I see a boycott in the making among the blue meanies!
Posted on 11/07/2004 9:48:25 AM PST by Armedanddangerous
Larry O'Donnell running his silly mouth again..now talking a new civil war..a real one..!
Wow! Talk about dynamite! Instead of Scalia, how about Clarence Thomas!!
http://www.drudgereport.com/sc.htm
With Thomas, the Dims in the Senate will be caught between a rock and a hard place because he is black. If they come out swinging at him, this may backfire against them (minorities might notice their duplicity) but again this is a hedging bet. I find it impossible to understand the black vote vis-a-vis conservative issues especially when we look at it from a values point of view.
There are no "Blue" states if broken down by counties. I have an idea, let the cities support themselves and we will support all the "Red" counties. Take that puke liberal city Baltimore, once a great city now a liberal bastion left to grovel for state handouts in Maryland because the liberals have driven it into the ground. You have rich elite liberals who live in the far removed from society and the poor blind dummies who support them with their hands out waiting for that welfare check. Pretty sad when you vote for a party and can't state your reasons for doing so.
I agree
If they had to fend for themselves for even a week, they would change their tune I bet.
If you want to see what a real pest hole Baltimore is, just watch the HBO series "The Wire."
Gotta love a party who is all about Welfare and helping the down trodden, then when they're showing their true colors, they throw welfare out there as a slam.
ATTENTION! Welfare Recipients - This is what your beloved party really thinks about you. They don't give a Rats A$$ about you except on Election day...
Yeah, there are virtually no jobless, unemployable crackheads collecting welfare in the cities. You know what cities are Mr. O'Donnell. Those are those things with the big buildings you'll find at the center of virtually every blue cluster on a red/blue election map.
And Connecticut. And Rhode Island. And Maine. All five of those states had no more than two single counties that voted for Bush. The rest all went Kerry. While you could certainly make the case that, say, Michigan is a red state outside of Detroit it simply cannot be honestly said that there is much of anything left for Republicans in New England. Except for New Hampshire, which is moving to the left fast, we've got absolutely nothing there. The Democrats from that region are off in Chomsky territory and the Republicans there are more liberal than some of our Democrats down south (Gregg and Sununu, who only hold their seats because of their family names, excepted). That region of the country is simply lost beyond all hope of repair and we'd be better off setting it adrift into the atlantic.
Where you see "no hope," I see opportunity. Both of New Hampshire's Representatives to the House are Republican. Three of five Representatives from Connecticut are Republicans. The Governor of Massachusetts is a conservative Republican.
Very few states are "lost causes." Any state that did not vote in excess of 55% for sKerry has potential to swing the other direction. That means changing the vote of about 1 in every 20 voters. In those elections that were inside of a 5% margin, it becomes a matter of motivation and turnout of your base.
Even California is going to send 20 Republicans to Congress again this year. That's more than any other state except Texas (with 21). Conservatives Republicans are winning the battle of ideas and will continue to increase their majority. The New England states will begin to get the picture when they are cut off from the Federal teat.
re: O'Donnell's welfare payment comment: If I was to read between the lines he's furious that anyone who DOES receive welfare in those red states and didn't vote the party line, i.e. bit the hand that feeds them so to speak, is a traitor.
Is that Chicago that shoots off into outer space? Shocker!
I see a boycott in the making among the blue meanies!
I stumbled on your website by accident--I was looking for McLaughlin group & found this link. I usually vote republican but sometimes I vote democrat if the candidate
looks better. I am dismayed at the contempt your correspondents have toward their fellow citizens who happen to vote democrat. I have heard Anne Coulter complain about viscious attacks from democrats even while she is calling them traitors. My democrat friends are fine citizens who refrain from trashing me and other republicans; I reciprocate. You should do the same.
Yet it is universally acknowledged that New Hampshire is changing. We just lost the race there to Kerry and the GOP incumbent governor was unseated. The state's two senators hold on only because they are the sons of well known political families in the state.
Three of five Representatives from Connecticut are Republicans.
Yet it also has two liberal Democrat senators and Democrats in every single statewide office except for governor. Two of those Republican representatives - Johnson and Shays - are about as Republican as Lincoln Chaffee so that isn't saying much either.
The Governor of Massachusetts is a conservative Republican.
Yet it also has two hardcore liberal Democrat senators, 10 hardcore liberal Democrat congressmen (out of 10 seats), a solidly Democrat state legislature and state supreme court, and Democrats in 4 out of 6 statewide offices. Romney is the exception rather than the rule.
I also notice you leave out the remaining New England states. I wonder why that is. Not to worry though - i've taken the liberty of summarizing them for you
Vermont: A liberal democrat and a liberal "independent" who is really a democrat in the Senate, a socialist in the House, and Democrats hold 4 out of 6 statewide offices.
Rhode Island: A liberal democrat and a liberal republican in the senate, two out of two democrat congressmen, and democrats control 4 out of 5 statewide offices.
Maine: two liberal republican senators, two liberal democrat congressmen, and a democrat governor.
Wow, great map. What is also being missed is not only the numbers, but the intensity. That is, blue counties in red states are likely a lighter shade of blue than New York or Los Angeles. Therefore, the only areas likely to secede are the Biggest cities. Tiny fortresses they be, the libs have walled themselves in.
A beter map would stack up by the difference in a given area..
For conservatives to make inroads into the "blue" states, they need to motivate and expand their core. They need a message which resonates with both the core and those in the middle. You probably don't remember the watershed election of 1994 (Newt's "Contract with America"), and you were not alive for the equally pivotal 1968 and 1972 elections (Nixon's southern strategy). Your perspective is from a time when the "solid South" was nearly solid Republican. I can remember when the opposite was true, and when Democrat majorities in the House were expected. In fact, there had never been a Republican Speaker of the House in my lifetime until Gingrich.
Your ramblings about a "lost cause" New England are not unlike those who bemoan "global warming." Neither of you look at the big picture and take into account periodic fluctuations.
As pointed out on slashdot the map has a huge flaw, it does not count the +/- of a candidate. For example if Kerry had won a county of one million people by one vote, the entire million become a huge blue pillar.
A better map would stack up by the difference in a given area..
Yeah. The problem arises when that "core" is too small to control much of anything in the electorate, which results in a state government dominated by liberals and RINOs...in other words what we have in every single New England state save New Hampshire, which is starting to trend the way of its neighbors.
They need a message which resonates with both the core and those in the middle.
That's a nice theory, but it presumes that there is a substantial middle to begin with. When 60%+ of a state enthusiastically backs an outright communist for president and similarly liberal candidates for all the other offices the state is lost beyond anything that appealing to the "middle" will get you. The "middle" in New England gives us Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords and neither of them is anywhere near my idea of a good thing for the republican party.
You probably don't remember the watershed election of 1994 (Newt's "Contract with America"), and you were not alive for the equally pivotal 1968 and 1972 elections (Nixon's southern strategy). Your perspective is from a time when the "solid South" was nearly solid Republican.
You presume a lot, capitan. The south shifted because it had an underlying core conservative constituency, even if that constituency at one time voted Democrat. Most southern democrat elected officials reflected and shared to some degree in that conservatism. Since you mention the 1972 election, do you remember who was racking up win after win after win in the Democrat primaries that year? We tend to forget it since the assassination attempt ended his campaign and the party swung to the hard left with McGovern, but the answer is George Wallace. While Wallace was not without a great many problems, his candidacies always appealed to southern conservatives much as Goldwater's did before that and Strom Thurmond's did before that. Yes, part of it was racial but another often overlooked part of it was not, the last two of those candidates having represented open and public hostility to the hippie leftist counterculture that was emerging in the 1960's. The anti-hippie, anti-communist, pro-America message resonated in the south back then. You do not have that same dynamic at play in New England today or anything even remotely close to it. New England is hardcore leftist through and through with the best we can ever do there being an occassional rare win plus some "me too" style RINOs.
A failed thesis.
Results of 1972 Democratic Primaries (from Congressional Quarterly):
Jan 24: Iowa - Muskie
March 7: New Hampshire – Muskie
March 14: Florida – Wallace
March 21: Illinois - Muskie
April 4: Wisconsin - McGovern
April 25: Massachusetts - McGovern
April 25: Pennsylvania - Humphrey
May 2: Indiana – Humphrey
May 2: Ohio - Humphrey
May 4: Tennessee - Wallace
May 6: North Carolina - Wallace
May 9: Nebraska - McGovern
May 9: West Virginia - Humphrey
May 15 - Wallace shot by A. Bremer
May 16: Maryland - Wallace
May 16: Michigan - Wallace
May 23: Oregon - McGovern
May 23: Rhode Island - McGovern
June 6: California - McGovern
June 6: New Jersey - Humphrey
June 6: New Mexico - McGovern
June 6: South Dakota – McGovern
Non-Primary “southern” states:
Texas, Georgia, and Virginia supported McGovern.
Louisiana and Mississippi supported Humphrey.
South Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma supported Henry Jackson.
Arkansas supported favorite son Wilbur Mills.
Alabama supported Wallace.
After the final primary elections in June, no Democrat had the nomination sewn up, with McGovern, Humphrey, and Wallace with roughly equal support (but Wallace precluded from actively campaigning).
Iowa was in italics in the original. Likely to denote the caucus.
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.