For instance, the current administration of the US government is certainly that of a major US party, but its ideas and actions on many a front are fringe (and dangerous, and often loony) to the vast majority of the world’ politically aware, aside from the minority of Americans who voted for him (less than 30% of eligible) and the even smaller minority today who still register approval in the man (and his party).

I don’t’ find major vs. minor pejorative in the same way as fringe, which is much more in the eye of the beholder, anyway. (That is, to me, Gravel is not fringe, he’s my bliss point (almost), but Tancredo and Hunter are. But all are certainly minor.)

Indeed, I originally typed “adjective” and replaced it with “noun” because I had referred to “the fringe” (using the term as a noun)–although I did use it as an adjective in the post itself (“fringe candidates”).

I figured since you’re throwing out the “comeback” jab I can toss out a “eat your words, just a little” jab. =P

Alas, though, I will give no prophacies of a nomination win. But delegates is far, far more then the pundits were offering him for a very long time.

On the topic of McCain vs. Romney, I really don’t think McCain has that big an edge on Romney right now, although a dominant win in Florida could do some serious damage heading into super Tuesday I guess. I’m not sure it matters much…I really think it is a Dem year.

I take the point, but at some point a candidate is on the margins or fringe or franja or something. Certainly in terms of numbers and likelihood of achieving the nomination, which is my focus here. Kucinich and Gravel both are literally on the fringes of the vote at this point in the race, and really have been there the whole time.

I do agree that the term “fringe” can, and normally does, have negative connotations. Of course, saying “losers is as losers does” didn’t seem all that polite and “one-percenters are what one-percenters does” seemed awkward (although now that I type it, it does sort of fit the whole ridiculous breakfast-based metaphor…).

And, to be fair, certainly Tancredo, Paul, Gravel and Kucinich have, at times, said some loony things (granted, it depends on one’s point of view) and I find Tancredo, specifically, to have some dangerous views on immigration.

Still, there is little doubt that the propensity is to treat such candidates as though they are cartoon characters, which isn’t fair and while I try to go too far on that count, I am guilty of so doing at times.

In all seriousness, what noun would you suggest to describe a Tancredo, Gravel, Hunter or Kucinich at this point?

Recognize, too, that clearly there was some flippancy, as is my wont, in the usage above.

Arizona Senator John McCain will be the last man standing in the Republican battle for the 2024 Presidential nomination. And if Senator Barack Obama felt Senator Hillary Clinton’s camp played hardball in Nevada, just wait until he sees what awai…

It has negative connotations, as if some combination of dangerous, loony, or other disparaging adjectives.

My position on this is clear: Given the undemocratic electoral systems used in this country, the presidential nominating contest remains the most open process of debating competing visions for the country, and if we can’t debate ideas outside the establishment mainstream when choosing who will be allowed to run for our only national offices, then when can we?

Calling candidates “fringe” implies they do not belong, and is an inherently undemocratic label.

As such, if McCain is more popular than Romney, who is going to beat McCain? Thompson is done and Giuliani’s run appears stillborn, so who is left? Huckabee? If Huckabee can’t beat McCain in SC, how is he going to beat him in NY, California and so forth?