I’ll call it the Perot Effect.
Many if not most people don’t recall that Democrat Bill Clinton won the 1992 presidential election not with a majority, but with a plurality of the votes. It was Clinton 43 percent, Repugnican King George I (who was up for re-election) at 37 percent, and Ross Perot at 19 percent, a whopping number for a third-party candidate in a presidential election in my lifetime.
I have little doubt that billionaire Perot siphoned far more Repugnican votes than Democratic votes, handing the White House over to Clinton, even though my guess is that Perot’s own choice would have been George Bush I over Clinton.
Perot’s “Reform Party” ticket attracted the disaffected, those who know little about politics but who just know that they’re not happy, even if they don’t know why, and who have a penchant for attacking the wrong sources of their problems (such as immigrants, who just want better lives, and gay men and lesbians, who just want equal rights, instead of the nation’s real enemy, the thieving stupid white men who bring us stolen presidential elections, bogus wars for the war profiteers and economic collapses).
This is the same description that I’d give to those who attend today’s “tea parties,” which are fucking ridiculous, because the Boston Tea Party was about the oppressive British taxes, yet here are the oppressive corporations sponsoring the “tea parties.” Yeah, like your oppressor is going to free you from your oppression. Fucking duh.
Is the “‘Tea Party’ Party” going to have the same effect in future elections that Ross Perot had in the 1992 presidential election?
A new Rasmussen poll finds that the “tea party” movement’s popularity is growing, so much so that it garners more support than the Republican party on a generic Congressional ballot. The poll hints that the burgeoning discontent among conservatives within the GOP threatens to splinter the party at a time when the popularity of President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress are waning as we head into an election year.
The “tea party” movement was conceived out of antipathy for President Obama’s economic stimulus plan and cultivated by groups like Freedom Works and conservative commentators such as Glenn Beck. Its guiding principals are centered around opposition to tax increases and the expansion of federal government spending. The movement rose to prominence when it organized highly-publicized protest gatherings across the country on April 15th of this year.
The respondents to the Rasmussen poll were asked the following question: “Suppose the ‘tea party’ movement organized itself as a political party. When thinking about the next election for Congress, would you vote for the Republican candidate from your district, the Democratic candidate from your district, or the ‘tea party’ candidate from your district?”
The response of all those who were polled was Democratic 36 percent, “tea party” 23 percent and Republican 18 percent. Further, the poll found that independents are more inclined to vote for a “tea party” candidate over Democratic or Republican candidates….
I see a pattern here…
Recall that last month’s special election in New York state for a U.S. House of Representatives seat went to the Democrat, Bill Owens, with 49 percent of the vote. Dierdre Scozzafava, the Repugnican candidate, was forced out of the race by right-wingers because she isn’t enough of a she-Nazi, like Sarah Palin is. She garnered 5 percent of the vote even though she’d dropped out of the race – and endorsed Owens. Doug Hoffman, the stupid white man the wingnuts fronted on the “Conservative Party” ticket because they weren’t happy with Scozzafava, got 46 percent of the vote.
Add Scozzafava’s 5 percent to Hoffman’s 46 percent and that’s 51 percent, which indicates that if it weren’t for the schism, Owens would have lost the election. Instead, the Congressional district that had been in the hands of the Repugnican Party since the 1800s went to a Democrat.
I say the same thing about Bill Clinton — if it weren’t for the schism within those who usually vote on the Repugnican Party ticket, Clinton never would have been president.
So, I’m all for the schism within the Repugnican Party and the right wing. The schism should only continue to help Democratic candidates. Better to win with a majority rather than with a plurality, but hey, a win is still a win.
I never thought that I’d utter these words, but I utter them now:
Go Sarah Palin! Sarah Palin on the “Tea Party” Party ticket in 2012!
Hell, while we’re at it: Palin-Beck or even Beck-Palin on the “Tea Party” Party ticket in 2012!
Finally, I can’t resist a swipe at those “independents.” Independents, by my definition, are fucktards who know jack shit about politics and who have no intention of educating themselves on politics but who vote anyway. Because they’re ignorant fucktards, they are easily (mis)led by the likes of Glenn Beck, the Fox in sheep’s clothing who is paid by the Fox Corporation to make the chickens think that Colonel Sanders just wuvs them.
So yeah, putting the “‘Tea Party’ Party” in charge of the nation exactly would be putting the Fox in charge of the hen house.
About all that I can say about that is: Over. My. Dead. Body.
But that shouldn’t be necessary, because while the Repugnicans and wingnuts squabble amongst themselves, the Democrats should continue to build upon their majority.
Now if the Democrats only would actually do what’s in the best interest of the highest number of Americans…
Robert's Virtual Soapbox 