[George W. Bush]

Third partyers are a non-factor. They vote for Dems, they vote for Repubs, they vote for loonies, or they stay home.......but they DON'T hold the President's feet to the fire, and they WON'T keep him from getting reelected.

The argument is facile but shallow. It's not the third parties which historically have been the problem. We've only seen a couple of major party realignments in 200 years.

You don't worry in politics over the real fringe. What you worry about is whether your base, your straight-ticket voters, stay home in one or more elections and in numbers large enough to indicate real dissatisfaction with the party being either too conservative or too liberal to get them to vote for the party they've supported in multiple preceding elections.

You don't worry until you see a substantial change in your solid base voters. Then you'd better find out why.

Both parties have had this in recent years, largely the result of their run-to-the-center general election strategies. And both camps are wondering how many votes they've lost on pandering to the Mindless Middle instead of going for their dependable base voters.

Of course, the Dims would appear to have more problems than the GOP does. But even so, Gore did win the 2000 popular vote.

If you have access to official party databases (typically distributed on CDROM these days), you can track every voter and every election they've participated in for the last 10-20 years. Combine that with information databases compiled by the parties and by elected officials and the official campaign donations databases and you can get a good picture of who votes and why and who used to vote but stopped supporting their party in one or more recent elections. You can discount a certain number of defections or stay-at-homes in any election cycle (illness, cynicism, etc.). But when you start to see that a large enough percentage of your formerly loyal and dependable voters fail to turn out, you're in trouble and had better pay attention.

My pet theory is that low base turnout can be most deadly to the party which is perceived as the party in power, namely, the party which holds both house of Congress or the party who holds the White House with a strong-willed president.

Activists should try to quietly get a copy of their party's database. In the smallest states, you might get the whole state on a single CDROM. Many others will have one or two CDROMS that cover a congressional district.

Very informative for data mining. You'd be surprised how much information you can compile if you have their names and addresses and primary/general election voting records for a decade or more.

[Common Tator]

It's not the third parties which historically have been the problem. We've only seen a couple of major party realignments in 200 years.

A third party only achieves success in replacing a major party when both major parties fail to adopt a view held by nearly 50 percent of the voters. Anti Slavery is an example of an issue that made the Republican Party.

You don't worry until you see a substantial change in your solid base voters. Then you'd better find out why.

Both parties have had this in recent years, largely the result of their run-to-the-center general election strategie

BULL CRAP!!!! There is zero evidence to back up that y statement.

Strom Thruman tried to pull the Southern Conservative base from liberal Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey and the Media were certain that would cost Truman the Presidency. The base was there for Truman. In case you didn't notice Trumans hard turn to the left on civil rights did not cost Harry the election. He held enough of the South to win the election. Dewey played to his base... by not going to the center at all, It cost Dewey the election in 1948. It took Richard Nixon nearly 20 years and a defeat by JFK to figure that out.

Everert Dirkson stood at the Republican convention podium in 1952 telling the delegates if they abandoned conservative Taft for the liberal Ike, the base would abandon the Republican party and stay at home. Everett as usual was full of CRAP. Centrist Ike easily beat a vert liberal Stevenson. Ike had the Republican base in both 52 and 57. It did not matter that Ike was a centrist what mattered was that Stevenson was a flaming liberal.

There was a lot of talk that the catholic JFK could not hold the protestent Southern Democratic base.. but if you look at 1960 Results JFK won... The small amount of lost base did not matter. JFK got more of the Democrat base than did the much more liberal Stevenson. Nixon got the base... Nixon lost too much of the CENTER. He vowed to go for the center if he ever got the nomination again.. He ran to the center in 68 and won.

If you look at 1964 you will find the Republican candidate that the Republican base loved. The base loveing Goldwater did not do as well as the "baseless" Nixon did in 1960. To Goldwater the base was not worth a warm pitcher of spit although they tried their best to elect him. The center is the game. It always is the game. It always has been.

The Democrat base loved McGovern in 1972 ....That was disaster city when he ran against Richard Nixon. The center didn't go for McGovern and he lost. The republican base turned out for Nixon in both 68 and 72. The center did too.

Neither Jerry Ford or Carter appealed to their bases much but Carter won in 1976. There is no evidence that the base did not turn out for Jerry or Jimmy. It was the center that did not turn out for Jerry. They turned out for Carter instead.

Reagan spent the entire campaign of 1980 running away from the base and running to the center. The major themes of the Reagan campaign were right out of the Democrat play book. YOu can make a good case Reagan ran to the LEFT. a: Reagan constantly reminded voters he was a former UNION PRESIDENT. Imaging how much the Republican base loves Union Presidents. b: Reagan reminded voters he was a huge fan of FDR and a former Democrat. In the debate with Jimmy Carter he mentioned it. Reagan said he still held the same positions he did when he was a Democrat. His exact words were, "My Views have not changed!" Imagine how the base loved that. c: Reagan constantly reminded voters his economic plan was identical to the JFK plan of 1961. In case you never noticed JFK was a Democrat. It may surprise you to note that JFK bore an amazing resembliance to Teddy Kennedy.. Some say they may have been brothers.

Bush Sr. Ran hard to the base...Remember... "READ MY LIPS.. NO NEW TAXES..." Dumb move. Dukakis was the quintessencial base man. He got fewer numbers of the center in 88 than Bush 41. Buth the center deserted Bush 41 in 1992 for some guy who called himself a NEW Democrat. It was Clinton who ran to the center in 92 as the centrist NEW DEMOCRAT.

Clinton never ran to the base. HE RAN AS A NEW CENTRIST DEMOCRAT. Gore did not run to the center, Nader scared Gore into running to his base. It cost Gore the Presidency.

Bush has been running to the center since the day he got the nomination. Gore in trying to win the NADER votes ran to the base and got beat.

You post intuitive feelings that the base may not turn out unless they get what they want, but that is only a danger when the other parties candidate is on to your side of the center. As long as the Democrats run well to the left of center, there is zero danger in a Republican running to the center.

There are are no cases in modern history where pandering to the base does anything except insure defeat.

AS far as tracking the party data basses they just do not show what you pretend to say they show. The most important state for presidential elections is OHIO. No one wins the presidency with out winning OHIO.

The correlation you are trying to make is the exact opposite of the truth in OHIO. The more the Democrat candidate runs to the center, the smaller the Republican base turn out. A centrist Democrat does not scare the more leftist registered Republican (Clinton), as much as a left wing (Dukakis).

GET A CLUE! It is a non threatening DEMOCRAT candidate that reduces the Republican base turn out.

The secret to getting the Republican base out is painting the Democrat candidate as a real liberal. If the Republican base is scared of the Democrat candidate they will come out to vote. If the Democrat is a NEW DEMOCRAT from the more conservative South, he does not scare some of the more left Republican base and they don't turn out.

Knowing the data is worthless, if you don't know how to analyse it .