-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up
February 12, 2012 | 22 comments
-
Quick Hits from CPAC
February 11, 2012 | 45 comments
-
The Origins of Romneycare and Coultercare
February 9, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Rick Santorum Pulls the Trifecta
February 8, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Mark Levin on Clint Eastwood
February 7, 2012 | 5 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza says 49 is the most important number in politics today (one of his recurring features). That's the number of Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain, a subject I've discussed many times and bring up again in the fortchoming September issue of the print magazine.There are some districts that will be very difficult for the Democrats to hang onto in 2010, a fight that will made tougher by votes on the stimulus, cap and trade, and health care.
Writes Cillizza: "The problem for Pelosi in this debate is that her caucus is almost too big. Democrats picked up more than 50 seats in the past two elections, many of them in places like Idaho where Obama took just 36 percent; a vote for the president's agenda, particularly on an issue as divided along partisan lines as health care, could be enough to convince their constituents that they are more loyal to the national party than to their own state."
After the 2006 and 2008 elections, there was a lot of focus on the congressional seats once held by moderate to liberal Republicans, especially in the Northeast, that are now held by liberal Democrats. That's a real trend, and it isn't going away anytime soon, just like the Southern districts that went from electing conservative Democrats to voting for conservative Republicans. But there are also a lot of districts that were real reaches for the Democrats and their trend away from the GOP is likely to prove temporary.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/27/dont-it-make-your-blue-dogs-bl
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Republic, Regained
- Useless Wonks
- Uncle Sam and the Chinese Dragon
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob| 7.27.09 @ 4:01PM
The changing demography of blacks, Hispanics, and younger voters will continue to favor Democrats especially in urban settings. The key is in suburban and exurban districts. That is where the demography is changing the fastest as blacks and Hispanics integrate and move up the economic ladder.
As long as Republicans continue to show an anti-color bias -- as with Sotomayor and the recent Cambridge police matter -- they will continue to lose. I wonder about the percentage of Republicans who have black or Hispanic BEST FRIENDS. In the last election, the only subgroup where McCain beat Obama were the old people. They tend to die off sooner than younger people.
That said, I do think you are right that there are some districts where Republicans will gain for the reasons you state -- but there will not be a large number. Furthermore, I think that districts with large Hispanic populations will move even further towards Dems after the Sotomayor vote.
Pete| 7.27.09 @ 6:16PM
As long as the biased mainstream media continues to spew the same crap you just did ("Republicans continue to show an anti-color bias..."), Republicans will have trouble. Of course any thinking person (who wasn't CEO of every industry throughout his life, like Bob) knows that is a crock of shit.
Roy| 7.27.09 @ 8:53PM
"Bob" knows it too, but he is a pathological liar who claims to have translated the Bible from the "original Aramaic"(it was written in Hebrew) at age 10: http://spectator.org/blog/2008/12/05/change-harvard-law-can-believe
Why substantively argue with Republicans when you can spew horse crap?
Missy| 7.27.09 @ 10:37PM
Americans are 40% Conservative and 20% Liberal: With strong leadership we can retake the Independents regardless of what Bonehead Bob says. He's a troll, anyway--blow him off.
Bob| 7.28.09 @ 10:35AM
Pete, if you think that Republicans don't have an "anti-color" bias, please show me some data to back that up. For example, how many black delegates were there at the Republican convention (hint: 36 out of thousands). What percentage of the vote do Republicans get for blacks and Hispanics (hint: 6% and 34% respectively). Does that mean there is an underlying bias? You betcha!
Roy, character assassination doesn't change the facts. You don't want to deal with facts, I understand that, you are a Palin supporter.
Missy, another post lacking logic and rationality. Aren't you ashamed to post such tripe? Go the next step and tell us how you're going to deal with the demographic and population shifts and why that will grow the Republican Party. Do you really think saying that a black President is not a natural born citizen will get blacks to vote for Republicans? Do you really think that voting against Sotomayor will get Hispanics to vote for Republicans? Give me a break.