the Religous Right are flexing their muscle on Republican Candidates.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant, thanks. Also, where have you been?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
DVaut1,

wow you appall me.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh noes

I'll have the wife hide the pills and booze from me, as living down indignation from random internet posters has frequently sent me on suicidal binges. Keep me in your prayers, I hope I survive the weekend after this.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Brilliant, thanks. Also, where have you been?

[/ QUOTE ]

The UK off-and-on for work (2 weeks in Kent, England --> 2 weeks home --> 2 weeks in Kent --> 2 weeks home, rinse repeat etc) since the middle of August and until goodness knows when. The client I'm working for blocks any and all interesting web pages and the hotel I've been staying at has just awful internet. I'm home now but will be leaving again to go back Saturday, so I doubt I'll be posting much for a while until I get back stateside in the beginning of November.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but who has the ultimate authority on redistricting? Can or does Congress play any role, or is this simply a state issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends. In most states (like 35 of them), redistricting is controlled by state legislatures and/or the governor; in these states, the process is almost always contentious and partisan. In some (like 4 or 5), it's carried out by an independent group or bipartisan commission. The rest are small states with only one representative who don't have to deal with redistricting.

The only role the federal government plays is to enforce the Constitution and federal law -- i.e., to enforce the Voting Rights Act and Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution, etc. -- in other words, to ensure minorities aren't disenfranchised and to prevent malapportionment (things like Congressional districts with only 10 voters, or with 5 million voters, which are blatant Constitutional violations). Federal courts have jumped in to resolve battles that concern federal standards. Congress has no real role, except Congressmen (see: Tom Delay) have been known to pressure their respective state parties to enact various gerrymandering schemes.

[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

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am of the personal opinion that Republicans will never do anything about Abortion because if it were to suddenly become illegal again out of the blue due to their influence that the population all over the country would take about 20 percentage point jump towards the Democrats. It's not really a majority held view anymore among voters, and can only be influenced/changed thru court decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-9, 2007. N=1,263 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."


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

-There is a majority that are against the current practice, so if a candidate finds a way to restrict abortion he or she might find a way to get a huge boost and not lose too many voters to the Democrats. Many of the Pro-Life supporters migh be so determined about their views that they demand total abolishment of abortions to give the candidate their vote, but wouldnt be surprising if many of those who believe that it should not be permitted at all will tolerate a smaller victory at first. In that case an advocate for tightening the current practice might get the votes needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it terrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because stricter limits is incredibly vague and most people probably have absolutely no clue what the CURRENT limits on abortion are. What % of the group that is in favor of "stricter limits" has in mind something that is already limited like certain partial-birth abortions.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL that doesn't make it a terrible question even if what you presume is true. If what you presume is true then taking any stock in the results is terrible not the questions themselves.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

My family are pretty much all moderate Republicans and for the most part they vote along party lines. In 2004 all but one member of my family voted for Ralph Nader. Part of that has to do with disgust at the influence of the neocons and religious right. Part had to do with the fact that they liked some of Nader's viewpoints, particularly his opposition to corporate welfare and the No Child Left Behind Act.

So yes, I do think it's possible that these types of Republicans would vote for a 3rd party candidate. However, I don't think that will necessarily benefit the Libertarian or Constitution Party. For the moderate Repubs. I know, the Constitution Party is too right wing, and libertarians are seen as completely loony. A more realistic fit for moderate repubs. would be Michael Bloomberg running as an independent.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but who has the ultimate authority on redistricting? Can or does Congress play any role, or is this simply a state issue?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends. In most states (like 35 of them), redistricting is controlled by state legislatures and/or the governor;

[/ QUOTE ]
Illinois might have the worst system for this in the country. In theory according to the State Constitution, redistricting is handled first by a legislative supermajority (requiring compromise) and then if they are deadlocked by a bipartisan panel. However, the last 3 go arounds, they have skipped those and gone to the final option: flipping a coin with the winner drawing the map however they want.

The sides believe it is better politically for them to gamble than to compromise. So every 10 years, control of the Illinois legislature is decided by a coin flip.

[4 High]

So even though it is a solid Blue state, Republicans have a 50 Pct chance of having more seats then they should?

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
So even though it is a solid Blue state, Republicans have a 50 Pct chance of having more seats then they should?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not only more seats than they should, but more seats to the point that they can control the legislature despite the Democratic dominance in the state. The GOP won the 1990 flip and was able to control the legislature through most of the decade. The Dems were able to overcome the GOP map to take the House toward the end of the decade, but the GOP held the Senate through the 1990s based on the GOP preferred map.