Comments on: GOP’s Structural Advantage

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:59:34 +0000

YAJ: In all but one case during that period, Bush in 2000, the candidate who won the plurality of the vote was elected president. The reason so many of them did not win a majority of the vote was the presence of a somewhat strong third party candidate. I'm not sure what that proves.

And, yes, there has not been a Democratic presidential nominee in my lifetime that I would have preferred to his Republican opponent. But, then, that's not setting the bar very high.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:41:58 +0000

One thing to note at the presidential level. Starting with 1900, the republicans have won the presidency 15 times and the democrats have won it 13 times. Sounds pretty even. But consider this. The republicans in that time have pulled together 13 popular vote majorities (Bush in 2000 and Nixon in 1968 were their exceptions). The democrats have only managed to pull together a majority 6 time out of their 13 wins and four of those where FDR. The other two were Carter 1976 50.08% and LBJ in 1964 (which arguably galvanized the GOP into the modern conservative republican party). The last 100 or so years show that the democrats are the 'special' presidential party that needs a little help crossing the finish line. The great depression, strong third party candidates from the right and Watergate account for almost all of their victories.

Every time I get mad at the republicans, I think about how much madder I would get at the democrat would would most likely have replaced them.

By: RA

RA — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:40:38 +0000

Its time to give California back to Mexico.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:22:54 +0000

Come on, sweet sweet gridlock!

I hope he's right about the Senate, since I'd like to see it stay in Repub hands and the House pass to Dem control. Grant Gould ran some historical numbers suggesting you get the most fiscal discipline with a Dem President-Republican Senate combination.

The last decade has proven, IMHO, that the GOP makes a great opposition party.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:17:34 +0000

Andy, "Spending a lot of money" covers a lot of sins. It's what they're spending it on, not just that they're spending it. Further, the size of the government continues to grow under the Republicans. Beyond that, though, are a lot of little issues that add up to big things. They've suddenly lost their enthusiasm for term limits now that they're in power. The fundraising scandals are eerily remnicient of Rosty and the Democrats of 1994.

By: Andy Vance

Andy Vance — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:31:53 +0000

Further, many Republicans are disillusioned after having worked hard to get their candidates elected only to have them govern like Democrats on many key issues

I assume by that you mean "spending a lot of money."