Replies

I have to disagree with you on the first part. I think that it has to affect the candidates somewhat when they see growing numbers of people either not voting or voting for a third party. Even Rove has stated the importance of getting certain parties on the side of Republicans in the 2000 election. Say a large group of the electorate, evangelicals (Christians) for example, were to hypothetically sit out more than one election, what would happen? How would a candidate try to regain that vote?

True, but when it comes to the presidential elections in real time, it doesn't, but I guess it will over the years maybe, say between two elections, in that it could affect how the losing party's candidate reorganizes its platform.

Eventually, and I'm not saying necessarily in 2004, this is going to happen. A protest vote from the right will eventually occur to the point that it will make the Republican party realize they can't continually keep moving to gain votes.

I don't know if that can affect the presidential level politics.

But that's it. It's a time issue. Why was the Republican party so full of fire in '93-'95? What changed about their platform that made them popular to the voting public? It sure wasn't passing the largest entitlement in the history of this nation. Rather, it was being against it. It takes time and patience. You can't just keep pulling the lever every 2 or 4 years for somebody just because they belong to a certain party. Washington even warned against such an action in his farewell address. I'm not concerned with the letter by a person's name but rather by what they believe and act upon.

I don't know if that can affect the presidential level politics.

It has in the past more than just 1992 and will do so again in the future.