Happy people tending to vote GOP?

[Plane]

I don't believe that this problem is best solved by anecdotal evidence based on one man's experience.

I'm not sure what problem that would be. The question probably does need more scientific means to answer it, but then I wasn't attempting to supply a definitive answer. I was explaining my own reaction to the question. I thought it odd that you focused on what seemed to me to be the least important question in the piece. Personally, I would be surprised if Republicans were significantly more wealthy on average than Democrats. But then I also have a difficult time seeing the Democratic Party as the party of the common man. Politically, the Democratic Party seems no less elitist to me than the Republican Party.

Do you feel equally an outsider to both partys?

[Universe Prince]

There are Republican politicians who talk about smaller government, but in practice, they do not follow through or, in most cases, even bother pursuing the notion. (The one and only exception I have seen to this is Ron Paul.) There are folks who are trying to talk up a "libertarian Democrat" movement of sorts, but I ain't seeing it. As a person who was brought up as a small-government Republican, I'd vote for a Democrat easily if one came along who was demonstratively as principled and libertarian as Ron Paul.

And speaking of Ron Paul, everyone keeps saying the man has no chance. This, I confess, is a befuddlement to me. Ron Paul not only campaigns on the all of the things that I've been taught were core Republican values, he has the voting record in Congress to prove that he genuinely means it. And yet, he is considered too fringe (to the point of being considered the Republican version Kucinich) to be a serious contender. I'm not saying I expect every Republican to be a Ron Paul supporter, but he really ought to have more support in the Party if the Republican Party is really the party of small government. The thing is, the Republican Party is not the party of small government. Has not been for some time. Goldwater was apparently the only actual Goldwater Republican who ever ran for office. Even Reagan expanded the government.

I doubt I need to explain to you, Plane, my objections to the Democratic Party.

So, Plane, the answer to your question is yes.

[Plane]

There are Republican politicians who talk about smaller government, but in practice, they do not follow through or, in most cases, even bother pursuing the notion. (The one and only exception I have seen to this is Ron Paul.) There are folks who are trying to talk up a "libertarian Democrat" movement of sorts, but I ain't seeing it. As a person who was brought up as a small-government Republican, I'd vote for a Democrat easily if one came along who was demonstratively as principled and libertarian as Ron Paul.

And speaking of Ron Paul, everyone keeps saying the man has no chance. This, I confess, is a befuddlement to me. Ron Paul not only campaigns on the all of the things that I've been taught were core Republican values, he has the voting record in Congress to prove that he genuinely means it. And yet, he is considered too fringe (to the point of being considered the Republican version Kucinich) to be a serious contender. I'm not saying I expect every Republican to be a Ron Paul supporter, but he really ought to have more support in the Party if the Republican Party is really the party of small government. The thing is, the Republican Party is not the party of small government. Has not been for some time. Goldwater was apparently the only actual Goldwater Republican who ever ran for office. Even Reagan expanded the government.

I doubt I need to explain to you, Plane, my objections to the Democratic Party.

So, Plane, the answer to your question is yes.

You should not feel compelled to answer at all, your answer is generosty on your part , thank you.

I wonder who gets to define the "fringe"?

Is the Fringe the art of he party that agrees least with the president of the same party?

Is the fringe the part of the party furtherest from the consensus of most of its members?

Is the fringe he leading or the trailing part as the party moves?

Ron Paul is the Republican contender the least in agreement with the President.

The President is no closer to the gestalt center of the membership of the party than Ron Paul may be.

Ron Paul is amoung the edge of the party that is moveing away from the Democrats , the President is in the thin part that is moveing towards them.

It isn't easy to draw clear divisios within the party , but as much as it is possible winning the presidency sweeps into power the faction of the party that the President likes and likes him back, this faction then gets to draw the borders and the fringes.

[Michael Tee]

<<I thought it odd that you focused on what seemed to me to be the least important question in the piece.>>

It's only "unimportant" if you don't believe in class warfare.  Class war is a reality and explains most if not all of the Republicans' position.  Even its coded racism, which I don't believe the leaders of the party believe in personally, but have found to be a useful tool in attracting racist votes from those whose rung on the socioeconomic ladder might otherwise have led them to support their opponents, the sham opposition.  As a matter of fact, the class war even explains the de facto single-party rule, the lack of a genuine opposition to it, and the never-ending betrayals by the leaders of the Democratic Party of their own grass roots.

[Universe Prince]

Ron Paul is the Republican contender the least in agreement with the President.

Perhaps. If you listen to George W. Bush on the campaign trail in AD 2000, I think you'd hear strong similarities in message to many things Ron Paul is saying now. Ron Paul has demonstrated by his actions his adherence to those ideas. Conversely, George W. Bush has demonstrated by his actions his disregard for those ideas. For some reason this makes George W. Bush mainstream, and Ron Paul fringe. In my opinion, this is bass ackwards.