Stephen Colbert draws 13 percent in hypothetical three-way matchup with Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. Somewhat surprisingly, this doesn't just come from reducing Clinton's vote share. Instead, in the three-way matchup she secures a commanding 45-35 win over Rudy. This is all mostly meaningless, but I think it's evidence that an anti-Giuliani spoiler candidate (Tancredo? Paul? Buchanan?) could find an audience . . . there's an evident disaffection with the Republican options.
« Tradeoffs | Main | A Little Nuance »
Three Way
24 Oct 2007 07:15 pm
Comments (28)
Colbert does particularly well with the younger voters most likely to be watching his show and therefore most aware of his myriad presidential-like qualities. In the match-up with Giuliani and Clinton, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29. He draws 31% of that cohort when his foes are Thompson and Clinton. In both match-ups, Colbert has more support with young voters than the GOP candidate. [Emphasis added.]
This is good stuff, but I'm wondering where Colbert is going with this. Is he going to risk violating federal election laws and stay in the race until the primary? Will he get his name on the ballot? It's interesting how the show's writers have managed to create storylines on the show out of stunts and Colbert's unique ability to bring everything and everyone into his orbit. This seems like his most ambitious trick yet.
Are you kidding me?
If you were asked about Clinton/Giuliani/Colbert, like regardless of your politics you wouldn't pick Colbert?
Apparently you think you're the only American who knows who Stephen Colbert is.
I cum in pants whenever I consider how hip you are.
A lot of people really don't know how bad Giuliani is. I was talking to a very liberal gay guy the other day, and he mentioned that Giuliani didn't seem so bad. He was surprised when I told him what Giuliani's foreign policy views actually were. Not the first time something similar has happened to me, either.
Third Party candidacies are often way stations for those leaving one Party, but not ready to join the Other Party.
When Krugman pointed to the Bartels data the other day, I was interested in the extent to which Perot's 1992 candidacy created a bridge for people leaving the Republicans and joining the Democrats.
To the extent that the Republicans really are a repulsive force in American politics today -- and they are, just look at them! -- it fuels a need for a third-party candidacy to work as a way station for people shedding their Republican identity, but not quite ready to embrace the traditionally hated Democrats.
Ashish George:
What federal election laws would Colbert be violating? Isn't Hollywood Fred still on TV? Besides, Colbert is on cable, in which different rules apply. The only thing that might trip him up is the Doritos sponsorship.
Come on. I might enjoy telling a pollster that I'd vote for Colbert, too, but I wouldn't *actually* vote for him if the race was close at all.
I'VE been watching Stephen since "Exit 57" or "the Quad City" days as I like to call them (mother tells me I get to call it that because I'm special).
Having seen every episode of "Strangers with Candy", I can assure you that Stephen is bag of "ambitious tricks" (such a pedestrian description..., poo, poo, BOther) will never empty.
TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT, STEPHEN! I WILL DIE FOR YOU!
OOOXXX
Rihi
Three Way
When I saw the title of this post, I thought it is going to be about something else.
"Come on. I might enjoy telling a pollster that I'd vote for Colbert, too, but I wouldn't *actually* vote for him if the race was close at all."
Now I voted for Al Frankin in 1988 (I was still a closet Democrat) and I voted for Bill Maher in 1996 (yea, like anyone would vote for Bob Dole for POTUS, I wasn't too worried and had had it with Clinton).
Now, I would never do anything as remarkably stupid has voting for someone like, say, Ralph Nadar (or Nadir, as I like to call him,..., ouch, please send your hate mail to Matthew Yglesias c/o The Atlantic...). But Colbert?????? And it has to be a close election, right? UUUUMMMMMMMMMM,..., no I'd probably vote for lady with the "fake" laugh.
A Hillary v Rudy matchup?
Clinton the socially liberal conservative and (status quo) warmonger versus Giuliani the socially liberal conservative and (Norman Podhoretz) warmonger and totalitarian.
Clinton is a weasel. As a member of the US Senate, she can demonstrate leadership by opposing any legislation granting retroactive immunity to telecoms vis a vis spying on the US citizenry. The fact that she refuses to take a position, in my eyes, means she's less qualified to hold office than a transvestite, cousin-humping, wannabe bombing Iran lunatic.
Spine: the last word in walking upright.
What federal election laws would Colbert be violating?
http://www.slate.com/id/2176466/nav/tap3/
They're still showing Law & Order reruns featuring Thompson on TNT, I think. I can think of a couple practical (as opposed to legal) reasons Thompson might get a free pass while Colbert won't:
1. Thompson doesn't actually control whether those episodes are shown, whereas Colbert does control whether he promotes his candidacy on his own television show.
2. Fictional New York County District Attorney Arthur Branch is not asking people to vote for Fred Thompson in the primaries. If Stephen Colbert is looking to satirize the primaries I assume he will be on The Colbert Report asking people to vote for Stephen Colbert in the primaries.
Really, a Colbert candidacy promoted on Colbert's TV show would be a blatant violation of US election law. The only defense is, "hey, I don't really mean it," which is fairly flimsy.
That said, I think it's hilarious. I hope he takes this to the Supreme Court.
Don't underestimate the possibility of a protest vote. SC is a safe Republican state; if he could follow through and somehow deliver SC to the Democrats - that would be quite a hoot. And it would probably change the US electoral politics forever.
Ah, wait a second, but he is supposedly running in the primaries, both Democratic and Republican, not as an independent. Never mind.
I have no idea if the Colbert Candidacy plot will develop, but in case it is here for lasting, you could look good in the discussion by making some references to the similar story about the Coluche's presidential run in France in the 80s.
A good point to start would be:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924609,00.html?promoid=googlep
an article of the Time issued more or less at the same stage of the race as Colbert is in right now.
Bonus: a lot of conspiracy theories about the ending are still making the round in France more than 20 years later...
"Really, a Colbert candidacy promoted on Colbert's TV show would be a blatant violation of US election law."
FREE STEPHEN, FREE STEPHEN!!!...
Oh, too soon?
As I have noted a couple other places, my guess is that Colbert is attracting some libertarian-minded, center-right folks from Giuliani. In fact, I sometimes call these people "South Park voters", and "Stephen Colbert voters" probably works just as well. Anyway, if that is true, then it would seem the best bet to duplicate his apparent viability as a third party candidate would be Ron Paul.
By the way, some may wonder why libertarian-minded folks would support an authoritarian warhawk like Giuliani in the first place. I think part of the explanation is the one suggested by Christopher M: Giuliani presently may be better known as a socially liberal fiscal conservative than as an authoritarian warhawk (and of course all of that is true). But having followed some debates at places like The Volokh Conspiracy, I also know there is a real split in the libertarian-minded community over national security and foreign policy issues, one which I imagine could lead to some such people actually preferring the socially-liberal/fiscally-conservative/warhawk mix offered by Giuliani.
I'm pretty sure Colbert can't run in both primaries.
I like Colbert. But this Presidential stuff is getting a bit ridiculous.
"As I have noted a couple other places, my guess is that Colbert is attracting some libertarian-minded, center-right folks from Giuliani. In fact, I sometimes call these people "South Park voters", and "Stephen Colbert voters" probably works just as well. Anyway, if that is true, then it would seem the best bet to duplicate his apparent viability as a third party candidate would be Ron Paul."
That's a stretch. I can understand why someone would watch SP and SC (I do), but if libertarians/center-rights identify with SC, I think the jokes may be going over their heads. Same point with Ron Paul, whose philisophical beliefs are repeatedly mocked by Colbert. How that translates into votes for Paul is beyond me.
"I like Colbert. But this Presidential stuff is getting a bit ridiculous."
Quite the contrary, MORE please. While dated, Paulsen's "I've upped my standards. Now, up yours" is still highlarious.
I don't quite understand why people, especially the MSM, are taking this so seriously (to the point of taking polls!) and yes I know that not everyone is. I'm just enjoying it while it lasts.
No, this just means that if there were a NOTA line, then none of the above would get a lot of votes.
Putting a relious right or nativist wingnut to Giuliani's right would indeed draw votes from Giuiliani, but those are not the people polling for Colbert.
(Unless of course, they both watch the show and don't get the joke.)
It's the perfect year for an anti-Rudy conservative dissident candidate, because conservatives love power more than anything else and if they're convinced that Clinton would win even a 2-person race, they have no power-based reason not to challenge Giuliani from the right. In fact, they would have every reason to do so, since the power in play would be control of the Republican party.
There are several "Republicans" I'd elect before Hillary, none of them entirely or doctrinally pure "conservatives", thus and unfortunately decreasing their chances of nomination: Bloomberg, Powell, Condi Rice, Lindsay Graham (though Graham, were it not for his opposition to torture, comes close to "conpurity").
Re: libertarians and Giuliani:
The real issue is that there are a lot of people who still call themselves libertarian who are most definitely not, as they back Bush's power grabs to the hilt, love the war, and like a strong leader. But they don't like paying taxes, and some of them smoke pot. They are the "I've got mine, Jack" crowd. They don't really believe in small government, and the only civil rights they care about is property rights and gun rights (at least, for white people; it's no problem to them if the property of Arab-Americans gets confiscated).
The real reason to run a conservative third-party candidate in 2008 is to discredit Hillary when she wins. The returns were still coming in in 1992 when Bob Dole stepped before the cameras and said, "I represent the 57 percent of the people who didn't vote for Bill Clinton." It wasn't true, but it set the stage for the mau-mauing of Clinton and the 1994 election.
Expect more of the same in the aftermath of 2008--even if Hillary wins a majority ofthe vote. People on the right will be desparate to delegitimize Hillary's victory, and the media will of course provide them the soapbox, the microphone and batteries for the amplifier
'...but if libertarians/center-rights identify with SC, I think the jokes may be going over their heads.'
Teams of air-traffic controllers are required to handle the jokes sailing over the heads of your typical Randroid.
I'm curious what the polling would be for a three way with Clinton, Giuliani and John Smith. It could be that any third name that doesn't sound weird might pull a lot of votes from Rudy in a poll. That doesn't mean it would happen in an election.
Comments closed November 07, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
's a shame he's only running in South Carolina, really.
Posted by Anthony Damiani | October 24, 2007 7:46 PM