In 1992, WHy did Perot do so well in ME? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2024, 08:30:42 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  In 1992, WHy did Perot do so well in ME? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: In 1992, WHy did Perot do so well in ME?  (Read 3815 times)
dougrhess
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442


« on: June 29, 2005, 09:24:13 AM »

Maine likes moderates, distrusts both parties, and is very proud of it's independance.

Pat Buchanans greatest "achievement" is that he almost singlehandedly killed the Libertarian wing of the GOP party.

Prior to 1992 there was a strong element of the party that, while certainly not a majority, was big enough to... well... have a voice.

To paraphrase Howard Dean... "The Republican Wing of the Republican Party".. low taxes, smaller government, reduced regulation, individual responsibility, a society of individual liberty.

The "Jack Kemp" wing of the GOP essentially died when Buchanan gave his famous "culture war" speech at the GOP convention.

I think a huge chunk of Perots support came from the Libertarian wing of the GOP in 1992 when they saw that their party had been hijacked by a bunch of intollerate crazies.

The Libertarian wing of the party was mostly based in the northeast, so it's hardly a surprise Perot did well in Maine.


Where are those disaffected republican libertarians now? Did they hold their nose and vote for Bush both times, most recently because of the war/leadership issue? Are they sitting out?
Logged
dougrhess
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 442


« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2005, 11:17:40 AM »

Where are those disaffected republican libertarians now? Did they hold their nose and vote for Bush both times, most recently because of the war/leadership issue? Are they sitting out?

They are generally fairly hawkish on foreign policy, and thus had few qualms voting Bush this tme around, although I'm sure it wasn't their first choice.

Interesting. Wouldn't libertarians be less hawkish? Or maybe its a basic form of patriotism that caused them to rally around the leader.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 13 queries.