PDA

View Full Version : Have the Republicans swung too far to the RRWNJ right?


jAZ
06-26-2006, 08:54 AM
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1805330,00.html

Democrats dare to dream of recapturing the Bush heartland

From Kansas to South Carolina, Republican moderates are turning their backs on the neocons and defecting to the enemy

Paul Harris in Topeka, Kansas
Sunday June 25, 2006
The Observer

The squat, bunker-like building in a south Topeka suburb does not look like a place to turn American politics on its head. Nor does Mark Parkinson, a tall, affable man, look too much like a revolutionary. But here, deep in the American heartland, are the warning signs of a political earthquake.

The two-storey office block is Parkinson's campaign headquarters as he runs as Democrat candidate for deputy governor. So far, so normal. Except that only a few weeks ago Parkinson was a Republican. In fact, he was Kansas Republican party chairman.

His defection to the Democrats sent shockwaves through a state deeply associated with the national Republican cause and the evangelical conservatives at its base. Nor was it just Parkinson's leave-taking that left Republicans spluttering with rage and talking of betrayal. It was that as he left Parkinson lambasted his former party's obsession with conservative and religious issues such as gay marriage, evolution and abortion.

Sitting in his headquarters, the new Democrat is sticking to his guns. Republicans in Kansas, he says, have let down their own people. 'They were fixated on ideological issues that really don't matter to people's everyday lives. What matters is improving schools and creating jobs,' he said. 'I got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.'

This is music to Democratic ears and has profound potential implications for November's mid-term elections. Kansas has been an iconic state for the Republican right, a symbol for issues such as teaching creationism in schools and fighting abortion rights. The modern Republican party, masterminded by political guru Karl Rove, has harnessed fury over such topics to allow the Republicans to dominate US politics since 2000. This was the topic of Thomas Frank's hit book of the 2004 presidential election campaign entitled: What's The Matter With Kansas? It used the state's falling under the spell of conservative Republicanism to explain national American politics.

But in a swath of heartland states such as Kansas, Democrats are seeing the first signs of their party's rebirth. Parkinson is not alone in switching sides. In Virginia, Jim Webb, a one-time Reagan official, is seeking to be a Democrat senator. In South Carolina, top Republican prosecutor Barney Giese has defected after a spat with conservatives. Back in Kansas another top Republican, Paul Morrison, also joined the Democrats and is challenging a Republican to be the state attorney-general.

Democrats are hoping that the Republican party of President George W Bush has passed its high-water mark. That, faced with disaster in Iraq, a host of domestic troubles and terrible opinion poll ratings, they can start to retake power in November. From there they can start to take aim at the White House itself. They hope the powerful conservative movement born in states such as Kansas will also die there.

An upbeat mood prevails at the monthly meeting of the Shawnee County Democratic party. The talk over iced tea in the dining room of the Topeka Ramada Hotel was of Iraq, family, friends and sports.

It has never been easy being a Democrat in Kansas, but things are looking a little brighter. 'I know a lot of registered Republicans who no longer agree with what's going on,' said Charlie Snow, a real estate manager. Wearing a T-shirt with a picture of George Bush Senior and the slogan 'I should have pulled out', Snow is not a typical Kansas voter, but he and his fellow Shawnee County Democrats see unaccustomed prospects. 'We have always been the underdog, but recently actions of the President and the Republicans have made it a lot easier to be a Democrat in Kansas,' Snow said.

One of the key reasons Kansas Democrats are in fighting mood is their governor, Kathleen Sibelius. Sibelius's vote represents an island of Democratic blue in a sea of Republican red on the political map, and she has impressed by reaching the middle-ground voters in a startlingly successful first term. Shunning the hot-button social issues, she has focused on education, jobs and health. This has earned her approval ratings touching 68 per cent in a state that was overwhelmingly pro-Bush in 2004.

Sibelius has cracked the political holy grail: persuading heartland Republicans to vote Democrat. 'Her style works here, and then bringing over Parkinson to the Democrats has been the coup of all coups,' said Professor Bob Beatty, a political scientist at Washburn University near Topeka.

As the Democrats enjoy a resurgence, the Republicans are in disarray. Parkinson's defection encouraged other moderates to abandon a party controlled by right-wing religious zealots. In political terms they are called Rinos, or Republicans in Name Only. If enough Rinos desert, the strict ideologues in the party are likely to drift further right. 'A number of conservatives are actually pleased that the moderates are leaving the Republican party. That really could spell trouble,' Beatty said.

There is a long way to go. Larry Gates, chairman of the Kansas Democratic party, says his side is still vastly outgunned, but he is optimistic. 'The Republican party is just controlled by the neocons. They are not flexible. But in Kansas it is an issue like education that is foremost in people's minds,' he said. The Democrats bypass abortion and evolution to focus on jobs, schools and health. The Democrats' local slogan for 2006 sums up the mood: 'Hope in the Heartland.'

The issues in Kansas mirror those in Washington, and could decide November's election as well as shaping presidential politics for years to come. Nationally, the Democratic party is deeply split. It has not yet decided on a unified course of action for November or the presidential race of 2008.

The defections across the country have been spurred mostly by a reaction to the extremism of the right. The future, as Kansas predicts it, lies in the middle ground for the first party to stake a claim to it. 'That is the absolute lesson. No party is going to win an election by being on the edges. The first to go to the middle ground will win,' Gates said.

For the 2008 race, the Democratic frontrunner is Hillary Clinton. Though she has steadily shifted rightwards, she is still portrayed as a liberal and is seen as having little appeal in Middle America. The Rinos of Kansas and elsewhere are unlikely to respond well to Clinton. Other senior Democrats, especially those from the north-east, do not go down well in Kansas. Such names as John Kerry and Senator Ted Kennedy have little appeal.

So it could mean the centrist card is the Democrat lesson for 2008, electing someone from a southern or midwestern state who already occupies middle ground - candidates such as Mark Warner, former governor of Virginia, Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa, and Evan Bayh, a senator from Indiana. If Democrats want to become the dominant party again, the revolution must begin in such places as Kansas. And Democrats in Kansas, deep in reddest America, are dreaming of a time when the whole country turns blue.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 08:57 AM
Decent article until the last paragraph. If Democrats think Tom Vilsack is a "centrist" they haven't been following their own party. Just because he's from Iowa doesn't make him moderate.

mlyonsd
06-26-2006, 09:00 AM
What's with Kansas? There seems to be more Kansas threads than all other states put together.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 09:00 AM
Decent article until the last paragraph. If Democrats think Tom Vilsack is a "centrist" they haven't been following their own party. Just because he's from Iowa doesn't make him moderate.
You really do have a hard-on for Vilsack. I have to admit I know nothing other than the term "potential Presidential candidate" is used before his name some times.

What gives?

jAZ
06-26-2006, 09:01 AM
What's with Kansas? There seems to be more Kansas threads than all other states put together.
Hint... Kansas City Chiefs.

:p

jAZ
06-26-2006, 09:04 AM
What's with Kansas?
And I think technically it's "What's the Matter with Kansas? (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805073396/ref=olp_product_details/104-6726349-1187115?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155)"

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:08 AM
.... and this is why Democrats have lost the last three elections

oldandslow
06-26-2006, 09:13 AM
.... and this is why Democrats have lost the last three elections

No they didn't. They won in 96 and they won the pop vote in 2000.

Beyond that, I have no idea what your post means.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 09:24 AM
.... and this is why Democrats have lost the last three elections
Republicans defecting from the party caused the Democrats to lose?

jAZ
06-26-2006, 09:25 AM
Republicans defecting from the party caused the Democrats to lose?
I assume he was refering to 2000, 2002, 2004... But as you said... beyond that, I have no idea what his post means.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:47 AM
No they didn't. They won in 96 and they won the pop vote in 2000.

Beyond that, I have no idea what your post means.

98, 00, 02, 04.... actually 4 elections in a row

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:48 AM
Republicans defecting from the party caused the Democrats to lose?

This article makes no sense.... they aren't leaving the party... If anything they are getting stronger in Republican states....

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 09:51 AM
You really do have a hard-on for Vilsack. I have to admit I know nothing other than the term "potential Presidential candidate" is used before his name some times.

What gives?

Just think tax and spend. Loves to tax everything he can put his hands on. Remember the federal tax rebate checks a few years ago? He tried to get the legislature to levy state income tax on those.

More recently, he's been using the line item veto, despite pretty strong opposition from his own party. The legislature passed a strongly bipartisan bill vs. eminent domain which he chopped up in the name of "economic growth". They also worked for over a year on a compromise for the educational funding bill which included $300M of funding for teacher pay. The bill tied raises to performance. He line item vetoed the performance part but kept the raises.

And finally, you can bet that the Iowa Workforce Development CIETC scandal will come up early and often if he actually gets into the race.

Cochise
06-26-2006, 09:54 AM
I heard an interesting discussion on the radio over the weekend. Basically it centered around the family behaviors of conservatives vs. liberals.

I can't remember any of the percentages or anything. But the point was that conservatives are more likely to be married, many times more likely to have children, exponentially less likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy, and many times more likely to have 3 or more children. More numbers were presented, basically to the point that the rate at which children are born into conservative families far, far outstrips the rate to which they are born into liberal families.

Further it was discussed how the population is declining in Europe in liberal areas such as the UK and France. The birth rate was something like 1.4 to 1.7 around western Europe, with approximately 2.3 needed to keep the current population stable. In the US it was almost 2.3, a little less.

All of it added up to what seemed like a very plausible explaination for the conservative shift in the past 15 to 20 years. Since the baby boom generation conservatives have simply produced a lot more conservatives than liberals have of their kind.

That seemed to be born out by supposedly Bush carrying all the top 18 or so states in population growth, and Kerry carrying all the bottom 11 in population growth in 2004.

According to those stats it was something like 11.5 of every 14 children supposedly could be estimated today as being born into conservative leaning homes.

Thought it was a neat conversation, interesting.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:58 AM
I heard an interesting discussion on the radio over the weekend. Basically it centered around the family behaviors of conservatives vs. liberals.

I can't remember any of the percentages or anything. But the point was that conservatives are more likely to be married, many times more likely to have children, and many times more likely to have 3 or more children. More numbers were presented, basically to the point that the rate at which children are born into conservative families far, far outstrips the rate to which they are born into liberal families.

Further it was discussed how the population is declining in Europe in liberal areas such as the UK and France. The birth rate was something like 1.4 to 1.7 around western Europe, with approximately 2.3 needed to keep the current population stable. In the US it was almost 2.3, a little less.

All of it added up to what seemed like a very plausible explaination for the conservative shift in the past 15 to 20 years. Since the baby boom generation conservatives have simply produced a lot more conservatives than liberals have of their kind.

That seemed to be born out by supposedly Bush carrying all the top 18 or so states in population growth, and Kerry carrying all the bottom 11 in population growth in 2004.

According to those stats it was something like 11.5 of every 14 children supposedly could be estimated today as being born into conservative leaning homes.

Thought it was a neat conversation, interesting.

yea, i also heard that after the 2010 census Republicans will get a huge advantage because people are moving into Republican states and away from the evil lands of liberals

Lake
06-26-2006, 10:03 AM
I would have to say that if anything Bush and the Republicans have become more Liberal. Their greed and power have caused them to forget about the people that put them over the top and into office in the first place. About once a year they play to their old base with scaring them by showing them a gay porn or a video game with violent sex in it and the worst of it is that they buy into it.

mlyonsd
06-26-2006, 10:05 AM
I heard an interesting discussion on the radio over the weekend. Basically it centered around the family behaviors of conservatives vs. liberals.

I can't remember any of the percentages or anything. But the point was that conservatives are more likely to be married, many times more likely to have children, exponentially less likely to abort an unplanned pregnancy, and many times more likely to have 3 or more children. More numbers were presented, basically to the point that the rate at which children are born into conservative families far, far outstrips the rate to which they are born into liberal families.

Further it was discussed how the population is declining in Europe in liberal areas such as the UK and France. The birth rate was something like 1.4 to 1.7 around western Europe, with approximately 2.3 needed to keep the current population stable. In the US it was almost 2.3, a little less.

All of it added up to what seemed like a very plausible explaination for the conservative shift in the past 15 to 20 years. Since the baby boom generation conservatives have simply produced a lot more conservatives than liberals have of their kind.

That seemed to be born out by supposedly Bush carrying all the top 18 or so states in population growth, and Kerry carrying all the bottom 11 in population growth in 2004.

According to those stats it was something like 11.5 of every 14 children supposedly could be estimated today as being born into conservative leaning homes.

Thought it was a neat conversation, interesting.

I knew it. The Republican pro-life plank turns out to be just a Rove secret plan.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 10:08 AM
I would have to say that if anything Bush and the Republicans have become more Liberal. Their greed and power have caused them to forget about the people that put them over the top and into office in the first place. About once a year they play to their old base with scaring them by showing them a gay porn or a video game with violent sex in it and the worst of it is that they buy into it.

ahh no

oldandslow
06-26-2006, 10:09 AM
yea, i also heard that after the 2010 census Republicans will get a huge advantage because people are moving into Republican states and away from the evil lands of liberals

but, but, but, what if there are enough evil liberals moving to red states to turn them purple, or heaven forbid, BLUE....

I don't see how liberals moving to red states helps your cause at all.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 10:23 AM
I would have to say that if anything Bush and the Republicans have become more Liberal. Their greed and power have caused them to forget about the people that put them over the top and into office in the first place. About once a year they play to their old base with scaring them by showing them a gay porn or a video game with violent sex in it and the worst of it is that they buy into it.

Yep.

Bootlegged
06-26-2006, 10:38 AM
Obviously. Everyone plans on voting for Murtha.

oldandslow
06-26-2006, 10:38 AM
I would have to say that if anything Bush and the Republicans have become more Liberal. Their greed and power have caused them to forget about the people that put them over the top and into office in the first place. About once a year they play to their old base with scaring them by showing them a gay porn or a video game with violent sex in it and the worst of it is that they buy into it.

And I would argue that they never were conservative in the sense Barry Goldwater was a conservative....nation building, federal deficits, peaking into people's bedrooms, corporate welfare, big brotherism, etc are and never were the acts of true conservatives (whom I respect, btw.) What this group of hypocritical marauders are is a mutation of liberalism that replaces individuals with corporations and taxing the rich with taxing the middle class.

Now you can tell me that you are a conservative and dislike democratic policy and I respect you...

but don't tell me that you are a supporter of Bush and dislike democratic policy because he is the mirror image of democratic big government. He just taxes and spends for different causes.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 10:39 AM
Obviously. Everyone plans on voting for Murtha.

ROFL

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 10:39 AM
And I would argue that they never were conservative in the sense Barry Goldwater was a conservative....nation building, federal deficits, peaking into people's bedrooms, corporate welfare, big brotherism, etc are and never were the acts of true conservatives (whom I respect, btw.) What this group of hypocritical marauders are is a mutation of liberalism that replaces individuals with corporations and taxing the rich with taxing the middle class.

Now you can tell me that you are a conservative and dislike democratic policy and I respect you...

but don't tell me that you are a supporter of Bush and dislike democratic policy because he is the mirror image of democratic big government. He just taxes and spends for different causes.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Cochise
06-26-2006, 11:21 AM
Obviously. Everyone plans on voting for Murtha.

ROFL

I would love to see a Murtha vs. anyone matchup.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 11:32 AM
Just think tax and spend. Loves to tax everything he can put his hands on. Remember the federal tax rebate checks a few years ago? He tried to get the legislature to levy state income tax on those.

More recently, he's been using the line item veto, despite pretty strong opposition from his own party. The legislature passed a strongly bipartisan bill vs. eminent domain which he chopped up in the name of "economic growth". They also worked for over a year on a compromise for the educational funding bill which included $300M of funding for teacher pay. The bill tied raises to performance. He line item vetoed the performance part but kept the raises.

And finally, you can bet that the Iowa Workforce Development CIETC scandal will come up early and often if he actually gets into the race.

Thanks for the info on Vilsack...'cause I liked him based on what people I know in Iowa have said. ( My kid's aunt, and grandmum who is a Republican live there, they rave about him and the schools as I told you before). But he's just a another liberal. Yuk!

And old and slow's qoute is right on the money! :thumb:

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 11:40 AM
Thanks for the info on Vilsack...'cause I liked him based on what people I know in Iowa have said. ( My kid's aunt, and grandmum who is a Republican live there, they rave about him and the schools as I told you before). But he's just a another liberal. Yuk!

And old and slow's qoute is right on the money! :thumb:

I'm trying to figure out why they'd rave about him. We've had more problems with political infighting and budget deficits under him than under the two previous governors combined (and before you think "ah, it's just two governors, combined Ray and Branstad served from 1969 to 1999).

The talk about the schools is nostalgia, plain and simple. People here want to cling to the stuff about our schools but the fact is that we're slipping.

jAZ
06-26-2006, 11:41 AM
ROFL

I would love to see a Murtha vs. anyone matchup.
So what's up with Lattimer's newfound obsession with Murtha? Did he get his Swiftboat Memo?

mlyonsd
06-26-2006, 11:44 AM
I'm trying to figure out why they'd rave about him. We've had more problems with political infighting and budget deficits under him than under the two previous governors combined (and before you think "ah, it's just two governors, combined Ray and Branstad served from 1969 to 1999).

The talk about the schools is nostalgia, plain and simple. People here want to cling to the stuff about our schools but the fact is that we're slipping.

Yesterday on the PBS show Iowa Press none of the reporters on the panel thought Vilsack would make it past New Hampshire.

Cochise
06-26-2006, 11:44 AM
I'm trying to figure out why they'd rave about him. We've had more problems with political infighting and budget deficits under him than under the two previous governors combined (and before you think "ah, it's just two governors, combined Ray and Branstad served from 1969 to 1999).

The talk about the schools is nostalgia, plain and simple. People here want to cling to the stuff about our schools but the fact is that we're slipping.

I'm no Iowa politics insider, but I know people from that area at my work and through college connections since I went to school with a lot of Iowans (NW Missouri State) and I have never heard anyone actually from Iowa speak highly of him. All you hear from real people, not the press, is Nosack, Viltax, or whatever else they feel like he's bungling.

go bowe
06-26-2006, 11:44 AM
The talk about the schools is nostalgia, plain and simple. People here want to cling to the stuff about our schools but the fact is that we're slipping. judging by jay leno's jaywalking segments, i'd have to say i learned more in grade school than most younger americans have learned in their whole life...

God, i feel old...

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 12:00 PM
Yesterday on the PBS show Iowa Press none of the reporters on the panel thought Vilsack would make it past New Hampshire.

He doesn't offer anything to the party that they don't already have. He's very ho-hum.

Bootlegged
06-26-2006, 12:21 PM
Yeah, but Bushco are idiots. We need someone Murthaesque in there to really get our respect in the world back.

Cochise
06-26-2006, 12:27 PM
Yeah, but Bushco are idiots. We need someone Murthaesque in there to really get our respect in the world back.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

oldandslow
06-26-2006, 12:35 PM
Yeah, but Bushco are idiots. We need someone Murthaesque in there to really get our respect in the world back.


What respect????

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 02:33 PM
I'm no Iowa politics insider, but I know people from that area at my work and through college connections since I went to school with a lot of Iowans (NW Missouri State) and I have never heard anyone actually from Iowa speak highly of him. All you hear from real people, not the press, is Nosack, Viltax, or whatever else they feel like he's bungling.


I'm trying to figure out why they'd rave about him. We've had more problems with political infighting and budget deficits under him than under the two previous governors combined (and before you think "ah, it's just two governors, combined Ray and Branstad served from 1969 to 1999).

The talk about the schools is nostalgia, plain and simple. People here want to cling to the stuff about our schools but the fact is that we're slipping.


Iím tryiní to figure that out myself now. I donít go up there anymore or talk to them anymore to get a real handle on it. I am however, flying my daughter up with a paid escort for a visit to the farm and may to talk for a bit by phone and Iím itchin' to ask but it may be inappropriate. One thing I figure, is that aunt was always kinda liberal ( but claims to be Independent) and influenced the very Republican mum over the years.

Between your posts on Vilsack so far, and what Cochise claims I am really quite surprised.

Logical
06-26-2006, 03:32 PM
.... and this is why Democrats have lost the last three electionsYou really are dimwitted. The Republican swing to placate the RRWNJ's is the main reason I am likely to be voting Democrat in the future, something I have not done in a national election since 1976.

Bootlegged
06-26-2006, 03:32 PM
What respect????

The type a Murtha-led world would give us. Murthpect, if you will.

Logical
06-26-2006, 03:37 PM
yea, i also heard that after the 2010 census Republicans will get a huge advantage because people are moving into Republican states and away from the evil lands of liberals

Oh yes California and Oregon are not growing.ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 03:38 PM
Murthpect...

Lisp? :hmmm:

oldandslow
06-26-2006, 03:47 PM
Lisp? :hmmm:

Naw, Lattimer is just all Murtha, all the time.

Lake
06-26-2006, 04:13 PM
Not to split hairs, but California is only growing because of the people moving here from Mexico. Many Californians are moving out of State at a higher rate than people are moving into the State. Almost every single State has more people moving from Cal to their State than they have going to Cal. Oregon has many people from Cal moving there as well.

Nightwish
06-26-2006, 05:58 PM
they aren't leaving the party...
Former Republican leaders switching sides and running as Democrats aren't leaving the party? How do you figure that? Would you mind sending me a copy of your dictionary - I'd love to take a gander at the Recxjake Dictionary sometime, I'm sure it would be an enlightening read!

Logical
06-26-2006, 07:32 PM
Not to split hairs, but California is only growing because of the people moving here from Mexico. Many Californians are moving out of State at a higher rate than people are moving into the State. Almost every single State has more people moving from Cal to their State than they have going to Cal. Oregon has many people from Cal moving there as well.

LOL where do you people get this, here is the real info:

Are Californians -- who are now coping with overcrowded cities, jammed highways, and a damaged environment -- prepared for future population growth? Consider that by 2035, California's population will approximately double to 64 million, if current population growth continues! This projection is based on the state's current 2% annual growth rate


I can tell you right now we are not getting a million illegal immigrants a year in California. By the way the illegal immigrants typically don't get counted in the census because they avoid census takers and most don't reside in the type of residence a census taker visits. I have not seen too many of the census takers heading to the hill to count heads in the tent communities that move around.

Lake
06-26-2006, 08:23 PM
Wikipedia can be wrong. I have heard it from other sources. I just did not write them down. Census Takers do count the birth and death rate. Immigration to Cal from outside of the US was 1,415,789. Migration within the US was a net loss of 664,460. The higher birth rates among Hispanics. It is estimated that they will be the largest ethnic group in 2010 or 2011. 2035-2040 they will be the majority. Trends indicate that they will have between 55-60% by 2050 because of the low birth rates from Caucasian and African Americans.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:04 PM
Oh yes California and Oregon are not growing.ROFL

lol Oregon....

The entire south is growing leaps and bounds over the N.E and N.W...... the south votes Republican

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:06 PM
Former Republican leaders switching sides and running as Democrats aren't leaving the party? How do you figure that? Would you mind sending me a copy of your dictionary - I'd love to take a gander at the Recxjake Dictionary sometime, I'm sure it would be an enlightening read!

this is one article! there are Democratic leaders switching sides too! They are trying to make a story out of nothing

Nightwish
06-26-2006, 09:17 PM
this is one article! there are Democratic leaders switching sides too! They are trying to make a story out of nothing
The point of the article, I believe, was that an alarming number of Republicans are taking steps to distance themselves from the neocons who have taken over the leadership of the party, some of them go so far as to actually switch sides. This is one article, you're right about that, but it's one of many such articles. Sure there are some Dems leaving the party, too, but are they leaving or distancing themselves from their party elite with near the frequency that it's happening in the GOP? I doubt it.

Logical
06-26-2006, 09:31 PM
lol Oregon....

The entire south is growing leaps and bounds over the N.E and N.W...... the south votes Republican
Really you think so:

Population growth rank states >20 growth:

States Ranked by Rate of Population Growth, 1990-2000 RankStatePercent Growth
1.Nevada66.27%
2.Arizona39.98%
3.Colorado30.56%
4.Utah29.62%
5.Idaho28.53%
6.Georgia26.37%
7.Florida23.53%
8.Texas22.76%
9.North Carolina21.43%
10.Washington21.11%
11.Oregon20.37%
12.New Mexico20.06%

Oh and California you know that little bitty state that has almost double the Representatives of any other state it is growing by almost 14%

18.California13.82%

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:33 PM
Really you think so:

Population growth rank states >20 growth:

States Ranked by Rate of Population Growth, 1990-2000 RankStatePercent Growth1.Nevada66.27%2.Arizona39.98%3.Colorado30.56%4.Utah29.62%5.Idaho28.53%6.Georgia26.37%7.Florida 23.53%8.Texas22.76%9.North Carolina21.43%10.Washington21.11%11.Oregon20.37%12.New Mexico20.06%

Oh and California you know that little bitty state that has almost double the Representatives of any other state it is growing by 18+%

18.California13.82%

Nevada R
Arizona R
Colorado R
Utah R
Idaho R
Georgia R
Forida R
Texas R
N.C. R
New Mexico R

The Dems have 2 on that list lol

Logical
06-26-2006, 09:39 PM
Nevada R
Arizona R
Colorado R
Utah R
Idaho R
Georgia R
Forida R
Texas R
N.C. R
New Mexico R

The Dems have 2 on that list lolActually though the growth has Arizona, Idaho and New Mexico almost all now in the Democrats column, if you remember watching the election these states all went down to the wire. I notice you left out Nevada, Washington and Oregon which are Democratic by majority already.

Oh and Georgia has more registered Dems than Republcans as does Colorado. You might want to start checking which way registrations are actually swinging.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:47 PM
Actually though the growth has Arizona, Idaho and New Mexico almost all now in the Democrats column, if you remember watching the election these states all went down to the wire. I notice you left out Nevada, Washington and Oregon which are Democratic by majority already.

Oh and Georgia has more registered Dems than Republcans as does Colorado. You might want to start checking which way registrations are actually swinging.

what are you smoking......

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:47 PM
U.S. PRESIDENT / ARIZONA

STATUS CANDIDATE VOTE VOTE % EV
Bush
(Incumbent)
1,104,294 55% 10
Kerry
893,524 44% 0
Badnarik

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:48 PM
U.S. PRESIDENT / GEORGIA

STATUS CANDIDATE VOTE VOTE % EV
Bush
(Incumbent)
1,914,254 58% 15
Kerry
1,366,149 41%

recxjake
06-26-2006, 09:49 PM
U.S. PRESIDENT / COLORADO

STATUS CANDIDATE VOTE VOTE % EV
Bush
(Incumbent)
1,101,255 52% 9
Kerry
1,001,732

Logical
06-26-2006, 10:01 PM
what are you smoking......

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/

We are talking registration (how many of each party) not who voted for President. Please keep up.

recxjake
06-26-2006, 10:05 PM
We are talking registration (how many of each party) not who voted for President. Please keep up.

i dont give two shits about registered voters! I only care about who actually makes it to the ballet box... Republicans will get huge gains after the 2010 census