Posted on 01/02/2005 5:13:17 PM PST by Torie
The Republicans in the new Congress will hold 232 seats, and the Dems 203. But Bush country held sway in 254 congressional districts per my estimate, which I think has very little margin of error at this point (maybe 255), with Kerry carrying only 181 (maybe 180 depending how CD NC 13 went) congressional districts. (Bush carried 40 CD's that Dem congressmen hold, while Kerry won 18 CD's that GOP congressmen hold.) Moreover, there are 13 seats the Dems will hold in the new Congress which Bush won by 10% or more, or close to it. How many seats are there held by the GOP that Kerry won by more than 10%? Just ONE I think, the Leach seat in Iowa.
In short, the GOP has more upside potential than the Dems all things being equal in the House, even from their currently relatively lofty plateau. It appears that as long as the Dems and the law requires the carving out of minority districts, and assuming the GOP in a few places can get its slug of Hispanic votes, the Dems are not going to be competitive in the House, now and "forever," unless the partisan tide is really swinging their way.
It used to be that the Dems seemed to have a permanent lock on the House. Now the equation has flipped the other way. How times have changed.
We can only hope...
Not so fast the republicans now vote and spend just like democrats as does GWB.
Not if we keep sending RINOs to Congress who side with the Democrats more than they do with us.
One possible result: the Democrats will wither away, and then someone will start a new party to the right of the Republicans.
So is it possible to see a smirk over the internet...?
Hopefully but we have a way of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".
And did that "special someone" get zotted?
One can indeed see a smirk over the Internet! I saw you smirking as you posted that! (Or maybe it's the Miller Light I'm presently consuming...)
Without "RINO's" in "your" tent, it would be YOU in permanent minority status.
Is this really a year old, or was that a typo?
You make some great points. Then, I think you answered your own question in the last sentence: At one time, the Democratic "lock" on the House seemed permanent. Yet the Democrats managed to lose control through a series of bad blunders brought on my hubris. If Republicans get too cocky and out of touch with their voters, their "permanent" hold on the House will vanish very fast.
Majority parties seem to have a habit of getting sloppy and cocky when they've been in power too long. Look at the Conservative party in the UK -- like Republicans here, they too were once flying high. Then they lost it all.
LOL. It's hot off the press; I just typed it. Moderator, can you clean up that mis-dating mess?
Trying not to be partisan, I think the republicans have an opportunity to govern more conservatively, because I don't think the dems have a snowball's chance for at least a decade of taking the congress and the white house. I think the unwritten story of the last two election cycles is how 9-11 is and will impact politics in ways Vietnam can't even compare with.
How about a human life amendment and instead of a no child left behind program, how about getting rid of the Dept. of Ed. and leaving education up to the states and the local school boards. I just hope the pubs start becoming the party of budget cuts and smaller government.
"how 9-11 is and will impact politics in ways Vietnam can't even compare with."
I would venture to say that you are right on!
Whether Republicans will take the opportunity to govern more conservatively is another question. I hope you are right on that score.
(Majority parties seem to have a habit of getting sloppy and cocky when they've been in power too long. Look at the Conservative party in the UK -- like Republicans here, they too were once flying high. Then they lost it all.)
One way to prevent this is to save democracy itself by challenging the crazy gerrymandering that seems to happen anywhere. It is not healthy for 98% of Congressmen to be re-elected. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, they almost always become more liberal and more "porky" the longer they "serve" in Congress. Since Democrats are the minority party now, this presents a huge opportunity to get it done (since they would want Congress turnover to at least have a chance). If that happens, this will force Congressmen to stay in touch with who they're representing.
Bah. It's thanks to RINOs that a number of key platforms (less spending, less gun control, more conservative judges) have never come to pass. RINOs are not an asset. They are a boil on the ass of the party.
I agree the Rs spend too much but I am much happier with them in the majority as opposed to the dimbos. Having said that, my view is that we need wholesale cuts in our spending except for infrastructure and defense. Everything else is fair game for massive cuts or outright elimination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.