I highly doubt that. What you were most likely seeing back then was idealistic enthusiasm by a small but vocal number of devotees. What we have now is something quite different: massive disillusionment and anger over an issue that resonates with a huge proportion of the electorate.
A cursory perusal of immigration threads reveal the same malcontents who misjudged voter interest concerning immigration in 1998, and 2000, just as you did in in 2002, and 2004.
Just as I did when? If you can come up with a quote from me predicting a third-party upset in either '02 or '04, I'd be fascinated to see it, because I'm quite confident that I never made any such prediction for either of those two years. What I'm seeing now is a very significant change. It's not all the same people on the border threads then as now. The number has grown, including by people who were strong advocates of the President's reelection in '04, and who had mostly muted their criticism of him prior to that vote, thinking that he'd come around. He didn't.
Have you ever thought to ask yourself why the leaders of the anti-immigration movement can't get elected to statewide office much less be thought of as a national leader?
Because both parties have their reasons for being seriously hostile to border security, and that leaves voters mostly trapped. That's why it took voter initiatives to get laws like Prop 200 enacted.
The voters know that there's really only one viable way to break through that electoral stranglehold, and that is to vote third-party. They've avoided doing so for the most part, because they didn't want to give up their voice on other issues. But that's already begun to change. Jim Gilchrist's placing of 25% is a huge number for a third party, well enough to undo what might otherwise be a very comfortable victory by a Republican. The more people see how blatantly their "elected servants" are thumbing their noses at them, the more motivated they'll be to hit back at them.
The 98 GOP loses were a personal wake up call that ideology does not trump reality. Some day you will hear that call.
What "ideology" are you referring to here? I didn't know that obsession with Clinton's sexual escapades constituted an "ideology". The lesson from both '94 and '98, taken together, is this: When Republicans focus on what they believe - smaller government, personal responsibility, cultural sanity - they win. When they focus on partisan pounding against Democrats, they lose.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have called Clinton on his misbehavior; they definitely should have. But it's not a good idea for Republicans to make voters think that that's what they're all about.
No national figure has emerged to campaign on immigration because the Parties prevent it, and Gilchrist's showing is somehow the harbinger of doom for the GOP. I heard this same argument when Pat Buchanan ran for President.
I find this argument less than convincing when both Bush and Kerry got more votes than any other living American in history.
Thank you for you reply.