During primaries, the ideological location of the median voter would be shifted. By arguing that Rep. Paul's ideology is closer to a Democrat's standpoint, his opponents are trying to move him further from the primary's median in the eyes of voters. What is almost ironic about this is that a similar shift would theoretically benefit Rep. Paul in a race against a Democrat (assuming a one-dimensional scale). In reality, since there is more than one scale in which candidates are compared, it is difficult to say whether this argument would hold weight in different dimensions (ie. in some areas Paul is closer to the median and in others he is farther away, but in different directions and dimensions than left and right).
1 comment:
This entire panel seems like a ploy on the part of Fox to try and distinguish Paul from the party median in order to swing voters away from him campaign. They really effectively do this in terms of highlighting his more controversial viewpoints. Removing foreign aid to Israel, supporting the legalization of cocaine and heroine, and opposition to the raid to capture Bin Laden fly directly in the face of core conservative values.
This might be an example of what was brought up in the Downs article about the purpose of multiple parties/candidates. While Paul is a longshot for the Republican nomination (as is mentioned several times by members of the panel in the video), his role in fostering meaningful and thought-provoking debate might be the purpose of his campaign as opposed to viably seeking the Republican nomination. By bringing up these controversial, anti-conservative viewpoints, the positions of the more comprehensively right-wing candidates are solidified for voters.
Post a Comment