Why the Republicans keep winning
The Republican Party in the US is on the verge of becoming the natural party of Government. This is not due to their strengths as much as the idiocy of the Democratic Party which makes Michael Moore their unofficial spokesperson.
The latest example is Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) who stated publicly that the fake CBS memos were planted by Karl Rove to discredit Dan Rather, and divert attention from President Bush
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
February 22nd, 2005 at 1:22 pm
david; interesting you should be depicting the democratic party as a basket case.
what’s happened there that is interesting is that howard dean is the new party chairman; and because the party has lost big time at the polls, he has pretty much got a free hand to rebuild the party organisation.
dean says this process, depicted as a battle between the insiders and the outsiders, will turn the democrats into a young switched on political organisation focussed on it’s roots; and much more reliant on new technology.
of course, this is the position john key will be in after the election here; he will also have the relative freedom of working with a blank canvas.
cheers
February 22nd, 2005 at 1:40 pm
Not quite – I was watching cable news late one night and a commentator siad the problem with the Democrats is that everyone percieves them as ‘anti’. Everyone knows they’re anti-Iraq war, anti-tax cuts, anti-welfare reform etc.
The commentators view was that until the Democrats show what they stand for they will make themselves more irrelevant. We saw they same thing in 2002 – National didn’t clearly state what they stood for so got caned.
Brash has ennuciated that again so now we have a competition for Government in NZ sometime in the next 7 months.
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:00 pm
michael…you’ve been watching fox news again haven’t you; i warned you about that.
“..The commentators view was that until the Democrats show what they stand for they will make themselves more irrelevant…..”
wasn’t that what i said? do you have a problem with comprehension?
“..Brash has ennuciated that again so now we have a competition for Government in NZ sometime in the next 7 months…”
just keep taking the pills, dear heart. even amongst the most rabid of your lot there is a deep depressing realisation that the next election is a write off; you only have the future to possibly look forward to.
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:28 pm
It isn’t just that the ideas of the Bush-hating left wing are wrong. I suspect that most of us believe a few things that are difficult to justify with evidence, or with consistent ideology. The problem is that the Bush-hating left are wrong in such a vile and nasty fashion. And it makes them look deranged.
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Exactly right David (above). They are wrong, but it is that they look vile and nasty (and mad) that is their political problem. In this way, they are very similar to ACT here, who are generally right but, like the Dems, look vile and nasty (and mad) to most people. And in both cases, voters have got it spot on.
February 22nd, 2005 at 2:57 pm
The problem is you often can no longer tell the difference between the Bush hating left and the Dem party. The left had lost it a very long time ago but now many Dems understand how brilliant Bush is. Social security reform, ownership of the money you pay into the system will be very popular in the future with voters. The Dems are in real trouble and some are just working out the extent now.
February 22nd, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Bush haters? Ask the Dems about the clinton haters from the 90’s.
As for natural party of government !! its laughable.
At last count the total number of legislators in all the 50 states gave the republicans a lead of ONE (1) , GOP 3657,dem 3656
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/weekinreview/20robe.html
Bush won the presidency by 2.5%, the smallest margin since kennedy and in the electoral college which is the one that counts, he won by one state, the same as last time, again the smallest mergin since about 1870.( if it wasnt for 9/11 hed be back in Texas smoking pot )
Again the House/congress is much closer than the years when the Dems were in charge, in fact when the GOP took control of the house in 1992, they won 75 new seats. In 2004 the gain was about 8.
Infact for a ‘natural party of government’ their lead is wafer thin 232 GOP , 201 Dem, 1 vac, 1 ind
February 22nd, 2005 at 4:53 pm
Keep those wafers away from my icecream!
The lead is 7%.
sanskrit YOU are the type of person that the Democrats appeal to now. Not Progressive, or even progressive, just anti-Bush.
More and more people are starting to see through the Democrat veneer of tolerance and political correctness. Others can more effectively debunk your statistics than I could, so I’ll leave it up to them.
Clinton was an awful man to have as president, a man without the moral clarity to see that marital infidelity was bad. As for your pot smoking reference you really need recall that first president ever pinged for smoking weed, Clinton. Clintons lame ass excuse? I didnt inhale! Has Bush ever denied smoking weed? Has he ever argued extenuating circumstances? Bush has been honest, if silent, on the matter, Clinton tried to bullshit his way out of it.
The Democrats have been infilitrated by people like Kos, Atrios and Giga-clinton, who continue the drive left begun in the 1970’s.
Dean is one of the most liberal politicians from one of the most liberal states the the US. He refuses to see the continuing disenchantment former Democrats have with the New Democratic party, and instead falls back on the liberal denial, “We just arent getting our message out there!”
The Democrats spent more than the Republicans in the last presidential election. They had more advertising, they had more volunteers fraudulently signing up voters, they had more 527’s (or whatever those idiotic organisations are called), they had a more freindly media (swift boat veterans, you know the guys who were there, generated little interest, but any shitty little hint of truth in the AWOL story gets broad coverage, do you really think if the story hadnt been debunked so quickly that other media outlets wouldnt have been all over the “story”?). The Democrats got their message out loud and clear, but people just didnt like it. So like a typical liberal they convince themselves it is because they arent saying it loud enough.
The Democrats have nothing new to offer, everyone knows what they stand for, and most dont like it. Dean is going to give them the same old BS for a few years, and then offer the same old excuses when they once again fail.
The Democrats are too far away from what they were when they were the most popular party for decades. People havent changed (mutated) with them and in a two party system that leaves only one other choice.
February 22nd, 2005 at 5:46 pm
David: I think there are long-term changes underway in American demographics and the Democrats aren’t changing with them. Their previous identity-group wealth-redistribution politics won’t work so well in the near future because blacks are more middle class than ever, and latinos have a strong conservative catholic streak.
Another issue is the war in Iraq. Wars are of course very emotional political issues, and the revolting actions of some Democrat-aligned public figures towards the war (and American soldiers) conflicts with the centrists belief in supporting a war which is very important for the long-term safety of the USA.
The Democratic Party leadership needs to come up with a new gig, like they turned to civil rights in the 50’s/60’s, but it also needs to be agreeable to their ‘base’. In NZ of course people who want a new gig just leave their party and do it – one of the few positives about MMP.
sanskrit: you’re an idiot. The completely unjustified attack (complete with scary paramilitary FBI ‘troops’) on the Davidian compound in Waco, the Somalia Green Beret incident, and Clintons pardoning of various corrupt convicted criminals is evidence enough of the nature of his administration. All of them were the results of voluntary actions by himself or his appointees.
rightkiwi: What exactly do you think Act is ‘nasty’ about? I think you’ve unquestionly absorbed the obvious dislike various NZ media outlets have for Act. If you think exposing corruption is ‘nasty’ then you’ve been brainwashed.
February 22nd, 2005 at 8:24 pm
AL: Nothing is wrong with exposing corruption – it is essential the opposition does so – and ACT is great at it. It is more about tone of voice. ACT takes such delight in it – no sense of “more in sorrow than anger” you could say. It is difficult to describe really, but the vast majority of NZers, including me, get this very negative vibe towards ACToids even when we agree with them. Sad but true, and the reason ACT has never reached anything like its potential. Perhaps it is that ACT always sounds like an angry teenager and they do get so boring after a while.
February 22nd, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Vile. Nasty. It seems we can’t have a discussion of US politics without these two adjectives popping up.
It’s easy to write off the Democratic party now, but these things come in cycles, and I’m sure that with the right candidate the momentum will swing back the other way. Think about it like this: suppose the 2004 election had been George W. Bush versus Bill Clinton–not Clinton as we think of him now, but the young, fresh, charming 1992 Bill Clinton who defeated Bush Senior. George W. Bush could not have beaten a candidate like that. Clinton obviously can’t run again, and couldn’t win now if he did, but we’re talking about a nation of 260 million people, almost half of whom are Democrats. There’s a good chance that one day they’ll have another candidate of similar electablility.
Anyway,l the point I was going to make was that there’s a Democrat-hating base in the GOP that’s every bit as fervent and unreasonable as their Republican-hating equivilents. For every Michael Moore there’s an Ann Coulter; for every Bill O’Reilly there’s an Al Franken. And to balance the Democratic congressmen David mentions, we have the Republican congressman who stood up at the recent conservative CPAC conference and said the US had found, and continues to find, stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.
Antarctic Lemur: Nice point about Latinos and their religion.
rightkiwi: Nice point about ACT.
Gordon
February 23rd, 2005 at 11:48 am
Gordon – Clinton didn’t win the 1992 election on his merits vis-a-vi Bush – it was Perot pulling 10% (Bush leaning voters) that put him over the top. If it had been a two way race – Bush would have won it.
February 23rd, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Sean: Perhaps. I still think the Bush of ‘04 Vs could not have beaten the Clinton of ‘92.
And I guess that another Perot of ‘92-like candidate in ‘08 could hand the Whitehouse back to the Democrats (or another Nader of ‘00 could seal it for the Republicans).
Point being: I don’t think David’s original post is necessarily correct.
I do think the republicans are a shoe in for 2008 though, as long as they can bring themselves to run a moderate candidate. Mind you, in February 2001 I thought there was no way Bush could win a second term, and I was dead wrong that time,
Gordon
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Gordon what if Clinton was also up against a young and charming republican?
February 23rd, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Kimble says ‘Dean is one of the most liberal politicians from the most liberal states’
Well where does that put JKF2:
yes the same ultra liberal from one of the most liberal states who got within 2.45% of george Bush in the Popular vote, and a sitting president at that, usually if a sitting President is reasonably popular they win by a mile.
(GWB 62,008,619 50.74%
JFK 59,012,107 48.29%
these are the official final results ]
The last liberal from massachusetts was beaten by about 20%, so the US is MORE liberal in 2004 than in 1984
Just look at this graph which shows all Bushes approval rating polls
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/pollkatzmainGRAPHICS_8911_image001.gif
February 23rd, 2005 at 9:01 pm
rightkiwi: I would say the one big thing Act did wrong was keep Prebble as its leader for such a long time. He might be skilled in Parliament, but he comes off as a dodgy bugger on TV.
February 24th, 2005 at 8:19 am
I said one of, jFK is of course on a different planet altogether.
The next democratic presidential nominee will not be running against GWB. Kerry’s campaign strategy was to not give the liberal voters a reason to NOT vote for him. It was an anti campaign from the anti party. They defined themselves as “not Bush”, not something they will be able to do next time. A helluva lot of those that voted FOR Kerry actually voted AGAINST Bush (Nader didnt stand a chance of removing Bush from the White House).
But thanks for the stats, the last liberal for Massachusetts was defeated by 20%? What exactly has changed since then?
And you cant use the previous election result as evidence of a trend. It is one point on a very long graph. There have been more than a few elections in the last 2 decades and in each the GOP has been gaining more and more power.
Note that Clinton was not just a moderate Democrat, he couldhave passed for a moderate Republican so his election does not provide evidence of a left swing.
GWB’s first election victory was bizarre in that he was running against someone more recognisable who had the backing of the sitting president. GWB was the underdog and yet he overcame this disadvantage and succeeded because of the resurgence of conservatism.
I will say it again, Dean has no new ideas, he had no new ideas in his Presidential campaign, and his only contribution will be getting the Democratic message out with a louder voice. Unfortunately, the message is palletable with fewer and fewer voters.
February 24th, 2005 at 9:47 am
Dean is NOT the party leader !. If you havent noticed GWB isnt the RNC leader either. The head of the DNC is usually a behind the scenes person, more so in the US where indidvidual elected members have their own agenda’s.
Dean as a national figure is just a fundraiser device put up by the GOP, until Hilary steps up to the plate, then the GOP will say Dean who ?
Stuff like this from makes me wonder are you chanelling the Dems
“It was an anti campaign from the anti party”
Coming the people who ‘allways’ run agianst Washington insiders !
February 24th, 2005 at 10:31 am
kimble..”Unfortunately, the message is palletable,(sic)(ha), with fewer and fewer voters…”
c’mon ,get a grip; your off in la la land again.
How much did bush actually win by?
cheers
February 24th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
Fascinating that after years of Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, supporters of Democrats are granted the status of vile and hate-filled. This fascinating “y’all are Bush-haters” meme is spreading at an unsurprising rate, and allows supporters of Bush to dismiss all criticism of the Bush administration without paying any dangerous attention to the facts. They are able to tar all comments with the same brush, whether they’re something as unconstructive as “Bush looks like a monkey” or something as perfectly valid as “Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and ignoring international law sets a horrible precedent in the world for further rule of force rather than rule of law”.
Of course, not all Bush-supporters are foolish enough to make such broad generalisations.