Posted on 12/03/2002 11:15:57 PM PST by gubamyster
ELECTION 2002
Pollster's data point to major sea change in American politics
Posted: December 4, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
The mid-term elections of 2002 reflect a sea change in American electoral politics in which the Republican Party will dominate for a generation, says a prominent pollster.
Republicans' precedent-setting victories Nov. 5 were "much more than President Bush getting out the vote in close Senate races," says an analytical introduction to "The GOP Generation," on the website of its author, pollster Scott Rasmussen.
"Building upon proprietary survey data … [the report] explains underlying issues, trends and other factors moving the nation to a lasting Republican majority," said the analysis.
A couple of factors – national security and the war on terror – no doubt favored Bush and Republicans generally during the midterm elections. But Rasmussen told WorldNetDaily that other "institutional" changes were taking place that could lead the Grand Old Party into majority status for years to come, such as shifts in demographics and workplace habits.
And, data indicate, the president is playing excellent politics. For example, Democrats sought to capitalize on a sagging U.S. economy by blaming Bush and Republicans for a series of corporate scandals that allegedly sapped investor and consumer confidence. But Bush and the GOP instead were able to successfully counter those charges by tying victorious prosecution of the war on terror as one way to rebuild investor and consumer confidence. Since Republicans have traditionally fared better in matters of national security, the gambit worked.
"Quite frankly, most Americans are closer to Bush's view, so it's been a unifying factor for Republicans," Rasmussen said. "One of the surprises in the data … was that the economy and war issues were intertwined, almost as a single issue. As international tensions rose, the economy suffered, so one of the best economic policies for the president to follow was to focus on national security problems."
Still, Rasmussen said there are some potential problems for the new Republican majority in the future that will have to be finessed for the party to remain in control.
"I think the immigration issue is a potential explosive issue within the Republican majority," he said.
Many Republicans favor strict border enforcement, reduced immigration and using U.S. troops to patrol the border. Others, including Bush, support granting amnesty to illegal immigrants and the establishment of temporary work permits for Mexican nationals seeking employment in the U.S.
Also, making inroads with minority voters remains a focus of the party, though conservatives fear that effort will lead to promises of new spending on old social programs.
Nevertheless, while admitting that "nothing is automatic," Rasmussen said the data show that "if Bush does well in the next two years, it's very difficult to envision a scenario where Democrats win back control of the House or Senate anytime soon."
"What I see is that because of the performance of the president in the past couple of years, the Republicans are now truly a majority party, and it's a lot deeper than I or other analysts first thought," said Rasmussen.
There are also nationwide trends that support a widening GOP base. Besides controlling the U.S. House and Senate, Republicans also now control most governorships and state legislatures as well.
"That hasn't happened all up and down the line since Hoover was in office," said the pollster.
Before losing its majority in the 1994 midterm elections, Democrats controlled the House for 40 years.
Other factors hint at a longstanding Republican majority, the data indicate. For one, institutions that have traditionally favored the GOP are growing.
"The number of self-employed people is rising," Rasmussen said, "and traditionally that group has been solidly Republican, just as unions have traditionally been solidly Democratic."
Recent data suggests union numbers are shrinking, and though minority groups tend to favor the Democrats, some surveys after the Nov. 5 election showed that Republicans made greater-than-expected gains among minority voters.
On the plus side the malcontents over the immigration issue will still vote GOP just out of fear over a Dem winning. They can carp all they want but they're not going anywhere just like conservatives who cry about RINOs and the establishment. Also a plus for Bush and the GOP is that they have recognized the reality that we are a socialist welfare state and old fashioned conservatism is dead so they are forging a new centrist party. They will not try to out liberal the liberals they will paint the liberals and the old conservatives as out of the main stream. They will forward a pragmatic "workable" governance program and go after the undecided voters and centrist Dems. This could be a long term winning "stra-tee-gery". From my libertarian point of view it might not be so keen but from cold analytical perspective it's workable.
Especially if the GOP manages to make itself vulnerable to charges that they are anti-immigrant in general. They did that in 1994 in California. (I thought they recruited David Duke to design some of the campaign ads for Proposition 187.)
They're good at screwing things up or depressing the base.
Well, the base didn't sure didn't show up in 2000. The unappeasables did their worst, so they'd better get used to the idea that anything they get from now on is a freebie, because Bush doesn't owe them a damn thing.
Next if the war goes wrong somehow or a major economic downturn occurs the GOP will be wiped out.
Reread the article--the war and the economy are closely interlinked.
Bush has communicated quite clearly that this is going to be a long war, not a Clintonesque "Wag the Dog." And the Democrats have gone out of their way to make themselves look like abject idiots on the subject. One major disaster in the war on terror will not grant them instant credibility.
In order for that to happen, the Democrats would have to have more credibility than the GOP does.
And thanks to their abject idiocy since about October of last year, there is no way in hell that they will get that, even with the massively unlikely scenario you propose.
In general, BTW, if you do not understand what the military is, what it does, or how it does it...the simplest rule is to bet on the Americans. Mogadishu was far less about Osama "winning" as it was about Bill Clinton losing control of his bladder because he's a coward.
No the GOP to look less credible or in others words, faith in their leadership shattered in which case Dems win by default.
if you do not understand what the military is, what it does, or how it does it...
That sounds a bit condescending Pooh. Don't let your faith effect your reading comprehension. My statements outlined possiblities. Possiblity meaning things that can happen. "Can" does not equal inevitability. And that "massively unlikely scenario" which you dismiss has been brought up by US generals on TV and in print. When planning a war it is best that all things be considered. Same could be said for plans to rule for a generation.
It doesn't work that way. The GOP has to lose ENOUGH credibility for that result to come about, and that is a LOT vis-a-vis the Dems, who have yet to figure out the simple logic of "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
if you do not understand what the military is, what it does, or how it does it...
That sounds a bit condescending Pooh.
Only because you've earned the condescension.
And that "massively unlikely scenario" which you dismiss has been brought up by US generals on TV and in print.
Yeah, brought up by the former perfumed princes of Clinton era, who know about as much about real war as they do about fornicating, at least in a heterosexual mode.
Following the 9/11 travesty, it's not surprising at all that this was true for the 2002 elections. However, it is unlikely that it will hold for '04, let alone a whole "generation". And sadly, Dubya's pushing all the wrong economic/trade/immigration buttons to turn things around.
The article is more wishful thinking than thoughtful analysis.
I think Pat has the answers, but not the chance.
I told Miss Marple on another thread earlier that I think whoever
follows Bush in '04 will likely be 1000 times worse from my perspective.
But that doesn't alter my opinion of Bush's policies.
IMHO, he's sowing the seeds of his own defeat.
I've had a theory that the DUI was--in fact--"brushed off" by the Voters, but it provided cover for the RATS to implement their RampantVoteFRaudPlan wherein the ballots contradicted all the polls running up to the election. Seriously, how many folks are soooo STOOOOOPID that they'd vote fer a lowlife scumbag like Algore just to punish Dubyuh fer something he did as a young man?! Fer Heaven's Sake, we know for a fact that Algore spent the majority of his 20's in a MaryJewWanna-induced stoned-out funk, and folks want him with his finger on the nuke-ular button instead of a teetotaller who messed up a generation prior?! It don't pass the smell test fer me...MUD
|
|
|||||
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.
