Here's one scenario, repeated often.
A Libertaria
n (rightist) candidate (or Leftist) enters the race for President. The media love it because the controvers
y the candidacie
s stir up makes good copy. The other candidates in the race(s) are pulled towards the extremist'
s positions as a matter of playing to the core group(s) of each party or faction. Over time the resulting polarizati
on allows the media to dwell on the "entertain
ment value" of various candidacie
s, often leaving real issues in the dust.
In Ron Paul's case his reportedly "extremist
" views are really just representa
tive of a significan
t, and growing, portion of the American voter population
, all the more vociferous because they are gaining traction.
But, and this is a biggie, while hard Right or hard Left candidates make races more "interesti
ng" they sometimes prevent a more mainstrem candidate from winning.
The connundrum is how to attract the supporters of the Rightist's or Leftist's view to a candidate, rather than a disappoint
ed nominee making the decision to run as an Independen
t. In Presidenti
al politics this almost assures a Liberal or Democratic victory, since Independen
t candidates seldom win, but become "spoilers" allowing the Left-Cente
r candidate to win. This is particular
ly true in Presidenti
al races where the incumbent is a Democrat running for re-electio
n,, as now.
Republican
s be warned. The Tea Party and Independen
ts are the spoilers in the forthcomin
g race, and even though the demographi
cs argur in favor of the Democrats, a "coalition
" candidate who gets an early start, may win.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment