You overlook the multiplier affect. Just too few enough conservatives carried the water in 1986 (an off year election), and this caused the larger conservative momentum Reagan had built to become stalled.
One major result of handing the Congress back to the Dems? The 1986 two tiered 15%/28% Tax Reform Act was for the most part undone by 1990. Bush II is making up ground with welcome tax reductions, but although 35% top rate is down from 39.1%, it is still a far cry from Reagan's 28%. All this ground to make up, because conservatives stayed home in 1986 out of apathy, or out of their mistaken notion that Reagan just wasn't conservative enough for their liking. Yep, it's all Bush's fault now, is it? He's just not "conservative enough" or we'd have the 1986 Tax act provisions back by now, blah, blah, blah....(/sarcasm)
Uh-huh. Guess that explains why their media allies are giving the Constitution Party so much free publicity. Of course, we all know they'd never do that with the Green Party.
Hey the Constitution party people have already abandoned the Republicans, and strategically that's all the Dems need. Of course they'll spend their time wooing the Greens. Look what the malcontented Green vote did for Dems in FL back in 2000. Dems still have to work for Green votes. Constitution Party yahoos have already surrendered and/or become otherwise nutralized by their own choice!
Big champions of the conservative cause, they are indeed.
The Snidely Whiplash snickering you hear in the back bench is just the Dems helping the Constitution Party adherants feel even better about their "pricipled" decision, while they laugh all the way to the ballot box.
The Constitution Party = one of the largest pools of vote-suppressed non-votes that the Democrats don't even have to spend a dime to cultivate, or to work for, or owe anything to after the election.
Maybe that sucking sound Perot used to say he heard was the kind of people who proved to be his followers, then Buchanan's "Brigades", and now Howie Phillips' "Contitutionalists."
Are you talking about future elections? If .0000001% isn't going to have any effect on the outcome of this election, then it won't have an effect on the outcome of subsequent elections either.
If you're not referring to future elections then you may need to elaborate a bit, because whether or not somebody votes CP will have no effect on how anyone else votes (or doesn't vote).
Bush II is making up ground with welcome tax reductions, but although 35% top rate is down from 39.1%, it is still a far cry from Reagan's 28%. All this ground to make up, because conservatives stayed home in 1986 out of apathy, or out of their mistaken notion that Reagan just wasn't conservative enough for their liking. Yep, it's all Bush's fault now, is it? He's just not "conservative enough" or we'd have the 1986 Tax act provisions back by now, blah, blah, blah....
Actually it's not the modesty of the tax cuts that's the problem, but their temporary nature. As it is, it will result in no long-term reduction of government growth. What will be growing right along with it is the national debt. And then at the end of that period, taxes will rise automatically without the politicians having to take any heat for it, and tax cuts will be thoroughly discredited in the public mind for having allegedly piled on all that debt.
Yes, I know the President has been calling for making the cuts permanent, but as long as he continues to spend like a drunken sailor he's not likely to get very far with that call.
Hey the Constitution party people have already abandoned the Republicans, and strategically that's all the Dems need.
Really? All the Democrats need is for the Republicans to lose one millionth of a percentage point? I think they might need to rethink their strategy a bit.
Look what the malcontented Green vote did for Dems in FL back in 2000.
Yes, and look at how the Dem-allied media egged them on. Any wild guesses at why they did that in what they knew would be a close race?