Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’
Obama spoke in favour of gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose, that contraceptives be available under health insurance. The religious right has discovered that these issues were not enough to prevent a second term, or those of faith supporting Obama.
The evidence suggests that these positions did no harm to Obama’s campaign. Rather the huge support from Hispanic, black, latino and female voters was key – with concerns on economic issues centre stage.
CNN belief blog posed the question about the Christian Right:
In swing state Ohio, exit polls showed that Obama got 30% support among white evangelicals. While that’s hardly a victory, it’s better than the 27% support Obama got among those voters four years ago.
The Pew Survey suggests overall evangelicals did turn out for Romney:
On the news I saw one female republican supporter state that GOP had to support women’s issues and get out of people’s personal lives – noting the contradiction between a small state for the economy but regulating human everyday life choices.
That sort of social libertarianism appeals to a traditional form of Republicanism. Had Romney stood on that platform plus focused more on how employment would go up under his plans, especially for minorities, he might have won. Instead, supporting extreme religious candidates on rape, talking up increasing military spending when budgets are tight, and the same old trickle down economics just did not resonate with voters. On the social issues it galvanised Democratic support to turnout, and for the 47% Romney had discounted to protect their interests via the voting booth.
The Republicans need to engage with the nation, see how to meet their needs, learn to campaign to the voter not the supporter and just become a professional well oiled machine and not one that panders to a losing demographic – the white male evangelicals middle class.
They need to become a party of the whole nation. Right now, a candidate that footed the bill would not stand a chance of being selected. Those that could help with the organisation would not be appointed to the right positions.
Time for GOP to move closer to the electorate. Get the correct mix of people and policies that resonate with the public and it might happen. The religious right need to make room.
Follow up blog: the end of religious politics?
Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog
Because, quite simply, it motivates people to the polls.
As shown in the case where Kay Hagan attended a fund raiser for the Secular Coalition of America. She is the Democrat rival to Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina who has tried to make political capital out of it. For example this video from the Republican Party:
Followed by a leaflet campaign which you can see here which denotes that Christmas will be banned in the atheist republic that Hagan will help found. The extent to which the religious right funds and controls the Republican Party is one that makes my mouth drop. Notice though it says more about the Godless Americans PAC then it does about Hagan. You can kind of see where the thinking for Ayers and Obama comes from.
Which brings to mind that the only time Christmas was banned by Parliament was under Cromwell. Parliament actually sat on Christmas Day to prove the point. Not that you would have mince pies – they were banned because they were considered catholic. Christmas banned by Puritan Christians.
It does smack of desperation – Dole has gone from a comfortable double digit lead to Hagen now having a 4% lead. Two words: George Bush, and two numbers: 92 and 93:
Just remember if all else fails when you are loosing, use a dog:
The irony is that the first pledge of allegiance was written by a baptist minister in 1892 which had no mention of under God. In 1942 the pledge was used in the US Flag Code by Congress – but it was not till 1954 that Congress added “under God”.
It originally read: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The under God bit is probably seen as refining the character of a Christian socialist’s work. Francis J. Bellamy using the pledge in schools as as precursor to what the Nazis did with their pledge.
The “under God” happened at the urging of the catholic organisation The Knights of Columbus, which still in 2008 defends that addition on the grounds that:
The words “under God” give voice to a principle of American government that has been understood to be an essential part of our system since its founding, namely, that the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution are “endowed by our Creator,” and are not the state’s to give or to take away, but only to preserve and to protect [source, which is worth reading in full]
Simply put this is a breech of the constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Not establishing a religion means that the law cannot impose upon people to make a distinction by professing a belief or disbelief in any religion. Even if we have two different pledges the law is still asking people to take an oath that establishes religion. That goes against the First Amendment [source]
From a philosophical point of view the rights of the populace do not come from a human body nor do they come from an abstract entity with the power of creation. Rather they come from the principles that grant freedom and autonomy to the minds of people to be sincere and true to themselves and their beliefs without fear of persecution nor to profess them by legal compulsion. The state has no authority to ask me to believe in the Trinity, nor does it have any power to make me issue a statement supporting a belief in a God.
There is no freedom if you cannot be tolerated to have autonomy of belief. For that alone Republicans should feel appalled by that first advert. Freedom of religion does mean the right to reject religion and to say it is false. To object to religion being sanctioned by government, in respect of the First Amendment, can be argued about politically – there is a constitutional basis for the secularist point of view.
I am reminded of the mass in The West Wing when President Bartlet says on the seperation of government and state sometimes you have to say “big deal”. Yet I wonder what would have happened if a Presdential Candidate said the pledge without “under God”. It would definetly be a big deal.
Sarah Palin may be disappointed that they have left the state of Michigan. Yet with Obama having a 7% lead in a state that voted for Kerry and Gore, it makes much more sense for the Republicans to focus on the key battle states and take the resources from this state to those where it may make the difference. Namely:
State Electoral Count Obama lead (%)
North Carolina 15 0.5
Nevada 5 1.8
Ohio 20 2.0
Virgina 13 2.4
Florida 27 3.0 [source]
If the Republicans concede any of these states then McCain has lost the White House. Taking states like those above where candidates have a 3% lead or less gives Obama 264 and McCain 163 – to win all it takes is 270. Despite Obama having on average a 6% lead in the polls (ranging from 3% – 9%) it will be those marginal states above that decide it. If McCain can get a 1.5% swing to him from Obama he will win the White House.
As I think that the polls are over stating Obama’s lead and under representing McCain, it is still very possible for McCain to win the White House. It is tight, and giving up on States that Obama has a clear lead in may be the smart move.
What McCain cannot afford however is to loose any states he currently holds. The good news for him (unlike Obama) is that most states are solidly supporting him, with only two states being vulnerable:
State Electoral Count McCain lead (%)
Missouri 11 1.7
Indiana 11 2.2 [source]
So when people tell you it will be a landslide for Obama or a close run race the answer is that there is an element of truth. If all the toss up seats go as they indicate above then Obama wins triumphantly 353 to 185. But a closer race is well within the margin for error. Obama wins Flordia or Ohio and keeps the other states that strongly support him then it is game over for McCain.
If the polls are under representing support for McCain he has a good chance of a narrow win. All the states above that are for Obama voted for George Bush in both 2000 and 20004. That may yet be reflected as we get nearer to polling day.
So expect more things like Palin pointing out that Obama was on a charity board with a founder member of the Weather Underground (a terroirst organisation against US involvement in the Vietnam war) while campaigning in Colorado (leaning to Obama 4.4% lead but voted for Bush the previous two times). What the McCain camp hope is that if the election becomes about character McCain will win. With Obama in Virgina attacking McCain’s health plan we may yet see an ideological battle occur to against an economic meltdown backdrop.
The key thing will be getting out the vote in these states. If Obama supporters feel that it is a done deal they may be inclined to stay at home. That would be a nightmare on polling day when results show the contest closer then the media were calling it. Obama has shown that he can create the momentum. The thing is to keep it going and on election day deliver his supporters to the polling booth.
One thing which McCain and Palin may use in the campaign:
The positive component is pretty straightforward: McCain and Palin are common sense conservatives and proven reformers. The record of reform can be emphasized and contrasted with Obama’s and Biden’s record of conventional, go-along, get-along liberalism. And implicitly: If McCain and Palin are reformers and outsiders, it’s not Bush’s third term. More important is the negative message. The McCain campaign has to convince 51 percent of the voters they can’t trust Barack Obama to be our next president. This has an ideological component and a character component. [Weekly Standard]
Democrats keep the champagne in the fridge – instead keep drinking the coffee because you are going to have to bust a gut to make sure that Obama wins the key states above and not fall for the hype that is being generated. The time to relax is when the polls close, because it ain’t over till it’s over.
Senator Clinton may still be trailing in terms of delegates 1391 to Senator Obama’s tally of 1477. But her wins in Ohio and Texas yesterday means that she is still in the running.
[EDIT: FOX NEWS readers for current politics blogs follow this link here]
The rest of the race for the Democrats looks like this:
Meanwhile Senator McCain went over the target number of delegates and Huckabee dually withdrew leaving McCain as the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party. Lunch today at the White House may see the seal of approval from President Bush – but it is doubtful we will see him on the campaign trial.
Much is being made that a prolonged negative campaign between Obama and Clinton could leave McCain sitting pretty as he has the opportunity to act as a statesman – and separate himself from President Bush. As a political maverick and someone that is known to be independent that should not prove difficult.
The proportional way in which a State’s delegates are allocated has meant in the close Democratic race there is no knock out blow. A winner takes all allocation may give a more resounding margin to one person. McCain can concentrate on raising funds for the White House campaign. Meanwhile the Democratic candidates will be chasing funds for the Primary at least into May.
Obama may have had hope that winning both states may have seen Clinton bow out. His campaign has learnt from earlier on not to build up such expectations. The key thing will be to recognise that the honeymoon is over and that the scrutiny from media and Clinton will be intense, and in all probability very negative. He won Vermont and is still ahead – it is about shifting gear to keep that margin lead to cross 2025 first.
16 states, 1,391 delegates
- Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas.
24 states, 1,477 delegates
2,025 delegates needed for nomination. Source AP (includes all kinds of delegates)