Democrats for the future

[Mickey]

Mickey - I agree with you that the fact that Kerry lost to Bush doesn't mean the Democrats have serious issues.  It was very close and Kerry was a liberal senator from "Taxachusetts."  However, I do think the losses in the House and Senate (esp. Daschle) are more significant for the Democrats.  Bush is the only President in a long time to increase his party in Congress.  That didn't happen to Reagan OR Clinton.  That to me does show that the Democrats are out of touch with "middle America."

 

I am an independent but I typically vote Republican because I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal and as you pointed out - I care more about the fiscal issue than the social one.  However, even though I am socially liberal - I respect people with different views and do not think the federal government should try to impose its will on people on social issues.  I think gays should be allowed to marry but I do not want the federal government telling states that they have to allow it.  It should be up to the states to decide.  The same with abortion.  I am pro-choice but I do not think the federal courts or federal government should impose this on people.  So I do think that the Democrats could be socially liberal without trying to impose their views on others.

 

But back to the fiscal issue - as much as I dislike Clinton because of his lack of morality - I did agree with many of his economic policies.  The Democrats don't need to offer tax cuts and more tax cuts.  But they DO need to control their spending.  I know this may sound dumb since Bush has spent like a maniac and has upset many fiscal conservatives.  But I really think if the Democrats were more fiscally conservative - they would attract a lot of moderate Republicans and Independents.  And if they put up a conservative Democrat from the south or midwest - they could pick up some of the swing states, which would be enough to win the Presidency. 

 

That's what I would suggest for 2008.  But I hope the Democrats don't put up Edwards (a good looking guy with no experience) or Hilary Clinton (could never get more than 45% of the vote) or I will be voting Republican yet again.

101284[/snapback]

Your positon on social issues may be principled but in effect, it is meaningless. You voted for a candidate that is against those very principles. I am glad you hold those beliefs but they are too shallow to mean anything since in spite of them you helped elect a candidate that will over turn Roe v. Wade and try and pass the first Constitutional Amendment in history that takes away rather than extends individual freedom for the benefit of state power. As you say, the controlling issue is fiscal. You voted for Bush even though he cut taxes and increased spending big time. As much as you are concerned about spending, it didn't keep you from voting for Bush despite his profligate ways. The only real fiscal difference between these two candidates was tax cuts for people making over 200K.

 

If the choice were between two parties who cut taxes like crazy and spend like crazy, then your only choice would be on social issues and the democrats are more in line with your beliefs on that score so presumably, you would then vote for the democrat. In terms of spending, democrats need not be any less irresponsible than Bush to get your vote. He was irresponsible and got your vote anyway.

 

I would prefer that they not cut taxes unless they can cut spending but that just isn't ever going to happen. Bush has had majorities in both houses and has done nothing of the kind. He cut taxes and increased spending, arguably the worst of both worlds from your point of view as a fiscal conservative. It did not cost him your vote. Maybe you think democrats would have been even more irresponsible, I don't know. Would they have cut taxes more? Would they have come up with an even larger budget for the No Child thing and the new presicription drug benefit? Maybe so but then again, they would not have cut taxes or have cut them less.

 

I don't claim to have the secret key to anything here, I am just thinking out loud.

[Paco]

Those numbers are close enough that they could easily have been the other way around without OBL doing Bush a favor with that tape or without passions being inflamed over gay baiting.

 

I doubt anyone will ever be able to prove this, but I'd be willing to bet that Michael Moore did more to energize the Bush vote than OBL's video. A lot of polls I saw after the OBL video showed a large majority of people saying the video meant nothing to them in terms of the way they plan to vote.

 

Moore, on the other hand, I believe really pissed off members of the right and got them to realize that his lies and misperceptions on a global scale needed a counter punch...and the Republicans provided that counterpunch at the polls.

[DCgirl]

Your positon on social issues may be principled but in effect, it is meaningless.  You voted for a candidate that is against those very principles.  I am glad you hold those beliefs but they are too shallow to mean anything since in spite of them you helped elect a candidate that will over turn Roe v. Wade and try and pass the first Constitutional Amendment in history that takes away rather than extends individual freedom for the benefit of state power. 

 

Actually, I disagree with Roe v. Wade. That is what I mean about the federal government controlling states (in this case a federal court). I believe that Democrats would be better at making social changes if they lobbied state legislatures to change state laws. Yes, that would take much longer and a lot more effort than trying to get the federal courts to rule your way - but to me, you would have much more credibility that way. I do not like how Democrats try to impose their social views on everyone even though I agree with those social views.

 

As you say, the controlling issue is fiscal.  You voted for Bush even though he cut taxes and increased spending big time.  As much as you are concerned about spending, it didn't keep you from voting for Bush despite his profligate ways.  The only real fiscal difference between these two candidates was tax cuts for people making over 200K.

 

Two things here. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I thought he would be a fiscal conservative. He proved me wrong and that is why I voted for Kerry this time around. Even the Economist endorsed Kerry (with a heavy heart it said). However, I did not believe for a second that Kerry was only going to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy. And to be honest, I agree with repealing the tax cuts. I don't think they were needed. But Kerry also wanted to increase spending (national health care, prescription drugs, social security, etc.). If the Democrats would be more fiscally responsible (like Clinton), I think they would have a better shot. You are right that they will never get the religious right but I don't think they need the religious right.

[erynthered]

I am sure that there will be a ton of advice from all the experts on what the Democratic party needs to do to improve their political fortunes.  Such debates make me want to scream as they are so often initiated by those who, if they had their "druthers", would prefer a one party state achieved through the elimenation of the democratic party.  I do think a change is in the offing but it isn't the one I think most would recommend.

 

First off, tuesday's result were not that bad.  A 3% loss only loos bad in comparison to 2000, the closest election in history.  Kerry only lost New Mexico by around 10,000 and Nevada by 21,000 or so.  Ohio was obviously close, only about 135,000.  Iowa is still in the air but so far Bush's lead is only around 13,000.  Those numbers are close enough that they could easily have been the other way around without OBL doing Bush a favor with that tape or without passions being inflamed over gay baiting.  Those who claim the democrats have to make fundamental change because they can't capture a southern state are silent about the republicans needing a fundamental change to enable it to carry a northeastern state.  It wasn't the failure to take a southern state that lost the election, it was the failure to take Ohio.  If Kerry had taken Ohio, we would be talking about the fundamental flaws in the republican party that shut it out of not only the northeast but the lion's share of the Great Lakes states as well.

 

Even so, I think democrats need to face the reality of the situation which is that poor and lower middle class white voters whose economic circumstances are best enhanced by voting for democrats instead vote for republicans because of social issues.  Some guy scraping by in a menial job in Alabama is not going to ever vote for a democrat no matter what happens to his economic situation.  He is going to church 3 nights a week and he is going to vote for republicans because of their positions on abortion, gay baiting and religion.  No matter how many jobs he loses, no matter how much his income erodes and no matter how much his economic opportunities shrink, he is more worried about gay marriage. 

 

There is no way on earth for the democrats to ever get through to that kind of voter.  That voter is going to find a way excuse the republicans on the economic problems in his life.  He can always conclude that if it were not for affirmative action, he would have a better job.  Or he can conclude that he has no job because taxes are too high.  He might also believe that he is out of a job because of excess regulation.  There will always be some rationale that can be used to excuse republicans for economic misery.  There is too much of a disconnect between policy and economics to tie a given policy to bad economic times.  This voter can't be reached by the democrats.  Though his economic situation might dictate that he vote democratic, he doesn't because of social issues.  The democratic party is carrying his economic water and getting nothing in return.  It is high time the party abandoned this voter to the consequences of their own choices.

 

Whether it is student loans, farm loans, affordable health care, increasing the minimum wage or an extension of unemployment benefits, it doesn't matter.  Democrats get whacked in the nose with their support for these things over and over and yet the voters who most benefit vote for the other party because of gay marriage, etc.  The party needs to stop catering to these constituencies, it doesn't work.  I say we dump them and let them go to the republican party to complain when their plant closes and their unemployment runs out.

 

There are voters that currently vote republican that could easily be presuaded to vote for democrats.  There are plenty of social moderates who have no use for gay baiting or religious fundamentalism.  These people by and large detest the radical agenda of the right when it comes to gay marriag or abortion.  Even so, they vote republican based on tax policy and the effect taxes have on their bottom line.  They simply do not care enough about social issues to vote based on those issues.  Instead, they vote their pocketbook.

 

The opposition to "tax cuts for the wealthy" by the democrats has got to come to an end.  They should do a 180 on this and start proposing on their own massive tax relief to the upper classes.  Any such proposals by the republicans should be met with a counter proposal that increases the tax cut.  Leave no doubt that the democratic party is for cutting taxes even more that the republican party is.  They can't very well fight that after supporting huge tax cuts forever and ever in the past.  If it drives up the deficit, who cares?  Democrats have made this argument before and it never catches on.  People will reach whatever conclusion they need to that justifies reducing their tax burden.  The democrats should one-up the republicans at every turn on tax cuts. 

 

If they can do that, then moderate republicans and democrats who vote on the issue of taxes more than anything other issue, might be persuaded to vote for the democrats especially since they would no longer have to hide or ignore their opposition to their own party's actions with regard to social issues.  They could get the tax relief they want without having to buy in to the gay baiting thing.  They are for stem cell research freedom, they are mostly pro-choice, they are environmentally sensitive, they have no problem with civil unions for gays and they are uncomfortable with religious extremism.  The problem is, none of those issues are more important to them than taxes.  Democrats could get these voters by out cutting the republicans.  The repulicans can no longer continue to blame Bill Clinton and "liberals" for everything.  They run the show even more so than before the election.  The imaginary liberal bogeyman they have jousted for so long is dead.  They now acutally have to act like they are in charge by being responsible which sometimes means telling a key constituency that they can't have their candy because it would give the budget a huge cavity.

 

If they propose a tax cut of 5%, the democrats should double it.  If they propose a cut of 10%, the democrats should double even that.  If it creates a huge deficit, so what?  Apparently no one cares about the deficit anymore so why should we?

 

This new philosophy on tax cuts will be very popular in the west in states like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.  It will also play well in states where there are significant numbers of moderate republicans like New Jersey, Virgina and even North Carolina.  Democrats have to face the fact that socially conservative middle class voters are not going to vote for them no matter what policies they formulate.  They already agree with us on those policies but aren't going to vote for us anyway because of social issues.  There is no way the democrats are ever going to out play the republicans on social issues.  No matter how right they might move, the republicans will move another step further even more to the right.  I say we give up these voters.  If they don't care that they don't have health care or a wage that allows them to live comfortably and want to vote based on gay marriage, fine, let them go.

 

We can replace them with new, socially moderate, fiscally conservative voters who only stay away now because they are afraid we are going to raise their taxes.  We need to show them the opposite is true and then go after their votes.

101170[/snapback]

 

 

 

Have you read Kristof's op-ed today.( NYT)

[Mickey]

Actually, I disagree with Roe v. Wade.  That is what I mean about the federal government controlling states (in this case a federal court).  I believe that Democrats would be better at making social changes if they lobbied state legislatures to change state laws.  Yes, that would take much longer and a lot more effort than trying to get the federal courts to rule your way - but to me, you would have much more credibility that way.  I do not like how Democrats try to impose their social views on everyone even though I agree with those social views. 

Two things here.  I voted for Bush in 2000 because I thought he would be a fiscal conservative.  He proved me wrong and that is why I voted for Kerry this time around.  Even the Economist endorsed Kerry (with a heavy heart it said).  However, I did not believe for a second that Kerry was only going to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy.  And to be honest, I agree with repealing the tax cuts.  I don't think they were needed.  But Kerry also wanted to increase spending (national health care, prescription drugs, social security, etc.).  If the Democrats would be more fiscally responsible (like Clinton), I think they would have a better shot.  You are right that they will never get the religious right but I don't think they need the religious right.

101401[/snapback]

Abortion is never going to be left to the states. If Roe v. Wade were struck down it would clear the way for states to enact laws prohibiting abortion which would happen throughout the south and midwest. It might also happen in a few other states scattered around. Likely, it would remain legal in a few in the Northeast and in the far West. Those seeking an abortion would travel to those places in droves. That would lead to the next step, a national law prohibiting abortion. A constitutional amendment banning abortion would not be necessary. The right has brought this issue up, an amendment, as a possibility repeatedly. It was easy for Republican moderates to talk the radicals in their party out of it with the argument that it would not pass so why spend the time and money on it? They won't be able to make that argument in a post-Roe world. The no-abortion states would quickly attempt to stop abortion in the other states with a national law which would simply need to pass the House and Senate and get a Presidential signature. With Roe gone, there would be no basis at all for striking it down. In short, either the Constitution will keep abortion legal even in states that hate it or Roe will be dumped and abortion will be illegal even in states that would prefer to allow it. This is never going to be an issue left to the states.

[Alaska Darin]

He is an incumbent and we are at war.  Can you name an incumbent voted out of office during a war?  I can't think of a single one.  Going back to 1828, how many presidential elections were decided by more than 3%? 60.  How many by less than 3%? Only 9.  That means that this election was closer than 87% of all Presidential elections ever held and only 13% were this close or closer.  The only reason it was that close was because of Bush's low numbers.  If his numbers were a tiny bit better it would have been a blow out as he would have carried NH, Pa, Minn, Wis. and maybe even NJ.

101268[/snapback]

Yeah, that's almost as valid as the Redskins last game at home thing. Americans today have no concept of war.

[Mickey]

Yeah, that's almost as valid as the Redskins last game at home thing.  Americans today have no concept of war.

101436[/snapback]

I think that Americans understand that we are at war. I don't think they know what it means to huddle in a foxhole wondering if the next snap of a twig will be the last sound you ever hear on earth. I am not sure what you mean about the "concept of war" but I do think that in times of peril, people care less about bread and butter political issues. It is not just history and stats I am citing, its logic. Changing a leader in the middle of a war is a risky enterprise and no one is going to do that without considering the consequences. In the face of such a dangerous choice, it is natural for people to err in favor of the status quo. There is nothing logical to connect Redskin wins or losses to the outcome of an election. There is both logic and history to support the point I was making.

[Alaska Darin]

I think that Americans understand that we are at war.  I don't think they know what it means to huddle in a foxhole wondering if the next snap of a twig will be the last sound you ever hear on earth.  I am not sure what you mean about the "concept of war" but I do think that in times of peril, people care less about bread and butter political issues.  It is not just history and stats I am citing, its logic.  Changing a leader in the middle of a war is a risky enterprise and no one is going to do that without considering the consequences.  In the face of such a dangerous choice, it is natural for people to err in favor of the status quo.  There is nothing logical to connect Redskin wins or losses to the outcome of an election.  There is both logic and history to support the point I was making.

101534[/snapback]

The further into the abyss we go, the less valid logic and history are.

 

My grandparents gave up virtually everything to help win WWII. We don't even lose our cable service. We're whining about gas prices, socialized medicine, etc. Hence the reason I don't think most Americans understand the concept of war. The average American's life hasn't changed measurably since 9/11.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

QUOTE(Mickey @ Nov 4 2004, 08:04 AM)

He is an incumbent and we are at war. Can you name an incumbent voted out of office during a war? I can't think of a single one. Going back to 1828, how many presidential elections were decided by more than 3%? 60. How many by less than 3%? Only 9. That means that this election was closer than 87% of all Presidential elections ever held and only 13% were this close or closer. The only reason it was that close was because of Bush's low numbers. If his numbers were a tiny bit better it would have been a blow out as he would have carried NH, Pa, Minn, Wis. and maybe even NJ."

 

 

 

Wait a minute... Going back to 1828...

60 presidential elections decided by more than 3%

9 presidential elections decided by lesss than 3%

 

So 69 presidential elections since 1828?

 

Lets do the math 69 X 4 year terms = 276 years of Presidential elections..

 

1828+ 276 = 2104..... link please..

 

Or are you from the future sent back by weak liberals in the future in a vain attempt to change the course of history?

 

Maybe thats why we now have Arnold in the fold to save us!!!

[KOKBILLS]

The further into the abyss we go, the less valid logic and history are.

 

My grandparents gave up virtually everything to help win WWII.  We don't even lose our cable service.  We're whining about gas prices, socialized medicine, etc.  Hence the reason I don't think most Americans understand the concept of war.  The average American's life hasn't changed measurably since 9/11.

101548[/snapback]

 

Well you certainly nailed that point AD...Too true...

 

It's funny because the industry I was in got hit REAL hard down here post 9/11...I ended up getting laid off 4 times in 3 years, mostly due to the fact that I was in mid Management...I kept hearing about how Bush was to blame for all these Job losses and I had to laugh...In my personal experiences it had FAR more to do with the idiots I worked for than any result of National policy...That's for certain...Far too many people nowadays think a Job is a Birth Right, they have no idea what it means to suck it up a bit...And believe me I am an expert in the area of adjustment due to harder times. That's just the way it is, crying and blaming your troubles on others gets you nowhere VERY fast...And not understanding that the results of 9/11 and War may effect you personally is just spoiled thinking as far as I'm concerned...I consider myself blessed after 9/11...I lost no one in my Family, no one in my Family is overseas fighting...So I lost a couple jobs with crappy Companies...big deal...I'm still alive at least, and I landed on my feet eventually anyway... B)

[Mickey]

QUOTE(Mickey @ Nov 4 2004, 08:04 AM)

He is an incumbent and we are at war.  Can you name an incumbent voted out of office during a war?  I can't think of a single one.  Going back to 1828, how many presidential elections were decided by more than 3%? 60.  How many by less than 3%? Only 9.  That means that this election was closer than 87% of all Presidential elections ever held and only 13% were this close or closer.  The only reason it was that close was because of Bush's low numbers.  If his numbers were a tiny bit better it would have been a blow out as he would have carried NH, Pa, Minn, Wis. and maybe even NJ."

Wait a minute... Going back to 1828...

60 presidential elections decided by more than 3%

9 presidential elections decided by lesss than 3%

 

So 69 presidential elections since 1828?

 

Lets do the math  69 X 4 year terms = 276 years of Presidential elections..

 

1828+ 276 = 2104..... link please..

 

Or are you from the future sent back by weak liberals in the future in a vain attempt to change the course of history?

 

Maybe thats why we now have Arnold in the fold to save us!!!

101570[/snapback]

thanks, fixed it. I hit the "2" instead of the "1" and got 276. That is 44 elections, 80% more than 3% and only 20% closer. That only goes back to 1828. Most of the earlier ones were landslides apart from Adams-Jefferson-Burr.

[DCgirl]

Abortion is never going to be left to the states.  If Roe v. Wade were struck down it would clear the way for states to enact laws prohibiting abortion which would happen throughout the south and midwest.  It might also happen in a few other states scattered around.  Likely, it would remain legal in a few in the Northeast and in the far West.  Those seeking an abortion would travel to those places in droves.  That would lead to the next step, a national law prohibiting abortion.  A constitutional amendment banning abortion would not be necessary.  The right has brought this issue up, an amendment, as a possibility repeatedly.  It was easy for Republican moderates to talk the radicals in their party out of it with the argument that it would not pass so why spend the time and money on it?  They won't be able to make that argument in a post-Roe world.  The no-abortion states would quickly attempt to stop abortion in the other states with a national law which would simply need to pass the House and Senate and get a Presidential signature.  With Roe gone, there would be no basis at all for striking it down.  In short, either the Constitution will keep abortion legal even in states that hate it or Roe will be dumped and abortion will be illegal even in states that would prefer to allow it.  This is never going to be an issue left to the states.

101424[/snapback]

 

I agree that we should not overturn Roe v. Wade now but I was just referencing the fact that I disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to stick its nose in this many years ago. Now we have litmus tests for judges and instead of evaluating a potential judge's merits - we want to know his or her view on abortion. Abortion should have been a state issue - the Justices should not have inserted the right to an abortion in the Constitution. I think those of us who believed you have a right to an abortion should have lobbied in each state to get that right. Then it would be less likely that we would have these mass protests against abortion. I think this is the problem with some Democrats (I always told this to my very liberal Democrat friend). They believe that everyone should at Z. Currently they think everyone is at A. So they want to bring people over to Z as quickly as possible. I also believe that Z is the correct position. But I think people will be more likely to resist and object if you just try to throw them over to Z. You need to convince them of B first, then C, and so on. Yes - it's a much slower process but I think when you try to impose your beliefs on others - you end up just having them dig their heels in and resist. Secondly, the great thing about states is that not all of them have to be the same. You can always vote with your feet and move. I live in D.C. - a very liberal area. I grew up in a rural town in Virginia and would never want to move back. My friends in D.C. have very different beliefs and positions than the people in my hometown. But I don't think that means my hometown should be forced to change its laws just because people in D.C. think they are intellectually superior. That is why we have a democracy. Now perhaps some think a government would run better if only the elitists made the laws. But that is not the government in America and personally, I think democracy is a better form of government - it takes into account everyone's views not just a select few.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

thanks, fixed it.  I hit the "2" instead of the "1" and got 276.  That is 44 elections, 80% more than 3% and only 20% closer.  That only goes back to 1828.  Most of the earlier ones were landslides apart from Adams-Jefferson-Burr.

101803[/snapback]

you may want to check the rest of your numbers...

[/dev/null]

Those who claim the democrats have to make fundamental change because they can't capture a southern state are silent about the republicans needing a fundamental change to enable it to carry a northeastern state.  It wasn't the failure to take a southern state that lost the election, it was the failure to take Ohio.  If Kerry had taken Ohio, we would be talking about the fundamental flaws in the republican party that shut it out of not only the northeast but the lion's share of the Great Lakes states as well.

101170[/snapback]

 

america is a changing nation, we are moving to the south and to the west. the northeast and midwest are the old america. the democrats failure to make progress in the south and west can be attributed to their unwillingness to let go of the 'old america' and their misunderstanding of the 'new america'

 

given the population shift occuring in this country, 2008 will be the lefts last best chance for a long time unless they change with the times. after the 2010 census, the electoral map will shift further to the south and west. NY, MA, etc will lose votes to TX, NC, etc

[SilverNRed]

Bush was the first Presidential candidate to win over 50% of the popular vote since 1988 and was the first incumbent to win re-election AND pick up seats in the Senate and House since 1936 (I believe).

 

It was an enormous win for the Republicans and probably the biggest single election victory for any political party in a generation.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

america is a changing nation, we are moving to the south and to the west.  the northeast and midwest are the old america.  the democrats failure to make progress in the south and west can be attributed to their unwillingness to let go of the 'old america' and their misunderstanding of the 'new america'

 

given the population shift occuring in this country, 2008 will be the lefts last best chance for a long time unless they change with the times.  after the 2010 census, the electoral map will shift further to the south and west.  NY, MA, etc will lose votes to TX, NC, etc

102038[/snapback]

 

The 'Old America' is something that I am VERY proud of, an America where intelligent people can get together and not be sucked in by smiles and sound bites, an America where people are civil to each other and their children learn to be both moral, tolerant, AND compassionate, an America which still exists in my home state where Democrats and Republicans come together for meals, services, and community events. Middle America and Southern America has lost its way, and I myself have never been more proud to be a New Englander.

 

God Bless our true New England, God Bless the Old America, birthplace of FREEDOM.

[BuffaloBorn1960]

The 'Old America' is something that I am VERY proud of, an America where intelligent people can get together and not be sucked in by smiles and sound bites, an America where people are civil to each other and their children learn to be both moral, tolerant, AND compassionate, an America which still exists in my home state where Democrats and Republicans come together for meals, services, and community events. Middle America and Southern America has lost its way, and I myself have never been more proud to be a New Englander.

 

God Bless our true New England, God Bless the Old America, birthplace of FREEDOM.

102130[/snapback]

From someone who has lived in all the areas you mentioned...NE is one of the most intolerant regions of the country.... sorry but thats just the way I see it.

 

BTW have lived in Buffalo,VA Beach, Boston, NY, Albany (Work area covered upstate NY, VT and western MASS), Allentown, Fairfax, Detroit, Chicago and soon to be Houston. Temporarily lived in GA, NC, KY, FLA, Korea, Japan, Washington....

 

NE is the most uptight

[Mickey]

america is a changing nation, we are moving to the south and to the west.  the northeast and midwest are the old america.  the democrats failure to make progress in the south and west can be attributed to their unwillingness to let go of the 'old america' and their misunderstanding of the 'new america'

 

given the population shift occuring in this country, 2008 will be the lefts last best chance for a long time unless they change with the times.  after the 2010 census, the electoral map will shift further to the south and west.  NY, MA, etc will lose votes to TX, NC, etc

102038[/snapback]

Those populations increase as people from the "old America" move to the "new America". They bring their politics with them making those states more diverse by increasing the democrats there. Problem is, they are enough to increase the EV of those states but not enough of a political force in terms of numbers to move those states into play. People aren't becoming conservatives and then moving to Alabama as a result.

 

Further, the northern states are predominantly democratic but they have plenty of republicans. They are more diverse than the southern states. When 10 northerner's move south, odds are about 5.3 of them are democrats and 4.7 of them are republicans. In theory then, the southern state they move to only gains about 3/4's of an extra democrat. That won't ever be enough to move a state that has 6.5 republicans for every 3.5 democrats into play. In that way, electoral strength is gained in the south and for republicans but not because anyone's political philosophy has changed. Democratic voters leave the north where they were heard in elections because democrats are the majority there but in the south they are voices lost in the wind. Their presence their however, adds to the political strength of the other party.

 

Population growth in the south and west is in part due to immigration, not just migration from the north and mid west. The political loyalties of these people is more difficult to infer. However, although they play a role in increasing the EV's of the southern states, they have nothing to do with the loss of EV's in the north so they really aren't relevant to this discussion.

[Mickey]

I agree that we should not overturn Roe v. Wade now but I was just referencing the fact that I disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision to stick its nose in this many years ago.  Now we have litmus tests for judges and instead of evaluating a potential judge's merits - we want to know his or her view on abortion.  Abortion should have been a state issue - the Justices should not have inserted the right to an abortion in the Constitution.  I think those of us who believed you have a right to an abortion should have lobbied in each state to get that right.  Then it would be less likely that we would have these mass protests against abortion.  I think this is the problem with some Democrats (I always told this to my very liberal Democrat friend).  They believe that everyone should at Z.  Currently they think everyone is at A.  So they want to bring people over to Z as quickly as possible.  I also believe that Z is the correct position.  But I think people will be more likely to resist and object if you just try to throw them over to Z.  You need to convince them of B first, then C, and so on.  Yes - it's a much slower process but I think when you try to impose your beliefs on others - you end up just having them dig their heels in and resist.  Secondly, the great thing about states is that not all of them have to be the same.  You can always vote with your feet and move.  I live in D.C. - a very liberal area.  I grew up in a rural town in Virginia and would never want to move back.  My friends in D.C. have very different beliefs and positions than the people in my hometown.  But I don't think that means my hometown should be forced to change its laws just because people in D.C. think they are intellectually superior.  That is why we have a democracy.  Now perhaps some think a government would run better if only the elitists made the laws.  But that is not the government in America and personally, I think democracy is a better form of government - it takes into account everyone's views not just a select few.

101987[/snapback]

Even if people had done so and the court stayed out of it, you end up in the same place. Sooner or later a national law is attempted to be passed that tries to force states who allow abortion to prohibit it. That state then files suit to get that law dismissed as unconstitutional and the court is back in the middle of it again. The courts avoided this issue like the plauge for years and finally decided that it could no longer do so, the matter had reached a head.

 

The only thing that prevents a national, federal law being passed by Congress on abortion is that it would be declared unconstitutional by the courts. If the courts had never ruled on it and states did what they wanted, the states that didn't allow abortion would pressure their legislators to try and enacta a law preventing abortion everywhere, not just in their state.

 

I understand that it seems invasive for the court to be involved but there are some controversies so prevalent and so fundamental that federal court involvement can't be avoided. Arguably, Roe is exactly the kind of thorny, pain in the neck issue the court was created to handle.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

From someone who has lived in all the areas you mentioned...NE is one of the most intolerant regions of the country....  sorry but thats just the way I see it.

 

BTW have lived in Buffalo,VA Beach, Boston, NY, Albany (Work area covered upstate NY, VT and western MASS), Allentown, Fairfax, Detroit, Chicago and soon to be Houston.   Temporarily lived in GA, NC, KY, FLA, Korea, Japan, Washington....

 

NE is the most uptight

102194[/snapback]

 

Uptight, and yet very civil. I KNOW rural Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine can compare to the intolerance of rural southern or western states. Massachusetts is the most different state as compared to the ones I just mentioned, but of course it also has the largest urban population, and a lot of problems.

 

I have lived in:

 

Niagara Falls, NY

Washington, PA

Charlotte, NC

St. Johnsbury, VT

Waukegan, IL

Virginia Beach and Norfolk, VA

 

My grandparents lived in Washington(state) and Florida, where I frequently got to visit. I loved the Washington state of my youth... I can't imagine how it has changed with Californians moving up there. It was so beautiful when I was there last, in 1987.