Posted on 11/27/2006 6:54:06 AM PST by Princip. Conservative
That's the business he's in, and he's too sensitive to criticism. "Oooooh, they'll call me a nazi. Gee whiz, they said I'm mean-spirited. Oh no, they might give me a knickname like 'The Hammer'."
How did Tom Tancredo do in his reelection bid? Hayworth didn't lose his race on the immigration issue. You discount the appeal of Mitchell, the former Mayor of Tempe, and some redistricting of Maricopa County.
Uh, was Hayworth's district redrawn between 2004 and 2006, the answer is no. Hayworth won with 60% of the vote in 2002, and 04.
Huh but between 2004 and 2006, Hayowrth jumps on the Tancredo harsh rhetoric bandwagon, and gets his his voice on Imus, bashing Bush, and what happens in the district that Hayowrth won with 60% of the vote in the previous two elections, he loses.
There is a lesson there, for those who will see it.
Yuhp, GOP needs to get its act together. It is going to have to go North for a secular presidential candidate and nominate someone who can project a different image. he will likely have to be some one who can win back moderate independents and hold the base. sorry evangelicals, You are an important part of the party but we need a different face. Right now the public want something different and I don't blame them because I feel the same way. We have got to reinvent ourselves.
Actually, the governor is the most powerful figure in Ohio redistricting. I believe he appoints a majority of members of the redistricting commission.
It's a miracle that the Pennsylvania legislature is still controlled by the GOP (albeit by 1-vote in the lower house). If our side can keep control through the next redistricting and if we can elect a Republican governor (a pretty good chance given the eight year tradition of a party shift) then the state Republicans ought to try to draw the map to get a 9-8 or 10-8 GOP majority (assuming a loss of 1-2 seats due to population shifts to other states)instead of the 13-6 stunt they tried to pull in 2002.
I think it's right that the Republicans got too greedy. Drawing the maps with too many districts with a partisan voting index of D+2 to D+4 (like PA6, 7, 8 and 15) will eventually lead to a disaster, like this year. Does PA-10 *really* need to be a district that Bush carried by 20 points? If we retake this away from Carney in '08 (and we have a good chance) then we ought find a way to redistribute some of these GOP voters into other districts. Sherwood was a sleazeball and I thought so ever since I voted for him in my first election in Scranton in 1998 (Caseys make me cringe and I hate how they think that their power is a birthright like the Kennedys of MA).
I understand your point that some of this just happened but a more careful redistricting next time might be able to mitigate losses in the next wave.
There was no redistricting in Arizona.
Hayworth thought that immigration was the be-all, end-all issue, and that it was important enough to bring white voters out to support him. He talked about almost nothing else, wrote a book about it, advertised on it.
And he was wrong. He lost because support for tough immigration policy -- while not necessarily politically harmful to him -- is a mile wide and an inch deep. His single-minded focus on it probably made him look like a fool.
Meanwhile, all Mitchell had to do was say a few sweet words on border enforcement and he neutralized the issue for most people. Now he'll go vote for amnesty, and no one will care when that happens, either.
I don't even know if secular matters so much -- just no more Southerners, please!
Well, the issue with those four southeast suburban districts is that they're bordered largely by a) each other or b) urban districts like 1, 2, and 13. There's not much alternative to doing what they're doing. The mapmakers tried to create a Republican suburban district by collapsing Borski and Hoeffel and then creating the new PA-06 district further out. While they succeeded, they did so just barely, because PA-06 is a swing district with a strong incumbent. The differential between swinging MontCo and lower Bucks and Republican DelCo, ChesCo, and Upper Bucks seems to have evaporated this year, turning all assumptions on their head. So I don't think they could have drawn districts any better than they did; particularly not with Weldon living in Marcus Hook, which anchors his district on the Delaware River. You have a consistent mix of voters across the region.
Making PA-10 more Democrat would only conceivably affect PA-11 (is that Kanjorski's district?) and I don't think that would lead to a change. It would restore what we had before redistricting, with a Scranton-based district and a Wilks-Barre-based district, and both could be competitive, but not heavily so.
If we control redistricting, and Pennsylvania loses 1 seat, here's what we can do:
1) eliminate PA-12, forcing Murtha to retire if he's still around. That part of the state has the most population loss anyway. Put the Democrat areas in PA-4 (they vote the same way--socially conservative Democrat--so could be redeemed for a Republican in the future) and divide the rest among PA-18 and PA-9.
2) Take apart PA-17 to unlock Republican voters. Put Schuylkill County (which singlehandedly keeps Tim Holden alive) in with the 11th. Put rural counties of the 11th in the 10th, enough to top up the population but not to tip it Democrat. Then take the Northumberland/Snyder county area and attach it to a Harrisburg-based 17th district.
3) Move PA-6 further south, and out of Montco, to make it safer. Shed those inner-ring suburbs to PA-13 and PA-7. Push PA-16 and PA-19 further west as PA-9 also moves west to take up Murtha's old district.
This way we cut 2 Democrat seats (assuming a loss of 1 overall to the state) and shore up PA-6 as an exurban seat. We write off PA-8 and PA-7 until they become open or the suburban voting changes, but keep PA-4 competitive for a superstar like Melissa Hart.
Good news.
I believe humility all-around is a good prescription.
I like your suggestions, especially regarding PA-12. If we force Murtha out and can shift the map just a bit then there's got to be a way to make that district go red, because Kerry only won it by 3 points.
PA-11 is Kanjorski's district, and I think you're right - he's not going anywhere. Though I would have loved to see Lou Barletta beat him. That guy is great on the immigration issue.
On PA-6, Gerlach *DESERVES* a safer district after surviving in a horrible environment this year. PA-7 and PA-8 are probably gone in their current incarnation (or anything similar) for a while.
We have weak State GOP Chairman in a lot of states who don't have a clue. Rove did a poor job in this election IMHO. We did not have a huge GOTV drive instead depending on scare tactics which do not work!
Gerlach drew the district himself, so he gets exactly what he deserves. ;) But I agree that he's done very well for himself and should have a second chance to fix those lines.
You seem to discount the fact that Mitchell was not Hayworth's opponent in 2002 and 2004. He was a very popular former Mayor of Tempe. What was Mitchell's position on illegal immigration? Hayworth supported Bush on the war in Iraq? What role did the Abramoff scandal play in this election?
Check out this Harry Mitchell political ad and tell me why Hayworth's stand on illegal immigration is not even mentioned if it was such a pivotal issue? It was all about corruption, Hayworth's wife being on the payroll, support of the Bush position on Iraq, and stem cell research.
Huh but between 2004 and 2006, Hayworth jumps on the Tancredo harsh rhetoric bandwagon, and gets his his voice on Imus, bashing Bush, and what happens in the district that Hayowrth won with 60% of the vote in the previous two elections, he loses. There is a lesson there, for those who will see it.
The lesson is about personal corruption and not illegal immigration. Why is Tancredo being reelected if his harsh rhetoric is so offputting. Hayworth supported Bush on the war and limited funding for embryonic stem cell research. He was connected to Abramoff.
I have a second home in Scottsdale. Like so many things in this world, there are not simple answers or reasons. Life is more complex than that. Hayworth did not lose because of his stance on illegal immigration. There were a number of factors that contributed to his defeat.
Immigration wasn't the kind of liability that Mitchell would advertise against. He just had to neutralize it.
Hayworth's problem is that immigration was ALL he talked about and advertised about, and it's not something people care enough about to make them support a candidate.
His commercials were clearly calculated to generate fear about illegal immigration, but people just weren't afraid enough to care -- or to vote for him.
Yep. In fact, the GOP losses were way below historical averages for "6th year of a two-term President" losses. Carville said the same thing last week when he said Howard Dean needs to be fired. Privately, the rats were expecting a whole lot more than they got.
Eaxactly. Rove's GOTV machine is a great way to squeeze every possible vote out of the pool of folks who want you to win. It reminds the forgetful, focuses the disoriented, and motivates the lazy.
What it does not do is affect the size of the pool of folks who want you to win. Turnout is important, but it is not a substitute for, through your deeds more than your words (at least when you are in power), convincing people to support what you support, and getting them into the pool of folks who want you to win, where GOTV can make a idfferance.
This is not to say that individual votes may not be wrongly rejected, lost in the mail or the counting room, etc., but never just wholesale ignored.
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.