And now the bad news..........

[Natoma]

Funny how if you're right, you're going to get another Bush term.

Not necessarily. Job growth is forecasted to begin taking effect to the point where people "feel it" in late 2004. We're also getting into a quagmire in Iraq (no WMD yet, 6 months in), and the recent bombings around the world kind of disprove the administration's theory that ridding the world of saddam somehow made the world a safer place. We still don't have Afghanistan under control and no UN countries want to help us in Iraq unless the US hands control over to the UN, which it has stated it has no wish to do. And don't forget that 50% of the electorate voted against Bush in 2000.

There are many things occurring in the electorate today that does not automatically translate to a second bush term. One of which is my voodoo doll scheduled to explode right around election time 2004, taking out the entire republican wing of the government.

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, Reagan had the most severe recession since the great depression in 1982, and by 1984, people were barely feeling it, but he still got reeelected.

 

[Natoma]

Look bitch, bush will lose. The voodoo doll hello?

Some people........

 

[Willmeister]

Bush is going to get reelected solely because of what is happening in Alabama right now. It's a hurdle that any Democrat won't be able to jump over. And if you can't carry the South in the USA, you don't win.

 

[DemoCoder]

I doubt it. I can't recall an election where a church-state separation was a major issue. Besides, Southern democrats have their own share of fundamentalists, and don't forget, we almost had an Orthodox Jew as a vice president.

There were similar issues surrounding support of the confederate flag in Southern states. The major candidates will give lip service to the issue, but ultimately, if pushed, it will be decided by the Supreme Court, not the President.

I happen to think the church-state separation principle needs to be extended further to the point where the government cannot promote any philosophy or lifestyle as advantageous over any other. Why single out religion? If some government employee were to put up either a Pro-Socialist poster, or a pro-Iraq War poster, let's have those banned as well. I fail to see the difference, between say, religious eco-nuts or animal rights nuts (like PETA) putting up posters and other crap in government offices or christians. Both are cults.

 

[Willmeister]

This whole Ten Commandment thing isn't a plot hatched by Karl Rove to get Bush elected. But we do know he'll use it to maximum effect, and it will work very well.

Look at what the outcome is for any Democrat next year:

1) Support the Supreme Court and be against God (that Reverend dude in charge of the civil obedience came out and said so and this will play well to Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone rednecks),

2) Support the monstrosity and alienate anyone sensible and appear as a vote-grabbing fraud who's just panning for votes, or

3) Avoid answering the question and be seen as an indecisive politico.

In many ways, it's a no-win situation for a Democrat, even a Dixiecrat.

Bush has always be 'religous', so it will naturally benefit him. Bush won't even have to open his mouth, and I'm sure the media will never even ask him the question over the matter. Or, if they actually do, they'll make sure to give him the answer in their question like they always do...

 

[nonamer]

You're simply wrong Willmeister. Al Gore could have won the last election simply by getting New Hampshire, without getting a single southern state.

 

[Natoma]

You're simply wrong Willmeister. Al Gore could have won the last election simply by getting New Hampshire, without getting a single southern state.

Pfft. If he wins his home state he wins the election. Forget Florida. He lost Tennessee!! That'd have been like Clinton losing Arkansas or Bush losing Texas. Simply abysmal....

 

[RussSchultz]

Errr....a democrat winning Texas would be the second coming.

It has nothing to do with it being Bush's home state.

 

[Willmeister]

You're simply wrong Willmeister. Al Gore could have won the last election simply by getting New Hampshire, without getting a single southern state.

WTF? You mean NH has more electoral votes than the southern states combined?

 

[DemoCoder]

Errr....a democrat winning Texas would be the second coming.

It has nothing to do with it being Bush's home state.

Texas had a Democrat governor (Ann Richards) before Bush.

 

[RussSchultz]

Sure. And we voted for Carter too.

Generally, though, Texas isn't a swing state--its a blue one.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Errr....a democrat winning Texas would be the second coming.

It has nothing to do with it being Bush's home state.

Texas had a Democrat governor (Ann Richards) before Bush.

Right...that would be the First coming...

 

[Natoma]

Doesn't Texas have a democratic majority in the senate?

semi rant
----------

I could have sworn it was 17-15, and that's why Tom DeLay has been pushing to have the state redistricted. He says that Texas has been trending republican for years, but since that isn't shown in the distribution in the senate, read: republican majority, there must be something wrong with the districting. Unfortunately that also means that most of the redistricting is happening in minority communities, lessening the power of their vote.

Surprised the democrat rebellion in texas hasn't been played up more in the news. Maybe Texas isn't the republican stronghold you seem to think it is Russ. Well, at least not without some sleight of hand redistricting.

----------
/semi rant

 

[RussSchultz]

Texas sends a majority of its representatives to the US house of representatives as democrat because:

-Incumbents are hard to dislodge
-State democrats have controlled (or subverted) every redistricting effort since reconstruction.

The new plan isn't more or less gerrymandering than the previous schemes. No voters get disinfranchised. Matter of fact, the new redistricting plan would CREATE MORE districts that have a majority of minority voters. It does shake up the incumbency, however.

(In otherwords, get your facts straight before ranting)

 

[Natoma]

First off, I didn't rant. I semi ranted.

Second, there are quite a few articles that disagree with your statement that redistricting wouldn't cause harm to minority voters. Now whatever is going on in Texas, whatever the facts are, the redistricting plan championed by DeLay apparently is bad enough to have caused 11 democrats to leave the state in protest.

Third, you say that democrats have controlled every redistricting effort since reconstruction. Question is, what exactly were the reasons behind it, and what exactly were the results of the redistricting?

Fourth, imcumbents are always difficult to dislodge, no matter what the race is. Be it congressional, gubernatorial, presidential, et al. If the state continually votes democrat, then hey, it must be because the state is democratic. Makes sense no? I mean, New York has trended republican in the past 3 mayoral elections and the past 3 gubernatorial elections, yet it's always heavily democratic come presidential election. Who knows why this happens, but should NYC be redistricted so the republicans will never win, because we tend to be a more liberal/democratic social-leaning town? No.

Frankly, the reasoning that "well, texas has trended republican the past few years" doesn't come off to me as a particularly sound reason to redraw the map.

 

[RussSchultz]

The state votes overwhelmingly republican in any straight ticket item, they only reason democrats get elected is because they are incumbents (excepting some inner city districts that are overwhelmingly minority which tend to vote straight ticket democrat).

You're right--it isn't a particularly acceptable reason to redistrict simply to shake up incumbents.

However, your assertion (and the assertions of many op-ed writers) that the redistricting plan is to draw the map to disinfranchise minority and democrat voters by dilution is just plain wrong.

The only people it will disinfranchise is the incumbents, which is why they're in New Mexico.


As for the past redistictings: if I showed you the current map, and the new proposed map, I GUARANTEE if you had no prior knowledge of which is which, you'd only have a 50% chance of identifying which was which. The current map is gerrymaendered, the new map is gerrymaendered.

 

[Willmeister]

However, your assertion (and the assertions of many op-ed writers) that the redistricting plan is to draw the map to disinfranchise minority and democrat voters by dilution is just plain wrong.

Given the latest pattern of voter disenfranchisment, run by Republicans, from DPT voting scandals in Florida, inadequate voting machines in minority districts, polls literally vanishing without a trace in black-majority districts in Tennessee and St. Louis in 2000, the SCOTUS ruling giving the Oval Office to George Bush, are the really major ones.

I'm really surprised the Florida debacle got so much attention compared to the much more alarming incidents in St. Louis and Tennessee. We don't have a 'liberal' or 'conservative' media, we have a 'selective' media. You can count on them to help dumb everyone down...

 

[DemoCoder]

Puh-lease. Old voting machines is not a conspiracy run by republicans.

If you were truly interested in democracy, you would be against "rigged" elections by juggling districts into Bantustans that create artificial majorities. Local politics in the US is absurd now. Districts are drawn to have 90% democrats or republicans, and there is no hope of any minority party winning a seat unless the incumbent party commits a criminal act or something.

What's the point of even having an election if the national parties just install virtually uncontested representatives in many districts?


There should be a requirement that district creation is BLIND with regards to party, race, etc. Districts should be drawn based on geographic or logistical realities, and if they end up being drawn over DIVERSE groups of people, so be it. The reverse is just a modern form of tribalism.

 

[Natoma]

Democoder:

Wouldn't that article you posted a while back seem to preclude the establishment of truly diverse enclaves anyway?