Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Actually, Reagan didn't get a majority in 1980 because of the Anderson third-party candidacy. But Carter was the only Democrat to get an absolute majority since 1964, and he only got around 51%. The absolute majorities have been Nixon 72, Carter 76, Reagan 84, Bush I 88, Bush II 2004. Big third-party votes in 68 (Wallace), 80 (Anderson), 92 (Perot), and 96 (Perot again). The Nader and Buchanan votes in 00 were not huge but big enough to deny a majority. The only real landslides in the last half-century have been LBJ 64, Nixon 72, and Reagan 84. At first glance it looks like the proverbial "fifty-fifty nation" but many people seem eager for a third option -- really sort of a "forty-forty-twenty nation".

Posted by Jim Bennett at August 28, 2007 04:14 PM

Jim,

Some people don't trust Wikipedia, but their web page on the 1980 vote shows Reagan with a slim majority (50.7%) of the popular vote and a huge majority in the Electoral College. I vaguely remembered the election as a landslide, at least electorally.

Years ago I heard that both parties started off with about 40% of the vote, with only 20% in play.

What will happen in 2008 I will not predict. I must point out, though, that Giuliani also has very high negatives. I know some Republicans in the suburbs of New York City who cannot stand the man and think him quite corrupt.

Posted by Chuck Divine at August 28, 2007 06:16 PM

When is 50.7% not a majority? Reagan got a majority both times.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 28, 2007 06:17 PM

Rudy will not get the nomination. What Rudy's negatives are is thus rendered moot Chuck.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 28, 2007 06:21 PM

I take landslides to be evidence of (1) mass delusion, or (2) incompetence in one or more political parties.

Neither is good for the Republic. Close, hard-fought elections are a sign of political health. If they're followed by partisan gridlock sufficient to make the populace turn in disgust from government, and seek solutions to life's problems on their own, so much the better.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 28, 2007 06:33 PM

I take landslides to be evidence of (1) mass delusion, or (2) incompetence in one or more political parties.

Well then! I guess both of these factors will work well for the Dems in 2008.

For sheer incompetence - Iraq, Katrina etc., the Repubs have certainly taken the cake. If the economy tanks with the housing implosion that would be the icing.

On another note, it is my opinion that the low approval rating of Congress is due to:

(1) the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans want us to get out of Iraq and the Dem Congress has not been able to deliver,

(2) the weird sex life of Congress-folk, reports of which invariably depict the truly Gay Old Party and

(3) basic economic insecurity, health care etc., which again the Dem Congress has not alleviated.

No indication that the public wants to elect Republicans to Congress! None of that.

Maybe they just want more Democrats. Maybe they are unhappy that there are still so many Republicans in Congress.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 28, 2007 07:18 PM

T'n'T, I think you're the one delusional, if you think that public unhappiness with Congress is because they haven't hastened our defeat in Iraq.

And Katrina remains a disaster largely attributable to local Democrats, not Republicans in Congress, despite the wishful thinking.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 28, 2007 07:25 PM

And the Economy is more likely than not to stay out of Recession until after election day thus completing the anti-delusion Trifecta.

I think the Dems have a much weaker hand than their kool-aid apparatchics in the Drive-By Media would care to admit. Especially if they nominate the Hildabeast. Fred might just give them a repeat of Reagan-Mondale in the EC.

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 28, 2007 07:50 PM

Mike,

I pointed out Rudy's negatives partly because I have a very reliable source for them -- and also because they bring in a very important negative that hasn't gotten much play as yet. The Republican social conservatives seem to be really pissed off about Giuliani's support for abortion and gay rights and his three marriages. There's been little talk, though, about the man's thoroughly corrupt nature. Stuff like that angers people like my moderate, well informed friends in New York.

I don't know who will win the nomination in either party. Giuliani and Clinton have the leads in their respective parties. Giuliani's is more problematical than Clinton's. That's just my reading of the polls and the differing natures of the two major parties.

Carl,

The major landslides I've seen in my lifetime were the result of some sort of incompetence. In 1964 Goldwater, while a good man, ran a truly incompetent campaign against a master politician. It also wasn't the time for a libertarian conservative. In 1972 the same thing could be said about McGovern. In 1980 and 1984 the Democrats Carter and Mondale were truly incompetent and out of touch. Ditto Dukakis in 1988.

Posted by Chuck Divine at August 29, 2007 06:35 AM

Since I'm having a good opinon of Giuliani I would like any additional/new negatives spelled out.

However if it's nothing more than his marriages and towards-the-center social attitudes and all the rest that is regularly brought up or at least fairly common knowledge among those who take an active interest then I couldn't care less and I think even a lot of social conservatives would see it that way come election day. Or at least I hope they will.

The election is not about finding some sort of saint, if it was there never would be any presidents at all...

Clear bias: I'm fairly socially liberal just like Giuliani.

p.s. I'm still not getting the Fred-heads but it's still early days. It's not that Fred doesn't seem like an ok candidate but I don't see any more than that so far.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at August 29, 2007 10:47 AM

Habitat Hermit,

I'm clearly on the socially liberal side as well -- as, I suspect, quite a few libertarians are.

I just Googled "Giuliani corruption" and came up with some hits. Something called Buzzflash came up with a report on Bernard Kerik and Giuliani. The Democratic Party's blog has a report on corruption and Giuliani. Newsweek also had a report about Kerik and Giuliani. That's the most mainstream.

That's all a quick search could produce. I've heard more, especially about Kerik who dropped out of the running for Secretary for Homeland Security after some of his dealings came out.

Some libertarians also blast Giuliani for his enthusiastic prosecution of drug crimes.

I will apologize for not being more detailed with perhaps better sources this time around.

It's odd. Giuliani is supposed to be the most socially liberal of the Republican candidates, but he's perhaps the one I like the least.

Posted by Chuck Divine at August 29, 2007 01:10 PM

Well then! I guess both of these factors will work well for the Dems in 2008.

Did you really mean to say that, TNT? That a Democratic landslide can be expected in 2008 because the American public has become seriously deluded, and/or the Republican Party is incompetent?

I'd have thought you'd argue that at Democratic landslide is to be expected in 2008 because the American public has finally recovered from the deluded state in which they elected a raft of Republicans, or that the Republican Party has such terrible ideas that even the power and competence of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy isn't enough to keep them in power.

Geez, with friends like you, the Democratic Party doesn't need enemies.

For sheer incompetence - Iraq, Katrina etc., the Repubs have certainly taken the cake. If the economy tanks with the housing implosion that would be the icing.

Your standards for incompetence are amazingly low. Care to name a war started and largely run by Democrats that had fewer casualties than Iraq? Let's see, the last two Democratic wars were Vietnam and Korea...

As for Katrina, I don't quite follow why that's a Republican issue. Isn't keeping the city streets clean and free of flood waters the job of state and local government, with maybe some financial assistance from the Feds during emergencies? And isn't the state and local government in question Democratic? Are you saying that the Republicans are to be blamed for not rescuing those idiots in Louisiana (who are Democrats) from their own folly? Again, I don't think Howard Dean is going to hire you to put the Democratic Party in a good light any time soon.

As for the subprime housing situation, I don't consider it a problem, frankly. I think it's great news, because I'm in the market for a house. I look forward with pleasure to the bankruptcy of all those greedy fools who borrowed way too much money to buy a way overvalued house in the hopes of making a killing flipping it before the balloon payment was due. First, because it means they'll be some more reasonably priced real estate on the market for me. Second, because I just enjoy the sight of greedy folks who wanted to get rich right quick without really earning it falling flat on their face.

You might as well expect me to think that the implosion of the dot-com bubble was a bad thing. It wasn't. The implosion of the real-estate bubble was long overdue, and I welcome it.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 29, 2007 02:55 PM

Hey Carlie, do you remember heckuva job Brownie or did you spin that right past you? Sure was confidence building in the event of the major terrorist event that we have been assured was around the corner, wasn't it? And how about that New Orleans, is it better than before yet?

Or the two trillion dollars we've been sprinkling on Iraq to restore Anbar to its former condition under the late you know who. That wouldn't be incompetence would it? Oh No. It's just the last throes of money at the problem.

Never mind....

But, but, ... didn't you tell us just a short while back that you moved to a new house in one of your previous epistles? And now you want to buy another house? What are you doing hopping around juggling houses? Pissing off the neighbors or something with a pedantic rant? ;-)

Jeez, you should spend more of your time here.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 29, 2007 07:06 PM

Hmmm...struck a nerve, there. Take a deep breath, Toast.

The "heckuva job Brownie" kerfuffle was totally manufactured crap. Since when is it FEMA's job to do search 'n' rescue kind of stuff? That's the job of local and state cops, firefighters, disaster workers, whatever.

You think FEMA trains Federal bureaucrats in rappeling from helicopters into Force 8 storms? Teaches them CPR, triage, how to use the machine that goes "ping!" in medical emergencies? Does FEMA issue sidearms so the boys in white shirts and ties can keep the peace and prevent looting, too?

FEMA's job has traditionally been limited to handing out checks afterward to help people rebuild. They've never been in the business of first response. It would be folly to expect them to be. They're not on the scene, they don't know the local ropes, and their command structure is bureaucratic (i.e. inefficient) not military.

Fact is, in this case all that happened is those fools decided to get in a bit on the rescue action, and, not surprisingly, didn't do that good a job. But they're guilty of nothing more than biting off far more than they could chew. The real crime is that pinning the blame for a screwed-up disaster first response on a Federal agency that has historically had no responsibility for disaster first response was a nasty collusion between local and state Democratic officials -- who really were caught with their pants down -- and the MSM who recognized a disaster for Their Guys in the making.

I mean, what's next, let's blame FEMA for failing to stop gang violence in South Central LA? For the occasional brownout when the temps hit triple digits in Alabama? Maybe we want to blame them for my bad memory and your halitosis, too? Is there any point at which responsibility for coping with life's ordinary troubles rests with those who are experiencing them, instead of with far-off saviors and Caesars?

And how about that New Orleans, is it better than before yet?

Who knows? Who cares? Is that the only city that's got problems in the Republic? Why is New Orlean dysfunctionality -- which dates from when the French were in charge, so far as I can tell -- an important national issue? You might as well nationalize New York's subway crime issue, Detroit's sky-high murder rate issue, the unbelievable traffic across the San Francisco Bay, et cetera ad infinitum.

Give me an argument why totally predictable storm damage to a city should be an issue of national concern. I live in California. I don't worry if Connecticut can't balance its budget or the car theft rate in Fargo is out of control. Why must I worry whether Louisianans can get their shit together and rebuild their city? (The way neighboring Mississippians seem to be doing without all the pissing and moaning, by the way -- and they got harder hit.)

And now you want to buy another house? What are you doing hopping around juggling houses?

It's part of my plot to take over the world. So far so good. You'll see some changes in your phone bill next month, for example. Bwa ha ha.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 29, 2007 11:27 PM

Chuck, I've heard and read of it before and if that's the best his critics can do then I'm not too worried about it. Giuliani has been under scrutiny/attack by the NY media for a long time... considering their effort (and proximity) the results are completely underwhelming.

If I'm to be proven wrong I'd like to be so before he becomes POTUS but at the same time it needs to be of a far higher quality and substance than anything I've seen so far.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at August 31, 2007 03:29 PM

Just wanted to add that I think Carl's posts are Phamtastic ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at August 31, 2007 03:32 PM

Post a comment