Comments on: Why I’m (More) Right on Miers

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 02:42:01 +0000

I am only surprised, not by the quality of your posts (which is excellent as always), but with how you have chosen — for two posts running — to take Hewitt seriously.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:25:42 +0000

This is a valid point, but it would be more valid if it weren’t the case that the two parties, combined, account for only 60-70% of likely voters. There is a third party out there already, and it’s called “independent.”
The second half of your analysis is interesting as well, but the fact that Clinton was able to pull off triangulation so well argues that the identification isn’t total. (And other factors, also unaddressed here, enter into the analysis as well: Safe seats, for instance, may allow incumbents more autonomy from their party than competitive districts.)

By: philosopher

philosopher — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:20:00 +0000

I agree with most of the analysis here, but I’m not sure what to say about one part of it: “But electorally, the Republican Party doesn’t exist.” I understand the sense in which that’s true, for the reasons that you have offered. But given the influence of party ID on many voters’ behavior, isn’t there some sense in which the parties do exist electorally? What’s bad for the image of either party on the whole, is at least somewhat bad for the electoral prospects of its individual members — it’s one more burden they have to bear, in crossing the electoral finish line. Is there not some way to include the party aspect in the analysis, even for systems like ours?