compares to the hatred, cynicism, and the vicious partisanship I see now.

A coalition of third parties? Perhaps. But there are many parties that are diametrically opposed to each other. A real working coalition to dismantle Republocrat incumbency will be very difficult to achieve.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 7, 2006 01:09 PM
Comment #173819

Tim, I too left the Democratic Party years ago for some of the same reasons. The main one however, was fiscal responsibility. Their decades use of the taxpayers purse to buy constituent votes to the detriment of our future economy due to national debt and the opportunity costs of the interest on that debt was the cincher for me.

I truly wish macro econmomics were a required Senior year course in high school. No intense calculus, just a broad overview of private and public sector economics and survey of the opportunities and costs associated with ecnomic choices. It would radically change how 10’s of millions of voters vote.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2006 01:31 PM
Comment #173820

Appealing to disgruntled voters will not be enough. No third party is going to win nationally until it can accomodate or rearrange the public’s consensus on issues. You need leaders out there who have the charisma, the ideas, and the experience in making things work to build a solid base of results for the third party.

The minor status of many parties is not merely the result of favoritism for the Democrats and Republicans in the FEC. Many of the third parties put forward agendas at odds with most people’s sensibilities. If any third party is going to emerge prominently in the next generation, it may have to be new creature altogether, for the most part. It’s not enough to create a VOID in today’s politics. Somebody has to be there to fill it, if a third party is to gain dominance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2006 01:34 PM
Comment #173825

Me too. I was a Republican for 28 years, until about 18 months ago. But, I didn’t feel compelled to want to become a Democrat either, since I don’t believe letting either main party take turns is the solution.

A cooperative coalition of third parties and independents is something I’d like to see. Better yet, I’d just like to see voters of all parties just stop re-electing the irresponsible incumbents. That’s all. But, 3rd parties and independents, of all parties, have much to gain by revealing how the two main parties just take turns being irresponsible. Why they don’t capitalize on that is strange to me, and makes me wonder if getting and securing their incumbency is all they care about too?

There have been periods in the past when voters get fed up and don’t re-elect a large number of incumbents (1950, 1958, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1992, etc.). We may be close to it again? Certainly hope so, because most incumbents (after looking at their voting records, pork-barrel, scandals, peddling influence, and hiding money in their freezer, etc.) don’t deserve to be re-elected. It would be nice to see 33% of the Senate replaced and 100% of the House replaced. Would they dare to be corrupt, still?

The sooner the better, because the longer voters wait, the worse the subsequent consequences will be later.

This may be the start, but I suspect things will have to become more painful and miserable before more voters care. Economically, the remainder of 2006 will be a slow downward slide. There’s a strong probability of a recession by next year. That may prove to be a motivator for the 2008 elections.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2006 01:47 PM
Comment #173826

Stephen, much to your chagrin, I am sure, that third party making great strides in local races these past 10 years has been the Libertarian Party, putting forth more than double the candidates of all the rest of the 3rd parties combined and winning about double the local races as all other 3rd parties.

I don’t disagree with your analysis. I believe such a party will either arise with candidates of the caliber you speak, or, one of the Republocrat parties will morph into a truly people’s representative party by taking bold and democratic positions the people can embrace, like fair and equal ballot access, an end to deficits and national debt except for short term emergencies, and sweeping and uplifting education reforms that will produce a future of highly analytical and discerning voters.

These are platform issues of the leading 3rd parties and independent organizations, in varying mixes, and they are poised to make Republocrat incumbencies a nightmare for the Republocrat parties. Confidence lost, is not easily regained. Ask any parent, teacher, or judge on the bench. Republocrats have lost the people’s confidence, and getting back is going to require a whole helluva lot more than promises, spin, and rhetorical platitudes of patriotism.

Solutions for the major problems facing the nation are what growing numbers of Americans want. And they have lost confidence in Republocrats to create them. However, in their eyes, third parties are untested, and for many, will be deserving of a chance to prove their worthiness. A distinct advantage for 3rd parties over Republocrat’s.

Nader with his anti-war, anti-corruption of Congress, and anti-corporate welfare message had the right platform at the wrong time. He also lacked the charism and salesmanship qualities you remarked upon above. But such candidates are out there in the making in the Reform parties, as Independents, and right of center Greens and left of Center Libertarians.

But even if 3rd party candidate with all the attributes you say would be required arrived on the scene today, they wouldn’t have prayer of being elected because the Republocrats would not allow them into the presidential debates, Repub’s would require ballot access requirements which would sap the energy and money of their campaign, and Republocrats would put their main stream media connections to work demonizing this challeger as a spoiler to one or the other of the Republocrats.

These coalitions on the rise amongst independent and third party voters may well prove to be the arsenal that can defeat those Republocrat tactics and strategies to prevent any challengers outside their own parties from ever achieving positive public recognition. We’ll see. Many of us are working to insure that reality comes to be. Time will tell.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2006 01:54 PM
Comment #173837

Republocrat? Are ya trying to coin a new phrase here? But then that does fit both parties more than Republican and Democrat as there ain’t a dimes difference between them.
I’ve been a registered Independent for 34 years now. I quit calling myself a Republican when Nixon was President. Although I never was really a Republican despite both my parents being dyed in the wool Republicans.
The first Presidential election that I paid any attention to was in 1960. I was thirteen and got real interested in the the election because of all the paranoia about Kennedy being a Catholic.
I want to both parties county headquarters and got information on the candidates. One thing I noticed was that both candidates were saying the same thing, just in different ways. When I asked my Daddy about it he gave me some typical party line answer and being a kid I accepted it.
But as I got older I started doing the thing my parents always tied to teach me to do. I started to think for myself. And the more I thought the more both parties seemed the same. And the more neither appealed to me.
In 64 I supported Goldwater because of his stand on Vietnam.
In 68, the first election I was able to vote in, I voted for an Independent candidate even though I had some reservation about him. But neither major party had anyone that I liked.
In 72 I held my nose and voted for Nixon only because I couldn’t find anyone else worth voting for. But then he wasn’t either.
I quit calling myself a Republican shortly after that and have been a registered Independent sense.
In the years sense the quality of candidates from both parties has been steadily going down hill.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 7, 2006 02:35 PM
Comment #173841

Incompetence and malfeasance, eventually causes someone pain. One thing we can be confident of is that, eventually, enough incompetence and corruption will produce enough pain and misery required to motivate voters (provided they still have the right to vote, that many sacrificed life and limb to secure).

It is just a matter of time. Progress is slow (2 steps forward and 1.999 steps backward). We have been taking steps backward for a while.

While there is no guarantee that the demise will continue indefinitely, there is a strong probability, since we still have the right to vote, that voters will finally catch on, and just simply stop re-electing irresponsible incumbents. Maybe not enough in 2006, 2008, or 2010. But, the longer it goes on, the more likely people will catch on. Eventually, they will, most likely, finally see what is right. They may forget it later, and may have to relearn it later, but they will, most likely, figure it out eventually, and simply stop re-electing irresponsible incubments. Why? Because:

  • it is the easiest thing to do, and people naturally seek the path of least pain and effort. We just haven’t truly discovered it yet, but people almost always, eventually, find the path of least resisitance, effort, pain, and misery.

  • it is the easiest way to protest. People are frustrated, and see what we’ve been doin’ ain’t workin’ .

  • it is the least expensive solution.

  • it is the most peaceful solution.

  • it is the most fair and just solution.

  • it is the most obvious solution to term limits.

  • it is the least complex method.

  • it is the most likely to invalidate the influence of big money.

  • it is the easiest way to send a message to congress to reform themselves or have a very short career.

  • it is the most effective way to create some peer pressure and incentive for incumbents to police their own ranks.

  • it is the most common-sense action.

  • it is the safest action, that will balance power, and not merely shift it or strip all power from government to accomplish anything.

  • it is the most responsible thing to do.

  • it is the one simple thing we were alwasys supposed to do, all along. After we have tried everything else, perhaps will will try the one common-sense, responsible thing we shoudl have been doing all along, always: Don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Ron Brown wrote: Republocrat? Are ya trying to coin a new phrase here? But then that does fit both parties more than Republican and Democrat as there ain’t a dimes difference between them.

Ron,
That’s hard to disagree with, when you look at the numerous similarities.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2006 02:49 PM
Comment #173870

So if all the incumbents are voted out, the Dems get the House, but the Republicans keep the Senate and even get stronger.

Jeffords is retiring and his seat is one of the 33 seats being contested. Another 17 are held by Democrats and 15 are held by Republicans.

Vote the crooks out, right?

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 06:31 PM
Comment #173881

Yep. You catch on fast, Jack.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2006 07:25 PM
Comment #173890

Tim:
“I am absoulutely furious with the Democrats for their lack of intestinal fortitude, their miasma of indecision and hand-wringing.”

So am I. They moved too far right and forgot how to be the opposition in the process. Only the party’s traditional liberal base can move us back where we belong — and we’re just about to do so. And now you choose to leave us, just when we need people who speak like you the most!

David:
“Tim, I too left the Democratic Party years ago for some of the same reasons. The main one however, was fiscal responsibility.”

Well, now is the time to come back. The Democrats are right now being rebuilt from the ground up by the base who is sick to death of all the corruption and the slick, corporately bought-off politicians that make up the DLC Dems. Fiscal responsibility is something you’ll henceforth be seeing the party’s base demand, especially in light of the disastrous economic policies of Bushco, and the looming threat to our social safety net being totally dismantled.
Look at who are right now the strongest and most admired leaders in the party: Dean and Feingold. Both socially liberal, both fiscally conservative. I know you don’t see it, but this is the future of the Democratic party. In my opinion, if they don’t move in that direction in a collective fashion, they will be permanently out of power and dead and gone as a party.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2006 08:03 PM
Comment #173897

Adrienne,
Are parties the answer?

Jack, you’d better knock on wood.
Republicans are gonna lose some cushy, coveted seats to Democrats.
Unfortunately, this is only a temporary fix. The new “In Party” will grow corrupt (as usual).

Jack,
See the list above?
Would you argue with the logic of any of those statements?
Are you saying we are SUPPOSED to keep voting for irresponsible incumbents?
Seems to me, we should not re-elect them, ever.
But, perhaps you are satisfied with things?
I personally think we can and should do much better.
In fact, the path we are on is bad. The economic outlook is not good. The fast growing debt and $1 billion per day of interest on the debt will create pressure to borrow and print more money, which will increase debt, and increase the pressure to print more money, and a recession (which occur every 2 to 11 years for the last 46 years) will create more debt, will create more pressure to print more money. The Fed is already printing several hundred billion per year of new money. The combination of massive spending, no discipline to control spending, the desire to print even more money, massive borrowing, the massive growing debt, huge unfunded liabilities in Social Security ($12.8 trillion in debt) and Medicare (unknown hundreds of billions in debt for the next year), and the increasing nervousness of foreign investors in the U.S. National Debt ($8.4 trillion), growing energy invulnerabilities, increasing competition abroad, and increasingly corrupt government (pork-barrel, graft, FOR SALE government, etc.), and our fiat funny-money system is a recipe for our economic demise. Even for those that don’t think so, their lack of caution and total refusal to entertain the possibility calls their credibility into question.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 7, 2006 08:57 PM
Comment #173899
But, I never would have believed the lack of a real opposition by the Democrats to disasterous policies like Iraq, the national debt, the dismantling of governmental oversight agencies and defiance of Constitutional law.

I’m angry with the Republicans and their looney neo-cons—I am absoulutely furious with the Democrats for their lack of intestinal fortitude, their miasma of indecision and hand-wringing.

Tim,

I think you just summarized the feelings of many, many Democrats, including myself. Democrats in Washington seem to be afraid of their own shadow. After this election in November, I plan on shifting gears. Right now, I believe that the most important thing that needs to happen is for Republicans to lose control of one or both houses. Not because I believe that Democrats have solutions, but because I think it is vital that we restore some oversight on the Unitary Executive.

Once this election cycle is over, I plan to change my party affiliation to independent. I actually find the Libertarian Party the most attractive of the third parties. However, they are having some internal strife right now between those that want to change the party platform to make it more “mainstream” and more electable, and those who feel such change will compromise party principles.

I actually think that if the LP does soften some of their hard-nose stances on certain issues they will become a real threat to the Republicrats. If done right, they can make their platform more agreeable to a wider voter base, while still retaining core principles.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 7, 2006 09:06 PM
Comment #173903

Adrienne, not even close to time to come back. Democrats still believe in one party government run by them. That means they don’t believe in democracy.
When the Democrats get back to their core definition in mind, soul, and action, I will come back to the then new ‘democratic’ Democratic Party.

I see no signs within the Democratic Party that they want to open the political process to allow all voices and all American people to be heard and represented.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2006 09:37 PM
Comment #173927

d.a.n
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately those are only some of the ways that both parties are alike.
I’ve notice that our Congresswoman a Democrat and her Republican challenger are at each others throats and claiming the other doesn’t know what they’re talking about. The problem is both are saying the exact same things. So I reckon neither ones knows what they’re talking about. At any rate I’m not voting for either one.


Adrienne

Look at who are right now the strongest and most admired leaders in the party: Dean and Feingold. Both socially liberal, both fiscally conservative. I know you don’t see it, but this is the future of the Democratic party. In my opinion, if they don’t move in that direction in a collective fashion, they will be permanently out of power and dead and gone as a party.

These two are the best reason I know of for the true Democrats to leave the party. If they are the future of the party then it’s deeper in the toilet than I thought.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 7, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #173930

I can’t think of any congress persons I care to try and defend anymore. Just about the time I think one of them is honest and has integrity, they reveal otherwise. I know people are only human, but that doesn’t justify being low-life, money-grubbin’, FOR SALE, bought-and-paid-for, lackey scum.

The more you look at their voting records, creative campaign financing, resistance to many common-sense, no-brainer reforms, always looking the other way, and refusing to police their own ranks, the more it proves how very, very low the bar is set. We need to turn it around , or continue to be dumped on.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #173954

David:
“Adrienne, not even close to time to come back.”

Ah well, I thought you wouldn’t see it, and you don’t.

“Democrats still believe in one party government run by them. That means they don’t believe in democracy.”

What on earth are you talking about? What gives you the idea that Democrats believe in a one party government run only by them? The only party I see who clearly no longer believes in any form of compromise, or of trying to reach across the aisle are the ones who are currently running all three branches of govt.

“When the Democrats get back to their core definition in mind, soul, and action, I will come back to the then new ‘democratic’ Democratic Party.”

We are, and we will continue to do so. We’re sick of being sold out by the DLC Dems, and we’re long past ready to support real intelligence, strong leadership and honest integrity.

“I see no signs within the Democratic Party that they want to open the political process to allow all voices and all American people to be heard and represented.”

Is this what you’re waiting for? For a political party that is able to please everybody in the country? Good Luck with that — might be a long wait though. The way I see it, the Democrats already do represent more voices and more groups of people than any other party in existence in America. That’s because we’ve always stood up for civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and the base is demanding that the focus of the party return to working in the interests of the middle and lower classes.
The Republicans are clearly the party who wants to exterminate and/or silence large segments of our people in favor of protecting corporate/wealthy interests. Or of allowing those with the overwhelmingly unreasonable desire to scrap the Constitution, and tear down the Wall of Separation Between Church and State for religious purposes. To go nuts riding roughshod over freedom, and drive the country back into the nineteenth century, where men ruled everything, and women were powerless, silent and in thrall to their male lords and masters, and the wealthy plutocrats held everyone below their own social class tightly by the balls.

The Libertarians — to me it seems they believe in a hard-hearted dog-eat-dog philosophy which can only lead to total chaos, and all-out class warfare.

The Greens — a well meaning, but tragically impractical and totally unrealistic view of America.

The other Third Party’s — well, they’re a bit too small to actually matter at present.

No, I think the Democrats are still the best hope for America — just like we’ve always been.

Ron, re Dean and Feingold:
“These two are the best reason I know of for the true Democrats to leave the party.”

Strangely enough, their voices were one of the main reasons I decided to return.

“If they are the future of the party then it’s deeper in the toilet than I thought.”

So, I guess you don’t like social liberalism and fiscal conservatism? I do. You probably like strict social conservatism and strict fiscal conservatism, right? But then, you’re an old school conservative Ron, and I’m an old school liberal, so that makes sense. Truth is, I think the country needs both our kind of thinkers to run perfectly.
Can’t let that “toilet” comment go by…
What party could be more in the toilet than the Republicans at present? Strict yet extremely illogical social conservatism and fiscal liberalism at it’s most thoughtless and dangerously reckless worst!

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2006 01:46 AM
Comment #174005

Adrienne
Right, the country does need both our kind. We keep each other in check.
I won’t argue with the Republican party being in the toilet. Both parties are there and it doesn’t look like either one is planing to get out anytime soon. Maybe we should just pull the handle.

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 8, 2006 08:36 AM
Comment #174008
The way I see it, the Democrats already do represent more voices and more groups of people than any other party in existence in America. That’s because we’ve always stood up for civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and the base is demanding that the focus of the party return to working in the interests of the middle and lower classes.

Stood up for civil rights? Always?
Hmmmmm. Are you sure about that?

Rather than hope for a savior, why don’t voters, instead, take responsibility, and simply stop re-electing irresponsible incumbents? But watch ‘em re-elect the likes of Rep. William Jefferson.

The problem is not which party is in power.

The problem is who put them there.

The problem is too much focus on party.

The problem is that any party is the sum of its parts, and if too many of those parts are irresponsible, then so is the whole.

But, the partisan frame of mind and partisan warfare is the grand distraction that aims to create a circular pattern to control both the conflict, resolution of differences, and then lead everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts, while distracting everyone from the real problems and the most guilty.

It is extremely powerful and effective, because it feeds off of our own bad qualities, and distracts many from the obvious fact that no party is that much better (not really) than the other. The “In Party” may be worse than the “Out Party”, but there’s really no huge difference. The Democrats had 40 years, and voters got tired of it. The mistake they made is thinking the Republicans were any different.

Perhaps, someday, when we have tried everything else, we will try the most simple, common-sense thing that’s been there all along, right under our very own noses? If not, corruption, FOR SALE government, and our demise will continue, until the consequential pain and misery brings about reform, or increased demise that could last for a very long time.

But, don’t worry. Democrats are likely to win some seats, since people are getting fed up with Republicans. But, it’s only a minor and temporary fix, since both parties are substantially corrupt, FOR SALE, bought-and-paid-for, and irresponsible. And why shouldn’t they be? We programmed them to be that way. We reward them. We empower them. Both parties have very high incumbency rates. Over 96% in the House. Over 80% in the Senate. No wonder they believe they can do whatever they want. We keep re-electing them. Only when voters stop focusing on winning another seat for their party, and start focusing on the basics, and simply stop re-electing irresponsible incubment politicians, only then will some semblance of responsibility return to government. But, I doubt we will see it any time soon.

  • The bad news is that things will have to get much worse before they get better.
  • The good news is that we are on the right path to make things much worse before they can get better.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2006 09:21 AM
Comment #174014

Adrienne, you are speaking for yourself. Not all Democrats. Even Democrat voters are losing confidence in Democrats. Those who are not themselves corrupt, that is.

Please review this PEW research and, then try to tell me that Democrats are not about becoming a one party gov’t run by Democrats. A huge number of Democrat voters would vote Democrat incumbents back in even if caught taking bribes for votes. Your constituents are as corrupt as your party in very large numbers.

And WaPo reports just this week:

Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative’s performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.

“That’s dramatic,” said Republican consultant Ed Rollins, who was White House political director under President Ronald Reagan.

A large number of Democrat voters, indeed, the ones who would not vote criminal Democrats back in, are losing faith in their own party as the cite above indicates.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 8, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #174033

David:
“Please review this PEW research and, then try to tell me that Democrats are not about becoming a one party gov’t run by Democrats.”

I don’t see how that one piece of research has made you draw this huge generalized conclusion. So, no, Democrats in my opinion are not about becoming a one party govt. run only by Democrats. Because that’s crazy. As crazy as the Neocons wish to hold a permanent dictatorship. As crazy as Coultergeist and her followers saying that all liberals are traitors to America, and the only way to talk to us is with a baseball bat.

“A huge number of Democrat voters would vote Democrat incumbents back in even if caught taking bribes for votes.”

According to that piece of research 55% of those polled would. That is a large number, but since it doesn’t reflect the prevailing sentiments among the grassroots and “netroots”, it’s an incomplete picture.
The roots is where the change is, and will be occurring.

“Your constituents are as corrupt as your party in very large numbers.”

I can believe that many Dems likely are, though I don’t know what the actual numbers might be — it’s impossible for me to agree with the statement “very large numbers” by looking at just one study. Maybe it’s those who always follow the party blindly, you know, those “Moderates” who keep supporting all the DLC sell-outs, who have an impaired sense of sense of right and wrong. No sense of the country being shafted now more than ever before. No sense of the future being flushed down the toilet thanks to rampant corruption perpetrated by politicians without a semblance of a conscience.
The change I’m talking about is coming from a different direction from those folks — and is just now making it’s presence felt. Ask Ned Lamont how far he’d have gotten in Connecticut without a groundswell of people demanding a change in the status quo and dirty business as usual.

“A large number of Democrat voters, indeed, the ones who would not vote criminal Democrats back in, are losing faith in their own party as the cite above indicates.”

This likely indicates what I’m talking about. That folks like myself want to get rid of the usual line up, and vote in a whole new bunch, in order for OUR interests to start getting the attention they deserve.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #174043
Adrienne wrote: That folks like myself want to get rid of the usual line up, and vote in a whole new bunch, in order for OUR interests to start getting the attention they deserve.

I agree. And, while many may flip-flop back to the Democrats, many are thinking “we been there and done that”.

Incumbency may be a growing negative.

That may be part of Lieberman’s problem?

When long-time, moderate incumbent like Joe Leiberman are at risk, you certainly have to wonder? I’m sure the reasons are debatable.

To deny a growing anti-incumbent sentiment may lead to a shocking revelation for Democrats in the coming elections. While I think many voters will do the flip-flop and vote for Democrats, it’s just a temporary fix, because simply letting the majorify of incumbents of both parties continue to take turns being irresponsible will not resolve our pressing problems we face, growing in nubmer and severity. Enough voters may not figure it out soon, but they will one way or the other, even if it is too late.

Hopefully, the D.R.I.P , D.R.I.P., D.R.I.P., one D.R.I.P. at a time will eventually become a roaring cascade of renewal and progress:

Don’t Re-elect Irresponsible Incumbent Politicians.

Thanks to Jackie for the acronym.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2006 01:09 PM
Comment #174277

As a recovering Republican, I am actually facing the reality of voting for a Democrat for president for the first time since 1980.

Now that I am a fiscally conservative independent instead of Republican, my leanings right now are for Feingold. I may be a bit biased because I am also from WI, but I have met the man several times and can tell you he is very genuine. He espouses fiscally conservative views while still being socially on the moderate to liberal side. He appologizes for nothing. He takes a stand and won’t let go. I really appreciate his guts.

I don’t always agree with him. I don’t “always” agree with anyone. I unappologetically endorse him. The reps don’t have anyone with his fiscal steadfastness. The dems don’t have anyone else with his guts and consistancy. He espouses liberal thinking for the benefit of us all, but only if it can actually be paid for reasonably

I have advocated voting out the bad guys. He ain’t one of em.

Posted by: Chi Chi at August 9, 2006 03:19 PM
Comment #174350

Chi Chi, I couldn’t agree more. I have contributed to Feingold’s campaigns, and I still hold that he is one of the few incumbents who is worth keeping along with McCain.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 9, 2006 06:49 PM
Comment #174352

Adrienne, depending on how you define “our”, I might tend to agree with the last of your comment.

I define our as our nation and the majority of its people. For a Senator or President, I don’t think any other definition is broad enough. Especially not Democrat or Republican.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 9, 2006 06:51 PM
Comment #174614

Ooops, I’ve been neglecting this thread. Sorry about that.

David wrote:
“Adrienne, depending on how you define “our”, I might tend to agree with the last of your comment.”

I define “our” as the middle and lower classes whose interests are being neglected. I figure the GOP will always have upper class interests covered.

Chi Chi,
I agree. Feingold is the best.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 10, 2006 04:27 PM
Comment #175121

Funny, many Libertarian Party members are moving in the exact opposite direction, leaving the LP and getting active within the GOP. Just 3 weeks ago, the top LP elected official in the country, a guy named Brandon, County Executive in Georgia switched to the Republican Party.

There’s a caucus for ex-LPers in the GOP; the Republican Liberty Caucus at www.rlc.org

Posted by: Eric Dondero at August 12, 2006 01:20 PM
Comment #175440

Eric, thank you for that information. The Republican Party would do well to listen them, especially in regard to the size and intrusiveness of government. But, you do realize that this puts the Liberty Caucus in diametric opposition to the Fundamentalist Right-wing Evangelical Christains (FREC’s), right? Seems like a cancellation of wings there.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2006 01:13 PM
Comment #175469

It’s about time for an Anti-Incumbent Party:

http://uscaip.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Pete at August 14, 2006 03:31 PM
Post a comment