Well, you’d never have thunk it. Conservative and Republican bloggers in America are discussing George W. Bush’s impeachment. As in, they want him impeached. Which you would have thought was treasonous Democrat lily-livery in a time of war, etc, etc. Even Michelle Malkin has been railing against “blind Bush supporters”. The cause of all this uproar? Immigration. To wit, Bush’s reasonably open attitude towards “guest workers” from Mexico. Bush won’t be impeached, but it’s a sign of the deep splits between the business Republicans and the angry conservative base. Which doesn’t bode well for the Republicans at all. And it’ll be interesting to see if the formerly fervently pro-Bush blogosphere turns against him whether it will do anything to shape the debate. There’s some interesting analysis at Unclaimed Territory:
Many on the Right have decided that Immigration is now the paramount issue that must be dealt with, and their differences with Bush on this issue, which they have long suppressed, are now exploding into the open, which is only exacerbating the president’s severe political difficulties. Nothing in particular has happened on the immigration front, leading to the question of why has this issue taken on such critical importance now?I think a lot of the Malkin types have become bored with the whole “War on Terror” business, which provided them good, strong emotional sustenance for the last four years. But September 11 is now almost five years away. There have been no good “battles” for a long time; we don’t even pretend to capture or kill any high-ranking Al Qaeda members any more; and while invocations of “war” will always be good for some blood-rushing excitement, the whole thing seems so distant and abstract at this point. It’s just not enough any more.
They’re also clearly tired of slogging through the political and ethnic complexities of Iraq. That country just doesn’t lend itself to any morally clear good/evil dichotomies. There are no good cartoon villains to hate. Calls for increased “ferocity,” less “sensitive” approaches (“bomb some more mosques!”), and less discriminate bombings can generate some temporary enthusiasm — as it did for a day or so with Shelby Steele’s column — but Iraq is so muddled and ambiguous, and not all that emotionally satisfying. It’s pretty depressing, actually, to think about how everything they said would happen there is not happening, and trying to figure out solutions, ways out, is just not very invigorating stuff for those who thrive on Hating and Warring Against Evil.
As a result, attention gets turned to immigration — Mexican immigration specifically. It entails the opportunity to rail against “appeasement” (of Vincente Fox); to create the anti-terrorist/pro-terrorist dichotomy on which they thrive; and to demonize a clear, foreign enemy as threatening not just our economic prosperity but also our national security (the “Mexican invaders”). And if the weakened, ready-to-be-tossed aside failure, George Bush, is one of the spineless appeasers this time, so be it.
This is a major, major political problem for the White House. The measures which Bush’s base demands, the ones necessary to really satisfy them — a huge wall and active deportation — are far too extreme for Bush to embrace. And yet they aren’t going to be satisfied without extreme measures. The media loves to talk about how Democrats are being harmed because “the Left” of the party is dragging it towards policies which are too extreme, but the reality is that dynamic is taking place within, and is threatening to drown, the Republican Party. Bush has very few supporters left. The few he has left are demanding that he adopt immigration positions which he clearly opposes and which would alienate most people in the country. And he is far too weak to satisfy them with symbolic measures.
They are actually debating his impeachment over this issue. What is a 29% President to do?
What indeed?
To most American conservatives, the realization is beginning to set in that Bush 11 is Bush 1 with a tax cut. Almost everything else, Iraq excluded, the apple really hasn’t fallen that far from the tree.
Spending out of control etc.
The final crunch is the border issue. Amercians are generally pretty open minded about immigration and most identify with the concept they are a nation of immigrants and immigration has been a good thing. The issue for most conservatives is not legal immigration. It’s the fact that there is an estimated 11 million illegals in the country with the border looking like it’s out of control.
Add to the the silly comments Mexican politicians are frequently mouth off that a lot of the south belongs to them and this takes on a whole different perspective. Bush seems way out on left field over this and it’s pissing off many of his supporters.
Yes, but he’s caught between a rock and a hard place, JC. The big business Republicans like Mexican immigration. And, he was doing pretty well with the Hispanic vote in 00 and more so in 04. You can kiss most of that goodbye now.
It shows how far he’s gone – gone are the times when he could toss out a bit of symbolism (as his “compromise” bill is being described by Republicans, though one Congressman called it an “insult”) to the base.
It doesn’t do the Republicans any good for the mid terms or the primaries either. There’ll be be bitter fights when the primary season comes around. His biggest mistake in retrospect may have been Cheney as V-P. There’s no natural successor, and as he loses authority, the party splinters. McCain’s busy tacking to the right as we speak. It won’t be a good look for the Republicans if the Democrats can anoint a candidate before the start of the primary season. Problem is, I don’t think Hillary’s the right one, and she’s the one with all the cash and endorsements so far. Of course, frontrunners have crashed and burnt many times but the Clinton political machine is still pretty formidable.
Interesting times ahead.
Kim
I read somewhere the hispanic vote did not really help bush at all where it mattered. Sure he may have increased his vote with this constituency in Texas and california, but who cares, right?
The big cahuna over there is the one both parties don’t really wanna talk about but it’s the group the shoot for.
This is the white vote. Rove played local politics from national vantage point by tailoring ads etc. in each state and elecorate to appeal to this mass voter.
This is where Bush won. He got 2 extra points or so in 04 and its where Clinton won twice.
THE GOP can afford to give up the hispanic and black vote away but as long as they get say 1-3 extra points of the white vote they have it locked up.
That’s how Wilson won California in 92(?), recall?
Immigration is gonna be a big nthing next time round.
Yeah, but Wilson plagued the Republicans in California with the legacy of that afterwards – hence the Governator’s take on it.
You’ve got to remember, Joe, that increasingly there are large and new-ish Hispanic populations all over the mid-West too. Some of those states could be in play.
Rove’s been reported as horrendously depressed by the immigration stuff.
That’s also presuming they have a candidate who plays to independents, Joe. Bush did in 00, sort of in 04, but that was a numbers game of beating the Democrats on the ground. McCain may be their best bet, but he’s likely to be pretty weak among some Republicans. Bush’s great virtue electorally was that there was something in him for almost all Republicans, no matter what you were into. You’re pretty much right that he’s now looking like Bush I. But I really can’t think of another candidate the Republicans can unite behind. Not Frist. Not Allen. Not Rudi. And Condi won’t run. Put your money on that.
“Rove’s been reported as horrendously depressed by the immigration stuff.”
Hardly. Rove no doubt crafted the adminsitration position on immigration.
“Bush’s great virtue electorally was that there was something in him for almost all Republicans, no matter what you were into.”
Actually, his great virtue is that he wasn’t Kerry.
“You’re pretty much right that he’s now looking like Bush I.”
Bush I only looked bad in comparison to Clinton. That’s why you cannot judge anyone’s chances until you know who both parties run.
“But I really can’t think of another candidate the Republicans can unite behind. Not Frist. Not Allen. Not Rudi. And Condi won’t run. Put your money on that.”
I don’t think Condi will run either. Frist looks like a possible to me. Rudy is too New York, but I like him. Allen, eh.
I believe it will be Romney.
He’s fresh, untainted and even has some blue state credibility, something most Republican candidates don’t have. And I don’t think his religion will be a detriment.
Kim: “…Bush’s reasonably open attitude towards foreign guest workers…”
I’m afraid this is an instance when ‘reasonable’ and ‘open’ do not support one another.
Personally I don’t like Mr. Bush at all, and I think another impeachment would be really bad for the political scene, but strictly speaking, it seems like perhaps there’s better grounds for impeaching Bush on this than there were for impeaching Mr. Clinton. He is charged with upholding the law. He is and has been failing in that duty on a truly epic scale, and it could probably be reasonably shown that he is in willful dereliction of his constitutional duty, in service to the illegal interests of business and employers.
All of these practices are blatantly illegal. Meanwhile people quite literally stampede across the border by the hundreds of thousands, flouting the laws (not just the immigration laws, mind you, but the housing laws, the labor laws, public health, you name it) and gnawing the social-services infrastructure to shreds. Funny how business doesn’t have to pay for that part. Playing politics is not the right idea here. What’s needed is some old-fashioned patriotism. I see it nowhere; not in the white house, not in the senate, and certainly not in this immigration ‘reform’ bill.
If it’s blue state credibility you want (although I don’t know why, the blue states are losing population while the red are gaining) Rudy would clearly be the best choice.
The blue state viability factor still matters when it comes down to the general election.
But we’ll see.
Lots of the “red states” have Democratic governors.
And the bluest of the blue elected a Republican.
If that’s possible, he obviously has appeal to a broad range of voters.
“The blue state viability factor still matters when it comes down to the general election.”
It hasn’t in the last 2 presidential elections.
“Lots of the “red statesâ€? have Democratic governors.”
A few do. But not many are rabid democrats. Tennessee’s governor Bredesen might as well be a republican. And even Gore couldn’t win Tennessee, which he claimed as his home state. Plus, Americans have always liked to split their votes, seeing nothing unusual about voting for a democrat governor and a republican senator or vice versa. We’re quite schizo when it comes to that. Probably not a bad thing.
Civitas, that’s the last two elections.
With fractured Republicans, demoralized Democrats and shifting alliances it is smarter to look further back than two election cycles.
“Civitas, that’s the last two elections.”
yup and demographic trends don’t favor a change
It would only make sense to look back further than 2 cycles if people were moving FROM red states to BLUE states. But they’re not, they’re moving the other way, even faster than they were 8 years ago. In pretty big numbers.
Think back to the seismic changes when many Dem’s abandoned the party and became Reaganites.
The disenchantment has reached Carter-esque proportions with Bush now.
It remains to be seen how people will either put up or shut up, or realign.
“Think back to the seismic changes when many Dem’s abandoned the party and became Reaganites.”
Back before the demographic shift started? The population in the US bears no resembance today to 1980. Be serious.
“The disenchantment has reached Carter-esque proportions with Bush now.”
Bush isn’t running for anything, Carter was. We’ll have two new candidates….unless the dems do something fatal like put Kerry up.
Civitas,I am being serious.
I am saying that it is a very different mood and demographic today than the two cycles you cite as a reason to write off blue states.
I am also saying that disenchantment runs high.
“I am saying that it is a very different mood and demographic today than the two cycles you cite as a reason to write off blue states.”
It is not. The trend if anything has accelerated over the last 8 years. There will be 2 new candidates, no incumbent. No one has suggested writing off any states. But there’s little doubt that to win any candidate must do well in red states. That ISN’T true in reverse. A candidate can win without doing terribly well in blue states.
“I am also saying that disenchantment runs high.”
I think you’ve been taken in a bit by the media. Most Americans are fairing quite well, going about their daily lives, enjoying the strong economy. Don’t confuse the majority with political junkies such as you and I. And I think you’re in for a huge surprise. The idea that republicans are going to vote for a democrat in large numbers, certainly any of the current crop of dems, is unrealistic.
Kerry? Dean? Pelosi? Reid? Ain’t gonna happen.
And if the dems are smart, which I hope they are because I actually like having a choice….they’ll run someone who can win in some red states and not repeat the embarrassment of their candidate losing his own home state. And yes, that means don’t run Gore, who even today couldn’t win Tennessee.
And for another perspective see this.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/05/open_letter_on_.html
I live in America and am a libertarian/conservative. I go about my daily life and enjoy the strong economy, as you suggest.
Nevertheless, there are a lot of things in flux.
I agree that Republicans will never vote Democratic, unless something really off the wall goes on. I think that what will happen is that they will vote for progressive Republicans and that coalitions/alliances/thought are changing.
What trend has accelerated, in your opinion?
Population movement?
So, ok.
Democratic base..weakened. Black voters..economics and resent immigrants/Hispanics. Hispanics..split on immigration. Those eligible to vote. Unions? Strong economy has them hampered. Really left? Party’s too tame.
Fractured.
Republican base…weakened. Religious right righteously pissed as always. National security folks..can we say borders and ports? Libertarians…NSA issues.Really right? Then Bush has betrayed us.
Fractured.
Ain’t no one happy.
I’m with Another Kim.
What’s the current “country on the wrong track” number? About 69%
The other thing to remember is that Bush will still be the incumbent.
We’ll know things are really bad with the GOP if the Arnie Amendment gets serious traction.
It won’t, Another Kim
Sheesh, I called you my name. I meant Primary Kim
I think it’s high time we just went ahead and founded Kimblog.com
btw, I’m kind of amazed when I consider the statistical importance of Kims in my own personal life. Two ex-girlfriends and one best friend. More Kims than Jennifers, and that’s saying something.
Another Kim: “…there are a lot of things in flux…”
Si!
(that’s Latin for “if”…)
Sorry if i missed it somewhere up the thread, but what is the conservative line on this? Close the borders? Deport some that are already there? And what exactly is the Bush position? Dont make me do my own research americophiles. I can’t help but think that there is an awful lot of policy space between Bush’s businessmen and Malkin’s red state conservatives (Hey, where does the red come from? trying to play tricky linguistic games with Stalinand Co?)
It’s hard for me to accept that this mean the Republicans are moving left. More like they’re staying right and going down (this is not just a political prediction; see the double axis political compass.) Check out the US 2004 graph.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Also, isn’t there a broader pressure at work on Bush and co. They can’t piss off the Mexicans. they’ve got to appease one of their last major Central/South American allies. What happens if the left-leaning mayor of Mexico City wins the presidency and there is animosity between the two countries? I sense an inter-continental tipping point, or at least, some serious headaches for a incumbent president. Maybe that’s whats distressign Rove so much..
No I don’t think it will either, Another Kim.
Where’s the amazing Kim when we need her?
Even Kim’s get confused sometimes,JPZ.
At least this one.
j_p_z, all Kims are by definition sexy, smart and charming
michael, basically the business types don’t mind Mexican immigration because it helps keep wages down. There are issues, as j_p_z indicates, with pressure on public services from illegal immigration. There’ve been attempts to regularize the whole thing – Ted Kennedy’s been prominent in this. The right wing types want a big wall built along the border, and there was a really over the top bill in Congress which would have criminalised illegal immigrants (currently it’s a civil offence). Bush is having an awful time trying to straddle the fence.
As Gov. of Texas, he got quite a high Hispanic vote, and he’s been seen as being more sympathetic to immigration than a lot of right wing GOP types.
Michael G: “…They can’t piss off the Mexicans…”
Why not? What will the Mexicans do in retaliation — become even *more* incompetent? (Actually, that’s probably the main worry in D.C….)
I think now I know why the American sitcom invented the convention of the Wacky Neighbors, who keep barging into your living room un-announced and un-invited. Mexico is America’s own Kramer!
Bring back Elaine!
Just sayin…
That’s the fracture I forgot, P.K.
Big business. Thanks for the reminder.
OMG..from bad dance and everything else. So bring back Elaine!
JPZ…knew you had it in ya.
Kim: “…bring back Elaine!”
We already did. These days it’s called Guatemala.
Thanks Kim. So, regulation is the middle ground. can’t imagine most of the libertarians are keen on that. Would such regulation lead towards more rights and ultimately higher wages? Or did you say regularise, whatever the heck that means.
I think Kimblog is a great idea. Nothing but Kim’s all day and all night long.
And JPZ, Its not smart to underestimate Kramer. I’m thinking that the Mexicans will gang up with their latino friends (brazil, argentina, chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay) and kick out neoliberalismo once and for all. Just imagine… Kramer’s army. He’s gotten tired of being seen as the harmless goofball…and hes coming for Jerry.
Dare I ask?
Newman?
Because I adore George in a way..
I have been mistaken for a dr. while overseas and my only thought before having fun with it was..”There may be a whale they want me to save. I could, but won’t.”
Mexico is America’s own Kramer!
That…. is very funny.
Canada has to be.. George.
And Newman….. Cuba?
It’s Neuman. Ask away.
So it’s Republicans moving out of Blue States and into Red States? Or is the demographic shift ‘bipartisan’? It’s pretty stupid to claim that the GOP has a demographic advantage over the democrats because of population movement, when the trend seems more substantively to show an ‘empurplement’ of the states rather than any Red/Blue entrenchment. I’ll agree that putting Kerry up would be foolhardy; I thought it wasn’t a good pick last time. Senators don’t do particularly well in Presidential races at the very least. But Mr. 29% isn’t going to offer much advantage to any successor by his imprimateur, and the substantial Republican culture of corruption is so generalised and so obvious that even without Bush’s nod, the next candidate is going to have a fight on his hands. November ‘06 may yet provide the best augury of ‘08. I certainly hope so.
He assumed gross poulation shifts meant same voting trends, Greg.
Where did they move from?
Don’t assume much.
Damn fast responses. Mine mostly.
Where did they move from and why did they move? Yes, they’re moving to the southwest. In droves.
Bringing the same mindset along with the body when cold weather was too bothersome there.
Don’t fight the same battles when they’re over, Civitas.
Look to tomorrow.
Lets not get caught up in absolutes Civitas. There are plenty of blue cities in red states, and vice versa. We shouldn’t assume that there is a uniform movement throughout the whole state.
Check out the article at Slate ( a quiz)
http://www.slate.com/id/2103764/
Some interesting commentary via Bilmon http://billmon.org/archives/002448.html
“…They’re waxing hysterical about the immigrant “threat” for the same reason they’ve been waxing hysterical about the “Islamofascists” for the past five years: because it legitimizes their paranoid, authoritarian world view — which in turn justifies the kind of paranoid, authoritarian state they want to see established in this country.
It’s almost as if they need to sell totalitarianism to themselves — to make it OK to ditch the libertarian legacy of old-fashioned small-government conservatism. But that takes perpetual crisis. The war on Al Qaeda wasn’t sweeping enough, so it had to become the clash of civilizations between the West and Islam. Iraq was a great emotional ride while it lasted (i.e. back in the days of mission accomplished) but now that it’s degenerated into the dry heat version of Vietnam, it’s no help at all — not just because America is losing, not just because the war is unpopular, but because it’s no longer dramatic enough to justify the kind of emotional mobilization that feeds the totalitarian impulse. ..”
Speaking of blue states V red states;
“President Bush . . . has a positive job approval in just three of the 50 United States. This according to 50 separate but concurrent statewide public opinion polls conducted by SurveyUSA for its media clients across the country. Only residents of Utah, Wyoming and Idaho view the president favorably” http://billmon.org/archives/002451.html
Umm RobWindt, while I’m pro-immigration and a technophile how do you justify your endless moaning about carrying capacity and ecological limits with increasing population densities in immigrant-attracting countries?
“how do you justify your endless moaning about carrying capacity and ecological limits with increasing population densities in immigrant-attracting countries?”
I don’t http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
Just an interested observer of the end of empire
But let’s not get off topic again
Rob Windt: that’s some pretty hysterical commentary, my man. If you’re livin’ down-wind from a crystal meth plant, invite me over for some crank, dude.
John Ray has an interesting summary of the electoral quandary and some unusual allies. Basically because the US was slow off the mark with border control, unlike us, they are destined to become Hispanic. http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/
I guess the academic question is, how much will that change the US over the long haul?
j_p_z, no! Elaine is New York.
On the red states vs. blue states thing, Another Kim is on the money. Just because a similar voting pattern reproduced itself for two elections in a row, doesn’t mean it endures forever. Look at all the “red states” that voted for Clinton in 96.
The explanations from demography etc. are largely retrospective. That is, people came up with all sorts of cultural and population differences to explain different patterns of voting after the patterns of voting were seen as representing cultural differences. In other words, it’s circular and sloppy analysis.
If you look at polls on social attitudes, Americans actually agree on more stuff than they disagree on. It’s just that the people who disagree disagree very loudly, and this contributes to the increasing partisanship.
from Observas link
“and most Hispanics will probably have learnt enough from growing up in America not to support the Fascist political policies that regularly prevail in Latin America.”
so you’re hoping they don’t join the Republican party then Observa.
funniest blog I’ve seen all day!
To Observa..
Most Hispanics are deeply conservative and those who become citizens are actually more likely to vote conservative than liberal. Whatever form that takes in the future.
Another Kim’s right. Hispanics should be a natural constituency for the GOP. But the stuff around at the moment ain’t gonna make it so.
I guess Ray hasn’t considered that the Dems and Repubs could do a bipartisan deal on border control like Aus political parties did.
‘funniest blog I’ve seen all day!’
Well Cal, that’s because he often talks about funny people- leftys
Kim: If you look at polls on social attitudes, Americans actually agree on more stuff than they disagree on. It’s just that the people who disagree disagree very loudly, and this contributes to the increasing partisanship
Anyone got any strategies for shutting some of these people up (or at least taking away their megaphones? ….no, seriously.
argh i havent got time to figure out the code today…
Primary Kim, here’s where we make our millions.
Best political advisory team in the states. Got it covered.
Kim:
I told you so; I told you so.
( btw: thanks for the link to Michelle Malkin’s site – they haven’t hauled her off yet to Gitmo for vigorous interrogation, have they? )
Pity so many of the US politicans are so corrupt,and it taints both side,though I tend to think that the GOP is more crooked than the Dems though the Dems have form in this as well.
This “people are moving from blue states to red states & therefore the Repub majority will grow” is a logical fallacy (a variant of the ecological fallacy, actually).
People are not Republican because they live in a Red state – states are Red because Republicans live in them. If the people moving into them are Democrats, they’ll become bluer.
Correct,derrida.
Back from my swim. Contact the Kims Inc. Political Strategists for more on the ecological fallacy
Same diff as in Australia, btw. Why is the National Party going backwards in seaside regional seats? Liberal & Labor voters move into them.
Light years ahead of some compatriots, but I will depend on Primary K. for details and a good feel for Aus politics.
I admit my failings on details there.
Michael G: ==”I’m thinking that the Mexicans will gang up with their latino friends (brazil, argentina, chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay) and kick out neoliberalismo once and for all”.
Remember a little EU country called Spain? You know, the one that is unobtrusively facilitating trade as the abovementioned countries carry out their degringoization programs? Well. they’re back and they’re smiling.
“This “people are moving from blue states to red states & therefore the Repub majority will growâ€? is a logical fallacy ”
If you look at the history of many red states, you’ll quickly see that they used to be firmly democratic. Not any more.
“People are not Republican because they live in a Red state – states are Red because Republicans live in them. If the people moving into them are Democrats, they’ll become bluer.”
Except that isn’t happening. Look at the south, or out west, people are moving in absolute DROVES to the south and west. And they’re coming from blue states. Yet, if anything, the south and west are getting redder. When a dem cannot even win his own state in the south, one with a democratic governor, well, that ought to tell you something.
But you know, I really don’t expect for the dems to catch on to this. They’re always surprised with every loss.
“So it’s Republicans moving out of Blue States and into Red States?”
No, it’s actually that people become more conservative as they get older, in general, and that’s who is moving, middle aged people. Also people in more conservative environments tend to become more conservative themselves.
“It’s pretty stupid to claim that the GOP has a demographic advantage over the democrats because of population movement, when the trend seems more substantively to show an ‘empurplement’ of the states rather than any Red/Blue entrenchment.”
Hey, keep losing elections and wondering why.
“But Mr. 29% isn’t going to offer much advantage to any successor by his imprimateur, and the substantial Republican culture of corruption is so generalised and so obvious that even without Bush’s nod, the next candidate is going to have a fight on his hands.”
Most people don’t see the parties as being much different on the corruption issue. Partisans on here would, but most people don’t.
“November ‘06 may yet provide the best augury of ‘08.”
Seems like we’ve heard this before…..just with different dates. Although I vote both parties, depending on the candidates, I will have to say that the repubs do seem to be able to learn from their mistakes. The dems just keep doing the same thing that hasn’t been working and then whine when they don’t win. It must have been fixed! We were supposed to win this time! But just as some people refuse to really look at what’s happening in the country demographically, those same people won’t learn from the current mistakes. Repubs do have the edge when it comes to learning and changing.
You’re right, ‘civitas’, the Repugnants seem pretty nearly always to tar the other side with their own filth. The Abramoff debacle is a perfect example: most people bought the lies about bipartisan corruption despite the facts. That you seem so smug and satisfied for it to be so shows your own ethical challenges, which you seem happier to ignore than change, either in yourself or in society more broadly.
But it’s still stupid to claim demographic trends are what win elections, especially if you really believe the high population Blue states are emptying out of old people and shifting the balance in favour of the thieves and liars running the nation since 2000. That Red states were Blue states is a half truth at best, but that’s the kind of rhetoric that really does help win elections, for the GOP, anyway.
Democrats don’t win? What are you, ten? Go ahead and explain Democratic state governments, Democratic local governments, Democratic members of Congress, and any election that didn’t result in a Constitutional scandal or unwarranted deficit blow-out based on enriching the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.
If the only depth of analysis you can reach is that people in more conservative environments become more conservative themselves, you’ll next base your theories on people voting for the politician who looks most like their dog.
This red state/blue state demographic stuff is just crap. There are only three red states left.
“Only residents of Utah, Wyoming and Idaho view the president favorably.”
Greg, American politics didn’t start with the Abramoff debacle. Perhaps you’ve been sleeping for the last 40 years, but dems have plenty of their own corruption scandals.
Why would I be smug about either party having corruption scandals? It is what it is. Nothing I’m going to do is going to make pols in either party act better.
“But it’s still stupid to claim demographic trends are what win elections”
Not if you bother to actually look at what happens in elections. It’s actually even more than red state/blue state. It’s urban vs non-urban. If you look outside of NYC, the state of NY has an awful lot of red, same with southern states, look outside the urban areas and you’ll see a lot of red.
“especially if you really believe the high population Blue states are emptying out of old people”
where did I say this?
“That Red states were Blue states is a half truth at best”
not if you take even the teeniest look back at election history. It used to be nearly impossible for a repub to win in the south. Now it’s the other way around.
“Democrats don’t win?”
With the exception of Bill Clinton, no. And of course, had Ross Perot not run, Clinton may not have won. btw, I voted for Bill, twice.
“Go ahead and explain Democratic state governments, Democratic local governments, Democratic members of Congress”
we’re talking about presidential elections. Try to stay on topic.
“There are only three red states left.”
Wow, you mean Bush won with only the electoral votes of 3 states?
Here’s the current state of play, ‘civitas’, enjoy the next federal election, let alone presidential run.
Yes, Democrats have had scandals, but the Republicans make a practice of corruption, rather than just having a few individuals sometimes getting out of hand. Maybe if McCain runs, you can vote for him. He’s only a little bitty thief.
As for ‘old people’ vs. ‘older, middle aged’, feel free to set the age brackets you want to discuss. At what point are the middle aged old? 70? 80? Like the ‘presidential elections’ selectivity, your targets vary.
Much as I enjoy “current states of play”, including the one spouted the DAY of the last presidential election, that had Keery winning the election, they just don’t matter. Only elections matter. You, uh, DO know that, don’t you?
Democrats have had just as much scandal as repubs. You’re being selectively blind if you think either party is more righteous that the other. McCain’s a crackpot, I wouldn’t vote for him.
I said nothing about old people, and have no interest in discussing them.
“Only elections matter.”
And it seems that, with the advent of the Diebold (and other) voting machines, they don’t matter too much anyway.
What democratic corruption?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/21/jefferson.search/
“WASHINGTON (CNN) — Federal agents searched the Capitol Hill office of a Louisiana congressman under investigation on bribery charges Sunday, while newly released court papers said agents found $90,000 in cash last year in his Washington home.
In a 95-page affidavit used to obtain a warrant for the office search, investigators stated that an August 2005 search of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s home turned up the cash sum in a freezer.”
What democratic corruption?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12875323/
“WASHINGTON – Former New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, forced to abandon a Senate race four years ago because of ethical lapses, is back under investigation. The allegations, first reported by the Financial Times in London and Italy’s Il Sole 24 Ore, involve the United Nations’ scandal-ridden oil-for-food program.”
How obliging of MSNBC to NOT mention that Torricelli is as democrat.