America’s Next Bush
Make no mistake about it, Jeb Bush will be President of the United States someday. Ryan Powers has the video of Poppy mulling the concept:
Now it’s true that the extreme unpopularity of George W. Bush might be a problem here. But consider the 1992 election:
Bush got 37.45 percent of the popular vote — slightly less than George McGovern. Among major party nominees, only William Howard Taft in 1912 turned in a worse performance. And not only was Bush hugely unpopular with the electorate at large, he was also hated by the GOP base. When the base doesn’t like you and swing voters don’t like you, you have a problem. What’s more, as of 2000 everybody already knew that W. Bush was dumber and less accomplished than his dad or than Jeb. But he got elected anyway. So don’t think the fact that people hate our current president will stand in Jeb’s way.
Besides, what choice does the GOP have? The last time they captured the White House without a Bush on the ticket was 1972 — eons ago. Without a Bush, they’ve got nothing. My guess is that it’ll take until 2016 for it to happen, but it could be 2012 or 2020 depending on how things develop in the world.
93 Responses to “America’s Next Bush”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 4th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Bush got 37.45 percent of the popular vote — slightly less than George McGovern.
This is the most ridiculous argument that Mr. Yglesias has yet presented on his blog. McGovern did not have a strong third party effort running in 1972 that received over 19% of the vote. Is this the type of intelligence we get from Harvard graduates?
January 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Not a bad idea, really. He will be very, very, very strong with the Hispanic vote. His wife is Mexican, after all. Considering that the Hispanic population is set to grow in the U.S., it would be a shrewd pick.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
If Jeb Bush ever wins the Presidency, I’d say he’ll have earned it. Not only would this *not* be an example of dynastic politics, it would be the refutation of dynastic politics. Anyone would could win whose father and brother were the least popular, even most reviled, Presidents in the past century or so would have to have something going for him
January 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I suppose one would have had to have had both testicles descend by 1992 to understand that Bush Sr. was neither 1. Hugely unpopular with the electorate at large, nor 2. Hated by the base. MY’s analysis of the statistics is piss poor, perhaps because he is discounting the fact that 37.45 is nor such a paltry percentage when one considers the fact that the winner of the election won only 43%, so the 5.5 percentage point differential is less than that of the 2008 election, for one.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Wow, idiot posts in both of the first replies.
Listen SLC, MY didn’t have to mention it because the readers of this blog are smarter than you appear to be. They know McGovern lost to Nixon, they know that Perot ran a strong third party effort. MY’s point stands – Bush won a startlingly small percentage of the electorate. The fact that there was a strong third party effort *at the end of Bush’s first term* doesn’t undermine Matt’s point, it emphasizes it. Is this the type of intelligence we get from Matt’s opposition?
As for Joke Troll Stevie, surprise, the 40 years of racism at the core of the Republican Party means that no candidate at the top of the ticket will be strong with the Hispanic voters. But I’ll be happy for another idiot Bush to run. The family needs to be crushed and eliminated as a force in American politics. Their legacy begins with Grandpa Bush’s trading with the enemy and the massive failure that is the Bush Presidency speaks for itself.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
You’re all dreaming. The only candidates that would galvanize liberals and moderates more against the GOP would be Cheney and Palin. No Bush in the next 30 years at least.
This is the most ridiculous argument that Mr. Yglesias has yet presented on his blog. McGovern did not have a strong third party effort
As if a strong conservative third-party candidate running against an incumbent GOP president was not by itself a sign of Bush Sr’s deep unpopularity.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
There are two things counting against Jeb Bush for at 2012 and 2016 and beyond, at least with this crowd of neocon christianists in charge of the GOP:
1) He’s not Sarah Palin with all her starburst power; and
2) He’s good to Hispanics.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Evil Twin, it is only a stunningly small percentage on the electorate when the number is considered apart from the fact that the winner of the election won a stunningly small percentage of the electorate as well. Clinton’s 43% was less than the loser received in 5 of the last 10 elections (excluding ‘92). By comparing Bush to McGovern and Taft, MY is obviously foolishly overstating his case.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
no candidate at the top of the ticket will be strong with the Hispanic voters.
Jeb Bush, incidentally, won a resounding plurality of Hispanic voters in his gubernatorial election. Facts, dear fellow, are important things. So are manners, by the way, which you seem to delight in not having.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Nope. The next Bush in office will be George Bush III — the hot, half-Hispanic, bilingual son of Jeb.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I think Jeb is more likely to be nominated for vice president than president, as younger, more dynamic figures will emerge in the party.
January 4th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
And by the way, the racism charge is wearing thin. I am a minority and a pretty vehement Republican support. Case closed.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
And by the way, the racism charge is wearing thin. I am a minority and a pretty vehement Republican support.
Macaca or Magic Negro?
January 4th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
And by the way, the racism charge is wearing thin. I am a minority and a pretty vehement Republican support [sic]. Case closed.
Is this post meant as a joke? Even assuming arguendo that it isn’t, do you really think that your support or non-support is dispositive of anything?
January 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Case closed.
Well, obviously!
January 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Look, it’s a bunch of bastards forty years back that did whatever they did. Nobody unrelated in the present day should be forced to pay for dead bastards’ sins. This who business is absurd. What about the Democrats? They blocked Reconstruction and took back the vote from the blacks! Why just 40 years back? Why not 140? You could stretch the time frame back to infinity; this is just BS.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
And I need not mention the post-war Dixiecrats, Wallace in ‘48, etc. Condi’s dad signed up for Republicans because the (racist) Democratic committee chair won’t let him join. This was just decades ago. Hardly an uniquely Republican sin.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=151448342
I second George Bush III ftw.
People are gonna realize the presidency is too important to leave it to a white guy. Dubya might be the last one…
January 4th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
This who business is absurd. What about the Democrats? They blocked Reconstruction and took back the vote from the blacks! Why just 40 years back? Why not 140? You could stretch the time frame back to infinity; this is just BS.
Obviously everyone except you is talking about the situation today.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I realize as a joke and or moron you are required to post incredibly stupid things, but no one is talking about 1968. People are talking about the behavior starting, really in 1948, with the Dixiecrats who have spent the past 60 years being absorbed into the Republican Party. That racism is alive and well today. That a few Republican leaders manage to eschew it does not have any bearing on the totality of the Republican electorate who insist on nativism and immigrant bashing.
That you chose to vote Republican after seeing the disaster that is the Bush Presidency where Republicans held all of the levers of power shows you to be the joke and/or moron that I said at the beginning of my comment.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
“Jeb Bush, incidentally, won a resounding plurality of Hispanic voters in his gubernatorial election. Facts, dear fellow, are important things. So are manners, by the way, which you seem to delight in not having.”
Jeb Bush won a resounding plurality of Hispanic voters IN FLORIDA. Hispanics in Florida tend to vote Republican. George W. Bush and John McCain were also supposed to appeal to Hispanic voters, I should remind you. They didn’t — something of no fault to them, really. It had everything to do with their party.
I very much doubt that a Bush has any hope for 2012. It’s too soon. A Republican, possibly, depending how Obama handles things — but not a Bush. Maybe in 2016.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
another bush would, of course, be a disaster. I will say, however, that Jeb really does speak Spanish, not just George’s collection of ten words. I saw him on Univision once addressing his state after a hurricane, and I was impressed with his Spanish skillz.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
@evie Yeah, George Prescott Bush aka the hottie will be the next Bush in the Whitehouse. Jeb is not Sarah Palin. A lot of the Repub boys have got to get out of the way for lil’ iss starbrust for atleast the next 2-3 general election cycles. I pray she is the nominee on 2012 and 2016.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Do not rule Taft out as an analogy to Bush I. As a matter of the vote, Republicans were a third party in 1912, falling behind the Democrats and Progressives (Bull Moose version), though staying comfortably ahead of the Socialists (however, in some western states Taft did in fact place fourth).
JEB did win a plurality of Hispanic votes but FL is non-representative in its ethnic composition. Florida’s Hispanic community is dominated by Cubans, along with growing populations from northern South America and the Caribbean. Except for that later group, those happen to be the only Hispanic populations that trend Republican. Nationally, the Hispanic community is dominated by Mexican and Porto Rican who are the most Democratic-leaning of Hispanic groups.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I’m assuming this post is tongue in cheek and just not well written. Indeed, otherwise, what’s the excuse? Do we really need a post to the effect that the past doesn’t predict the future, followed with a conclusion that the Bush dominance of the party in the last two decades means the past will predict the future? Which meaningless, contradictory cliche do you prefer? This way, you can have them both.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Evil Twin
Just for the information of fucktards like Mr. Evil Twin, if Perot had not been in the race, President Bush would have gotten a lot more then 37.5% of the vote. Contrary to most analysts, I don’t think he would have won but I would bet he would have done better then McCain did last year.
Another problem with Jeb Bush is his moronic handling of the Terri Schiavo affair where he managed to piss off both sides in that controversy.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
From the map it looks like the “blue state” and “red state” definitions were the reverse of what they are today.
January 4th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Yes SLC, if things were different they wouldn’t be the same. What a fucking brilliant observation. It’s as if you have mastered the incredibly obvious. George H. W. Bush was so incredibly popular a third party was born. The third party votes don’t get to go away just because you live in your own little fucked up world. A world, by the way, where the bombings of innocents is a joke. You’re a sick bastard, and none too bright.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
‘”The last time they captured the White House without a Bush on the ticket was 1972″
It’s even worse than that. The last time the Republicans captured the White House without a George Bush or Richard Nixon on the ticket was 1928. Also, 2008 was the first election since 1972 that the Republicans even nominated a ticket that didn’t include a George Bush or Bob Dole.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
This is the most ridiculous argument that Mr. Yglesias has yet presented on his blog. McGovern did not have a strong third party effort running in 1972 that received over 19% of the vote.
It is a bad argument, but it’s one that is not by any means unique to Mr. Yglesias. I see it made all that time, most often by those who pointed out, before Obama won, that the Democratic candidate for president had not garnered a majority of the vote since the 1970s, thinking they were actually making some kind of point.
From the map it looks like the “blue state” and “red state” definitions were the reverse of what they are today.
The consensus of Red for Republicans, Blue for Democrats didn’t emerge until fairly recently, not until the Florida recount business IIRC. Before then, everybody just used whatever colors they felt like.
It’s weird how quickly the “Red State, Blue State” lingo became universally understood as referring to a sort of cultural divide, such that Barack Obama could, in his 2004 convention speech, say things like “we go to church in the Blue states, and we have gay friends in the Red states” and everyone knew what he meant.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
SLC, how exactly would doing better than 37% but loosing a good mark for Bush? Take the third party votes out and Clinton breaks 50% against an incumbent President who won two wars and saw the end of the Cold War without a shot being fired. How does that speak to the amazing popularity of Bush? How is doing better than McCain even a gold star (a historic defeat is a historic defeat)? No matter how you cut it, Bush pissed off his base and swing voters without getting any Democrats or new voters in return.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Your map would be more useful if it had a caption, a key, or a link attached. I assume we’re looking at popular vote margins; red for Bush, blue for Clinton, with darker shades indicating bigger margins for the victor. But what margins exactly? 5%, 10%, 30%….?
January 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I think what will make Jeb plausible is how divided the GOP has historically been. Compared to the Dems, the Republicans have always been a much weaker and less cohesive coalition, so they needed leaders who can appeal to the different wings of the GOP without ingesting the ideology of any particular wing in its entirety. That’s partially why there has been no winning ticket since 1928 without Bush or Nixon. Both are figures that (at least initially) were good at uniting the GOP base without being anchored to firm details. Nixon ran on suburban middle-class resentment, something that could be shared by both libertarians and social conservatives alike. Eisenhower was the beloved General more than anything; Reagan had the sunny personality; and the Bushes ran on the Compassionate Conservatism ambiguity.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Chub Bush can’t be ruled out. If he runs for the Senate however, which is a well telegraphed possibility, I don’t see how he could then start a presidential run for 12. I’d bet a whole dollar he skips the Senate run.
The genius of the Bush clan has always been the ability to align with the money men, wherever they are, particularly the Saudis. It might be said the Saudis made the Bush’s. If oil were to get under $40 and stay there the Kingdom might become fragile and fracture the great partnership.
The New World Order is suffering a rough patch now with the financial crisis but only in the sense that asset prices have fallen sharply. All evidence indicates that asset distribution will skew even more sharply to the top now. Using the crisis as an opportunity to do bear raids on good assets. That is certainly the plan. If asset price deflation can’t be stopped however all bets are off and another Bush an impossibility.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Yglesias has made a poor comparison between Bush Senior and Junior. Bush Senior was during his presidency considerably more popular than W. His approval numbers were over 505% for most of his term, and he left office with a job approval rating over 50%. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Bush_I_approval_rating.png. Through 1998-2000 Bush Senior was voted the second most popular president in Gallup surveys of Presidents from Kennedy to Bush. http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/bush_41_father_superior/
In comparison to his son, Bush 41 was beloved. This means it will be considerably harder for JEB to every become President.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
SLC, another point you miss.
Every year has third party candidates running. Some years, however, third parties do better, because of the unpopularity of the two major party choices.
Your argument amounts to “well Clinton was unpopular too!” Which is fair enough, but it doesn’t change the fact that Bush Sr. was the most unpopular President since Taft.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
SLC,
Your just being dense. The reason Perot was in the race and got such a high percentage was because of how unpopular Bush was. The Perot boom didn’t rise out of a vacuum.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
“Compared to the Dems, the Republicans have always been a much weaker and less cohesive coalition…”
whaaaaaa?
January 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
You forgot how opposed the Republican establishment was to Goldwater?
January 4th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
And the Cabot Lodge and Taft Republicans too.
January 4th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
SMSG: I am a minority and a pretty vehement Republican support.
Yes, I believe the proper term is “useful idiot”.
~
Evil Twin, what you fail to appreciate is that if GHW Bush had been more popular he would have gotten a lot more than 37.5% of the vote.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Fixed…I hope.
SMSG: I am a minority and a pretty vehement Republican support.
Yes, I believe the proper term is “useful idiot”.
~
Evil Twin, what you fail to appreciate is that if GHW Bush had been more popular he would have gotten a lot more than 37.5% of the vote.
~
Using Jeb’s support in Little Havana as a barometer for his support among Hispanics nationally makes as much sense as using Howard Dean’s support among white Vermonters as a proxy for his support among white voters nationally.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Stephen, it undoubtedly was. But I wouldn’t consider the ossified Republican establishment of the 1960s as a member of the Republican coalition; they were the political class that fed off the institutional strength of the parts making up the coalition.
There’s been a pretty cohesive Republican coalition from the early 20th century to now. In the first part, it was primarily big business, main street businesspeople, and white collar workers, along with significant parts of the AA community, who were a bit detached but loyal to the Republicans because the Democratic Party was ruled by racist Dixiecrats. Compare to to the Democrats, who had white ethnics and labor unions, city machines, Southern whites, and farmers. Obvious places for tensions between urban and rural, and South vs. everyone else so it was less cohesive than the Republicans. Then later on you switch the agrarian interests to Republicans, and add the AA community, Latinos, academics and the educated, and hippies (and in the 90s women) to the Democrats, and the South to Republicans.
I don’t see how the idea that there’s a more cohesive Democratic Party than Republican. The only significant tension between Republicans is business versus the religious, and their areas of particular interest only rarely overlap.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Re Evil Twin
Mr. Evil Twin is a fucking asshole. The point that Mr. Yglesias was trying to make was that the 37.5% of the vote that Bush senior got was indicative of his popularity. The fact is that Perot was a viable candidate because, unlike the other 3rd party candidates that Mr. Eivl Twin refers to, he could finance his own campaign and compete with the major parties on a financially equal basis. Don’t forger that Perot was included in the three debates with Bush and Clinton which was the only time a third party candidate has accomplished that. The fact is that Clinton was none too popular either. Remember Jennifer Flowers. I would also remind Mr. Evil Twin that most pundits think that Bush would have won if Perot were not in the race, an opinion I do not concur with, and I suspect that Mr. Evil Twin does not concur with either. The notion that he elder Bush was anywhere near as unpopular as his son is or was anywhere near as incompetent is total bullshit.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Jeb Bush has his own popularity problem. Her name is Terri Schiavo. It’s an issue that just about everyone can get their brain around- do you want the government intervening in family medical decisions, or not? His standing is strong with conservative Christians, but the Schiavo case cost him with just about everyone else.
January 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
There are only two ways I can see Jeb Bush winning a presidential election. One is if Obama does such a wonderful job that the country is returned to pre-eminence and prosperity, and people forget exactly who and how fucked it all up in the first place. You know, like what happened in 2000.
The only other way is if he’s running against Chelsea Clinton. Because then even I will vote for him.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
YACAPLPFMY! (Yet another CAP-level post from MattY)
Meanwhile, back in 2007 I made a prediction about a different Bush being groomed. Who knows? He might even run as a Dem.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“Compared to the Dems, the Republicans have always been a much weaker and less cohesive coalition”
This. Is. Mind-Numbingly. Stupid.
You forgot how opposed the Republican establishment was to Goldwater?
And the Cabot Lodge and Taft Republicans too.
Are you aware that the year in which we find ourselves is 2008? Oh, wait a minute, you’re the dumbass who was arguing that the Demcocrats should have a harder time appealing to minorities because of Dems like Strom Thurmond, aren’t you?
January 4th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Re skyline
Actually, the born agains aren’t too happy with former Governor Bushes’ performance on the Terri Schiavo episode either. The hard core amongst them don’t think he did enough to keep her alive. Many of them believe that he should have sent in National Guard troops to spirit her away to a secret location.
January 4th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Jeb Bush and Poppy need to understand a little something about “Bush Fatigue”. I doubt even Republicans will have the stomach for another Bush Presidency any time soon. Of course, the GOP may not have many choices worth promoting. Least we forget, Governor Jeb and Katherine Harris helped steer (steal) the election for George W. when they purged 57,700 voters from the rolls for being felons. About 90% of those purged were innocent of anything except being minorities and Democrats. His meddling in the Schiavo affair may have pleased that “base” everyone talks about but the rest of us were appalled. The fact remains that Jeb made George possible and a lot of voters will never forgive him for it.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Anyone who thinks that the Repubican Party will be relevant past 2012 is refuisng to look at the data. After the 2012 Republican nominee loses in a rout to President Obama, the media will probably feel comfortable ignoring the Republican Party and accepting the fact that the Repubicans are irrelevant.
In 2013, it will be hard to take the Republicans seriously with only 35 Senators and less than 150 Congressmen to go along with about 15 governors.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Aha, superdestroyer, a Democratic one-party state, that’s what you want. Speak of fascists…
January 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
People who think Jeb Bush can win the presidency at some point obviously don’t know the man very well. Sure, he was a very popular Florida governor, but every Florida governor in my lifetime, with the exception of Bob Martinez, was hugely popular. For some reason, Florida always loves its governor.
The thing most people don’t see to realize about Jeb is that he’s a huge dick and just doesn’t care who knows it. You can be that big a dick and get elected governor if you happen to share the name of a former president. But getting elected president yourself–well, for that you need to be at least a little bit likeable.
Also, it was pretty much an open secret around Tallahassee that Governor Bush was cheating on his wife (who seldom came to town) with various women that he appointed to well-paid positions, including, for example, Katherine Harris.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I don’t see how Lewinsky dimished the accomplishments of the Clinton presidency; why should Jeb’s alleged extra-marital affairs make him any lesser of an executive?
January 4th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I predict that Jenna Bush Hager will be next the Bush that the Republicans put forward for the office of President, probably in 2016. The Repugs will try to woo back white middle-class voters with a sex-appeal candidate. Hopefully J. will have grown out of heavy partying by that time.
January 4th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
re: Make no mistake about it, Jeb Bush will be President of the United States someday.
Maybe he’ll be the nominee, but I don’t see him winning. Not just because his last name is Bush, but because he will have absolutely nothing new to offer the voters. If the GOP is to win the White House again it will need to change in major ways, and I don’t see Jeb Bush being an agent of that change because I don’t see he has so much of a ghost of a new idea in him.
Re: Sure, he was a very popular Florida governor
In what alternate reality? I lived in Florida from 2003 until early this year. Outside wingnut circles Jeb Bush was not remotely popular. Florida’s current GOP governor has put him in the shade for popularity.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I suspect that DTM might be the same anti-Irish troll who posts under other names, but despite that let me point out how she’s wrong.
Even smart ten-year-olds realize it’s a fallacy to assume a trend will continue when the conditions change, as indeed they have. And, when one looks at the political situations in the countries where a large number of people are coming to the U.S. from, the picture isn’t good. It isn’t as bad as, say, Somalia, but it’s not like S.A. is home to anything remotely approaching our political system. And, one can see how similar systems are replicated here in, for instance, the cities southeast of L.A. Our political system will end up over time end up having features of Maywood.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
And, when one looks at the political situations in the countries where a large number of people are coming to the U.S. from, the picture isn’t good.
I kindly presume this to be a Miss South Carolina 2007 performance.
January 4th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I think the question, DTM, has to do with whether the immigrants are fully assimilated into American society and culture, which entails necessarily the Anglo-American system of legal thought. If they are not, then there is a real chance of the emergence of American-style Latin American Liberation Theology (see the current Paraguayan president, Bishop Fernando Lugo).
Nonetheless, 24Ahead and superdestroyers are regrettably misguided cranks; they are being racialists (not necessarily racists, but racialists).
January 4th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Obama will fuck up by 2012, and Clinton will come in.
She will fuck up by 2016 and Bush will come in.
Anybody can see that coming. Two terms of Democratic fuckups and the Republicans will be back in power.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:18 am
The whole “Perot threw the election to Clinton” meme is one of the most outrageous zombie lies to me. I was there, I was fourteen in 1992 and it was the first election I paid obsessive attention to as a budding political geek. Perot’s campaign, as I remember it, was uniquely anti-ideological. He never presented himself as the conservative alternative ala Pat Buchanan. He was running against incumbents and “Washington”, pretty vauge stuff, thus he appealed to both liberals and conservatives. My New Deal Democrat vehemently anti-Republican grandparents voted for the guy.
The closest thing he had to a central issue was that he was a deficit hawk, which may have appealed to the semi-mythical “fiscal conservative” wing of the GOP, but I think Reagan probably lost a lot of those anyway. He was also anti-free trade, anti-immigration, which appealed to Republican racists and Democrat union members alike. He wasn’t exactly a liberal on the culture war front, mostly he didn’t talk about those issues at all, but he was avowedly pro-choice and made dovish (if old fashioned isolationist) foreign policy statements. It was a hodgpodge that appealed to Dems (many of whom were probably disaffected with New Democrat Clinton) and Reps alike.
In fact, when Perot dropped out right before the Dem convention (before jumping in again) he all but *endorsed Clinton*
Even if sixty percent of Perot voters had gone for Bush, Clinton would have gotten over 50 percent of the pop vote if you take Perot out of the equation, Republicans should thank Perot for giving them a great (if completely dishonest) excuse for questioning Bill Clinton’s legitimacy.
Fortunately they can question Obama’s legitimacy because he’s black. Excuse me, because of the racism of the blacks who voted for him. Or something.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:54 am
I think the problem Bush Sr. faced was a fairly unique one; he was an old-school conservative trapped in a modern, radical conservative movement, and he appealed to neither modern conservatives nor modern liberals. I don’t think he had the necessary conservative vision to make him a crucial conservative president; he just sort of baby-sitted Reagan’s legacy and fought the Gulf War.
I think he was out of a different world, really, the world of Rockefeller Republicanism that had become obsolete in the much more globalised world over which he presided.
January 5th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Lamenter, you got it right! Bush would have needed 2/3s of Perot’s vote to get a majority, ASSUMING THEY ALL WOULD HAVE VOTED IN HIS ABSENCE, which never would have happened. Clinton only would have needed 37% of Perot’s vote for a majority, which he would have far outpaced. But before Perot re-entered the race, Bush was still polling in the upper 30s, but Clinton was in the mid 50s. Perot only helped Bush get close to winning the election, as Bush was bound to go out in a landslide. And Perot was gone from July to October. Perot only has helped Republicans and Clinton hating ultra-libs bash the Clintons. Remember people, Perot was pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and against NAFTA. HE WAS NO CONSERVATIVE.
January 5th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Bush’s 37.4%, the lowest since Taft, is an interesting bit of trivia. In the 1988 election he got 53.4%, a higher percentage than Obama (52.9%).
January 5th, 2009 at 5:31 am
DTM,
First, there is nothing in the constitution that creates the conditions for two parties to exist. What causes two parties to exist is the rules in Congress.
Second, there is really no such thing as a national party. Elections are won at the state level. For Republicans to have seats in the Senate or House, they have to win elections in either state wide elections or in Districts. If you look at what those states and districts look like in 2030, there will not be enough elections that the Republicans can possibly win in order to remain relevant.
Also, since many states function as one party states such as Mass. and Maryland, it requires the Repubicans to dominate in other states to off set those Democratic party dominated states. However, as the demographics of the U.S. change, the Republicans will dominate is so few states that they will be irrelevant.
So the final argument is that as the Republican party collapses and all of the former Republicans start voting in the Democratic primary, that groups inside the Democratic Party will become so discontent that they will leave, find enough funding to create a new political party, find enough support to create 50 state organizations, and find enough people to run for 1000’s of offices through the U.S. What is more likely: for your scenerio to happen or for the U.S. to function like the current state of Maryland or Mass. Remember, for the U.S. to be a de facto one party state.
My scenerio does not require the Republicans to go away, just to be irrelevant and be a rump political party with zero chance of affecting policy and whose main job is to act as a foil for the dominate Republican Party.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:23 am
Re: And, when one looks at the political situations in the countries where a large number of people are coming to the U.S. from, the picture isn’t good.
If 100 years ago one had looked at the political situation of the nations from which then-immigrants came it was mostly pretty bad too.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Re: What is more likely: for your scenerio to happen or for the U.S. to function like the current state of Maryland or Mass. Remember, for the U.S. to be a de facto one party state.
???
Massachusetts is not a one-party state. Ever hear of Mitt Romney? And for Maryland check out the most recent electoral map by county. Lots of red there.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:17 am
DTM,
You need to study the current stated of political parties instead of referring back to times when only white men could vote. Political parties are much more homogeneous than in past times. The most liberal Repulbican in the U.S. House of Representatives in more conservative than then most conservative Democrat representative. Thus, the U.S. has become much more like a parlimentary system than in the past. Thus, less reason for people to leave on party for another. Historical references do not really apply because the U.S. did not have a Voting Right Act or a Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Office that will do what it takes to keep the Democratic party the dominant party.
Also, there is a national Republican party but still, the elected republicans are elected in local and state wide elections. For the Republicans to survive or another party to get started, that party has to find enough districts and states where it can compete. There are currently not enough states and districts where the Repulbicans can compete for anyone to consider the Republicans a national party. As more districts and states become dominated by the Democrats, the number of seats where either the Republicans or a third party can compete will go down, not up. The national party is just the sum of its elected parts. Look at the problems that the Republicans are having because their most visible leader is Mitch McConnell and there are no good prospects for the future.
Powerful people makes bets on winners. While the Republican party held about 50% of Congress, of course people were going to give them money and some level of support. However, as the number of Repulbicans decrease, people will stop giving money, stop volunteering, and fewer people will be interested in running for office as a Republican.
The problem with a new party is that there will be no advantage for anyone to suppport the new party because why would anyone wanting to affect policy invest in a third political party that cannot influence policy.
It will take more than the ability to have earmarks and provide jobs to the idiot children from back in the district to give the Republicans a reason to exist. it will not be long before the Democrats realize that way should so many government commissions and boards have 50%+1 Democrata and 50%-1 Republicans when the Republicans will control less than a third of the seats in Congress.
JonF,
In the maryland assembly, the Democrats have 33 seats in the State Senate versus 14 for Republicans and have 104 state delegate seats versus 36 for the Repubicans. In Mass. the breakdwon is 34-5 and 141-19. In neither state do the Republicans have any influence on policy.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Ahh, the rantings of a Hispanic nationalist. How comforting
January 5th, 2009 at 8:47 am
superdestroyer, get a grip. The whole crap of Liberation Theology will not happen in the US, despite what you like. This is a country built on Anglo principles, and thusly it will remain. And one of the Anglo principles is muilti-party democracy.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Stephen, where did I mention liberation theology. However, blacks vote over 90% for the Democratic party and the black population is growing relative to the white population. My guess is that any district that is more than 40% black is an automatic win for the Democratic party. Also, any county where the public schools are less than half white are probably a lock for the Democratic party.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Re: In neither state do the Republicans have any influence on policy.
Again: Have you never heard of Mitt Romney? William Weld? Saying that GOP ovetrnors have no influence on policy means you have redefined “policy” to mean something very different. As for the national situation, the GOP may not recapture either house of Congress or a while. I expet they will win back a few House seats in 2010 (but possibly lose one or two Senate seats), and go on from there to improve their position in both houses. Assuming they can break free of the wingnut base and appeal to centrist voters again, there is no reason they will not be ale to recapture the White House again too someday. The Democrats after all will eventualy screw up again, and the public will turn to the GOP as a result. Now there is a possible future in which the GOP is unable to break from its extremist base and does eventually collapse into irrelevance, but in that future the rational wing of the GOP and the conservative wing of the Democrats end up uniting, eiher explicitly or by longterm tactial alliance, to present an alternative to the liberal wing of the Democrats. America will not be a “one party” state, and certainly not a “one ideology” state.
January 5th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Well, Jeb Bush’s terms in Florida were more or less a hurricane level disaster featuring no shortage of vote fraud, child welfare scandals, corruption and incompetence.
By Bush standards, that qualifies him to be President.
Personally? I think America should elect Jeb Bush as President, and once and for all cement the decline of America into third world banana republic irrelevance. Go ahead, make my day.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:37 am
When was the last election that the Republicans won without a Bush or a Nixon on the ticket? And I don’t see any Nixons out there likely to win.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Note that this is only part of the institutional base of support. In addition, there were strong moves at the state level in the late 1800’s that entrenched two party dominance, particularly the anti-fusion laws and the rise of state-financed primaries for “major parties” during the days of the single-party South.
The anti-fusion laws arose as Republicans in the North found that running against both Democrats and Progressives was harder than just running against either, and so outlawed the practice of forming strategic electoral coalitions by nominating joint candidates for particular positions (for instance, allowing Progressives to support a “wet” candidate and Democrats to support a “dry” candidate when important parts of their electoral coalition would have rebelled against that position as part of their party platform).
State-financed primaries for “major” parties were in part a reform pushed by progressives to fight the “back room deal” … and of course, with the emergence of the Solid South, primaries were the only way to have a small-d democratic voice in election to any statewide office in many states in the country. And of course it was limited to parties that could demonstrate “sufficient” electoral support … which were, of course, precisely those that might be able to block the reform.
The principle electoral reform that would re-establish a political base for third parties would be second preference voting, where ballots include both a first choice and an optional second choice vote, with an automatic run-off taking place between the top two candidates if nobody wins a majority of first preference votes.
That would allow third parties to seek to increase their “demonstrated electoral support” without running into the “wasted vote” headwind … people could vote their conscience and vote for the Lesser Of Two Evils.
January 5th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
bruce,
As you have pointed out, when one party dominates, people have to vote in the primary election to have a meaningful say in the election. As the Democratic party grows in its dominance, more people will begin to vote in the Democratic primary and treat the general election as something that it moot much like muniple election in most large cities already are.
DTM,
You vastly overestimate the ability of political parties to either change direction or to move voters through either campaigns or marketing. Probably 85% of Americans will vote either Democratic or Republican no matter who the candidate is or what the issue are. The number of swing voters is going down, not up. As the demographic groups that vote overwhelmingly Democratic grows, the voting base will soon reach a period where more than 50% of the population will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. When that happens, it is game over for the Republicans or any third party.
One of the reasons that a third party cannot get started is that most people are not swing voters. There is not enough swing voters to make a third party viable.
Also, you keep talking about historic examples but you keep skipping over the negative reinforcement mechanisms of modern poltics. The Democrats will have almost total control over redistricting in 2010 and should be able to eliminate at least 30 Republicans from Congress. Also, as the Republican aprty collapses, the bench for the Republicans get shorter, not longer. With no Republicans governors, lt governors, or Congressmen or other state wide elected official in many states, the Republicans do not have anyone to run for the Senate. Many Senate elections will be sitting govenrors, attorney generals running either against inexpereince wealthy white guys or lowly state senators or reps. Not exactly the path to winning. Any third party will suffer the same problem” the inability to attract experience candidates.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
DTM,
I doubt that a new conservative party of fiscal conservatives but without the social conservatives would be any more relevant than the current Republican party. Non-whites would be even less interested in a political party of small government but pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights, etc.
I think you have to face the fact that the big government party has a much easier times of being the big government party. As long as every interest/demographic group gets its share, they can tolerate the other groups. Any party to the right of the current Democratic party cannot be large enough to compete with the current Democratic party. If the Repubicans decide to get the white collar, suburban whites back, they lose the social conservatives. If the next party decides to support open borders and unlimited immigration, the nativist will talk away. No new party can offer as much to as many groups as the current Democratic Party.
You seem to be arguing that after the current Republican party collapses and after some short time of “good feelings” that enough groups inside the current Democratic Party will want to walk away and start their own party. I do not see any scenerio where that breakaway party will be any less white than the current Democratic party. A green party to the left of the Democratic party would probably be just as white as the current Republican party (look at the diversity of the average environmental protest). Any small government party will be just as white as the current Republican Party (see the current libertarian party). There is just no scenerio where you can see blacks and Hispanics walking away from the current Democratic party. When over 90% of elected blacks and Hispanics are Democrats, they have less reason to leave. And in the medium run, the voting rights act along with enforcement by a Democratic controlled Justice Depart act will keep the percentages of elected blacks in the Democratic column.
You have never been able to supply one reasonable scenerio of either a large portion of the current Democratic party leaving or either non-whites voting for a party other than the Democratic party. You basic argument is that is the way it is going to happen because that is the way it is going to happen.
Also, ignoring all of the city and state examples does not help your case. Large portion of the current Democratic voters live in de facto one party areas. None of them have shown the least desire to leave the Democratic party. As shown in places like Chicago and Mass., as one party dominate, people show less tendencies to leave.
Unless an issue like Slavery comes along, I doubt that the coming dominant Democratic party is going to split in two any more than the current Democratic party in Mass will split in two.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Re: I do not see any scenerio where that breakaway party will be any less white than the current Democratic party.
Why? Right now Blacks and (to a lesser extent) Hispanics and a couple of smaller groups (gays and Jews) are kept loyal to the Democrats by the fact of elements that are very actively hostile to them in the GOP. If those elements are marginalized so they are no longer a factor, then there will no longer be a reason for a monolithic Black vote or a semi-monolithic Hispanic, gay or Jewish vote. Deep fissures exist within all these groups between rich, poor and middle class, for example; or between religious and secular members of these communuties. So without a common enemy these communities will cease to cohere politically much as Roman Catholics ceased to be a coherent political block once anti-Catholic bigotry became a fringe phenomenon.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
DTM,
You remind me of the people who compare education, welfare, crime between Republican and Democratic controlled states and then try to make conclusions for the whole country without realizing that their data is the sum of the whole country. When you sum up the results of all partisan elections in the U.S., you have the current Republican and Democratic parties. And when you add up the current state of partisan politics, a large portion of the U.S. live in states with one functional political party. Saying that in some unexplained way, that a new party will spring up to replace the collapsing Republican party is naive at best and idiotic at worst. People have lived in places like Los Angeles, Mass. Chicago, or Baltimore for decades with only one funcitonal poltical party. As more parts of the country become like Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Mass. there will be more places were people function in a one party state. When enough places reach that level, then the sum of their actions will be to take the U.S. will be a one party place. There is nothing magical in the Constitution to make Chiciago a two party city any more than it will keep the U.S. a two party political system.
January 6th, 2009 at 5:58 am
DTM,
During all of those previous times, there was no voting right act requiring that minority/majority districts exist. There was not a Congressional Black Caucus, there was not a Congressional Hispanic Caucus. There were not feedback loops such as minority set asides, quotas, 8a contracting, and affirmative Action.
The government policies of both the last few Republican and Democratic Administrations have ensured that blacks and Hispanics will politically organize along ethnic and racial lines.
In previous times, there has not been the huge number o feedback loops that will benefit the Democrats and harm the Republicans. The idiot Republicans thought that they were i a dominate position and did not do anything about the feedback loops. So, they are all still here and will all benefit the Democratic Party.
Image what will happen if the Democrats pass a fairness doctrine where the government will have the ability to regulate speech, or the Democrats pass a second round of McCain-Feingold where the Democrats can eliminate the ability of any other party to effectively fund raise.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Are You Looking To Meet Someone Over The Holidays?
Mate1 Dating Site – Holiday Coupon Code – 3 Months Absolutely Free!
Mate1 boasts a membership of over 16 million online daters with a ratio of 50% men and 50% women for the most even playing field on the Internet. It’s by far the hottest dating site on the internet right now… You are guaranteed to meet someone you like!
Mate1 is running a special holiday promotion this week – They are giving away 3 months of free access to new members (Men and Women). Absolutely no credit card/payment required.
Instructions on how to get 3 months of free access to Mate1:
1)
Go to this link – http://www.magictime4us.com
2)
Signup for a free trial account.
During the signup process it will ask you if you want to signup for a ‘Free Trial Account’ or if you want to ‘Subscribe/Pay’ – You want to select “Free Trial Account”.
3)
Once you have successfully signed up and verified your email address and contact information proceed to the subscription link on the Mate1 website.
4)
On the subscription screen there is a place for a coupon code – Enter “HOLIDAY” and click Apply. You will now see you have 3 months of access credited to your account. Enjoy!
Note: Make sure you follow the steps above completely. During the initial signup process it’s important that you do not select subscription because the coupon code field will not be visible. You need to create a free trial account first.
Happy Holidays!
Mate1
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 am
levitraI want to say – thank you for this!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:07 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 4:52 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:17 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:50 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 15th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Hello, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, Your blog looks good. Have a nice day.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
thanks !! very helpful post!