Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
86’d in ’06: why the next election might be the Democrats ’94
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, May 25, 2005

I wouldn't be too confident about '06 if I were Ken Mehlman. It seems the public is ready for a regime change...or at least some new faces on Capitol Hill. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll taken May 20-22, people were asked:
"Do you think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress, or if the Democrats controlled Congress?"
Republicans: 36%—Democrats: 47%. The remaining respondents split between "neither/same/no opinion".

That's a significant swing from '02, when the campaign season saw Democrats and Republicans essentially tied at around 39%. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll had similar results, with "controlled by Democrats" outpacing "controlled by Republicans" 47% to 40%, and—perhaps more tellingly—respondents indicating by a margin of 45% to 42% that they wanted their own Congressman replaced. Generally, voters unhappy with Congress tend to be unhappy with other people's Congressmen.

It seems to me that the middle (including what Bill Quick calls the "Libertarian Center") is being put off by what Glenn Reynolds describes as the "relatively small group—under 20% of the electorate, I'd guess—that would really like to recast American society under far more religiously determined lines".

Say, maybe this'd be a good time for Republicans to notice that their constituency consists of more than evangelicals. They might even consider trying to actually appeal to that "libertarian center". Otherwise, '06 looks like it might be ugly for the GOP.

UPDATE: Why are people so unhappy? Dale Franks summed it up in a post earlier today:
In domestic policy, Bush has given us the worst of all possible worlds: a government that is conservative on religious issues and liberal on fiscal policy issues. He has, in effect, jettisoned most of the governing theory of conservatism, except for tax cuts, and kept the social conservatism of the Religious Right. Ronald Reagan certainly had his faults on fiscal policy, but at least he knew how to mollify the Religious Right and keep them in the tent without giving them anything of real substance. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, seems unable to deny the Religious Right anything.

That's a troublesome to American voters, because, while the electorate is at least nominally religious, they have a strong aversion to being preached to. Especially by politicians.

I believe the tension that exists is not the the electorate is tiring of conservatism, but rather that they are tiring of George W. Bush. And that's not surprising, because a significant number of Republican voters are tired of him. But they are tired of him because, in the areas that count with fiscal conservatives, he isn't very conservative at all. So, it is, therefore, hard to read Mr. Bush's relative unpopularity as a referendum on fiscal conservatism per se, because Mr. Bush has exercised precious little of it.

Mr. Bush is, frankly, a populist. He has followed a policy of low taxes, increased public spending, and trade protection. It's a wonder he hasn't started campaigning for free silver. But it's important to remember that while Mr. Bush may have alienated fiscal conservative/libertarian-leaning voters, he hasn't eliminated them, and their dissatisfaction arises from the fact that they've gotten too little of what they wanted from Mr. Bush, not, as Mr. Fineman seems to be arguing, too much.
Domestically, the Bush administration doesn't appear to stand for conservatism, libertarianism or any other actual political philosophy. Indeed, as I wrote once before, if there is any domestic political philosophy that seems to be guiding the Bush administration, it is "opportunitarianism" in which traditional conservative principles of "smaller government" and "limited government" have become subservient to the very real—and very compromising—demands of electoral politics.

Neoconservatives see this expansion of government as "natural, indeed inevitable"—certainly a defensible position—and seek to work within that framework for more marginal gains.

So, the Republicans have become a party focused on utilitarian political goals, rather than coherent philosophical ideals. It's uncomfortable to both conservatives and libertarians—who prefer a bit more principle in their politics—to moderates who dislike the factionalism and incoherence...and to liberals, who dislike a moving target.

It remains to be seen whether the neoconservatives can gather enough of a coalition to make this opportunitarianism a permanent aspect of US politics, but the polling data for '06 seems to indicate otherwise. What we will likely see is a decisive fracture in the Republican Party....a break between the social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, and moderates.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I highly doubt it. People are indeed upset with Republicans, but only because they’ve been so weak and wimpy. There is a real danger that many conservatives will vote for a new party, but no danger at all that they’ll vote democrat. Thus, democrats will only win if conservatives, the majority of the country, split their votes, allowing democrats to sneak in with minority pluralities.

In reality, despite Glenn Reynold’s best attmepts to portary it otherwise, Americans are a conservative bunch, and don’t see the GOP as the invasive bunch Reynold’s thinks they are. To the contrary, the GOP has been ineffectual. Remember we live in a country where even out toilets are regulated. You mean to tell me they have no problem with that, but are suddenly concerned the GOP is "overreaching"? Puhleese. When I hear calls for repeal of the some 150,000 laws we have, I’ll take their opinions more seriously.
 
Written By: Larry Walters
URL: http://
I highly doubt it. People are indeed upset with Republicans, but only because they’ve been so weak and wimpy. There is a real danger that many conservatives will vote for a new party, but no danger at all that they’ll vote democrat. Thus, democrats will only win if conservatives, the majority of the country, split their votes, allowing democrats to sneak in with minority pluralities.

In reality, despite Glenn Reynold’s best attmepts to portary it otherwise, Americans are a conservative bunch, and don’t see the GOP as the invasive bunch Reynold’s thinks they are. To the contrary, the GOP has been ineffectual. Remember we live in a country where even out toilets are regulated. You mean to tell me they have no problem with that, but are suddenly concerned the GOP is "overreaching"? Puhleese. When I hear calls for repeal of the some 150,000 laws we have, I’ll take their opinions more seriously.
 
Written By: Larry Walters
URL: http://
Big difference:

1) Republicans were running against an unpopular president. Democrats will be running against an unpopular congress. All poltiics i slocal.

2) The Republicans had an agenda, the "Contract". The Democrats are "not evil Republicans".

3) The idea of Democrats as big spending liberals still persists. That the Republicans are as well makes no difference. Replacing X with X is nothing new.

4) Who will be the leader? The democrats have marginalized themselves too much. They are the party of Kennedy and Boxer.

5) General distaste versus broad discontent are entirely different.

Now I feel the Republicans need a good ass-whuppin to teach them a lesson or too. But the current crop of donkeys are not up to the task.
 
Written By: Rob Mandel
URL: http://www.mandelinople.com
Should we point out that polling this far out is, at best, counter productive to an accurate read on election results?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitheads.blogspot.com
Unpopular Bill Clinton? Brand new history rears its head again.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Larry, I think we may be looking at large swathes of Repubs sitting out the mid-term out of disgust with "their" party. This could easily lead to significant gains for Dems without many Repubs switching teams.
 
Written By: R C Dean
URL: www.samizdata.net
excellent article. agreed with wholeheartedly. what prior posters miss is the obvious.

Bush is the most unpopular president in the history of america. his approval rating is 15 points lower than clinton’s during his lowest period. so much for running in 06 with the help of a popular president.

The "contract" is dead because of record deficits and ethical floundering in the house.

so unlike 94 there is an unpopular president congress and senate.

this trend will likely continue into 08 because the gop has absolutely noone except John McCain who could win the presidency.
 
Written By: billy
URL: http://
Billy - Who do the Dems have that can win the Presidency? Hillary?

Don’t make me laugh.

2006 results: GOP +1 in the Senate, +3 in the House
 
Written By: Aaron
URL: http://
no. hillary will not run for president. i guarantee it. a southern democrat can and will win in 08. even Kerry came within 1 state of beating incumbent bush during wartime. what kind of fantasyworld are you in? who exactly will outperform bush’s last election in 08?
 
Written By: billy
URL: http://
Before you get too far with the regime change idea, I suggest that you check out who the committee chairman would be if/when the Democrats retake control of the House.
Start with the Committee on the Judiciary, where F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. would be replaced by John Conyers, Jr., has a link to Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio prominently displayed on his web page. John has been seeing conspracies in strange places for a while now.

And that is just for starters.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://www.zombo.com/
Billy - Who do the Dems have that can win the Presidency? Hillary?

Don’t make me laugh.

2006 results: GOP +1 in the Senate, +3 in the House
 
Written By: Aaron
URL: http://
Oliver,

we’re obviously talking about the 1993-94 portion of the Clinton Presidency (which led up to the 1994 "Gingrich Revolution"). Are you really arguing that during THAT time period Clinton had high approval ratings?!?
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
clinton’s approval ratings bever dropped below 60 percent at anytime in his presidency, even during the 1993-94 gingrich revolution.

bush’s approval rating has never gone as high as 55% at any time.

those are just facts.
 
Written By: billy
URL: http://
clinton’s approval ratings bever dropped below 60 percent at anytime in his presidency, even during the 1993-94 gingrich revolution.

bush’s approval rating has never gone as high as 55% at any time.

those are just facts.
 
Written By: billy
URL: http://
Bush is around as popular, nationally, as Bill Clinton was on election day 1994. The National Exit Poll had Clinton at 47% approve, 53% disapprove. Also, that year saw strong GOP turnout and weaker Democratic base turnout.

Regionally Bush and Clinton will be totally different stories. In 1994, Clinton’s approval broke like this:

East - 53/47
Midwest - 44/56
South - 41/59
West - 52/48

What happened was that GOP candidates were able to unseat Democrats in dozens of Southern and Midwestern districts that had voted for Clinton in 1992 and then turned sharply against him and his agenda.

If Bush and the GOP don’t recover by e-day 2006, they’ll probably soldier on in the South and Plains states, but suffer in the Midwest and East where Bush’s approval could hit the mid-30s. Dems could knock off 20-odd Republicans who’ve squeaked in with 51-49 to 56-44 victories for the past few cycles. And they could forget about winning those senate seats in Minnesota, Maryland and Pennsylvania.
 
Written By: Dave Weigel
URL: http://www.davidweigel.blogspot.com
Obviously my last sentence should read "REPUBLICANS can forget about winning those senate seats."
 
Written By: Dave Weigel
URL: http://www.davidweigel.blogspot.com
It is an off year election, meaning that it will be much more between the hardcore voters, since many voters only vote in presidential elections. Dems are pissed after losing in 04. They probably will have a much higher turnout because of that.
 
Written By: Tito
URL: http://
the republican party is increasingly seen as the party of james dobson and pat robertson. this will have a bad impact on the gop with the centrists in this country both democrat and republican.

associating the party with those extremists will marginalize the gop in the future, couple that with whites being an increasingly small minority in this country and i think republicans are in for a big surprise in the future.

unless of course they find a way to win more minority votes in the future. maybe they should ask rush limbaugh for some advice on how to do it.
 
Written By: billy
URL: http://
The republicans may well pay a price. As a conservative the 7 who joined the Demos have taken a big risk and may pay a big price. Olympia Snowe is most vulnerable in 06. She turned her back on Frist and Bush and is losing big time to military base closures in Kittery Maine. Now that she has lost her conservative voters she will need Democrats to vote for her. But why should they? She didn’t deliver on protecting the Shipyard and she has alienated her voter base by hanging with McCain and Robert Byrd. She is toast. Maine voters will remember her for losing the shipyard not for protecting the Senate fillibuster.

Good thing Warner isn’t running in 06, I would vote for anyone but him. I have voted for him every cycle since 1978. Not anymore. I would vote for Michael Moore if he were running against Warner. Might as well vote for Democrat than vote for a Republican who supports liberal casues.

McCain’s presidential aspirations are dead. He has alienated too many republicans. They have a big majority and he sabotaged it. What an ego maniac! People will remember for thwarting President Bush and treat him nationally just like they treated Tom Dashle.
 
Written By: VirginiaMan
URL: http://
Billy says:
clinton’s approval ratings bever dropped below 60 percent at anytime in his presidency, even during the 1993-94 gingrich revolution...those are just facts.
Uh, billy, have you ever heard of Google? It points you to all kinds of interesting news items...
His low point, in fact, came years earlier: A 43 percent job approval rating in June 1993, as his new administration floundered and the economy remained weak.
Before summer 1996 — meaning before the recovery hit home — Clinton’s job approval rating averaged 51 percent...Clinton’s career average job rating is 57 percent
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://www.qando.net
In 1994, the Republicans stood for something. They went to the American people, and said "Elect us and we’ll do these specific things." Those were things that were popular with Americans in general, and that a reasonable person WOULD expect the Republicans to follow through on.

Ca anyone name even 5 specific proposals that Dems could make that would pass that test? I can’t. The Dems sure haven’t offered anything like that any time in the last 10 years.

They haven’t for the simple reason that the Dems ideas AREN’T popular. The Dems dont’ run on the great things they’ll do for the country, they run on the "fact" that they’re not "evil Republicans". Until the Dems come up with a legislative agenda that Americans will actually like, they’re not goign to pull any big upsets.

Further, the Senate Dems had a great year in 2000, knocking off a bunch of Republicans. Now all those Senators have to run on their own record, rather than runnign against the incumbent’s record. What HAVE they accomplished in the last 6 years?

Finally, what polls are you looking at? The ones that are consistently oversampling Democrats? (Partisan identification in the 2004 election was even between Republicans and Democrats.) Consider the source.
 
Written By: Greg D
URL: http://
Only time will tell whether the voters will be as dissillusioned with the Republican Party in November 06 as they were with the Democrats in November 94. But even if they are, this election won’t be a replay of 94.

Why? Look at the facts on the ground. In 1991-92, in an effort to appease minority voters, redistricting was done with an eye towards concentrating minority voters in a handful of of districts, so that the district in question wouldn’t just elect a Democrat, but a black or a hispanic Democrat. This concentration made some marginally Democratic seats more Democratic at the cost of making other marginal Democratic seats even more marginal. Given the right attitude by the electorate (as shown in 94) and a sea-change was inevitable.

Contrast that with 2001-02, where redistricting was done with an eye towards incumbent protection. As a result, extremely few congressional seats are genuinely competative. This probably actually hurt the Republicans in 02, as it limited their gain to only 7 seats, but will benefit them in 06, since it places a ceiling on their losses. If the country hates Bush in Nov. 06 as much as it hated Clinton in Nov. 94, Republicans will lose 12 seats, tops—not enough to lose their majority.

As for the Senate, only 16 Republicans have to stand for re-election in 2006 (as opposed to 17 Democrats). The Democrats would have to sweep every open seat race (including races deep in Red America) AND pick off a couple of incumbents, as well as defend their own vunerable seats, to pull that feat off. In 1994, by contrast, there were 22 or 23 Democrats standing for re-election (or defending open seats the Democrats held), which gave the Republicans far more pickup opportunities.
 
Written By: Sean P
URL: http://
I may be repeating someone’s comment (I haven’t read them all), but Republican congressional bumbling will get their majority pared back but it won’t get them slaughtered. It was largely Billary Clinton that brought about the 1994 electoral massacre for the Dems. The nation clearly wanted some gridlock after Clinton came hot out of the gates with HillaryCare and gays in the military. Despite the shrill tones of the opposition and the media these days, Bush hasn’t caused the nation to run screaming from his agenda. The opposite is actually true, he has carried his party to strong majorities. To the extent that Republicans in congress are disappointing the electorate, it is because they are not MORE proactive in passing Bush’s legislative agenda.

PS - Hey Neo, good point, how about Chairman of House Ways and Means = Charlie Rangel. Ouch!
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Sorry, folks, but I don’t buy poll numbers (and cooked poll numbers) 500 days before an election.

The polls in early 2003 and even later that year showed that Bush would be defeated against any of the Democrats then seriously running. What happened? Do you remember President Kerry?

Calm your powder, and watch and wait. Also remember that conservatives do not like to be polled - just ask the exit pollsters from election day 2004.

 
Written By: Simon Lazarus
URL: http://nonameisary.blogspot.com/
Yes the country longs for the sane fiscal policies of the Democrats and the reasoned discourse of pople like Kane and Hillary. I doubt there will be many changes in the house and senate but I am sure we’re going to see minor GOP gains. The RINOs are most likely candidates to loose their jobs and the Democrat "moderates" like Nelson.
 
Written By: TJ Jackson
URL: http://
The point when things will tip over for the GOP is when us libertarian/republican types start realizing that the choice isn’t between Republican and Democratic government, but Divided and Unified government. Evangelical Republicans I can put up with, but tax-and-spend Republicans are a whole ’nother matter.
 
Written By: the snob
URL: http://www.thesnob.com
I’m a Dem and I don’t think 2006 will be our 1994. Sean P’s good post hits on some of the House-centric reasons, but taking a broader look, 1994 had been building literally for decades, for as long as post-New Deal, post-Great Society Democrats had been losing conservative and working class whites, especially in the South. I don’t think the country has reached that tipping point with the GOP yet, and I doubt they will even by fall 2006. No matter how badly the Republicans have overreached, there’s not the sort of generation sea-change going on that 1994 represented. And in addition to that, districts these days are much less competitive, making the threshold for sweeping change much higher.

Greg D is also right when he notes that 2006 is the year the piper is payed for the rather stunning success the Democrats had in 2000. IMO, we could have a good cycle and still end up losing 1-2 Senate seats by geography alone. But I expect large gains to be made in the House, though not enough to restore a Democratic majority.

And that’s a good thing. Bush has done better when he’s had Democratic congressional opposition. Hopefully 2006 will weaken GOP majorities in both chambers, heighten the tensions between theocons, moderates, and small-govt conservatarians enough to throw the 2008 primary into chaos, and set the stage for a recapture of Congress in 2008, when the Senate terrain becomes more favorable.

 
Written By: SamAm
URL: http://
Billy:
Bet you thought you were pretty hip, and on top of your game, with your comments on "Bush being the most unpopular president in history", and "Clinton’s approval rating never went below 60%" (I’m paraphrasing here). Hilarious how you got your "asshat" handed to you. Better go back and re-read your DNC talking-points.
Oh, by the way - DNC can also be Googled (just in case you’re stumped - also a word that probably can be Googled, but you’ll have better luck using a dictionary or thesarus)
 
Written By: kirk
URL: http://
Fiscal conservatism will never work on a national basis for Democrats because any Democratic proposal to restrain spending will be immediately one-upped by a more fiscally conservative Republican proposal. This favors Republicans because fiscal conservatism is more popular with the Republican base.
 
Written By: Fool’s Gold
URL: http://bokumaru.blogspot.com
"this trend will likely continue into 08 because the gop has absolutely noone except John McCain who could win the presidency."

Something I’ve seen mentioned almost nowhere is Giuliani’s favorability curve across the Pew report’s 10 categories of voters.
He’s at high eighties with "Enterprisers," yet still high forties with "Liberals." No other figure has that mass-spectrum appeal, including McCain.

If he can make it through the primaries, which is a huge IF to be carved in Ben-Hur slabs of stone,
Rudy Can’t Fail.

How’d you like having to guard, not just PA, MI and WI like last fall, but MA, CT and NJ? That’s right ... a little regional jujitsu courtesy of the mayor.
 
Written By: Knemon
URL: http://
There’s no way the Democrats will have 1994-like success in ’06. First of all, they stand for nothing except hate of Republicans in general (per Howard dean) and George W in particular(Jonathan Chait, MoveOn.org, etc.). The press has been hammering Bush and the Republicans about Terri Schiavo, the filibuster and private Social Security accounts, but I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that these issues will hurt the Republicans in ’06. These low approval ratings aren’t surprising when you consider the incessantly negative coverage people have been bombarded with.

So many of the polls on the filibuster have been blatant push polls and they have oversampled Democrats so I don’t know how anyone can claim to know what the true numbers are. The failure to execute the nuclear option is only going to affect the 7 wimps who caved in and Bill Frist who showed he is a weak leader. If anything, the failure to break the filibuster has galvanized conservatives to come out and vote for conservative candidates.

The Terri Schaivo matter had liberals and libertarians up in arms, but several polls taken at the end of that ordeal, when much more information had come out, were markedly different than the polls taken before the tube was pulled. The later polls showed lots of support for the attempt to save her life. Plus, that is going to be long gone in the rear view mirror by the time we get to the election.

The polls on social security seem to be all over the place. People under 40 overwhelmingly support private accounts and so do people over 55(irrespective of the AARP’s position on the issue). Plus, we are still waiting for an actual plan to be proposed. Up to know the press has been slamming Bush’s plan (eventhough he doesn’t really have one yet) and dishonestly labeling it as "privatization". I saw a recent Opinion Dynamics poll on Brit Hume’s show that said something like 75% of people polled didn’t know that you would be able to opt out of the Bush private account plan if you wanted. When details like that become more concrete and more well known, I think the public will support it. The Dems have no alternative plan so I think this issue is going to be a winner for the Repubs.

And in regard to Clinton’s popularity, he won 43% and 49% of the popular vote in ’92 and ’96 respectively. Those were the only polls that have any validity. Despite liberal whining about Monica, the press was a complete cheerleader for Clinton’s policies and kept telling everyone how great things were and how everyone loved him. It isn’t surprising that the job approval polls and the election polls deviated so much. Plus, the turnout in 1996 was one of the lowest since WWII so Clinton’s win amongst soccer moms and independents wasn’t as meaningful as Clinton’s as Democrats want to pretend.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
You can talk about "polls" and "trends" all you want - but the poster who mentioned "all politics is local" is right.

No matter what the "national opinion" is, voters are going to vote for their local senator and congressman based on their viewpoint of that individual.

And when you look at the individual contests, contest by contest - Republicans hold. Possibly +/- a couple seats in Senate or House.
 
Written By: drc
URL: http://
Republicans ’06 like Democrats ’94?

Extremely unlikely, if only because of the way the House is gerrymandered so that only a (small) handful of seats are even at issue, and the count of the incumbant seats at issue in the Senate mathematically makes a big pickup for the Dems a remote chance.

For it to be a ’94 for the Repubs they’d have to go hog wild with hubris like the Dems did trying to ram through national health care and all. The Repubs have controlled the Congress long enough to have learned not to do that.

Really, Bill Clinton’s single biggest and most lasting poltical achievement was losing the House in ’94—it was gerrymandered then too, and the House Dem leadership back then thought they were going to own it forever. And they could have.

Bill Clinton, political genius—thanks, Bill.

Yes, inevitably the Repubs, if they stay in control, will get too full of themselves and sour things for themselves. But not in ’06 like ’94.

In ’08, if national security is shored back up, and the Dems have a reasonable moderate candidate, I could vote for him to give the Repubs a dose of head-size reduction, and also to follow Bruce Bartlett’s rule that the best policy for the fisc is to have divided government with each party blocking the other’s pork distribution.

But a real, lasting swing from Repubs to Dems will require not just a screw-up by the Repubs but big changes by the Dems, who have *a lot* of internal problems that they show no signs at all of curing yet.

Thatcher’s Tories eventually blew it—but it took 18 years, truly massive screw-ups on their part from hubris, *and* a complete re-working of the Labor party so it could appeal to Tory voters.

The Repubs aren’t so far along on the first two points, and the Dems are still moving in the *wrong direction* on the third.







 
Written By: Jim Glass
URL: http://www.scrivener.net
Don’t forget that Clinton was running against the poster boy for erectile disfunction. If either party nominates such a non-electable person again (Hillary is exhibit number 1 on the Dem side, McCain on the Repub side) they too, will get trashed at the polls. A bucket of warm spittle would have won running againt Dole. A bucket of cold spittle will win running against Hillary Clinton.
 
Written By: Pragmatist
URL: http://
You cannot be serious. A CNN/USA Today Gallup poll leads you to think all of this? When will you realize that these polls always show that the majority prefers Democrats, yet are always wrong? And, how often do you see these same pollsters show polls that say the opposite? Never.
 
Written By: Brian
URL: http://www.antijohnkerry.blogspot.com
Well, Araic, that’s a pretty safe promise you made "If the Democrats running for Congress would sign this pledge, I would be willing to vote for them."

Since there’s not a chance in hell that the Democrats would make a plan like that.
 
Written By: Greg D
URL: http://
the republican party is increasingly seen as the party of james dobson and pat robertson. this will have a bad impact on the gop with the centrists in this country both democrat and republican.
The Democratic party is increasingly seen as the party of Howard Dean and Al Franken. This will have an even worse impact on the DNC with the centrists in this country both Dem and Repub.
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
knemon:
Something I’ve seen mentioned almost nowhere is Giuliani’s favorability curve across the Pew report’s 10 categories of voters.
He’s at high eighties with "Enterprisers," yet still high forties with "Liberals." No other figure has that mass-spectrum appeal, including McCain.
It’s widely thought that no pro-choice candidate can win the GOP primary.
 
Written By: Undertoad
URL: http://cellar.org/iotd.php
Be wary of anyone who uses the " increasingly" word. Like, " the GOP is INCREASINGLY seen as the party of James Dobson". That word is used to create an artifical sense of movement when no such movement exists. Just how does anyone know, in a country of 300 million, how anything is INCREASINGLY seen as?

Just look at the commenters on this page, a far more reliable indicator than the writer himself. 3 out of every 4 posts agree that the losers here ar the RINO’s, not the Republicnas who voted to kill the fillibuster. Virtualy everyone agrees McCain ha no chance in hell. He couldnt win in 2000, before the blog flowering. His chances are even slimmer now, and only an extreme, in the bubble egomaniac like him could think otherwise. As for H. Clinton - it’s pathetic how blinkered the media is, really. She’s worse than a North East Liberal. She’s a woman who spurned the South and the Midwest to go to the North East.

The lesson in America is, conservatives always win. Face it, America is a conservative country. What we need are peopel to start calling for repeal of multi-multi bilion dollar pices of legislation already on the books, especailly the myrial "discrimination" ones. ( race, religion, handicap, age, sexual orinetaion, etc. etc.) Such a candidate wil face media outrage, fer sure, but he’ll win.
 
Written By: Larry Walters
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider