Over the past 30 years, Republicans have had greater success in supporting a presidential candidate during early polls than the Democrats. According to Gallup Polling, Republicans have successfuly supported early favorites in seven of the ten past elections. In contrast, early Deomocratic poll leaders such as Edmond Muskie (1972), George Wallace (1976), Ted Kennedy (1980), Gary Hart (1988) Mario Cuomo (1992) and Joe Lieberman (2004) were all favorites among the Democratic party, yet were not nominated.
Given the previous track record for both parties, this could serve as an indicator for early poll leaders for the upcoming election. Hillary Clinton is an early favorite for the Democratic nomination and since history has a way of repeating itself, could lead to a nomination of Barack Obama or John Edwards who are both providing very strong competition. In this respect, is Rudy Giuliani destined for the GOP's presidential nomination?
While the Republican party's success at getting behind early poll leaders is clearly evident, what in contrast to the Democrats gives them the edge? While luck certainly is a factor, I feel that the general mentality or state of each political party is a crucial factor. The Republican party has increasingly become a more unilateral regime of sorts, while the Democrats continue to struggle internally. It is then easier for a Republican nominee who is "on board" with the the party to achieve success than it is for a Democratic nominee who has virtually no chance of pleasing everyone. This being said, what do you think drives the success or failure of Republican and Democrat support of early poll leaders?...How can this affect "favorites" within the two parties as of now?
Link to article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17342927
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Obviously, there are downfalls to both parties because anything involving politics will have its negative aspects. However, despite trends in the past few decades that tend to favor the Republican card, it seems, in my opinion, that there are a lot of things that will prove to be advantageous to the Democrats. One of the driving successes for the Democrats is that they have always tended to be more modern in their approach, seeing a problem realistically, figuring it out, and doing work to change it. This is quite different than the post-modernistic view of the Republicans who tend to see things as not being reality, only perceptions of reality, which tends to lead them to be less optimistic towards change and policy reform.
Especially at this point in time, with the great failures of President Bush, there is the dire need to re-vamp our foreign policy and approach, and deal realistically with the issues in the Middle East. Even though there are plenty of domestic issues, which have been overlooked due to attention overseas, the majority of issues that must be dealt with promptly are foreign. I cannot say which candidate would be best at dealing with such issues at the current time, but there is more certainty that the Democratic Party may be more open-minded in finding some new alternatives, fixing the ones that are obviously not working now.
This is not to say that it is a guaranteed clench for the Democrats, but it definitely gives them an advantage when voters look at the ballot and look at the next four years and seeing whether or not it will change, or stay in the same frozen state.
Post a Comment