Third-Party Peril. President Bush could have some serious 2004 worries.

NRO ^ | October 20, 2003, 8:31 a.m. | John Derbyshire

[Texas_Dawg]

Do you really feel that the invasion is a minor issue?

Warthog said that to MOST people it is a minor irritation. That is true. Most American voters don't agree with you that this country is going to collapse if the people mowing the greens at their local golf course don't speak English.

[Porterville]

Democrats are dreaming.... "wouldn't it be great if another Ross Perot came along and helped get another anti American traitor in office who rapes young women and sells the white house to the highest bidder??"

No way Republicans will make the same mistake twice, it is the dems who need to worry about third party politics.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The thrust of the article is bogus. There is no right wing 3d party waiting in the wings that would have any power to accomplish what is claimed. As other posters have noted, the only 3d party capable of damage would be the Leftist one.

Every indication is that the RATS are heading blindly over the cliff led by the Pied Piper Howard.

Fortunately it appears that the RATmedia has lost a great deal of its power to do harm to the GOP and America. Californica's recall is a case in point. Almost every newspaper editorialized against the Recall and would have been well advised to save their ink. RATmedia becomes less relevent with each passing day.

[Dog Gone]

I know that you wish everyone in the country shared your level of passion on the subject, Joe, but they don't.

If they did, we would have done something about the problem a long time ago.

[x]

The Dems have much more to worry about in a third party scenario.

I doubt that. They're hungrier this year. And hate Bush more than in 2000. This time, Clinton won't be a major factor and Democrats won't feel the need to defend him or vote against their party to repudiate him. Dean may not win the nomination, and won't likely win the election, but if he stays with the party he can keep a large part of the left with it. I have a feeling Nader or another Green Party candidate won't do as well this year, and some of those who voted for him will return to the Democrat fold.

As for Derbyshire's projection, the main idea is "self-financing," also "prominent." Pat Buchanan and Howard Phillips weren't able to get very far campaigning on immigration and other conservative issues. It's doubtful that a Gallegly or Tancredo would be able to do so either. Unless a candidate is extraordinarily strong and charismatic, the "third party" factor drags him down.

John Schmitz in 1972 was a Congressman, but did exceptionally poorly in the Presidential race because he couldn't overcome the Third Party "nut" image. Republicans closed ranks behind Nixon, and it's likely they'll do the same behind President Bush. It's not that Nixon or this Bush are more conservative than GWH Bush. It's that they are fighters and most Republicans are in a fighting mood at the moment. In both cases, liberal hatred of such leaders served as a rallying point for Republicans. In the case of the President's father, ridicule worked better for Democrats than outright hatred, but it won't fly as well this time.

I doubt any third party candidate could do as well as Perot. One day, a charismatic, wealthy outsider not identified with any established right- or left-wing might again make a Perot-like sensation, but events like that are few and far between.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I know that you wish everyone in the country shared your level of passion on the subject, Joe, but they don't. If they did, we would have done something about the problem a long time ago.

Wrong..

Many polls have been taken. The American people overwhelmingly support ending this nightmare and have been demanding relief from their so-called elected representitives for years. This is clear.

Unfortunately, the government has no intention of representing the people....

[deport]

I thought by now I would see "TANCREDO" in huge bold font.

---

I think I saw another Coloradan's name [Gov. Owens maybe] mentioned as a possible nominee in 08.... He's getting some good press and recognition at this time.

Tan has one issue and that isn't enough to propel him very far, imo,

[ought-six]

"As to the 'illegal immigration' issue--to MOST people, it is a minor irritation, not a source of major political 'juice'."

You must live in some barren, remote and frozen wasteland somewhere up near thee Pole, because the illegals ARE ALL OVER THE G*DDAMN PLACE down here in the lower 48.

[grania]

Texas Dawg: This is a conservative survey in terms of the numbers opposed to the current realities with immigration, and the numbers in more current surveys are probably more pronounced. This makes the point...leadership does not support the population on this issue. I don't see either party actually representing voters on this issue, however, and I don't see a hero like Representative Tancredo rocking the boat this election.

---

Elite vs. Public Opinion
An Examination of Divergent Views on Immigration

December 2002

By Roy Beck and Steven A. Camarota





While it has long been suspected that public and elite opinion differ on the issue of immigration, a new poll provides the most compelling evidence yet that there is an enormous gap between the American people and "opinion leaders" on the issue. The survey also suggests that the gap between the public and elites has actually widened since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

This Backgrounder is based on the findings of a recent national poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in May through July of this year. The Council is a non-profit policy organization that sponsors polls and events on a host of foreign policy issues. The Council has a long tradition of polling to find differences between the public and opinion leaders.

The polling of the public was based on 2,800 telephone interviews from across the nation. The council also surveyed nearly 400 opinion leaders, including members of Congress, the administration, and leaders of church groups, business executives, union leaders, journalists, academics, and leaders of major interest groups. (The full results of the survey can be found at http://www.worldviews.org/detailreports/usreport/html/ch5s5.html) This Backgrounder is the first detailed examination of the poll’s results on the issue of immigration.


* The results of the survey indicate that the gap between the opinions of the American people on immigration and those of their leaders is enormous. The poll found that 60 percent of the public regards the present level of immigration to be a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States," compared to only 14 percent of the nation’s leadership – a 46 percentage point gap.

* The current gap is even wider than that found in 1998, when 55 percent of the public viewed immigration as a "critical threat," compared to 18 percent of opinion leaders – a 37 percentage point gap.


* The poll results indicate that there is no other foreign policy-related issue on which the American people and their leaders disagreed more profoundly than immigration. Even on such divisive issues as globalization or strengthening the United Nations, the public and the elite are much closer together than they are on immigration.


* When asked a specific question about whether legal immigration should be reduced, kept the same, or increased, 55 percent of the public said it should be reduced, and 27 percent said it should remain the same. In contrast, only 18 percent of opinion leaders said it should be reduced and 60 percent said it should remain the same. There was no other issue-specific question on which the public and elites differed more widely.


* The enormous difference between elite and public opinion can also be seen on the issue of illegal immigration. The survey found that 70 percent of the public said that reducing illegal immigration should be a "very important" foreign-policy goal of the United States, compared to only 22 percent of elites.


* Also with respect to illegal immigration, when the public was asked to rank the biggest foreign policy problems, the public ranked illegal immigration sixth, while elites ranked it 26th.

* The very large difference between elite and public opinion explains the current political stalemate on immigration. For example, supporters of an amnesty for illegal immigrants have broad elite support ranging from religious to business and union leaders. Normally elite support of this kind would lead to policy changes, but on this issue public opposition is so strong that it creates a political stalemate.


* Continued deep public dissatisfaction with current immigration policy indicates that candidates or political parties that advocate a reduction in immigration might reap a significant political benefit. This is especially true because it could be marketed as "anti-elite" and more in sync with the American people, a message that has traditionally been well received by voters.


* President Bush’s efforts to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants appear to be hurting him politically. While 53 percent of the public said his handling of foreign policy overall was excellent or good, on immigration only 27 percent said his handling of immigration was good or excellent; moreover, 70 percent rated Bush as poor or fair on immigration. the lowest rating he received on any foreign policy-related issue.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You must live in some barren, remote and frozen wasteland somewhere up near thee Pole, because the illegals ARE ALL OVER THE G*DDAMN PLACE down here in the lower 48.

Oh come on, it's just a "minor irritation".

I swear, some of these comments are right out of Mad Magazine...

[Consort]

Did Perot cost Bush that election?

The voters cost Bush that election. "It's the voters, stupid."

[Wonder Warthog]

"Do you really feel that the invasion is a minor issue?"

No--my preference would be to have all illegal aliens rounded up and shipped back to their home countries forthwith. BUT---I'm in a minority on the issue. To MOST voters, it just simply isn't an issue with "political traction".

[WRhine]

As to the "illegal immigration" issue--to MOST people, it is a minor irritation, not a source of major political "juice".

While it’s true that the Illegal Immigration issue did not achieve critical mass in past elections, I believe there is a growing awareness within the electorate that Illegal Immigration is a crisis and it is part and parcel of a growing discontent with the status quo as we saw in CA recently.

You have to remember that even 5 years ago the crisis of illegal immigration was not nearly as severe as it is today in most parts of the country. So it was easy for most Americans to overlook--so long as their own town was not affected. This is no longer true as more and more regions of America get a first hand experience with growing populations of illegal aliens and the staggering social costs that invariably accompanies their invasion--which Americans of course have to shoulder.

Then we have the defining event of 911 which has reawakened Americans about the dangers of unrestrained immigration, lack of interior immigration law enforcement and leaving our borders wide open to the world.

It's my opinion that while Illegal Immigration (or immigration in general) will probably not be THE single defining issue of the 2004 election, it will be nonetheless be a powerful issue that can be tapped into as John Derbyshire suggests. Given the state of the divided electorate this issue has the potential of altering the political dynamics of elections at the margins which is all it takes these days.

And because Illegal Immigration has become so widespread recently and is growing at such an alarming rate, in another year, this issue will have gotten the attention of even more voters.

Consider This: As a past contributor of the GOP I get about a call about every two weeks from the RNC or the Bush/Cheney reelection committee (in addition to fund raising letters every month). Last week I got my usual call from the RNC looking for a contribution. Normally I cut the operator’s spiel short with something to the effect that if Bush can't do something about illegal immigration I'm not supporting him or the GOP.

This time I let the operator run on until she asked for money. Instead of being blunt I politely declined the request and in more diplomatic terms said as long as Bush leaves our borders open, does nothing about illegal immigration and encourages American Jobs to be shipped overseas via One Way Trade Deals neither he or the GOP will get my support. To my surprise she said: "You know, I can't tell you how many people have told me this!” Another Freeper recently said on another thread exactly the same thing about a call he got from the RNC.

You can dismiss this and other anecdotal evidence but the issue of Illegal Immigration and related issues ARE getting Traction in the electorate.

Bush dismisses the crisis of Illegal Immigration (and the trade issue) at his own peril. It is IMO becoming political dynamite.

Times are a changin.

[deport]

Bush dismisses the crisis of Illegal Immigration (and the trade issue) at his own peril. It is IMO becoming political dynamite.

Times are a changin.

---

A changin to what?...... For sure you don't think they are going to swap from Rep to Dem or Dem to Rep.....

So what is the 'a changin' going to be? Some 3rd party? If that then it will take a little longer I believe before one can become viable...... Perot got his 19% or so but not one Electoral College vote.... To get the EC votes necessary to number 270 will take a massive change imo. I just don't see it yet on the national level, maybe at some local and district levels it beginning to become possible.

[Wonder Warthog]

"You can dismiss this and other anecdotal evidence but the issue of Illegal Immigration and related issues ARE getting Traction in the electorate."

Well, I certainly hope you're right--but I still don't see it happening at a rate sufficient to be a significant factor in the 2004 election.

[grania]

Read my #48. It's a rather conservative survey, but shows that a clear majority of voters are concerned about "illegal immigration" and there is a clear disconnect between the power brokers and the voters on this issue.

I've yet to see even one survey where there isn't a huge concern expressed about the issue. Mygosh, just look at the popularity Representative Tancredo enjoys.

Nothing is going to be done about it, though, unless some groups that really have a lot in common....greens, pro-lifers, unions, anti-invasion forces, get together and support someone they can all stand. I'm not holding my breath, though. Too many egos would be involved.

[WRhine]

I’m not suggesting a 3rd Party can win the presidency YET. What I am saying (like Derbyshire) is that if a 3rd party candidate emerges in the upcoming election and centers a campaign on significantly reforming immigration and trade policies it will most certainly have great appeal with millions of Americans and thus have the potential of jeopardizing George Bush's reelection chances.

You talk as if something like this has never happened before. Just ask George Herbert Walker Bush about what happened to him in 1992.

[deport]

You talk as if something like this has never happened before. Just ask George Herbert Walker Bush about what happened to him in 1992.

---

I agree if the right person emerges, but will they in only 12 months with no current party, state structure, funding, organization, etc. That's all I'm saying... I don't think it's feasible on the national level at this time.

As far as GHWB and 92 it's debable as to whether Perot did him in or he did himself in. With 370 to 168 EC vote win by Clinton it's very doubtful that the difference was all Perot.... The following link looks as some state by state results comparing to both 1988 and 1996 data and comes up with maybe 40 EC votes that Cinton won because of Perot..... So who knows... I think GWHB ran a very poor campaign, jmo.
http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

[WRhine]

I agree if the right person emerges, but will they in only 12 months with no current party, state structure, funding, organization, etc. That's all I'm saying... I don't think it's feasible on the national level at this time.

I'm beginning to come to this conclusion as well. I have to say that I am perplexed, given what's going in the country today, that no serious 3rd party opposition has been mounted to date--and yes it is getting late in the game. I have a theory regarding this but it's better left unsaid.

[PRND21]

But Tancredo can win!