The Murray Conundrum
 

Certain historians have claimed that Mussolini was considered by his contemporaries to be intelligent, so was Stalin. That is no excuse for the excesses of oppressive tyranny that either committed.

Seriously though and maybe the liberals can answer this, how is it that the Democratic party is evolving to a place where this pseudo-new age-Marxist is someone whom they worship as "The Smartest Woman In The World"? Its stupifying.

Its interesting Hank, that you compare the Clintons to Mussolini. Much as revisionist historians in Italy, prompted by Il Duce's granddaughter Alessandra, have used the red-herringed imagery of his efficient operation of the trains to elicit posthumous sympathy from the younger generations of doltish European youth, Hillary likewise seeks to work her evil spells on the undereducated children of our nation. It takes a socialist village.

However, what is rarely mentioned is that Hillary's commitment to children comes from her mentor, Saul Alinsky, a man who was an avowed communist who taught her that the way to bring about social change was to state that the issue was all about the children. People would respond positively if that was the perception. She has never strayed from that phrase, and it is still as effective with the defective minded now, as it was then at allowing her to push for Socialism without alarming most people.

http://richard.meek.home.comcast.net/HitlerTraitor6.JPG

back to partisanship
 

Republicans will continue to gain demographic ground as the hispanic population increases.

My conversations with certain Jewish Republican leaders also leaves me hopeful that the Jewish-American voting block is waking up to the fact that the Dems will continue to seek to sell out Israel's future viability to the Palestinians to appease the anti-semitic states of Western Europe, eg: France, Germany, Benalux, and Spain.

back to partisanship
 

I don't know where you get your stats but it is a little more bleak than you paint it. You have to remember that the Republican party used to be a competitive party prior to the Southern Democrats changing sides. Conservatives had huge majorities in Congress and the Senate when you added the Republicans to the Conservative Democrats. In the Presidential Relm the only Democrats that could win were conservatives from the Solid South (Carter, Clinton, Gore). Now that the entire south has moved to the Republican party, and all the conservatives are pretty much in one party and the parties are almost at parity.

In the last two presidential elections people in rural areas voted for Bush and People in the cities voted for Gore and Kerry. The battle was in the suburbs. In the last election Kerry won the non Southern subarbs by a large margin and Bush won the southern suburbs by a minor margin. What gave Bush the edge in the popular vote was the huge margins in the rural areas - especially in the south.

What gave Bush the edge in the electoral college was the fact that the system favors small rural states. Each state regardless of size gets two extra electoral votes for their Senators. In addition, even if the state has less than 500,000 people the state gets one electoral vote, even though you normally only get one electoral vote for every 500,000 people. Wyoming with only 300,000 people gets three electoral votes.

Kerry did well even though he was a liberal from Massachusettes. How crazy is that. In the nation as a whole rural America is disappearing. The cities are growing slightly and the suburbs are really growing, but rural areas are still hemorraging.

A new type of voter that never existed before, has appeared and is growing at an alarming rate. The secular voter. Moderate religious people are diminishing, Evangelicals are growing, but the secular vote is growing even faster. The strongly religious used to be divided among the parties but they are almost all Republican now. And even though they are all Republican they only make up about sixty percent of the Republican vote.

White people in America, like white people everywhere, are diminishing because they are not reproducing. What is keeping America at par is the reproducing non-whites and immigration. All these groups trend strongly toward the Democratic side. All this immigration is increasing the amount of non-christians in this country and they mostly vote Democrat.

The bright point is that the exploding suburbs ten to be fiscallly conservative. So if you focus on economics conservatives can win over the suburban voter. But the Suburban voters are less religious than both the urban and rural voters. It is also in the suburbs where the secular voters are exploding.

California will continue to grow and become more politically significant with each passing year. The Silicon Valley's population may have diminshed but the South is growing like a weed. Every census California gets more electoral points and these will continue into the future. The only reason California does not have more is because of our huge illegal population. But you have to remember that the children of these illegal immigrants get automatic citizenship. The secular vote in California is up to 24% and is growing. These voters, unlike most Democrats, do show up and the polls, and are almost exclusively Democrat. California has more fundamentalists than any other state (you read that right) but they are completely eclipsed by the rest of the population. If you want to look to the future of American, just look at California.

back to partisanship
 

Is the growing hispanic population of SoCal secular? That seems at odds with the religious nature of the populace of the countries that those immigrants are coming from, no?

back to partisanship
 

No the Hispanic population is not secular but they are not stridently religious and they vote Democrat overwhelingly. Unlike the non-hispanic conservative catholics, the Hispanics see the Republicans (and their religious right allies) as anti-catholic. The non hispanic catholics have decided to ally themselves with the Christian fundamentalists,even with their anti-Catholic rhetoric, because of the social issues. The hispanics Catholics are less forgiving.

back to partisanship
 

The generations above ours are already lost causes, but our generation and the generation below have already begun the movement right. Interestingly, many are faced with a tough choice (for them) as their liberal ideaology butts up against their religious teachings and beliefs.

The Murray Conundrum
 

From talking to certain WA republicans I have an added insight. Cantwell leaned on Murray. She had to vote yes and needed the additional support as she is in the crosshairs bigtime by Rossi (very pro-Biz) and State GOP for the 2006 election. Rossi has already proven, twice, that he can get more than 50% of the vote in a statewide election and Cantwell spent her fortune into oblivion in 2000 to win by 3000 votes (which with the recent King County fraud that came to light was probably not a real victory). She needs business money and a pro-biz stance if she is to survive.

I have worked on recruiting Hispanics into the Republican party here in California, but they have a huge problem with the fundamentalist anti-Catholic bent. They just don't trust protestant whites. This is one of the least talked about advantages Arnold had - he is Catholic.

back to partisanship
 

As in other areas, these hispanic catholics would seem ripe for the GOP. You don't have to be stridently religioous to be more conservative than the mainstream and it seems like the hispanic catholics are generally more observant than the mainstream progressive non-hispanic american catholics, who by and large break with the church on big issues like abortion, women priests etc. Also, the Republican party is the party of the American dream. The limousine liberals just want to keep these people on the plantation with their other minority constituents.

Why have the numbers looked as if the hispanic vote is trending right for presidential elections? Or did I imagine that this was talked about after the last election?

I don't blame them, I don't really trust the white protestants either. No offence Hank.

Bush pulled off a very difficult act. He pulled together a disparate group of people that had never voted solidly together before. Jewish, Catholic and Protestant religious conservatives, rural people, and white males (he was even able to pull in a lot more white females than Republicans had before.)

The problem is that he alienated, and ticked off, every other type of American and that is where the demographic increases are. Non-whites, secular voters, non-southern suburban voters and non-judeo-christians.

But again I go back to the Hispanic voter. That is a huge growth demographic that looks like it is trending right. I understand the issues you raised but it seems that they are the battleground. Forgetting about California (no offence)-let's write it off for the next 10 election cycles, but focus on the SW and Florida and solidify the hispanic populaces there. Again, I will note, I think the dream ticket for 08 is McCain and Jeb (and I say as a McCain hater, but that is a ticket I would vote for. McCain and anyone else and I may write in Slave.)

He's a hardworker. Worked hard. Every day. It was hard work, but he was there. doing it. Hard.

In his spare time he ran a lumber company.

back to partisanship
 

In his last election for Governor of Texas, Bush pulled in fifty percent of the Hispanic vote. This made everyone think he was going to suck in a lot of hispanics when he ran for President, although he did better than most Republicans in 2000 but by 2004 the numbers had gone back down. Catholic candidates really help in California and Florida but nationwide I think a Catholics gains among the hispanics would be offset by the backlash from the fundamentlists. I don't really know this but it is a guess.

back to partisanship
 

the Republicans rule for the forseeable future. an extreme social conservative wins the White House handily, basically writing off Mi. NY Calif and Pa.

Those state will all elect moderate republicans statewide. If McCain had ran for president he'd get 60% of the vote, but the primary proess makes that too hard.

And Spank, far be it for me to question you, but what do you mean about huge margins for Reps in congress? Congress was ran by the Dems until 10 years ago, wasn't it?