If the evangelicals buck and go for a third party, will it cost the GOP 2008?

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Actually, Evangelicals went


78-21 in 2004, counting as 23% of the vote

70-28 in 2006, counting as 24% of the vote.

  So, they are becoming larger, but more diluted.  The House election in 2006 went 52-44 and the presidency went 48-51. That's a 6 point swing. However, evangelical whites swung by 8, meaning the they are 2% more unreliable than before. That's about a .5% swing from GOP to DEM and if the trend continues and realistically slows, that will be about .75% swinging, if the evangelicals go 33-66 next election. Though it will probably be more like 70-28 if Romney or Thomson gets it or 40-59 if Guiliani gets it.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Thancks Goa Tse

I think i understood most of what you said but i think i need precisions:

First, when you put .5%, means 0.5%?

Then, when you put numbers like these: "78-21", "70-28", "52-44", "48-51" and else, is it the percent of repartition of evangelical vote between GOP and dems? So that making 78% of evangelicals voting for GOP and 21% voting for dems in 2004? and so that making 40% of evangelical vote for GOP and 59% for dems if Giuliani gets the nomination???

Other question, from what i can see from France, i think that Giuliani is the best positioned to get the nomination and i think it's the only one to be able to win versus a Hillary Clinton. What do you think about it?

Last point, you tell me evangelical are went and even if they are bigger they are more diluted, we allready spoke about that, but as i think that in the years to come they will reorganize them, finding new ways of efficient progression, i think we must keep an eye on them. Actually i heard about the fact that the megachurches become more and more numerous in USA (meagachurches present in USA were about 650 in 2000 and 1210 in 2005, according to a specialist) and that each of them takes more and more importance in each community regrouping different activities and creating paid-jobs, is that something you can see? The question is for you or anyone else living in USA.

[BenNebbich]

there will be no major third party in this election, because conservatives are too clever to split their vote.
B.N.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

there will be no major third party in this election, because conservatives are too clever to split their vote.
B.N.

What could be interesting is Ron Paul as a super-Libertarian.  And if Colbert runs as an indy or some new party.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Here's a prediction where this situation could come true - see my comment:

http://uselectionatlas.org/PRED/PRESIDENT/2008/pred.php?action=indpred&id=1519

[Stranger in a strange land]

there will be no major third party in this election, because conservatives are too clever to split their vote.
B.N.

What could be interesting is Ron Paul as a super-Libertarian.  And if Colbert runs as an indy or some new party.

Colbert won't run for real (he's currently running as a joke) because spending over $5,000 while keeping his TV show would violate a whole slew of FEC rules and bankrupt comedy central. Doritos would probably get in trouble too.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, a Christian Right third party candidate would seriously endanger the chances of the GOP nominee winning in 2008. The Democratic nominee could carry states not carried since LBJ's landslide in 1964 or Carter's near sweep of the South in 1976

Dave

[Josh/Devilman88]

NC would never vote for a third party

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

If that's Clinton vs. Giulliani, won't the evangelicals creat, as third party, the party of the... abstention?

[Stranger in a strange land]

If that's Clinton vs. Giulliani, won't the evangelicals creat, as third party, the party of the... abstention?

It's possible that they might, but third parties rarely get much support.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

If a large majority of evangelicals go for abstention, will it cost the GOP 2008?

If they lose cause of that, it seems to me that there are two possibilities for the future:

-GOP reorganizes itself to be more... Democrat

-GOP reorganizes itself to be more... evangelical

So, one of the key question for the future seems to be: what will become evangelicals in the years to come?

Anyway, actually something seems to be sure, it is that, if there is not a big event that shakes a lot of things, for the 2008 elections USA want to go far from G.W. Bush, am I wrong?

[Χahar]

Anyway, actually something seems to be sure, it is that, if there is not a big event that shakes a lot of things, for the 2008 elections USA want to go far from G.W. Bush, am I wrong?

You're absolutely correct. Bush is highly unpopular.

[War on Want]

This a map of Hillary Clinton getting 49% of the vote, Rudy Giuliani getting 38% of the vote, and  Mike Huckabee getting 12% of the vote
Mike Huckabee in gets almost all of his percentage points from the South, Intermountain West and some parts of the Midwest.

[12th Doctor]

Not as much as people think it will.  It will free Rudy to be himself, which will win over alot of votes from the center and center-left... plus the Paul supporters will (with abit of reluctance) see Rudy as their man, without question.  Personally, I will be happy to be rid of that 10% of the population.  Granted, the RR bailing will mean less umph behind some fo the issues I care about, but most of that is only agreement on the surface anyway, and the Devil is in the details.  Clearly, it has gone beyond the point where these people are simply protecting their way of life, they would enfore their will upon everyone, this much is certain, and those kind of people are driving millions away from the Republican Party.

[Benwah [why on Earth do I post something] Courseyay]

Clearly, it has gone beyond the point where these people are simply protecting their way of life, they would enfore their will upon everyone, this much is certain, and those kind of people are driving millions away from the Republican Party.

I totally agree with that. They (evangelicals) are neither Republican nor Democrat nor others, they are "born again", they don't search to convice only by ideas but also by a sort of charismatic power. They try to do it in USA but also in any country of the world, and it works in a lot of. I think we should keep an eye on them, cause when peoples begin to lose the reason, to stop to think in the way to only obey to God and especially to the men that pretend representing Him on earth, we should begin to be worried about it.

Isn't there more or less 50% of americans who believe in creationism?

[So the Heroes Fall]

plus the Paul supporters will (with abit of reluctance) see Rudy as their man, without question. 

Considering that Paul and Giuliani don't agree on...well anything, why would this be the case?

[BushKenya]

I agree with the vast consensus on this question.  It would absolutely cost the Republicans 2008.  Lets face it, the religious right is a huge, probably a good 40-50% (and I'm probably being conservative) of the Republican base.  If the vast majority of the r.r. goes third party, it will guarantee the Democrats the White House.

However, I see them staying with the GOP, because they know by voting third party, that it would be in effect a vote cast in favor of Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee.  I think the religious right would rather have a Republican in the White House at all costs when compared to the current Democratic field.

[Senator Ben]

Clinton/Richardson: 48% PV, 378 EV
Giuliani/Romney: 30% PV, 113 EV
Huckabee/Musgrave: 21% PV, 47 EV

Of course, that could change, or the Evangelicals won't run a third party at all.  I also think they could do a lot better than this, or be a total non-factor.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Clearly, it has gone beyond the point where these people are simply protecting their way of life, they would enfore their will upon everyone, this much is certain, and those kind of people are driving millions away from the Republican Party.

I totally agree with that. They (evangelicals) are neither Republican nor Democrat nor others, they are "born again", they don't search to convice only by ideas but also by a sort of charismatic power. They try to do it in USA but also in any country of the world, and it works in a lot of. I think we should keep an eye on them, cause when peoples begin to lose the reason, to stop to think in the way to only obey to God and especially to the men that pretend representing Him on earth, we should begin to be worried about it.

Isn't there more or less 50% of americans who believe in creationism?

The % who say they believe in creationism depends greatly on how the question is phrased, because a very large % of americans will say they are in favor of anything with "christian" "biblical" or "jesus" in the title. In general, Americans (outside the deep south at least) like the idea of fundamentalist christianity a lot more than they like it in practice. For example, large numbers of Americans tell pollsters that they think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in schools, but whenever a school board tries to implement creationism, they usually get booted out of office.

[Smash255]

No, it could make the Dems EV count larger, (by pushing more upper south states in their column) but the Dems are winning neext year regardless if the Evangelicals go third party or not.

[BushKenya]

No, it could make the Dems EV count larger, (by pushing more upper south states in their column) but the Dems are winning neext year regardless if the Evangelicals go third party or not.

Not so fast, my friend.  I hope the Democrats win, but the Republicans can take the White House.  In fact, I'm kind of predicting a Giuliani administration, but I am not at all confident on that.  Clinton can easily win, but so can Giuliani.

Plus, I wouldn't tell anyone from Iowa or New Hampshire that this election is already over.

No matter who wins in 2008, save for Clinton, will be defeated in 2012.  Clinton is the only one in this crop in both parties that can be re-elected.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why do you hope a dem win when a GOP win would mean you could have a regime which would push your kind of social views on us?

[BushKenya]

Why do you hope a dem win when a GOP win would mean you could have a regime which would push your kind of social views on us?

Because I'm a socially moderately-conservative, and economically liberal, Democrat.  Plus, as much as I like the guy, Bush and the Republicans have messed us up royally.  Not to mention, none of the Republican candidates would advance a radically conservative agenda.  Also, I want this war to end.  The Democrats are the only ones who will even attempt to do such a thing.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Why do you hope a dem win when a GOP win would mean you could have a regime which would push your kind of social views on us?

Because I'm a socially conservative DEMOCRAT.

You'd fit better in the GOP. You'd be a dem in 1970 and I'd be a republican then so why not swap parties? You'd feel better.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

No, it could make the Dems EV count larger, (by pushing more upper south states in their column) but the Dems are winning neext year regardless if the Evangelicals go third party or not.

No matter who wins in 2008, save for Clinton, will be defeated in 2012.  Clinton is the only one in this crop in both parties that can be re-elected.

Actually another Clinton adminstration would probably wake up the far right from their slumber. I would pick her as the Democrat most likely to her re-election fight.