Redstate

I agree with your EV analysis.  Solidly blue states such as MA and NY are likely to lose a congressional district in 2010. That has been a trend and, in and of itself, is a plus for Republicans.

I don't agree with your conclusion however.

It is difficult for me to look at something through a purely political lens, and I believe your conclusion does that.  Regardless of setting, those in power are expected to produce for the people they serve.  Corporate officers are expected to maximize shareholder wealth, Teachers must educate their students, and Coaches must train their athletes.

If partisanship does not produce results it won't get the Republicans re-elected.   The Republicans are going to have to run on their records if they want to maintain their majority status in 2006.   The days of labeling Democrats as obstructionists are over; if the party that controls Congress and the Presidency can't produce results they won't get re-elected and it won't matter all that much why they aren't producing.

Also, from a leadership perspective, blind partisanship is the sign of a poor leader.  When a person is elevated to a leadership position they are responsible to those who don't agree with their decisions as well as those who do.  I believe the average person has little respect for a decision maker who does not attempt to hear the opinion of those affected by his decisions.

Politics is a means to an end.  If voters think Republicans are ruling to achieve an American end they will get re elected if voters believe the Republicans are ruling to achieve a Republican end they will not.

I agree with many of your points, especially as to why partisanship sucks (more or less).  However, if people are identifying more with one party and voting aligned with that identification that has an effect on elections.  Given a large independent block, you are right to point out that poor results (or more likely corrpution or scandal) could lead to a swing in either direction as independents bolted.

However, given no major scandals, issues such as judicial nominations will increase partisan feelings especially in Senate races.  For example, I find it very hard to believe that a Dem could win any Senate seat in 2006 that is not a) in a "blue" state or b) an open seat. Vice versa for Republicans.

The only major disagreement I have with your statement is thus: "days of labeling Democrats as obstructionists are over."  Only if they stop being obstrucitonists.  I think it is a strong attack on "red" state Democrats who help Democrats impede judicial nominees or other business the President is pushing.  In fact, the findings of the study speak to exactly that: people are splitting their ballots less.  So Nelson (D-NE) and Dorgan (D-ND) are likley to lose more votes than in the past if the President helps their opponent.  And by watching the Senate, I can't say people are wrong for doing so.  If you trust the President to nominate good judges and then your Senator is blocking them, something has to give.  Since Senators are bucking their party less and less, it makes sense that voters are less willing to trust them to strike an "independent" stance. I think OK voters ditching moderate Carson for rabid Coburn is a good example of this trend.

Final question: If Republicans did produce results (reform SS, reform tax structure, bankruptcy bill, 2 new SC justices, etc) would any center-left people vote Republican because of it?  Conversely, would center-right people vote for a Democrat if Republicans fail to accomplish those things?

Partisanship is probably bad for the country.  But in sheer political terms, it is good for Republicans.

"us against them" should have us all concerned.  I mean, those things that America has been able to do that make it great, are usually arrived at with everyone at the table, not just one party.

Along those lines I was a bit aken aback by this article in the  Colorado Springs Gazette I saw while surfing this AM.

What do you all think?

I know this topic probably been over-addressed in other posts, but there is room to maneuver in the center with the non-social moderate conservatives (as opposed to the asocial ones, I suppose).  Nothing to the point of a strong national movement by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think the fabric in your tent is showing a few frays and thin spots.  Again, it's not happening today, or next year, but just as the Democratic coalition's eventual fatal flaws were apparent before the collapse, so too the Republican majority can already see the cause of its demise.  Whether it happens in 2 years, 5 years, or 20 years may be a function of the talent level on both sides of the aisle, but I think it will eventually come to a crisis.

I also think some Red states are trending toward battleground status, if not in 2006 or 2008, in the longer picture.  Virginia is not as red as it has been, and North Carolina has a celebrated two-party tradition.  Arizona is not the bulwark it once was.  Nevada has formally become a red-leaning battleground.  New Hampshire and Maine are marching out the door, and Ohio is bluer than it has been in a long time.  At the same time, the old upper Midwest is shading redder.  Not all the trends are in favor of coloring the map red.  Some of these demographic moves to red states are bring more blue voters to the fold.  Not that it matters in fortresses like Texas, but I'm not quite so pessimistic in the face of your optimism.

Not to mention the local moves to Democratic legislatures may help us win some redistricting battles in 2010 if the trend continues.

As for Congress, I do agree it's getting harder to produce Olympia Snowes and Ben Nelsons, and this plays to Republican advantage.

Like the one who said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for".  Or the same one who said that Republicans are "brain dead".

I must say, I don't recall anything as divisive coming from President Bush.  But please feel free to link to any comments where he disparages an entire group of people as brain dead.

I don't like partisanship, but it is not just the Republicans who are pushing it.  The Senate Democrats use of an unprecedented filibuster on judicial nominees and opposition to routine cabinet appointees on top of the escalating rhetoric and the embrace of the Michael Moore left is just as responsible as anything Republicans have done.

for posting the article.  But I'm not sure how your comments relate to mine.

I stated that I think most of us are on the same page with most things.  That includes both parties and more importantly, the general public.

Did you read the article from the Gazette?  Doesn't stuff like that give you some cause for concern?

Re: I also think some Red states are trending toward battleground status, if not in 2006 or 2008, in the longer picture.

When people point out that some "blue" states are losing population and hence they stand  lose congressional seats, they need to consider that the lost population hasn't boarded a spaceship and flown off to Mars. Rather all those "blue" voters have migrated somewhere else, reducing the "redness" of that area. We saw this in the last election with New Hampshire which has received lots of Massachusetts transplants. Likewise in the Sunbelt places like Nevada and Florida are a lot closer to being pure purple because of all the internal immigration they have received.

The Dems are in the minority and they are doing all they can to make their voices heard by the other side.  Actions which you call obstructionist others call taking a definative position.  As long as the Dems don't try to be on both sides of an issue they should be able to brush off any claims of obstructionism (if that is a word).    

Regarding your question, I would guess 30% of voters on the Left and 30% of voters on the Right might express their opinion by not voting at all but it is unlikely that they will vote for the other side.  The other 40% is up for grabs, and they are the voters who are expecting results instead of or inspite of partisanship.  

You and I care about Supreme Court Justices and filibustering judicial nominees but I would guess that the vast majority of the country really doesn't care all that much about those things.  They do care about affordable healthcare, funding their retirements, sending their kids to college, taking care of their elderly parents, keeping a good paying job, the price of gas, and owning a home.  If the Republicans, or any majority party for that matter, do not address those concerns they will be in trouble.  

If you can beat up the Democrats and keep most of the 40% happy you should be fine.  I think you are underestimating the Democrats, however, by suggesting partisanship is the proper path for the Republicans.   I think the Dems have finally realized they are a minority party and they are changing their tactics. It will be more difficult for the Republicans to win with the same rhetoric as in 2004.  

Aleks, that is somewhat true.  But remember that all states grew in the 1990s (and according to my projects all buy DC and ND grow in the 2000s), it is how fast you grow.  States like MA have very low birthrates (MA is the lowest), while UT has the highest in the country.  Add in immigration to FL, TX, and CA and most of the growth is probably not due to migration as much as population growth.  In a few places, the migration is significant.  Specifically, MA to NH and ME; NY to FL; and CA to NV.

I hope you're right because I'm conflicted between my desire for less partisanship and my scholarly analysis that it is increasing.

During the whole run-up to the 2004 election, the polls did not swing that much.  Your 40% is much too high in my opinion (i.e. no one could win 70% in a national eleciton).  At most it is 20% that is up for grabs, but I would say it is closer to 10% right now.  Errs on either side could add to that number.  Specifically, Republicans are trying to move many African-Americans away from stright Dem tickets and into a swing category while Democrats are hoping to lop off some libertarian Republicans in the same manner.

I think your list of "average Joe" concerns sounds like the standard Democratic "they agree with us" list.  And it leaves off things that are important to many people such as the war on terror, abortion and gay marriage.  Those issues (which include the judiciary) downed Daschle and I expect they will play strongly in ND, NE, FL, and WV (if Byrd retires).

Obstructing the majority is a strategy for a minority party, but it is not the only one.  It may help Democrats more in the House, but in the Senate the scales are tipped against them.  They have to win in some "red" states to get a majority.  Furthermore, obstruction will hurt their chances when open seats come in NE, ND (2), SD, AR (2), WV (2), FL, and IN.

Your analysis is probably very apt for swing states such as PA, OH, WI, MN, NV, CO, and MI.

Very valid points as the coalitions fluctuate.  Right now I don't see much opportunity for Republicans (either social or fiscal) in the Democratic tent.  So they may get frustrated but they have no where to go.  That could change, but it would take rejecting the far left as Clinton did to do it (I'd start by not inviting Michael Moore to anything, especially not the DNC).  That being said, there is alreaedy strong push by Republicans to win over socially conservative African-Americans, Catholics and Hispanics that seems to working, if slowly.

As for battleground states, they will definitely switch around.  But remember that VA, NJ, and CA were almost equally close in 2004 (+8, -7, -9 respectfully).  And VA was 52-44 in 2000 and now 54-46 in 2004.  That isn't trending Democratic in my book.  The NoVa growth is not as Democratic as it is characterized.  While many young liberals do move there, many young Republican families do as well (especially farther out in Loudain County).  I would say the inflow is probably 55-45 Dem-Rep, which isn't going to change the  39%-35% edge Republicans have in the state to quickly.

Similar with NC and AZ.  NC in 2000 was 56-43 and in 2004 was 56-44.  AZ was 51-45 in 2000 and 55-44 in 2004.  Neither narrowed despite a popular Democratic Governor.  And both sent Republicans in the Senate.

NH, NV, and CO have all shifted into the battleground category while GA, LA, and AR have shifted out.

On the other side, NJ and the upper midwest (MI, WI, and MN) have shifted Republican recently.  And frustratingly, CA stays in the <10% category going 54-45 for Kerry.  If a candidate runs who Schwarzenneger can outwardly support, CA could become a swing state itself (to the horror of San Francisco).

Your point as to local legislatures and redistricting is well taken.  And any personalitis that shift the party messages obviously will have an impact.  But the Dean "I Hate Republicans" message will encourage partisanship and in my analysis hurt Democrats.  They need to win over disaffected Republicans, not insult them.

I don't see the Democrats getting a majority in the Senate any time in the next couple of decades, to be honest.  The number of low-population and thoroughly Republican states seems like an insurmountable hurdle.  Upheaval in the House is a better bet, though I'm dubious about that as well.

I think the best hope the left has for political influence in the near future is the presidency, governorships, and state legislatures.

First, I did check out the article and I was aware of the case.  The letter from the three liberals was on Kos.  It is disconcerting to me, but I'm not aware of how past administrations have dealt with their discontents so I don't know if this is new or just "business as usual."

Second, I was taking umbrage at the idea that "the current leadership," which I assumed meant the administration, was responsible for the increase in partisanship.  If that was not your intention, then I apologize.  My view is that this increase predated the President and has intensified during his Presidency.  He hasn't done a lot to overcome it, but both sides have flamed it.

the current senate, house & executive leaderships are significantly more partisan.   think that is partially true because they can be.

If you are comparing to Clinton, he couldn't be because he didn't have control of the other houses.

So, I guess my point is that we can get alot more accomplished more quickly if you look for allies in whatever party you find them.  That isn't the case in the House or Senate.  Bush has remained above the fray of the others but I don't see him crossing the aisle on any issues soon.

And while I'm at it.  Do you think people should be thrown out of publically funded events because of a bumper sticker on their car?  You seem to be avoiding that.

First, I think the President has tried to reach across the line.  On NCLB he worked with Senator Kennedy for gosh sakes (and thus dropped the school choice part which was the reason many of us wanted NCLB at the time).  On McCain-Feingold he signed legislation that was bipartisan.  Ditto bankruptcy bill.  The Medicare Bill was bipartisan.  None of those were ones I especially liked, but they were all bipartisan.  Even on SS, his words in the SOTU were:

Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table.

I know that none of these reforms would be easy. But we have to move ahead with courage and honesty, because our children's retirement security is more important than partisan politics. (Applause.) I will work with members of Congress to find the most effective combination of reforms. I will listen to anyone who has a good idea to offer. (Applause.)

I think many people want to believe the President doesn't work with Dems so they repeat it enough times to convince themselves of it.  He was a rather bipartisan Governor as well.

That being said, there are many Republicans and Democrats who have flamed the increasing partisanship.  The hateful vile of some leftist activists and those quick to play the anti-American card on th right are amplified by a media that loves conflict and it perpetuates a cycle.  I wish the politicians could at least try to reach out as the President did in the above quote.  But with Dems talking about "hat[ing] Republicans and all they stand for," it's hard to reach out to them.

As for the bumper sticker, I did respond.  It is disconcerting to me, but I don't really know if this is usual or just important now that its a Republican President.  

that if President Bush offered his 401K in addition to social security for those that want it, it would pass right away.  He has said he doesn't want that.  

Additionally, this wouldn't fix social security.  There would still need to be either 1) cuts in benefits, 2) tax increases (remove the $90,000 cap)or 3) some combination of both.  He has stated on numerous times he won't do #2 which eliminates #3 as well leaving #1 as the sole thing he will do but he won't address it.  I don't blame him for not wanting to address it.  Americans are notorious for not wanting to hear bad news.  But at some point, you have to say what is needed and work with those that can help you.

Now if he's using this as an exercise to try to increase republican representation and paint democrats as being the bad guy, it ain't workin out that way.  Maybe he should try something else.

So, I'm not against you.  I just don't agree with all your points.

My point about the 40% was that in any given election 40% of the voters do not identify strongly with one party or the other and therefore would consider voting for either party's candidate. The other 60% would probably not vote at all rather than vote for the other party.

IMO that litany of 'average Joe' concerns will matter more than gay marriage and abortion to the potential swing voters in 2006.  In the 2004 election those  'average Joe' concerns were not talked about.  The Democrats won't make that mistake again.  

Since the rating feature is disabled and I can't give you a "5", I will simply say Amen, right on, and well said.

Cheers -

Two distinct ideologies, or sometimes not so distinct, waging a fierce and spirited battle in the arena of ideas.  Pressing for passage of legislation, moving an agenda forward or advancing foreign or domestic policy is all part of the game.

Beyond partisanship is hate and loathing.  This usually occurs when one is consistently defeated in the battle of ideas, fails to develop any new ideas in the first place or experiences recurring losses at the hands of the voters.  Such is the current state of the Democratic Party.  I suspect it's that mindset that leads Dean to make such outrageous statements.

I see the situation getting much worse for the democrats before it levels off.  Hate is a powerful emotion and often overrules rational thought.  Permanent minority status for the democrats is a real possibility unless they're able to re-connect with mainstream, average Americans.  `We hate Bush and you should too,' just doesn't cut it with the majority of the electorate post 9-11.

What part of this story did you miss??  I wasn't happy that Bush indicated a willingness to budge on taxes, but indicate he did.

I would love it if we, as a country, actually discussed public policy in a spirited but non-partisan way.  

Partisan means - Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.

I think the 'hate and loathing' you imagine coming from the left is in fact frustration at being defeated without actually engaging in a battle of ideas.  

As an aside:

I can't think of a more arrogant term than 'average Americans'.  Who is actually an 'average American'?  What causes one to be an 'unaverage American'? Are there any 'average Democratic Americans' or does the term only apply to non-Democrats?

An average American voted for W, shops at Wal-Mart, works at a factory in the midwest, goes to church 7 days a week, speaks with an twang, listens to country music, hates terrorists, loves mom and flies 4 American flags in his/her front yard.  If that doesn't fit you, you aren't normal.

</sarc&gt

I don't see any evidence that Michigan has shifted Republican recently. The GOP has always been competitive there (the state certainly isn't a bastion of leftwing looney-toonery). In fact it went GOP in most of the presidential election cycles prior to 1992. Its governship has routinely changed parties, its congressional representatuon is fairly mixed and it usually had one GOP and one Dem senator. Nowadays it has shifted a bit Democrat actually, with a Democrat in the governor's mansion, two Dem senators and votes for Gore and Kerry. It isn't solidly Dem to the extent California is, but there's no evidence that it's swinging toward the GOP. Bush's slightly better showing in 2004 can be understood as a 9-11 effect combined with the draw of the anti-gay marriage initiative on the ballot.

Re: You and I care about Supreme Court Justices and filibustering judicial nominees but I would guess that the vast majority of the country really doesn't care all that much about those things.

I agree. This is an issue for True Believers on both sides. In a close election it can m,ake a difference by firing up the troops. We also need to remember that the public as a whole is not exactly outragred by the behavior of the courts. The public mostly cares about results not process and most of the major SCOTUS decisions (with the exception of the affirmatie action cases) have pretty much tracked public opinion.

All of the other things are doable but I just can't get into country mucic.  

Would it be possible to include Elvis in the country category so I can join the ranks?  Viva Las Vegas has a countryish feel doesn't it?

My historical knowledge only goes back to the early 1990s.  This isn't usually a problem since most recent trends started in the 1980s and early 90s (the South becoming staunchly Republican, for example).  I lumped MI in with WI and MN since the upper midwest seems to shifting (albeit slower than the South did) towards Republicans.  Hopefully a good Senate candidate to put up against Ms. Stabenow will help with MI outreach.

Everything I had seen had said he wouldn't consider a 401K type thing as an add on.

Me, I have a 401K at work that I'm sure is better than whatever they might offer so I probably wouldn't participate if they did offer it.

I would still like to see him address specifically how he will restore fiscal integrity to the Social Security.  I've said how I think it should be handled.  Let's hear how Bush proposes to do it.

ie- either cuts in benefits or raises in taxes/fees.

[First, I think the President has tried to reach across the line.  On NCLB he worked with Senator Kennedy for gosh sakes (and thus dropped the school choice part which was the reason many of us wanted NCLB at the time).  On McCain-Feingold he signed legislation that was bipartisan.  Ditto bankruptcy bill.  The Medicare Bill was bipartisan.  None of those were ones I especially liked, but they were all bipartisan]

The Bankruptcy Bill was definitely bipartisan and is the first step in major bankruptcy reform.