 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
As a registered Republican who voted almost totally Democratic in the last two elections, in a Bible Belt (religious fundamentalist) red state (redundant, I know), Imran's analysis is closest to the reality I see down here. By the way, Imran, I spent the second half of my childhood in NJ, in a place called Middletown. How close are you?
The RR has a lock on the Republican Party mechanisms, for a variety of reasons. The most important of which, and I have posted on this multiple times, is that they vote in primary elections, especially in off-Presidential years. The last I saw, the number of religious fundamentalists in the country was 21%, and I've just pulled up some figures of 15-18% believing that the rapture is coming (Google "rapture Christ" and you'll get 404,000 hits - they can explain it better than I can if you are not familiar).
Now lets accept those figures, at least the 21%. Now let's further figure that 90% of them are voting Republican. That is 18%. If the Republicans have 51% of the popular vote, that means that people who are members of the RR comprise 35% of Repblican voters. Now, in an off year (no Presidential race) primary, 7-21% of the voters (from memory). If you figure that RR tend to vote in double the numbers, due to conviction and the fact that their leadership consistantly pushes them to vote, you get roughly half the votes to win the primary. That's a pretty substantial number.
This results in 70% of the party platform committee being members of the RR, if again memory serves me correctly for the 2000 election. Republican candidates are kept in line by threats of having a contested primary. Even if they win it, having a contested primary makes you MUCH more likely to be defeated in the November election. So even moderate Republicans like Arlan Spectre can be made to toe the party line (google his name and the Judiciary committee, you'll get some stories if you haven't followed it.
In the South and Midwest these numbers are worse, in more northern states the percentage control of the RR is diluted. Nevertheless, as long as they are willing to vote, and compromise with the neocons over various financial and business issues, they will control the party. I don't see moderates taking back control of the party, instead I see them leaving it, but I hope I am wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
I remember Toms River (note - this is over two decades ago) as a blue collar town, bowling, etc. The last time I visited my sister outside New Brunswick, about five years ago, they had their own Little India nearby. The state has really changed. Is Sandy Hook still mobbed during the summer?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
I think Guiliani, Schwarzennegger or McCain could win a national election if nominated. The RR may stay at home, but many Dems and independents would cast their votes for these popular figures. The problem, as everyone notes here, is for these folks to capture the nomination itself with the RR voting in block for a social conservative. Even though Jeb denies any intention of running for pres., what he has done in this Schiavo case had endeared him to the RR.
Also, as noted by Pat Robertson, Bush I lost the election to Clinton primarily because he downplayed the social issues and caused the RR to stay at home. So even though I think Guiliani, et al., could win without their support, there is no recent record to support this notion and it may in fact not be true.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-03-2005 10:25
My family considers themselves "Kennedy liberals" and they are nothing like you. 
.
.
|