Posted on 09/28/2007 6:46:32 AM PDT by Maneesh
It’s unfortunate that he’s resorted to pandering, even though he does have to reach out to confused moderates and independent Democrats who dislike their party’s nominee.
Whatever, call me not eloquent.
Mindless liberalism in Massachusetts is probably a necessary example for the rest of the country to be able to actually observe just how insane things can get.
Most of my neighbors are not so bad all in all, but they are not concerned about what is best for all, and for posterity. They simply have not thought it through.
It seems so from here.
You must've misunderstood me. Since we presume Democrat = Liberal, that means MA is 100% liberal federally and roughly 90% liberal in the legislature. You know and I know the state is not THAT liberal. I didn't say the state wasn't liberal-leaning, only that it is 100% or 90% so.
"Where has it worked in the Northreast? In 2006 many RINOs lost their seats because their Dem opponent was more liberal. Why settle for a liberal Rep when you can get the real thing. If Reps had run "real conservatives" in those races, they would have suffered even worse defeats. People who run for election must reflect in some degree their constituencies. If you don't, you lose no matter how passionate and forcefully you express your views."
In 2006, we lost a lot of Republicans everywhere because they were Republicans, RINO or otherwise. But yet, the success story in New England was RI Gov. Don Carcieri, a Conservative. I've seen lots of liberal rodents winning in areas they ought not to be, merely because they managed to either deceive the rubes, run against a damaged GOP incumbent, caught a wave, and then used incumbency to keep them in office. Iowa isn't a liberal state, yet it elects a Marxist Senator with Harkin. So liberal-leaning constituencies can't ever elect Conservatives, but Conservative districts can elect liberals ? Time to change that equation.
"For MA, Ogonowski is polling well for a Rep. He must be doing something right."
In that district, ANY Republican running a respectable campaign is going to get at minimum, 35% of the vote.
"Reagan understood the need to appeal to democrats as well as Reps. Ogonowski has to define issues that cut across partisan lines, e.g,, illegal immigration, and use that to distinguish himself from his opponent."
Reagan didn't run as a liberal. Isn't it funny that the most Conservative Presidential candidate to run in the past 40 years got the highest percentage of the vote of all those candidates running in MA ? RINO Wishy-washiness doesn't play.
"You overstate the level of dissatisfaction in MA. Here are the MA results in the 2006 mid-terms Five of the 10 Dems in the House ran unopposed [including Meehan] and only one of the other five won by less than 70% of the vote , i.e., Delahunt who won with 65% of the vote. That is domination by one party, my friend."
Um, that's the whole damn point. There's no viable Republican party in MA. You don't have an ideologically different party and offer the people a choice, you have no reason to exist. When liberal RINOs and liberal rodents are the choices, it's no surprise that you have no Republicans left. The Republican party of MA needs to repudiate this failed ideology and grow their numbers with a Conservative agenda and candidates. I don't expect them to become the majority overnight, but there is no reason to expect that with hard work, a viable and strong minority opposition could emerge. What would you prefer, a 90% rodent/10% RINO legislature out of whack with the state's actual political leanings, or a 70% rodent/30% Conservative GOP legislature that can visibly oppose en bloc bad legislation and sustain a Republican Governor's vetoes ? I know which I'd prefer. But like I said, we keep doing it the same way that has given us nothing but failures and further moribundity with each passing election, and MA will become the first state outside the South to elect a 100% Democrat legislature. It's pretty much de facto that already.
"Don't create phony strawmen. I never advocated surrendering."
Could've fooled me. Your posts are brimming with negativity, "it's all over." When I offer new ideas and solutions, you mock them. You're not helping, sir.
"My point is not to criticize Reps who are brave enough to run because they are not conservative enough. Instead, support their commitment and courage."
Running as a RINO is not courageous, sir. It's a cop-out. It's telling people, "Hey, I pretty much believe like the Democrats do, only that I want to run as a Republican instead." Sorry, that's why we've lost so many areas of the country, all for nothing.
"LOL. In 2004, Kerry won NJ by 250,000 votes. He won Hudson County by 67,000 votes second only to Essex's 120,000 vote margin for Kerry. In 2000, Gore won NJ by 500,000 votes and Hudson by 75,000. In 1996, Clinton won NJ by 550,000 and Hudson by 78,000. The bottom line is that Hudson County usually provides the Dems with the second largest margin of votes. Reagan was an exception and he only won by 18,000 votes."
Um, proving what I said. Hudson hasn't provided the margin of victory for a Dem Presidential candidate since 1960. Today, 4 counties are more populous than Hudson (Bergen, Essex, Middlesex & Monmouth), and Hudson just isn't all that important overall anymore as it was in Boss Hague's era.
Essentially by making the contests all about them and tossing everyone else overboard. Mind you, Gov. Kean was not nearly as bad as Weld, but his political proteges were not the kind of people that were interested in furthering the Conservative movement. In fact, one of Kean's proteges was a Republican fella named Albio Sires. He tried to get him elected to Congress in Hudson County as long ago as 1986, but it was a colossal failure. Sires would later reemerge on the political scene a decade later... as a rodent. He rose to become the NJ Assembly Speaker, and is now in the House seat he lost 20 years ago. Ain't it just remarkable how much help our RINO leaders give to the rodents ?
You might be interested in this article on Weld. It’s 10 years old, but gives you an idea how he operated. He screwed everybody, Conservatives and even his liberal RINO compatriots.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_14_49/ai_59451074
Right now, there is little point in being a registered Republican in the state for that very reason. Here in TN, we don’t have registration by party. In Nashville, it is a pointless exercise to vote in a local Republican primary for partisan contests because there are often almost no candidates, all the action is on the rodent side. Oddly enough, it benefitted having non-partisan contests in my city, since we had a few Conservative Republicans win council seats in the past month, in some mixed-race and working class areas of the city (including my district, which is minority White).
A distinction without a difference. It is like discussing degrees of virtue among whores. MA is overwhelmingly liberal. It is not going to change any time soon.
I've seen lots of liberal rodents winning in areas they ought not to be, merely because they managed to either deceive the rubes, run against a damaged GOP incumbent, caught a wave, and then used incumbency to keep them in office.
Maybe that is what Ogonowski is trying to do.
In that district, ANY Republican running a respectable campaign is going to get at minimum, 35% of the vote.
Do you have any data to support that assertion? In that district, Meehan ran unopposed. In 2006 five of the MA Dems in the house ran unopposed and the lowest percentage any Dem candidate who ran against an opponent received was 65%. In that race the Rep candidate received 29%.
Reagan didn't run as a liberal. Isn't it funny that the most Conservative Presidential candidate to run in the past 40 years got the highest percentage of the vote of all those candidates running in MA? RINO Wishy-washiness doesn't play.
Reagan was running against Carter, the worst President we have had this century. Double digit inflation, gasoline shortages, the ongoing humiliation of the US in Iran, the fall of Afghanistan, etc. had a lot to do with MA going Dem in 1980 and still Reagan only won by 3800 votes, 41.9% to 41.75%. And Carter only won 5 states and DC.
Reagan won in 1984 on a record of accomplishment and barely eked out a victory in MA over Mondale by 2.79%. Mondale won only one state [MN] and DC. Eisenhower won by much bigger margins in MA than Reagan. And it is worth noting that Dukakis only beat Bush 41 by 7.85%. You can't attribute Reagan's wins just to the message he was conveying.
Um, that's the whole damn point. There's no viable Republican party in MA. You don't have an ideologically different party and offer the people a choice, you have no reason to exist. When liberal RINOs and liberal rodents are the choices, it's no surprise that you have no Republicans left. The Republican party of MA needs to repudiate this failed ideology and grow their numbers with a Conservative agenda and candidates.
The party was viable enough to elect Romney governor. That said, until circumstances change in MA, the conservative message is not resonating in MA, the most liberal and staunchly Dem state in the nation. That is the reason Reps are not winning in the state.
What would you prefer, a 90% rodent/10% RINO legislature out of whack with the state's actual political leanings, or a 70% rodent/30% Conservative GOP legislature that can visibly oppose en bloc bad legislation and sustain a Republican Governor's vetoes ?
How do you come up with the GOP receiving 30% of the representatives just because they may represent 30% of the electorate? That is not the way our representative system works. Each district/county etc. elects its representative. The Rep candidates must win the majority of votes in a particular legislative unit. We don't have proportional representation.
It won't change with folks with your mindset standing in the way. For the 35-40% of voters (and who knows how many more that are utterly disengaged from politics there altogether, for obvious reasons of lacking in choices or leaders) in MA that haven't swallowed the kool-aid, I'm sure they would like being lumped in with "whores."
"Maybe that is what Ogonowski is trying to do."
I don't give a damn if a Republican tries to shine Democrat fools, but I draw the line when they try to shine us (example: Romney).
"Do you have any data to support that assertion? In that district, Meehan ran unopposed. In 2006 five of the MA Dems in the house ran unopposed and the lowest percentage any Dem candidate who ran against an opponent received was 65%. In that race the Rep candidate received 29%."
I was referring specifically to the 5th district. I said any Republican running a respectable campaign (which includes financial support), not somebody just having their name put on the ballot. There hasn't been a serious candidate for the House in any of the districts in several cycles, and Meehan only faced one serious opponent in his Congressional career, and that was when he went up against a past-his-prime ex-Congressman Paul Cronin in 1992 (who scored 38%, which was far below the GOP candidate in 1990, John F. MacGovern, who almost beat Meehan's predecessor, Chester Atkins, receiving 46%). Two nobodies in 2002 and 2004 scored at 34% and 33% respectively. If Og doesn't get at least 35% as the most serious candidate since Cronin or MacGovern, it will be nothing short of pathetic.
"Reagan was running against Carter, the worst President we have had this century. Double digit inflation, gasoline shortages, the ongoing humiliation of the US in Iran, the fall of Afghanistan, etc. had a lot to do with MA going Dem in 1980 and still Reagan only won by 3800 votes, 41.9% to 41.75%. And Carter only won 5 states and DC."
The point being, he still won in a very Dem-leaning state, and won as a Conservative.
"Reagan won in 1984 on a record of accomplishment and barely eked out a victory in MA over Mondale by 2.79%. Mondale won only one state [MN] and DC. Eisenhower won by much bigger margins in MA than Reagan. And it is worth noting that Dukakis only beat Bush 41 by 7.85%. You can't attribute Reagan's wins just to the message he was conveying."
Of course you can, stop trying to diminish it. I'd expect Eisenhower to have won by larger margins. MA was still a Republican state in the 1950s. Although the liberal RINO Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. lost reelection in 1952 to his Moderate Conservative Dem opponent JFK, the state elected an 8 GOP-6 Dem House delegation and elected a GOP Governor (Christian Herter) and GOP legislature. By 1956, it slipped to a tied 7-7 delegation and a Dem Governor (Furcolo) was elected. Bush, Sr. did remarkably well against a homestate candidate (of course, Bush was born in MA), who was quite unpopular by the end of his final term.
"The party was viable enough to elect Romney governor."
The "party" didn't elect Romney. There was no party to give necessary support to him. Romney was elected as an "Oppositionist" (to borrow the phrase the Republicans were in that nebulous period between their rise and the dissolution of the Whigs) by his own accord and own money.
"That said, until circumstances change in MA, the conservative message is not resonating in MA, the most liberal and staunchly Dem state in the nation. That is the reason Reps are not winning in the state."
The whole point is to change the circumstances. Don't change the circumstances, and the circumstances won't be changed. Sometimes it's not the message but the messenger. Don't have the right messengers to carry it and not enough $$ to get the word out and turn the people out to vote and don't be surprised when the cause fails. I've offered ideas to doing something about it, what are yours besides stating "things will never change" and other mocking statements ? How 'bout offering positives and not negatives ?
"How do you come up with the GOP receiving 30% of the representatives just because they may represent 30% of the electorate? That is not the way our representative system works. Each district/county etc. elects its representative. The Rep candidates must win the majority of votes in a particular legislative unit. We don't have proportional representation."
I made the suggestion of proportional representation in the state to counteract the lopsided majorities that are unrepresentative of the overall voters. In any event, I cited the 30% as a goal, and what you have to do is target potential districts that have the potential to elect Conservatives and go after them with the candidates, the bucks, and the support. After all, if we managed to get 40% of the Senate as recently as the 1990 elections and nearly 25% of the House just in negative reaction to Dukakis, imagine what we can get going after seats with a positive agenda and hard work. Either we choose to pursue it, or we do it your way and do nothing and acknowledge "we're doomed." Brother, if we had taken that approach with Southern states beginning in the 1950s, places like South Carolina would still look like MA does today with respect to a Democrat deathgrip, rather than being a heavily GOP state. Remember, friend, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
Sires was a Republican? Wow. I didn’t know that.
New Jersey is a particularly sad case. In 1988, Bush carried all but Donald Payne and Bob Menendez’s congressional districts. Before that, Reagan carried it with 51% in 1980 even when Carter held him to narrow margins in much of the south. Even Ford held it against Carter. Now it’s really gone down the tubes. In an earlier era, Kean Jr. might have beaten Menendez, Frank Pallone and Rush Holt would have been vulnerable, and Mike Ferguson wouldn’t be.
Sires is a rank opportunist. He started out a rodent, became a Kean Republican, was still one apparently when he got elected Mayor of West New York, then became an Indy afterwards, and back to the rodents again in preparation to run for the Assembly. Ironically, in ‘86 he got thumped by Frank Guarini, the last non-Hispanic Congressman from that district (Guarini was a Dem), and 20 years later, Guarini’s Republican cousin was Sires’s opponent.
Indeed, NJ is a damnable mess. Presidentially, aside from some instances, it had become a fairly reliable GOP state... until 1992 (right about the time so many RINO Gubernatorial regimes in different parts of the country helped to put formerly reliable states out of reach, such as NJ, CA, IL). Even 9/11 wasn’t enough to bitchslap the state back to reality (despite all but 2 GOP counties trending towards Dubya, and losing 46-53%).
Kean, Jr. should’ve beaten Menendez, as Forrester should’ve beaten the Torch or the Corpse, Franks over Corzine, even Chuck Haytaian probably beat the Corpse in ‘94, but the voter fraud probably kept him from doing so. I frankly think the RINO Country-Club set is quite content to allow the rodentry to run the state now, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their control of the shrinking apparatus (almost like the reverse of inner-city Black Dem fiefdoms, where they’re content to hold onto shrinking fortunes, as long as they aren’t dislodged from their perches).
Speaking of Rush Holt, Jr. (he’s a junior). You may not know about his father, who was a political wunderkind from the FDR era. His dad got elected to the U.S. Senate as a New Deal liberal from West Virginia in 1934 at the age of 29 (he couldn’t take his seat until mid 1935 when he turned 30). Eventually Holt lost renomination in 1940 and at some point not long after that, got fed up with the Dems and became a Conservative Republican. He would’ve probably ended up back in the Senate or as Governor before long, but he ended up dying at the age of 49 in 1955 (Junior was only 6 when he died) while in the state legislature. Holt’s wife (Jr’s mother) became the GOP Secretary of State of WV in the late 1950s. But Junior is about as far afield from his parents as you can imagine, and is an outright Marxist. His dad must be spinning in his grave.
good topic. thanks.
exactly.
This had the effect of giving more Republican leaning areas in Hunterdon and Somerset to Frelinghuysen, as well as the swing areas in southeast Mercer to Chris Smith. Holt's current district essentially has its population center in Trenton/Lawrenceville/Princeton, with a few small towns along the river in SW Hunterdon which are of little consequence. The only towns in the district that occassionally swing to the GOP are Hopewell and Pennington.
In short, the 12th district would have remained a possible GOP pickup had the nonpartisan committee not shifted nearly all of Trenton to Holts district, while subtracting most of Hunterdon. Then again, it did make Smith's seat more GOP leaning (Frelinghuysen's district is fairly safe for the NE), which is important once Chris finally retires.
The 1984 election was a Black Swan. Even Bill Lipinski’s district (SW Chicago and bordering industrial suburbs) went for Reagan that year. Same holds for 1972, when Nixon won Crook County. Landslide years should NEVER be taken as an indicator of political trends.
I have to wonder just how “nonpartisan” those “committees” truly are. You have my sympathies on having Rush Dolt, Jr. as your Rep. Although his predecessor, Dick Zimmer, was no prize, Rush makes him look like Bob Dornan.
You keep on misrepresenting my position to make dubious points. My difference with you has to do with your criticism of Ogonowski because he is not "conservative" enough for you. I think that is foolish and undermines Reps trying to win elections in blue states and districts. We should be supporting them once they have been nominated as the Rep candidate. The time for "ideological purity" is in the primaries not the general election. Any Rep is better than a Dem period.
After all, if we managed to get 40% of the Senate as recently as the 1990 elections and nearly 25% of the House just in negative reaction to Dukakis, imagine what we can get going after seats with a positive agenda and hard work.
Did those 25% meet your "ideological purity test?"
Brother, if we had taken that approach with Southern states beginning in the 1950s, places like South Carolina would still look like MA does today with respect to a Democrat deathgrip, rather than being a heavily GOP state. Remember, friend, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.
The so-called Southern strategy may kill the Rep party as a national party. The South has now become the Reps power base, but the Dems and the MSM depict it as Southern whites [aka "racists and bigots"] just changing parties from Dems to Reps. Reps are as scarce as hen's teeth in the Northeast and the Dems, primarily due to demographics, have taken over CA and the Left Coast. States like Nev, AZ, CO, and NM are trending more and more Dem. And there are even cracks appearing in the South in places like VA.
Half of the children ages 0 to 5 in America are minorities. By 2050, one in four Americans will be Hispanic. Those demographics are of some import for the future of the Rep party.
Lipinski’s post-1982 district was never hyper-Dem as some other Chicago districts were. His district went for Reagan in ‘84 AND Bush, Sr. in ‘88 (Rosty’s district came within 5,000 votes of going for Reagan in ‘84, and as we all know, even dumped Rosty for the Republican Flanagan a decade later in a district generally acknowledged to be nearly 2/3rds rodent).
In a lot of ways, it’s too bad we never had a system where voting for the President also meant voting for representation of the President’s party (at least in the House). Can you have imagined what the 1973-75 and 1985-87 Congresses would’ve looked like under such a system ?
I looked it up, and the House delegations would’ve looked like this:
AL (1972: 7 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 7 GOP-0 Dem)
AK (1972: 1 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 1 GOP-0 Dem)
AZ (1972: 4 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 5 GOP-0 Dem)
AR (1972: 4 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 4 GOP-0 Dem)
CA (1972: 35 GOP-8 Dem; 1984: 37 GOP-8 Dem)
CO (1972: 5 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 5 GOP-1 Dem)
CT (1972: 6 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 6 GOP-0 Dem)
DE (1972: 1 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 1 GOP-0 Dem)
FL (1972: 15 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 18 GOP-1 Dem)
GA (1972: 10 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 9 GOP-1 Dem)
HI (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 2 GOP-0 Dem)
ID (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 2 GOP-0 Dem)
IL (1972: 18 GOP-6 Dem; 1984: 16 GOP-5 Dem)
IN (1972: 11 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 8 GOP-2 Dem)
IA (1972: 6 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 5 GOP-1 Dem)
KS (1972: 5 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 5 GOP-0 Dem)
KY (1972: 7 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 6 GOP-1 Dem)
LA (1972: 8 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 7 GOP-1 Dem)
ME (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 2 GOP-0 Dem)
MD (1972: 7 GOP-1 Dem; 1984: 5 GOP-3 Dem)
MA (1972: 1 GOP-11 Dem*; 1984: 8 GOP-3 Dem)
MI (1972: 17 GOP-2 Dem; 1984: 16 GOP-2 Dem)
MN (1972: 5 GOP-3 Dem; 1984: 5 GOP-3 Dem)
MS (1972: 5 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 5 GOP-0 Dem)
MO (1972: 9 GOP-1 Dem; 1984: 7 GOP-2 Dem)
MT (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 2 GOP-0 Dem)
NE (1972: 3 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 3 GOP-0 Dem)
NV (1972: 1 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 2 GOP-0 Dem)
NH (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 1984: 2 GOP-0 Dem)
NJ (1972: 14 GOP-1 Dem; 1984: 13 GOP-1 Dem)
NM (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 3 GOP-0 Dem)
NY (1972: 27 GOP-12 Dem; 22 GOP-12 Dem)
NC (1972: 11 GOP-0 Dem; 11 GOP-0 Dem)
ND (1972: 1 GOP-0 Dem; 1 GOP-0 Dem)
OH (1972: 20 GOP-3 Dem; 18 GOP-3 Dem)
OK (1972: 6 GOP-0 Dem; 6 GOP-0 Dem)
OR (1972: 3 GOP-1 Dem; 4 GOP-1 Dem)
PA (1972: 21 GOP-4 Dem; 17 GOP-6 Dem)
RI (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 2 GOP-0 Dem)
SC (1972: 6 GOP-0 Dem; 6 GOP-0 Dem)
SD (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 1 GOP-0 Dem)
TN (1972: 8 GOP-0 Dem; 8 GOP-1 Dem)
TX (1972: 22 GOP-2 Dem; 24 GOP-3 Dem)
UT (1972: 2 GOP-0 Dem; 3 GOP-0 Dem)
VT (1972: 1 GOP-0 Dem; 1 GOP-0 Dem)
VA (1972: 10 GOP-0 Dem; 10 GOP-0 Dem)
WA (1972: 7 GOP-0 Dem; 7 GOP-1 Dem)
WV (1972: 4 GOP-0 Dem; 3 GOP-1 Dem)
WI (1972: 6 GOP-3 Dem; 6 GOP-3 Dem)
WY (1972: 1 GOP-0 Dem; 1 GOP-0 Dem)
Overall (1972: 377 GOP-58 Dem)
(1984: 369 GOP-66 Dem)
(*Note MA was the odd one in 1972, the 3 districts that elected GOP members all went for McGovern, only the Cape & Islands district of newly-elected Gerry Studds went for Nixon)
I've yet to make a dubious point on this thread, sir. I back my points up with facts, and the rest are putting forth potential game plays to take back these seats. You, sir, have offered nothing but a constant drumbeat of negativity and sarcasm, and have yet to put forth a single viable offensive that would attempt to have us win back these seats. Your attitude displays that of somebody who doesn't want to win back what has been lost, and it is very disturbing.
"My difference with you has to do with your criticism of Ogonowski because he is not "conservative" enough for you."
How about the MA posters telling you the same thing ? They're fed up with candidates offering them nothing but Socialist or Socialist-lite alternatives, because these are non-alternatives.
"We should be supporting them once they have been nominated as the Rep candidate. The time for "ideological purity" is in the primaries not the general election. Any Rep is better than a Dem period."
Not always. The string of RINO Governors in MA did nothing but harm the Republican party and the cause of Conservatism in the state. Liberal rodents can't inflict the kind of damage liberal RINOs do from within, and we're reaping the consequences of that.
"Did those 25% meet your "ideological purity test?"
Offer some solutions, not sarcasm.
"The so-called Southern strategy may kill the Rep party as a national party."
You have a very dubious grasp on politics, I'm afraid. Without that "Southern Strategy", the Republican party would be in the supreme minority. Did it ever occur to you that many in those states where liberalism ran amok under both parties that millions of people have voted with their feet and moved south and west ? My family did, otherwise I'd have been a New Yorker today. Without the foresight of Nixon to go into areas that had been previously hostile to the GOP, our party might've folded already. It's too bad you seem to think such vision is wrong-headed.
"The South has now become the Reps power base, but the Dems and the MSM depict it as Southern whites [aka "racists and bigots"] just changing parties from Dems to Reps."
News flash, pal. The media and the rodents can openly display bigotry towards the South and just about anything Conservative or Republican. Get it, they're leftist, and they hate us. It's that simple. Most of your old-line racist Democrats from the South died as Democrats. You'd be hard pressed to find many living examples of those old-timer Dixiecrats as Republicans today. The only one of prominence who switched was Strom Thurmond, and after he switched, he embraced Civil Rights and consistently received the highest percentage of the Black vote of any prominent Republican in the South. Of course, the media will overlook the racist trash Klansman from West Virginia (a North Carolinian by birth), that being Robert Byrd. Byrd gets a pass because he's a Democrat. You need to understand there is little point in kissing up to media types that hate you, and that you need to take your message straight to the real people.
"Reps are as scarce as hen's teeth in the Northeast and the Dems, primarily due to demographics, have taken over CA and the Left Coast."
They're not dead, yet. But RINOs are doing their damndest to kill what's left.
"States like Nev, AZ, CO, and NM are trending more and more Dem."
States swing back and forth. You'd have been sounding the alarm about Colorado in the early '70s when it went against the national trend ahead of Watergate... only to swing back to the Republicans again. Most of your states that are due to gain seats after the next apportionment are in Republican leaning ones. Take a glance at how many rodent states continue to shrivel. MA is going to have the fewest number of Congressional seats in its history (actually, it already does, and continues to shrink). ME & RI are on course to having only 1 member each, and even NH, too. NY will probably lose 2 more, and PA, too. We will do just fine as long as we stay the Conservative course and don't start falling into liberal rodent ideology and spending, which kills us every time we pursue it.
"And there are even cracks appearing in the South in places like VA."
NOVA has been trending that way for some time, because of the influx of superrich liberal big gov't types. They mess their nests where they come from and come elsewhere to successful areas to spread their cancer.
You sir, need to go back on your meds. You are an ideologue who would prefer that candidates like Ogonowski lose. Your mindless criticism is not a strategy for victory for the GOP. I suppose you would like to replace Snowe and Collins as well with more conservative candidates, but the people in Hell would like ice water. What you condsider negativity and sarcasm is called political reality. I see no concrete solutions coming from you except for some emotional generalizations and exhortations. People like Ogonowski are in the arena doing more than just talking. He deserves our support not your negative criticism.
How about the MA posters telling you the same thing ? They're fed up with candidates offering them nothing but Socialist or Socialist-lite alternatives, because these are non-alternatives.
Then they should participate in the political process instead of just criticizing the lack of alteratives. Have you ever run for political office?
You have a very dubious grasp on politics, I'm afraid. Without that "Southern Strategy", the Republican party would be in the supreme minority. Did it ever occur to you that many in those states where liberalism ran amok under both parties that millions of people have voted with their feet and moved south and west ? My family did, otherwise I'd have been a New Yorker today. Without the foresight of Nixon to go into areas that had been previously hostile to the GOP, our party might've folded already. It's too bad you seem to think such vision is wrong-headed.
You are the one without a grasp on politics and reality. The movement of the Dems in the South to the GOP has more to do with the actions of the Dem party than anything that the Reps have done. LBJ knew that the the Dem support of civil rights would hurt them in the South, which was the conservative wing of the Dem party. The Dixiecrats, George Wallace, et. al. were examples of the fissures within the Dem party that preceded Nixon or LBJ. .
The movement of people from the Northeast and liberal states to the South and West are not the prime reasons why the South is now the power base of the GOP. Your anecdotal evidence just doesn't wash.
News flash, pal. The media and the rodents can openly display bigotry towards the South and just about anything Conservative or Republican. Get it, they're leftist, and they hate us. It's that simple. Most of your old-line racist Democrats from the South died as Democrats. You'd be hard pressed to find many living examples of those old-timer Dixiecrats as Republicans today. The only one of prominence who switched was Strom Thurmond, and after he switched, he embraced Civil Rights and consistently received the highest percentage of the Black vote of any prominent Republican in the South.
Long on emotion, short on facts. Plenty of "old-line" Dems shifted over to the GOP, including many who held elected office. You don't have such a seismic shift in the political landscape without wholesale defections. Here are some former Southern Dems who are now Reps: Senator Shelby wiltched after being elected as a Dem to the senate; Albert Watson [R-SC], Bill Archer [R-TX], Jesse Helms [two years before he ran for the Senate], Trent Lott, Miles Goodwin [Governor of Virginia], Elizabet Dole, Phil Gramm, Andy Ireland [R-FL], Richard Baker [R-LA], Bill Grant [R-FL], Waltern Jones [R-NC], Jimmy Hayesw [R-LA], Billy Tauzin [R-LA], Natthan Deal [R-GA], Mike Parker [R-MS], Sonny Perdue, Ralph Hall [R-TX], and many, many more.
States swing back and forth. You'd have been sounding the alarm about Colorado in the early '70s when it went against the national trend ahead of Watergate... only to swing back to the Republicans again. Most of your states that are due to gain seats after the next apportionment are in Republican leaning ones.
Demography is destiny. I have a home in Scottsdale, AZ. I can tell you that AZ is becoming more liberal and more Dem as the demographics change [half of the those under 21 are Hispanic] and there has been an influx of white liberals from CA, CO, NV, and NM are changing similarly. Hispanics, who comprised 16% of Arizona's population in the 1970s, now are approaching 30% of the population. Over 40% are under the age of 18.
NOVA has been trending that way for some time, because of the influx of superrich liberal big gov't types. They mess their nests where they come from and come elsewhere to successful areas to spread their cancer.
It depends on how you describe for some time, but Fairfax County went for Kerry, the first time that has happened in over 40 years when Goldwater ran. I have seen the changes over the past 30 years I have lived in the area on and off. It is not only the super-rich liberals moving in, but also Hispanics. There is a reason why Herndon, Prince William County, Loudon County, Manassas, etc. are passing anti-illegal immigrant laws. Close to 30% of Fairfax County residents are foreign born.
And with that, our discussion is concluded. I've tolerated your nonsense long enough. When you wish to have a mature discussion, you let me know. Have a nice day.
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.