Posted on 05/11/2005 11:39:20 AM PDT by neverdem
But Party's Internal Divisions Are Called an Obstacle
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, helped redraw the political landscape in America, giving President Bush and the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. But Republicans may have difficulty consolidating the gains because of divisions within their expanded coalition.
The survey underscored how important the issues of terrorism and national security and Bush's personal appeal were in helping the GOP put together a winning coalition of voters in 2004. The findings suggest that Bush's reelection depended not just on motivating the Republican base but also on his success in attracting swing voters and even some Democrats.
Both parties enjoy strong support among their core voters, but the Pew study concluded that Republicans have done a more effective job in attracting support among voters with less allegiance to either party. Bush's campaign attracted support in the middle from well-educated, upbeat voters as well as those who are more down-scale and pessimistic about their own situation.
"In effect, Republicans have succeeded in attracting two types of swing voters who could not be more different," the study reports. "The common threads are a highly favorable opinion of President Bush personally and support for an aggressive military stance against potential enemies of the U.S."
Foreign policy issues now provide the clearest distinction between Republican- and Democratic-leaning voters, with Republicans favoring assertive policies and military action and Democrats calling for diplomacy and multilateral strategies. Before the Sept. 11 attacks, foreign policy differences played a minimal role in distinguishing the party coalitions.
One other important difference defines the Democratic- and Republican-leaning voters. Those who tilt to the GOP are more personally optimistic and believe in the power of the individual, regardless...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This is pretty Reaganesque. If you're optimistic and forward thinking you vote GOP. If you're a pessimist who thinks that the country's best days are behind us, you tend to vote Democrat. Being as Americans are a generally positive bunch, the GOP is now gaining.
Come 2006 and 2008, unless there is another major terror attack, IMO illegal immigration, outsourcing and the importation of workers from other countries will become the flash issues.
And, if the terror attack comes from thugs sneaking over the border, that will be doubly so.
I see the existing political alignments going through enormous upheavals over the next three to seven years. The question is, if the GOP continues to ignore its base over immigration, will a third party emerge - and will that emerging third party become a player or just a spoiler?
Ummm.. Somebody better tell the W.Post the political landscape was re-drawn well before 9/11.
These people are living in a fantasy world.
I believe the Third Party will become a player if it can get organized properly.
Because they will draw disenchanted blue-collar Democrats who are sick of illegals and tired of the party running to the far-left with Howard Dean types as well as Republicans.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, helped redraw the political landscape in America, giving President Bush and the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats
In the goofy spooky world of DU, this qualifies as rock solid proof that Bush and his minions planned and orchestrated the attacks of 9/11.
The relatively more rational voices over there don’t believe that is likely. They believe the BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire) simply knew the attacks were about to happen and allowed them for the political advantage.
These are the things they debate over there.
I agree - the wild card is how much appeal a new party would have to conservative Dems. Especially if the party is also pro-life.
>
> But Republicans may have difficulty consolidating the gains
> because of divisions within their expanded coalition.
>
if a Republican President and Republican Senate cannot get a few conservative judges appointed there won't be any need to consolidate the gains. it's not like they are for smaller government or reduced spending and if they can't get a few judges appointed what's the difference?
But the majority of attacks on Americans happened during the Clinton years. Bush only had one, and that was a Clinton left over. Is that what Clinton was really trying to do instead? Are they confessing?
"One other important difference defines the Democratic- and Republican-leaning voters. Those who tilt to the GOP are more personally optimistic and believe in the power of the individual, regardless of income, while those inclined toward the Democrats are more negative or even fatalistic in their attitudes about the future."
This is true and I don't need a study to tell it to me.
For now maybe. And while Bush's victory last year was impressive and historic, it was nonetheless only 3 points against a very liberal Northeastern elitist Senator. It was uncomfortably close, and its true that a shift of 60,000 votes or so in Ohio would have changed everything. Of course that bit is a leftwing soundbite excuse to make their loss seem less decisive, as the same could be said of narrowly-blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsisn, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.
Reagan crushed his northern liberal opponent in one of history's greatest landslides. If the Dems nominate Hillary, then hopefully the GOP candidate will do to her what Reagan did to Mondale, instead of what Bush did to Kerry. Though in the end, beating her is all that really matters.
I beleive that they have start with a premise and then went out shopping for an answer. Their choice of topology supports this.
Bush has a "winning" personality.
You're absolutely right. My real point was that the Dems seeming inability to stop their constant griping, whining, and fear-mongering is doing them in. Every time Reid or Dean talks about how horrible things are, or Pelosi or Boxer compare the Administration to fascists the Dems hurt themselves. Theirs is perhaps the most negative and defeatist rhetoric to come out of Washington in my lifetime, and it's rapidly turning off potential voters. The real question is, is it turning voters off of the DNC, or away from the voting booth entirely?
And that will probably set us back another 20 years, because the third party will take more Conservatives than liberals and split the conservative block while doing very little damage to the liberals. This would be terrible strategic blunder. It takes a LONG time to build a party.
If the Republicans, (and conservatives in general) want to continue to guide this country to the future they will have to make a mid-course correction rather than jumping ship.
Its easier to replace the bridge crew than it is to rebuild the boat.
You can only ignore the passengers wishes for so long, because the passengers own the boat.
Hokay.... I think I've stretched the "ship of state" analogy about as far as it will go....
I think you went a little bit overboard.
But that's OK.
I've believed that for a couple of years. The Libertarian Party is a prime candidate for picking up the #2 spot, but they've first got to solve that vexing riddle that's been troubling them for so long--were the Apollo moon landings filmed in New Mexico or Nevada?
ping
Watch those guys take the dem issues right out from under them. Bipartisan immigration reform is coming, budget surpluses, and even drawdown of troops by election time. They may not be perfect, but I prefer debating senate procedure (boring) to bj's in the oval office and storm troopers in Miami.
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.