the Religous Right are flexing their muscle on Republican Candidates.

[Chips Ahoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Generally Available : 34%
Stricter Limits: 39%
Not Permitted: 25%
Unsure: 2%


[/ QUOTE ]

I know its not your poll, but that seems like a TERRIBLE way to phrase a poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the status quo is not an option. Less strict limits is not an option.

The author of the poll might think General Availability is the status quo, but really the status quo is "some restrictions".

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Generally Available : 34%
Stricter Limits: 39%
Not Permitted: 25%
Unsure: 2%


[/ QUOTE ]

I know its not your poll, but that seems like a TERRIBLE way to phrase a poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the status quo is not an option. Less strict limits is not an option.

The author of the poll might think General Availability is the status quo, but really the status quo is "some restrictions".

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of Roe v. Wade and Casey I don't think your reasons relegate the questions to being terrible FWIW.

[canis582]

Whiskey, is Dobson saying that he will tell his people not to vote if Guliani is the nominee?

How many people can Dobson keep from voting? (or vote for a 3rd candidate)

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
Whiskey, is Dobson saying that he will tell his people not to vote if Guliani is the nominee?

How many people can Dobson keep from voting? (or vote for a 3rd candidate)

[/ QUOTE ]

Dobson isn't saying he will tell his people anything - he doesn't do that and the religious leaders are a bit more subtle. He made clear at the start that he was speaking as a private citizen and not for Focus on the Family.

You don't say vote for a candidate - you say so and so is a man of God who promotes family values, etc, etc -

Dobson probably commands a smaller piece of the pie then he used to due to it's aging, but he remains one of the few remaining of the Christian Right Wing leaders now that Falwell passed on, but he represents a substantial audience of right wing "values voters" - (a misnomer if there ever was one, as George Will pointed out recently, ALL voters are values voters) -

You can probably find the interview still on Foxnews.com (that's where I saw it, I don't have cable) - Hannity spent an inordinate amount of time trying to convert Dobson, but I don't believe he will back a candiate like Guilani and made that firm to Hannity during the interview.

of course, after their essential "betrayal" by GWB and the neocons, who flattered then and then paid them back with inaction and lip service, I suspect the bar for any candidate claiming to want votes based upon his faith is gonna really have to recite the Apostle's Creed from memory [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] -

I'm curious why Dobson isn't pushing for more support for Huckabee or Brownback. George Will said as much in his most recent column, I think

but to partially answer your question - Dobson made it clear he does not and cannot support Guilani - he basically said it would kill the family values movement if he were elected. I would hazard a guess and say given the 25% stat in the first poll and the 30% approval rating of GWB is mostly the Dobson/Religious Right crowd who are remaining faithful - he can probably take a good chunk of the remaining GWB support away from the Republicans if he trashes the party repeatly in the coming months.

Truth is, Hillary probably WOULD do more to revitalize it then Guilani anyways.

RB

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Generally Available : 34%
Stricter Limits: 39%
Not Permitted: 25%
Unsure: 2%


[/ QUOTE ]

I know its not your poll, but that seems like a TERRIBLE way to phrase a poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the status quo is not an option. Less strict limits is not an option.

The author of the poll might think General Availability is the status quo, but really the status quo is "some restrictions".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, this.

[4 High]

As a very liberal Democrat i ask this question: Is it possible for Pro-Buisness Republicans who are socially moderate or liberal or even conservative but not fringey to go to the Libertarians or the Constitution party and make it a viable enough party that it does not conceed every election to the Democrats because the Right is now divided? If that even makes sense.

[DVaut1]

I really don't agree with bobman here, as much as I usually respect his opinion.

First, the "Bush coalition" was very tenuous as best, even at it's height. Remember that Bush won both elections by very close margins; neither election was anything like Reagan/Mondale. I point this out to note that "going back to the 2004 status quo" is a very dicey tactic; the coalition wasn't that strong to begin with.

But here's why I disagree with bobman: consider that the biases built in to our electoral institutions have hurt the Democratic Party much more than the GOP in the last two decades. There is a fundamental anti-urban bias with single-seat, winner-take-all districts, and to the GOP's credit, they used their time in power at the local level to gerrymander districts so successfully that many urban areas have been packed to the point that the Democratic Party may not be able to overcome the GOP advantage in suburban and exurban areas for generations. Again: Al Gore won a half million more votes nationwide than George Bush in 2000, but Bush beat Gore in 47 more of the 2002 congressional districts. From 2000 to 2004 (where every single Senate seat had been contested at least once), over 200 million votes were cast in Senate. The Republicans won 46.8% of the votes in these elections, while the Democrats won 48.4% of the votes; yet in 2004, the GOP held a 55 to 44 majority in the Senate. In 2004, over 51% of votes cast were for Democratic senatorial candidates, yet Republicans won 19 of the 34 contested seats.

These structural advantages aren't going anywhere, so I'm not ready to count the GOP down-and-out yet. But they do need to rebuild the coalition, as the demographic problems facing the GOP are enormous, and the current 'enforcement and deportation only' policies of the GOP only exacerbate the problem. Karl Rove and Grover Norquist can do the math, and they tried their best to steer the GOP away from the Tancredo path. I'm skeptical it worked -- it seems as if the GOP is going to be the party very hawkish on immigration in 2008...but once that fails, it shouldn't take long for the GOP to adapt, and if they can somehow appeal to Latinos while not alienating the xenophobic elements of the base ... and combine all of this with their inherent structural advantages -- I don't think the party will be dead and buried for long. Latinos voters are extremely diverse -- so I'm not going to pretend there's anyway to pigeon-hole a group that will eventually constitute close to 20% of the electorate -- but there's ample evidence they can be brought into the GOP camp when the Republican campaign narrative is about embracing family values and valuing hard work, and not about building huge border walls, deporting people, demonizing the Spanish language, etc.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a fundamental anti-urban bias with single-seat, winner-take-all districts, and to the GOP's credit, they used their time in power at the local level to gerrymander districts so successfully that many urban areas have been packed to the point that the Democratic Party may not be able to overcome the GOP advantage in suburban and exurban areas

[/ QUOTE ]

Dvaut, you make a good point on the gerrymandered Congressional districts, but this wasn't really just a creation of plotting Republicans. A lot of these districts were drawn that way to virtually guarantee a black Congressman, a goal strongly supported by many Democrats, as well as almost the entire black leadership in the country.

As you correctly pointed out, the result has been a lot of overwhelmingly Democratic districts, many in urban areas that elect a black Congressman, and leave the surrounding districts overwhelmingly white and Republican. As far as I know, the CBC and Democrats in general, still favor a system that guarantees a lot of black Congressman.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
this wasn't really just a creation of plotting Republicans. A lot of these districts were drawn that way to virtually guarantee a black Congressman, a goal strongly supported by many Democrats, as well as almost the entire black leadership in the country.

As you correctly pointed out, the result has been a lot of overwhelmingly Democratic districts, many in urban areas that elect a black Congressman, and leave the surrounding districts overwhelmingly white and Republican. As far as I know, the CBC and Democrats in general, still favor a system that guarantees a lot of black Congressman.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, conceded.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
True, conceded

[/ QUOTE ]

How about a bi-partisan plan to eliminate gerrymandering all together? Let's draw lines for districts that look like squares, not ink blots, and let the chips fall where they may.