The very sad part is that the damage already done, would take several generations to undo by conventional means even if we got a health start today.
I don't think this country has the ability to wait for the pendulum swing the other way.
I still also contend that folk carefully, respectfully, wisely lobbying 2-4 people close to them who would otherwise vote insanely is one of the best strategies. Prayerfully identify those in your network who persistently vote insanely BUT WHO ARE RATIONAL ENOUGH AND CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE MIDDLE TO BE PERSUADED--AND GO TO WORK ON THEM!!! NOVEMBER IS NOT THAT FAR AWAY!
One is that the recent redistricting will increase Democrat strength, which is true IF CALIFORNIA VOTES THE SAME WAY IT DID IN 2000!! If it does not, if it votes the way it did in 1994, then Democrat LOSSES will be maximized. That is because to maximize party strength in redistricting you try to assemble the largest possible number of districts which are moderately strong for your party. Districts which are too strongly for your party only run up the margin in those districts, and do not win more districts. The problem is that if there is a large switch in the popular vote, as in 1994, those moderately strong Democrat districts become GOP by a slim majority.
In any case this argument only refers to people elected to office, NOT support for the parties by the people.
The other item that he uses to demonstrate that California is getting Bluer is the victory by Bill Simon in the gubernatorial primary election!!! He says, that the President supported Riordan, which is likely true, and that Simon's win shows Bush is weak in California, with the implication that support for Bush in intraparty fights is the way you measure Red zone strength in a state.
The problem with this is that Simon supporters are much more certain Bush supporters than Riordan supporters are (especially in Riordan's family -- LOL)! In this way I would argue that Bush's defeat in the primary is a demonstration of his strength in the general election.
In conclusion, it is obvious that, whether or not his assertion is true, Schneider has not offerred any evidence which will hold up.
He says that the war hasn't changed anything, that the country is still deeply divided 50-50. Well then, how come polls matching up a Gore-Bush election *today* come out to be more like 60-40 or better for Bush?
He then says that Americans are deeply divided about extending the war on terrorism to Iraq. Does anyone think that President Bush will simply send tens of thousands of ground troops into Iraq without laying out a predicate for the American people? When the President makes it clear *why* a regime change in Iraq is essential for our country's safety, the polls will no longer be 50-50.
Schneider, the democratic party operative in CNN's "objective" clothing, writes nothing more than a testament to how one can "lie with statistics."
What rot. There are just as many grass roots Democrats that are religeous and attend church as there are Republicans.
This board is full of conservatives, like myself, who care little for organized religion. I haven't been inside a church for anything but weddings and funerals since 1960, yet I've never pulled the lever for a Dem and can not think of any circumstance in which I would.
Political correctness as a value is the key to a red shift. If leftist psuedo values are viewed as a source of problems rather than as a solution to problems, many women will produce the red shift.
There is a body of women who have abandoned eons of human experience for the leftist line and greener pastures. The election of 2000 indicates that if only a few of these women revert to the truths of human experience, ie conservative values, the red shift will take place.
Having said this please understand I am personally very conservative, however, the Dems who win most Democrat districts are extremely liberal.
I wonder what it would be like if more House districts were in play each election. There are very few competitive elections in the House each cycle. Just a thought.