Posted on 01/22/2016 7:20:30 PM PST by SeekAndFind
First Trumpmania, now this. I don’t know who conservatives are anymore.
On a straight-up question about whether people view New York City favorably or unfavorably, Republicans split 54/35. Huh. I wonder what those numbers would look like if you could somehow control for the “solidarity effect” of 9/11. Here’s another surprising result, probably with a similar explanation. When people are asked whether NYC is more, less, or as “American” as other places, not only do a clear majority of Republicans say “more” or “as,” there are actually more Republicans who say so than independents.
Again, there’s probably some small small but significant 9/11 effect there. It’s hard to deny a city’s “American-ness” when it’s perennially one of the two top targets for America’s jihadi enemies.
Rest easy, though, Cruz fans: This is a national poll. Iowa and the SEC states are, I’m guessing, firmly part of the minorities in both data sets above. Also, Republicans remain far more likely to see places like New York as “real America” than less populated parts of the country. Forty-two percent of GOPers say small towns are most like “real America” and 24 percent say so of rural areas. Just 13 percent combined say so of big cities or suburbs. On the flip side, when you ask which areas are least like “real America,” big cities win going away among Republicans with 58 percent. According to the 2010 census, fully 80.7 percent of America’s population lives in urban areas versus 19.3 percent who live in rural areas. What a strange place “real America” is, to have so few real Americans.
There’s one other strange result in this poll. When people are asked if they’ve ever lived in or visited NYC, the partisan group that’s most likely to say yes is … Republicans. Fifty-six percent of GOPers say so versus 52 percent of independents and 50 percent of Democrats. I’m chalking that up to margin-of-error differences in a poll with smallish subsamples, but it’s fascinating to speculate about why it might conceivably be true. Maybe, because Democrats are more likely to live in cities generally, they have less curiosity about NYC than rural-dwelling Republicans do and therefore are less likely to plan a trip? If you live in farm country and decide that you’re going to take a vacation to a big American city, New York’s probably at or near the top of your list. If you live in, say, Miami, maybe you’re less inclined to seek out other cities for vacation. That’s the best I can do for a theory.
If you missed it last week, read Kevin Williamson on why Ted Cruz’s minor “New York values” demagoguery is actually silly shortsighted politics for a would-be national leader.
I think it’s time we acknowledge that bedrock conservatives are only a small part of the GOP. Perhaps just right of right of center.
It’s a big tent and there’s a lot of common ground in the center and the left and right wings.
The tent is big, why are we going to let a the smallest portion kick us out?
I think we should acknoewledge that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS and will be succesfully sued if he somehow manages to secure the nomination.
Cruz didn’t have a problem with New York values when he came to the city for fund raising.
RE: Cruz didn’t have a problem with New York values when he came to the city for fund raising.
His donors do not reflect the “New York Values” he criticizes.
Just where were these people they sampled living? Not the northeast, that just might skew the results the way some pollster wanted, and they would never do that, would they?
RE: I think we should acknoewledge that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be POTUS and will be succesfully sued if he somehow manages to secure the nomination.
I think Mike Razar of American Thinker has it right...
Aside from the merits of the case of Ted Cruz, of which a lot of bytes have been typed at FR, by what mechanism can one interpretation or another actually be enforced?
Donald Trump seems to think the courts should have a decisive role. Does he really think the Supreme Court would give a “declaratory judgment”? Would anything from a lesser court carry any weight?
I would argue that the courts should have no role. The Constitution prescribes the method of electing Presidents.
The voters in each state choose electors in a manner prescribed by state legislatures. Those electors vote and the result must be certified by Congress.
By this mechanism, the Constitution effectively cedes to Congress the sole power to judge the eligibility of a presidential candidate.
Congress must interpret the words of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. There is no hint in the Constitution that any other branch of government or institution can reverse a Congressional decision on this point. Once Congress certifies the election, any constitutional challenge to eligibility is moot.
No court would try to remove a sitting president from office. The only remaining Constitutional remedy is impeachment by the House and removal from office by the Senate as prescribed in the Constitution.
In the current instance, there is no realistic chance that Congress would annul the result of an election by refusing to certify a candidate over the supposed ambiguity of the term “natural born.” But it is only Congress that could enforce any eligibility requirement. That should put this whole silly thing to rest.
Ted Cruz can be elected President. So can the child of an American mother born in Kenya, even if such an improbable event were to occur!
Which is to say Alan Grayson’s threats of a lawsuit will go nowhere.
There are two New Yorks.
The metro areas and the upstate rural and mountain areas.
They live differently, talk differently, vote differently.
They don’t have much in common other than the high taxes they pay and the nanny state government they live under.
YouGov E-mail poll.
I voted “Less American”
But mainly because of the current mayor they elected.
Ramones: “New York City really has it all....”
Lou Reed: “New York City is where its at.....”
Frank Sinatra: “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere....”
Stones: “They got rats on the West Side, bedbugs uptown...”
Why is it that we don’t say New York values caused the 911 attacks?
Texas as a state gets run down regularly.
When a communist killed Kennedy New York values said Dallas killed the president.
I’m glad Cruz told the truth about trumps condescending Iowa values attitude.
The guy despises most of us.
The left and right coast values suck. They bring us things like transgender equality and other idiotic moral relativistic thinking.
Not sure about the role of New York values, but in any case, that was the liberal party line, then and now. Shortly after the assassination, Warren Leslie contended in his book Dallas Public and Private: Aspects of an American City (New York: Grossman, 1964) that the climate of "right-wing extremist" and "hatred" that pervaded Dallas primed the city to be the site of JFK's assassination. That party line has been maintained in Dallas 1963 by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis (New York: Twelve, 2013.
For an excellent analysis of how the party line was formulated, read Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism by James Piereson (New York: Encounter, 2007)
Good stuff.
Thanks.
I will check these out.
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.