Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $19,157
22%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 22% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by No dems 2002

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • A New Era The GOP must reach minorities to win.

    01/01/2003 9:34:14 AM PST · 90 of 116
    No dems 2002 to RLK
    Actually, you're wrong. Dole did better with blacks and Asians than GW Bush did. I believe there is real momentum amongst Hispanics for the GOP, if they play their cards right.
  • A New Era The GOP must reach minorities to win.

    01/01/2003 9:32:52 AM PST · 87 of 116
    No dems 2002 to deport
    Yes, he did. The Democrats stirred the black hysteria to unprecedented levels in 2000, which is partly responsible for the Florida fiasco.

    But that also underscores the significance of Bush's strong performance with Hispanics. Truth is Bush did poorer with Asians and blacks than Dole did.
  • A New Era The GOP must reach minorities to win.

    01/01/2003 9:30:21 AM PST · 86 of 116
    No dems 2002 to AppyPappy
    Here's the link for the exit poll that shows how poorly Dole did.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html
  • A New Era The GOP must reach minorities to win.

    01/01/2003 8:30:12 AM PST · 60 of 116
    No dems 2002 to AppyPappy
    Actually, GW Bush did quite well with Latinos compared to Dole, who received just 21% of the Latino vote in 1996. That's 14 points below Bush.

    There are increasing example of Republicans doing better with Latinos in recent years, especially in the South and Southwest. Unlike homosexuals (or even blacks in certain instances), Latinos are much more likely to vote Republican without the GOP having to compromise itself on social issues.
  • A New Era The GOP must reach minorities to win.

    01/01/2003 7:16:01 AM PST · 22 of 116
    No dems 2002 to Valin
    Reaching out to minorities is fine.

    It's just HOW you reach out to them and WHICH ONES you reach out to. Hispanics are naturally quite easy to reach out to, because they're socially conservative and aren't interested in racially hysteric politics. They want to be Americans more than anything.

    But it's very important to not forget that whites are the foundation of the GOP and mustn't be marginalised. After all that's how the Democrats lost the white vote.
  • Bush remains [overwhelmingly] popular with state residents, Minnesota Poll finds

    01/01/2003 4:27:21 AM PST · 7 of 12
    No dems 2002 to JohnHuang2
    Thanks for posting this very interesting article. You know, I really believe that there are changes in the Minnesotan electorate that are coming along these days. GW Bush only lost Minnesota by about 2.5 percentage points. True, I know that Ralph Nader hurt Gore here, but Mr. Bush still received nearly 46% of the vote, and exit polls showed the Minnesota race would have been close even if Nader hadn't been on the ballot. Consider how Democrat Paul Wellstone was locked in a very close battle with Norm Coleman before he died and then Coleman upset favorite son Walter Mondale. The state has a GOP-controlled state house (82-52), and Democrats outnumber the GOP by just 35-31 in the state senate. The state's congressional delegation is growing increasingly Republican to where it's now 4-4 even. Four years ago it was 6-2 Dem and 2 years ago it was 5-3 Dem. The GOP only narrowly lost their US Senate seat in 2000, and, of course, they won a US Senate seat in 2002.

    The point is that Minnesota, the only state that hasn't voted for a GOP presidential candidate since 1972, is in the ballgame again. Interestingly, I don't think most Democrats see this coming. I think President Bush has an excellent chance to carry this state in November 2004.
  • Luhrmann recruits Kidman for film on bisexual action hero

    01/01/2003 4:18:56 AM PST · 2 of 12
    No dems 2002 to Cincinatus' Wife
    Pretty disgusting stuff. I don't like watching sodomy. Trust low-lives like Kidman and Di Caprio (both known for personal immorality) to do something like this.

    I hope the movie won't go over.
  • State Sen. Burton Switches To Mississippi GOP

    01/01/2003 4:11:18 AM PST · 59 of 67
    No dems 2002 to Theodore R.
    You've got to understand, though, Theodore, that there are quite a few southern Democrat voters who consistently vote Republican in federal politics, because they are very conservative on social and religious issues. Indeed, even in the US House of Representatives, there's a number of southern Democratic lawmakers who are socially conservative and are polar opposites from the average national Democrat. Just look at Rodney Alexander who was elected to Louisiana's 5th District; he won because he's pro-life, pro-gun and pro-Bush--hardly a Nancy Pelosi Democrat. Party switching is slower in some states (like Louisiana and Arkansas), but take a look at Texas, Virginia, South Carolina and even Florida, for instance. There has been, and I believe will continue to be a lot of party switching in the South for the same reason this Mississippi gentleman deserted a party that regards his type as insane.
  • Hillary's Legislative Record

    01/01/2003 4:00:47 AM PST · 13 of 13
    No dems 2002 to DWar
    Let's just pray that President Bush remains wise and avoids pitfalls with people like Hillary. If he stays smart (which I believe he will), these sleazy folks will continue to decline.
  • State Sen. Burton Switches To Mississippi GOP

    12/30/2002 4:21:14 PM PST · 24 of 67
    No dems 2002 to JohnnyZ
    Great news!

    Southern Democrats are kidding themselves to stay in the filthy Democratic Party. Switch over to the true majority party. Mississippi has long since ceased to be Democratic in presidential politics, for instance. It's time for real change down there.
  • Germany: A Lesbian's Vacation Paradise (Hold muh frau alert!)

    12/29/2002 1:19:52 PM PST · 19 of 28
    No dems 2002 to pepsionice
    Even still, it's totally disgusting to my taste. I'm completely shocked by the statistics, though I suppose I shouldn't be.

    Sounds like Germany is becoming a modern Sodom or Gommorrah?
  • GOP underperforms, but Dems are laughable

    12/29/2002 6:20:40 AM PST · 2 of 10
    No dems 2002 to Oldeconomybuyer
    This writer is a bit of a dolt. He has a point here and there but loses me in his folly.

    Does anybody have concrete knowledge yet that Clinton and Demi Moore are actually together. As disgusting as it sounds, I wonder if it's actually true?
  • The top Texas stories in 2002: Yates murder trial, GOP's statewide sweep into office top the list

    12/29/2002 6:18:52 AM PST · 2 of 2
    No dems 2002 to MeeknMing
    "The multiracial coalition lacked the political muscle and willpower of President Bush. His tremendous popularity in his home state was critical for GOP candidates, who easily beat back the tide of Democratic populism in the November general election. It didn't help that a predicted high turnout of Hispanics at the polls never materialized."

    This is slightly misleading in that it suggests that the GOP victory was almost artificial. While President Bush certainly helped, I think it would be misleading to assume that the Republicans would have lost without the President. The fact that the state ranks amongst the most Republican of the South certainly helped, too.
  • Molly Malcolm Survives Attempt to Purge Her as TX Democrat Chairman

    12/29/2002 4:13:51 AM PST · 6 of 7
    No dems 2002 to Theodore R.
    The Texas Democratic Party has been declining because it's worthless and immoral. I believe God has helped the Texas GOP, because it stands for better things. If Texas Democrats want to make a comeback, they should offer something good to Texas, rather than the fatigued liberal ideas and dogmas.

    That said, I don't think they have any such plans.
  • Germany: A Lesbian's Vacation Paradise (Hold muh frau alert!)

    12/29/2002 4:06:20 AM PST · 13 of 28
    No dems 2002 to Stavka2
    I must strongly disagree with you. Sex with the same sex is homosexuality/sodomy however you cut it.
  • Germany: A Lesbian's Vacation Paradise (Hold muh frau alert!)

    12/29/2002 4:05:33 AM PST · 12 of 28
    No dems 2002 to 11B3
    This is repulsively disgusting. I didn't realise German women were THIS bad, though I've heard similar surveys that reveal the bawdy lifestyles of the German people.

    Nevertheless, considering who conducted this survey, let's take it with a grain of salt. If I'm not mistaken, someone in the 1950's estimated that 10% of American men were homosexual. There's not even that many now, proving how wildly inaccurate such surveys can be.

    Homosexuals have no morality, so they'll be prone to have adventures with the truth.
  • Canada OKs pro-'gay' books for kids

    12/28/2002 10:58:43 AM PST · 14 of 27
    No dems 2002 to JohnHuang2
    I share your disgust for this ruling in Canada. I used to go to Canada quite a bit when I was a kid, and I always noticed how their standards were lower than ours, but this is putrid.

    Americans should pray that the liberal wing of our Supreme Court is purged and replaced with decent, conservative people who believe in making rational, righteous decisions. Our court isn't currently as bad as the Canadians, but it's also a big disappointment in many ways. But I have faith for better things.
  • Democrats challenge Ehrlich

    12/28/2002 10:53:10 AM PST · 9 of 13
    No dems 2002 to JohnHuang2
    Can you tell me what kind of a man that Bob Erlich is? Is he a RINO, or does he have some decent, conservative credentials?
  • RISING STAR GUIDES DEMOCRATS' EFFORT TO LURE HISPANICS

    12/28/2002 10:16:46 AM PST · 8 of 9
    No dems 2002 to rabidone
    You have a point, my friend. I always think it better to engage in meaningful dialogue than in hysterical shrieks.
  • Democratic presidential hopefuls to crowd California

    12/26/2002 5:14:27 AM PST · 19 of 20
    No dems 2002 to lewislynn
    Don't forget, ladies and gentlemen, that no state is firmly 100% in the camp of either party (though some seem close!) California is a divided state, with non-coastal California strongly Republican and coastal California heavily Democratic. Naturally, because coastal California is larger, the whole state leans to the Democrats, but not by a hopeless margin. Even in San Diego, the GOP is generally in the majority. Thus, to assume that the GOP is moribund in CA is to assume wrongly.

    Consider the following. Unlike truly Democratic states such as Massachusetts, which are so heavily Democratic it's hard to find any significant GOP representation, CA has a strong GOP representation. 40% of the state's house of representatives is GOP, while 35% of the state senate is GOP. 38% of the state's congressional delegation is GOP. While this is clearly the minority, it's still a significant representation. In states like Massachusetts, this percentage often hovers at zero or just above it.

    I firmly believe California is winnable. President Bush is going to give the GOP a real chance to win this state and many others that voted for Gore in 2000.
  • California Judges Urged to Terminate Ties to Boy Scouts

    12/26/2002 5:07:14 AM PST · 7 of 46
    No dems 2002 to Oldeconomybuyer
    It's for reasons like this that I utterly loathe the Democratic Party.

    And don't forget, it's helping defeat unworthy candidates like Max Cleland. Democrats are making a mistake of gargantuan proportions espousing such radical pro-homosexual views.

    Shame on them. May God deal with them according to their works.
  • Take a Lott of consideration on this one

    12/14/2002 1:51:26 PM PST · 25 of 28
    No dems 2002 to Monti Cello
    I have a complex argument here. I was sorely disappointed with Lott's handling of Clinton's impeachment, and I longed for a more Tom Delay-type leader, one who had the guts for standing firm.

    But this should have happened a long time ago. Now, I think is a very awkward time to depose Lott, because it will make the GOP look like it will tapdance (the word you disliked) whenever the CBC or Terry Macauliffe calls a tune. I can't stand that. Those people are disgustingly out of line. When did they ever call for the censure of Cynthia McKinney? If they did I'd like to know about it.

    It will look as if Lott was fired merely for uttering a few unwise words and it will seem that the GOP is beholden to crazy civil rights leaders, many of whom are really racists themselves. That just doesn't ring right to me, that's all I can say.
  • How many of you heard that Beauprez won Colorado's 7th?

    12/14/2002 1:10:07 PM PST · 1 of 11
    No dems 2002
  • Take a Lott of consideration on this one

    12/14/2002 1:02:00 PM PST · 17 of 28
    No dems 2002 to Monti Cello
    I'm getting close to saying the same thing to you, amigo, because your rationale is slim on this whole thing.
  • Take a Lott of consideration on this one

    12/14/2002 1:00:32 PM PST · 16 of 28
    No dems 2002 to Monti Cello
    I still have to disagree with you. The man has apologised and grovelled, etc. Yet, you still want his blood? Lott's certainly not my favorite GOP senator, but I maintain that this is an unfair reason for politically lynching someone.

    One of the whole problems with the argument is the focus on the past. I think Senator Lott was focusing on what Thurmond is now, rather than on what he was in 1948. Lott probably should have gone a long time ago in favor of someone stronger. I agree on that point. But I will not budge on my belief that in principle this would be very inappropriate to eject him now, merely for one statement he made that was OPEN TO MISINTERPRETATION. How many times have you said something that came out sounding inappropriate? I cannot fathom that he planned to make a racist point. It just doesn't make sense. Show a little decency.

    And, if you don't agree, then don't agree. But you should think long and hard about the principle you're pushing here.
  • Take a Lott of consideration on this one

    12/14/2002 12:40:50 PM PST · 12 of 28
    No dems 2002 to JCG
    I still maintain that this is not the right reason to make Lott go for.

    You may not agree, but many other conservatives do. I hate hypocritical games, and that's what I FIRMLY believe this to be.

    If you don't agree, don't bother to reply. Thank you.
  • Take a Lott of consideration on this one

    12/14/2002 12:16:14 PM PST · 10 of 28
    No dems 2002 to Monti Cello
    All entirely irrelavent? I don't think so. You also miss my point.

    Lott made an unwise statement. Period. But so do many senators, on both sides of the aisle. To try to throw a man out for saying this is, in my opinion, not just silly but downright wrong. This whole thing has been blown out of all proportion, and I think that any objective-minded person would have to agree.

    The GOP should not go beyond an apology on this, because that would be brown-nosing, to put it bluntly.
  • Take a Lott of consideration on this one

    12/14/2002 12:07:40 PM PST · 9 of 28
    No dems 2002 to JCG
    You're missing my point.

    The GOP should probably have elected a stronger leader a long time ago. But I don't think that this is an appropriate way to get rid of him. Look, if conservatives bow to this liberal hysteria, it will set a very bad precedent. These same people were extremely comfortable with a President who perjured himself, obstructed justice and sexually manipulated a girl less than half his age, but they scream bloody murder when a Republican senator makes a statement that's open to misinterpretation.

    I think it would be wrong to bow to this nonsense.
  • Take a Lott of consideration on this one

    12/14/2002 10:45:35 AM PST · 1 of 28
    No dems 2002
  • LOTT SHOULD NOT RESIGN

    12/14/2002 10:33:59 AM PST · 128 of 215
    No dems 2002 to FairOpinion
    What bothers me the most about this whole thing is the motive behind the attacks on Senator Lott.

    To be frank, I'm not wild about Trent Lott, but I think that the CBC and the democrats in general are guilty of massive hypocrisy in all this. Most of the same people who are hounding Lott very quickly accepted the apology of Senator Byrd a year or 2 ago when he used the word "nigger" to describe people. That sounds a whole lot more offensive to me than anything Lott said. Byrd's history is far more sensational than Lott's, considering that Byrd belonged to the KKK.

    If conservatives cave to this it will be a sad day in America. Lott may not be a great guy, but he shouldn't have to go for this. If the GOP tapdances to the CBC's "racist" tune, what does the GOP stand for? Truth is, I expect that MANY white southerners (who knows, maybe even some blacks?), not just in Mississippi, are offended to the extent the liberals are hounding Lott about this.

    This shows that the democrats are keeping up with their racial hysteria as the centrepiece of their crumbling party.

    If Trent Lott shouldn't be the SML anymore, it should come for a different reason, because this is a shameful thing the way it's been handled.
  • Sen. Lott Fights to Save Post As Leader

    12/14/2002 6:51:40 AM PST · 8 of 13
    No dems 2002 to ArcLight
    What bothers me the most about this whole thing is the motive behind the attacks on Senator Lott.

    To be frank, I'm not wild about Trent Lott, but I think that the CBC and the democrats in general are guilty of massive hypocrisy in all this. Most of the same people who are hounding Lott very quickly accepted the apology of Senator Byrd a year or 2 ago when he used the word "nigger" to describe people. That sounds a whole lot more offensive to me than anything Lott said. Byrd's history is far more sensational than Lott's, considering that Byrd belonged to the KKK.

    If conservatives cave to this it will be a sad day in America. Lott may not be a great guy, but he shouldn't have to go for this. If the GOP tapdances to the CBC's "racist" tune, what does the GOP stand for? Truth is, I expect that MANY white southerners (who knows, maybe even some blacks?), not just in Mississippi, are offended to the extent the liberals are hounding Lott about this.

    This shows that the democrats are keeping up with their racial hysteria as the centrepiece of their crumbling party.

    If Trent Lott shouldn't be the SML anymore, it should come for a different reason, because this is a shameful thing the way it's been handled.
  • Black Democrat Forgiveness for sale...The Phony Otrage over Trent Lott's Statements

    12/14/2002 6:50:38 AM PST · 19 of 19
    No dems 2002 to Trueblackman
    What bothers me the most about this whole thing is the motive behind the attacks on Senator Lott.

    To be frank, I'm not wild about Trent Lott, but I think that the CBC and the democrats in general are guilty of massive hypocrisy in all this. Most of the same people who are hounding Lott very quickly accepted the apology of Senator Byrd a year or 2 ago when he used the word "nigger" to describe people. That sounds a whole lot more offensive to me than anything Lott said. Byrd's history is far more sensational than Lott's, considering that Byrd belonged to the KKK.

    If conservatives cave to this it will be a sad day in America. Lott may not be a great guy, but he shouldn't have to go for this. If the GOP tapdances to the CBC's "racist" tune, what does the GOP stand for? Truth is, I expect that MANY white southerners (who knows, maybe even some blacks?), not just in Mississippi, are offended to the extent the liberals are hounding Lott about this.

    This shows that the democrats are keeping up with their racial hysteria as the centrepiece of their crumbling party.

    If Trent Lott shouldn't be the SML anymore, it should come for a different reason, because this is a shameful thing the way it's been handled.
  • UNNATURAL LAW (Supremes to review sodomy laws) liberal barf-and offensive content alert

    12/10/2002 1:38:13 PM PST · 158 of 550
    No dems 2002 to Phantom Lord
    Whatever the government wants to do with homosexuals is their business, but I think that homosexuality is the same as bestiality or any other sexual perversion and should be illegal.

    If you don't agree, then we don't agree, do we?
  • UNNATURAL LAW (Supremes to review sodomy laws) liberal barf-and offensive content alert

    12/10/2002 1:36:18 PM PST · 156 of 550
    No dems 2002 to Lev
    I think it's clear that we don't agree, so I don't wish to argue.

    If religion doesn't impact your belief in how government and laws should operate, then there's really no reason for us to talk about this matter.

    I regard homosexuality as an ill in society, and you obviously don't agree.
  • UNNATURAL LAW (Supremes to review sodomy laws) liberal barf-and offensive content alert

    12/10/2002 12:11:00 PM PST · 55 of 550
    No dems 2002 to Lev
    Sodomy doesn't have to mix church and state.

    All of our fundamentals came from God-given principles, anyway. We know murder is wrong, we know stealing is wrong, etc. And, yes, we know homosexuality is wrong, too. Why should it be legal?

    It shouldn't. It's just another disease of society that deserves no protection. Of course, there will always be those who practice it in secret, but at least society should keep it tabooed, and this DOESN'T endorse any particular religion, just common sense and fundamental principles.
  • UNNATURAL LAW (Supremes to review sodomy laws) liberal barf-and offensive content alert

    12/10/2002 12:07:16 PM PST · 47 of 550
    No dems 2002 to smith288
    Right, let's just let our society be poisoned by perverts. Don't judge the paedophiles, after all they're your fellow man, too. Don't judge the thieves or anybody else.

    Cut it out.
  • Democrats add it up: GOP flukes are few

    12/10/2002 12:04:54 PM PST · 15 of 20
    No dems 2002 to Gothmog
    Elizabeth Dole was born on July 29, 1936, and is thus 66 years old.

    Many senators are well over 70 and easily re-elected. I don't see a problem with her re-elected at 72.
  • Black Republicans Joins Democrats in Condemning Trent Lott's Remarks

    12/10/2002 12:00:08 PM PST · 48 of 50
    No dems 2002 to kattracks
    Senator Lott has, in my opinion, been like the Lot of the Bible, a dazed good guy. A guy who needs to be saved out of difficult situations and one who's too loathe to take a strong stand on things. Sure, he's a conservative, but he'd do better in the background.

    Tom Delay, for instance, is a much better straight-shooter and a guy who's willing to stand for what he believes. I like Delay, and he may one day become House Speaker.

    As for Senator Lott, I think the Senate would have done a lot better if he'd offered strong, uncompromised leadership. If he's not prepared to offer that leadership, than perhaps he should step aside and just be another senator in order to allow a real leader in his place.
  • UNNATURAL LAW (Supremes to review sodomy laws) liberal barf-and offensive content alert

    12/10/2002 11:50:04 AM PST · 24 of 550
    No dems 2002 to Liz
    This law is obviously popular in Texas. John Cornyn is on record as supporting it during his campaign against Ron Kirk (who dodged the issue). President Bush supported the law as Governor, and the highest courts of Texas have refused to overturn it (not to mention the state's legislature).

    I have no problem with the government outlawing sexual perversion between homosexuals. These "freedoms" have no place in our society. We all know our founding fathers never dreamed of this.

    The late US Supreme Court Justice Byron White said that for homosexuals to think that such conduct should be legal was "at best facetious." Well said. Homosexuals have no rights in the eyes of God to engage in deviant behaviour and they shouldn't in the eyes of man either. I feel the same way about bestiality and child abuse.
  • Democrats get boost for 2004 [Leftist LA analysis]

    12/10/2002 11:41:22 AM PST · 18 of 19
    No dems 2002 to JohnnyOla and HymanRoth
    Democrats are forgetting that the GOP won 22 out of 34 seats.

    Let them take this in their weird spirit of overconfidence.
  • Analyst Says That Louisiana Results Show Nation Still Divided 50-50

    12/10/2002 11:30:50 AM PST · 22 of 25
    No dems 2002 to Theodore R.
    Thanks for this post.

    I'm actually quite comfortable with the demos taking the LA race this way. It's a little like after what happened in Florida, everyone lost sight of the fact that GW Bush had carried 29 states by UNDISPUTED margins. The democrats don't know they're going downhill, and that's just as well, because they're probably going to lose a lot more yet.

    The Louisiana Senate race said amazingly little about the national picture, and I'm amazed that even a respected analyst like Stuart Rothenberg can't see this. I've often found his editorials interesting and thought-provoking. He often (though perhaps not always) is successful in veiling his bias.

    And Daschle's remarks here are inappropriate for a Senate leader who blew it. Isn't it just amazing how the democrats don't get it? 22 out of 34 races went GOP, and the popular vote went 52%-45% GOP, yet they say the nation is still 50/50?

    Oh well, I guess they'll just need to learn the hard way. Electoral defeat is almost the only language they understand.
  • LA GOP Ponders Its Latest Losses

    12/09/2002 9:39:14 AM PST · 4 of 15
    No dems 2002 to Theodore R.
    This is all rationalising nonsense by sore-losers. In spite of the odds of facing an incumbent senator, from a well-known Louisiana family, the politically unknown and physically less attractive Suzie Terrell received 48.4% of the vote (dramatically up from the 27% she received in the general election). Consider that, if some GOP strongholds had turned out a little bit more, it would have swung Terrell over the top.

    Landrieu can sing her little song, but this only serves to prove how the GOP is gaining traction in the state that "hasn't elected a Republican senator since Reconstruction." I'm looking forward to the end of that line.
  • A Look at Rep.-elect Rodney Alexander, D-LA

    12/09/2002 9:32:08 AM PST · 3 of 5
    No dems 2002 to Theodore R.
    He sounds like he's more one of us than one of them.

    I know I'm rationalising here, but he doesn't sound like too bad of a guy. If he really is pro-life, etc, than he'll probably vote the right way on most important issues.

    He's obviously not a Pelosi democrat.

    One last thing, any word on the recount in Colorado's 7th? That's one where the Republican must win.
  • So we lost Lousiana -- Don't feel too bad

    12/09/2002 4:30:57 AM PST · 90 of 102
    No dems 2002 to Clemenza
    "A problem in LA has been the inability to get whites to vote as a block for the GOP (as has been the case recently in Mississippi next door). Louisiana is about 35-40% black, making GOP victory difficult."

    This is obviously true in LA, but it's only marginally true in Mississippi. MS hasn't voted dem in a pres. election since 1976, and has 2 GOP US senators, but other statewide offices are still dem.
  • LOUISIANA FREEPERS, LET'S GET READY FOR THE STATE ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR.

    12/08/2002 1:59:20 PM PST · 43 of 50
    No dems 2002 to Sparta
    Sorry my thread is here:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802892/posts?page=79

    Please come for a visit.
  • So we lost Lousiana -- Don't feel too bad

    12/08/2002 1:58:02 PM PST · 80 of 102
    No dems 2002 to All
    My only comment on Louisiana is something some other guys have been saying on my thread (and thank you for all your comments).

    Naturally, there's alot of people crying in their beers today about what happened, but we need to look at the fundamentals of the Pelican State's electorate. There are about 3 or 4 states in the South that are socially conservative, but heavily democratic. This strange combination makes the states competitive for the GOP (especially in presidential or other federal elections), but it often gives the state a weird democratic undercurrent. States in this category are West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky and, yes, Louisiana.

    The entire South seems to be going through a gestation period of progression to the Republican Party. The GOP is competitive in the entire region, but certain states have matured more in this progression than others. States like Texas, Virginia, South Carolina and even Florida have seen the GOP take deep roots in their states. All of these states mentioned now have GOP majorities in both houses of their state legislatures (all but TX had this before 2002).

    Other states like Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia are also experiencing a GOP take-over, but in ways that are more evident in some levels than others. For instance, Alabama and Mississippi are a given for a GOP pres. candidate, but their state legislatures (and numerous statewide offices) are solidly democratic. These states all lean GOP at the federal/congressional/senate level, too.

    But Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas and West Virginia are in a different category. Of these 4, Kentucky is the most Republican, considering that both US senators and most US Reps are GOP. What's more, the GOP controls the state senate. But, Clinton carried Kentucky and the other of these 3 states in 1992 and 1996, showing their fickleness. Once again, Kentucky was very close in 1996 (Clinton won by less than a percentage point and exit polls said Dole would have won had it not been for Perot). But Clinton scored generally landslides in the other 3, especially in 1996.

    West Virginia is the most dem state in the South, and of course Arkansas is Clinton's home state, but registered democrats far outnumber Republicans in these states. This complicates voter support for the GOP. That's one of the reasons the GOP has had a bumpy ride in Arkansas recently.

    Louisiana voted for Clinton 52%-40% in '96. Texas to the west and Mississippi to the east wouldn't have dreamed of doing this, but LA did. Clinton couldn't even win Georgia. The problem is that the GOP's dominance in Louisiana is still in its maturing phase, and is very shaky. GW Bush won the state 53%-45%, but that doesn't prove much. Within about 10 years or so, Louisiana probably won't be re-electing senators like Landrieu.

    It was a strong effort, but it just wasn't ripe yet, I guess.

  • LOUISIANA FREEPERS, LET'S GET READY FOR THE STATE ELECTIONS NEXT YEAR.

    12/08/2002 1:56:54 PM PST · 42 of 50
    No dems 2002 to Sparta
    My only comment on Louisiana is something some other guys have been saying on my thread

    Naturally, there's alot of people crying in their beers today about what happened, but we need to look at the fundamentals of the Pelican State's electorate. There are about 3 or 4 states in the South that are socially conservative, but heavily democratic. This strange combination makes the states competitive for the GOP (especially in presidential or other federal elections), but it often gives the state a weird democratic undercurrent. States in this category are West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky and, yes, Louisiana.

    The entire South seems to be going through a gestation period of progression to the Republican Party. The GOP is competitive in the entire region, but certain states have matured more in this progression than others. States like Texas, Virginia, South Carolina and even Florida have seen the GOP take deep roots in their states. All of these states mentioned now have GOP majorities in both houses of their state legislatures (all but TX had this before 2002).

    Other states like Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia are also experiencing a GOP take-over, but in ways that are more evident in some levels than others. For instance, Alabama and Mississippi are a given for a GOP pres. candidate, but their state legislatures (and numerous statewide offices) are solidly democratic. These states all lean GOP at the federal/congressional/senate level, too.

    But Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas and West Virginia are in a different category. Of these 4, Kentucky is the most Republican, considering that both US senators and most US Reps are GOP. What's more, the GOP controls the state senate. But, Clinton carried Kentucky and the other of these 3 states in 1992 and 1996, showing their fickleness. Once again, Kentucky was very close in 1996 (Clinton won by less than a percentage point and exit polls said Dole would have won had it not been for Perot). But Clinton scored generally landslides in the other 3, especially in 1996.

    West Virginia is the most dem state in the South, and of course Arkansas is Clinton's home state, but registered democrats far outnumber Republicans in these states. This complicates voter support for the GOP. That's one of the reasons the GOP has had a bumpy ride in Arkansas recently.

    Louisiana voted for Clinton 52%-40% in '96. Texas to the west and Mississippi to the east wouldn't have dreamed of doing this, but LA did. Clinton couldn't even win Georgia. The problem is that the GOP's dominance in Louisiana is still in its maturing phase, and is very shaky. GW Bush won the state 53%-45%, but that doesn't prove much. Within about 10 years or so, Louisiana probably won't be re-electing senators like Landrieu.

    It was a strong effort, but it just wasn't ripe yet, I guess.
  • So we lost Lousiana -- Don't feel too bad

    12/08/2002 4:22:27 AM PST · 1 of 102
    No dems 2002
  • Landrieu wins

    12/07/2002 9:19:51 PM PST · 102 of 282
    No dems 2002 to Holden Magroin
    Is there ANY hope of Terrell winning with the remaining 2 percent of results coming in?
  • Louisiana Election Turnout Thread- Here come the results

    12/07/2002 12:37:41 PM PST · 289 of 2,113
    No dems 2002 to Canadian Outrage
    I agree. Senator Breaux has lowered himself considerably by so strongly supporting a loser like Senator Landrieu, who doesn't have his views on certain important issues like abortion. Zell Miller, too, lowered his stature considerably by pulling out all the stops to help a major-league loser like Max Cleland get re-elected. Thank God, it didn't work.

    And I don't think it will work for Breaux, either.

    Senator Breaux has actually posed a real fundamental question to his own previously strong pro-life credentials. He so desperately wants to keep Landrieu in the Senate, but that means another pro-abortion senator. I just don't understand it.