Maureen Groppe, writing for the Indianapolis Star, puts some numbers to a subject I was talking about a few days ago – the chances for Democrats to pick up more seats in Indiana in light of the Democratic victory in a blood red district in Mississippi. The Mississippi district went to Bush in 2004 with 62% of the vote. By contrast IN-04 where Nels Ackerson seeks to unseat Steve Buyer went to Bush with 69% of the vote and IN-03 where Mike Montagano seeks to unseat Mark Souder went to Bush with 68% of the vote.
So, as the article points out, it would be tougher for the Democrats to pick up those seats than the one in Mississippi. It does bear mentioning, however, that the Mississippi district went to the Democrat by 8%. Souder and Buyer have built in advantages, but the Republicans have a lot of baggage, particularly with respect to national offices, and their competitors this year are mounting realistic challenges. These races might draw close enough for the difference to come down to the candidates themselves and their positions; rather than simply an unthinking preference for either the Republican team or the Democratic team. That could be trouble for the incumbents because my sense is that, even among devoted Republicans, Buyer and Souder aren’t exactly beloved, known for constituent outreach, or respected for their accomplishments while in office.
Groppe notes the new House Republican slogan “Change You Deserve” and the fact that it’s already an antidepressant drug slogan. For me, it’s the potentially ominous sarcasm that makes the slogan funny. What if these guys don’t think we deserve much change? Or what if they think we deserve negative change? To me it sounds a lot like “You’ve got what’s coming to you.”
I thought the article in the New York Times today titled Gaining Seats,Democrats Find Their House Ideologically Divided was very interesting.Recent special election winners and last years freshmen democratic House winners like Heath Shuler and my congressman Brad Ellsworth among others are pro-life,pro-gun,anti-illegal immigration congressmen and these special election winnners are cut from the same cloth.The growing number of conservative democrats causes problems for Speaker Pelosi but the article acknowledges this is still a good problem to have.I think Ellsworth will win easily this Fall, we will look forward to voting for him again.He represents the views of the 8th district very well in my opinion.
The abortion issue being pro-life seems to be a very important issue in this district although I’ve always come down on the pro-choice side because it’s always been my belief a person should have the right to make decisions about their own body.I know there are those who will argue there is another life at issue here and I repsect those views.
I could be wrong, but mostly I don’t think it’s a big problem. The Democratic leaders will probably use their control of the committees to prevent abortion and gun control legislation from coming to the floor. The status quo on some of these cultural wedge issues is probably good enough for most Democrats. Hopefully the focus will be economic and foreign policy issues where I don’t think most of these new conservative Democrats have too much trouble going along with the party.
I glanced at the article and have been so scarred by media coverage over the past decade or so that I just took at as another round of “this is good news for the Republicans.”
I don’t see how any media outlet or pundit can find any good news for republicans anywhere.Things can change in politics in a 24 hr cycle and I’ve been back and forth on this but unless something happens I think Obama will be elected president.Mccain’s got nothing to offer people.His own party hates him and I don’t think will show up this Fall to vote for him.He’s been in Washington for I think over 20 yrs and has nothing new to offer and even though some will say his temper and poor treatment of fellow senators shouldn’t be a issue I disagree.
I don’t know what to think anymore.I love following the process and the candidates.Believe it or not I watch every one of these shows Lou Dobbs,O’Reilly Factor,The Situation Room,Hanity and Colmes,Meet The Press,Fox News Sunday,and This Week with George S.I thought for a while although all my friends and family are registered democrats I was leaning to being republican because of the immigration issue which is important to me and many I know but it’s really the only issue I agree with the republicans on and there are almost as many republicans with liberal immigration views as democrats but for different reasons ie cheap labor vs possible new democratic voters.I guess if the democratic party can have room for the Ellsworths and Shulers they’ll have room for me.I’m generally in line with the dems on most issues.
I know this much I listened much of the previous news cycle to the Bush calling out of Obama on being a apeaser and then Mccain and Obama going back and forth about who will or won’t talk to the president of Iran.This is meaningless to everyone I know who’s spending a whole lot of their weekly pay check on gas to get to and from work and ever increasing grocery store prices.Personally I don’t think it will matter one way or another if Obama or McCain chooses to talk to or not talk to the president of Iran because he’s gonna do what he wants.Same for Hammas.
I have never thought Obama set in his church for twenty yrs because he agreed with Wright he seems far too intelligent of a man for that.I think he did it for political reasons for credibility sake.My problem with Obama will be on a liberal immigration position which is basically the same as McCains except McCain won’t admit and is being untruthful about the issue now because it would sink him with his base just like it did last year.
I”ll repeat I do not see how McCain can travel through Ohio,a state he has to have and sell free trade policies like NAFTA to people who lost high paying manufacturing jobs because of said policies and are suffering.I just don’t see it.
Issues I agree with the democrats on being universal healthcare,trade policy,enviroment,ECONOMIC ISSUES.Wedge issues like abortion,gay marriage are not that important to me.I’m pro-choice like I stated above for civil unions but think the states ie people should decide if their state should recognize gay marriage but it’s not a issue that matters much to me.
I still stand strong for border security.This chaotic issue can’t continue.
For what it’s worth and to the extent possible, I’d recommend getting information from places other than those news shows. They strike me as being more entertainment than information. Newspapers generally give you more information.
By way of disclosure, I watch them from time to time myself, but I try not to rely on those shows.
McCain really is screwed. Like PTN said, his own party hates him, but at the same time, there are photos of him hugging Bush (Nice find, Doug).
If he can’t get his whole party to vote for him, and many in the middle are going to tie him to Bush, he’s done.
It’s a mystery how someone could think they’re leaning republican based on one issue. Yet that’s what their “big tent” was built on. For many, it wouldn’t matter if their were bread lines a mile long, toxic waste in the water, and war without end as long as they had their gun/marriage-by-their-definition-only/flag worship/prayer in schools/you name it single issue.
I rarely if every hear a Democrat say, “I’m really with the Republicans on so many things, but not on abortion/gay marriage/environmental policy/other single issue, and therefore I have to vote Democratic.”
I rarely if every hear a Democrat say, “I’m really with the Republicans on so many things, but not on abortion/gay marriage/environmental policy/other single issue, and therefore I have to vote Democratic.â€
Really? If I had a dollar for every rich, educated Democrat who was a Democrat soley because of the abortion issue, I’d be a rich man.
And generally they’re for the abortion issue because they have teenage daughters, and want to have the option should said daughter get knocked up.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.
I wouldn’t discount the ideological divide within the Democrat party. Republicans know how to market wedge issues. Being a blue dog Democrat, or whatever you want to call these guys, may be great when you are running for office the first time. But sooner or later you’re going to have a voting record.
Can the Democrats put off gun control legislation forever? When Chicago Democrats, who are going to be Big Dogs when Obama is President, are pushing so hard for it?
For what it’s worth and to the extent possible, I’d recommend getting information from places other than those news shows.
Yeah! Get your news where Democrats get it: The Daily Show. Colbert Report. Letterman. etc.
Those places are probably superior to the cable news programs since they’re up front about entertainment being their primary goal. But, generally, TV isn’t going to get you the information you need. I don’t say this as an anti-TV snob — I watch some of the most craptacular television imaginable. The format just doesn’t lend itself to substantive programming.
I see it being put forward as a state or local issue. That’s how Dean characterized it when he was running for President. Maybe it’s a dodge that’s handy for Democrats who don’t want to get slaughtered in a national election, but gun control doesn’t seem to lend itself to a nationwide approach. Guns in New Hampshire just don’t seem to have the same effect as guns in D.C.
And the difference between these two locations is left as an exercise for the student.
Now let’s not always see the same hands…
Ah, but which distinctions are the relevant ones? Racial composition? Educational quality? Income disparity? Employment rate? Prevalence of stay-at-home parents? Population density?
Those were the first ones that came to mind. I’m sure there are many more distinctions that could contribute.
Well, I was thinking about the fact that you can legally have one for self-defense in New Hampshire – that would seem to be more immediately on point than any demographic analysis.
That doesn’t help when Chicago is right on the border of Indiana.
Hell, Cabela’s sells all kinds of scary looking guns. They’re a mere bus stop away from Chicago.
Chicago ran all the legal gun dealers out of the city, and they set up shop a few blocks outside city limits. Then they got Cook County to harrass the gun dealers, and they moved to neighboring counties in Illinois. Then they got the state to do the harrassing. So the dealers move to Indiana.
Now what are they going to do? With Obama in office, with 60 votes in the Senate, with Dick Durbin in a high position, they can do whatever they want to!
At least that’s what the National Rifleman will be saying from now until November. The truth is that many in the Democratic ranks support gun rights. There isn’t going to be a sixty-vote gun-banning bloc in the Senate. But the fear of that is one of the few things the Republicans have going this cycle, so they better work it.
One word: Assault Weapons Ban.
That’s what the Democrats got done the last time they owned all three houses of Congress.
BTW, I just got my DPMS AR-10.
Now I’m ready for the apocalypse.
That’s three words, Buzz. :)
I do agree, though. I don’t fear the Democrats banning guns completely, but I do see silly things like banning clips that hold more than 10 rounds. The high-cap clips were available and legal the entire time the ban was in effect, they just cost more since you couldn’t make them anymore.
How many lives were saved by the madman only having 10 bullets per clip instead of 17?
Vermont is a much more interesting contrast to Washington D.C. than New Hampshire is.
So that other students can raise their hands, I’ll just advise some avenues of research.
What are the state-level gun regulations in Vermont?
What are Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s politics?
I should really bet conservatives a testicle over this stuff every time it comes up, but I don’t know what I’d do with all of them. (Implant them in Democratic politicians, I reckon.)
All three houses of Congress?
Jeez, Buzzcut and Mike Kole sure are showing me up for an ignoramus tonight. I’ve never felt so poorly-informed!
I also get info from papers WAPO,Washington Times,INDY Star,Eville Courier etc.I may be wrong but I think there’s something to be learned by listening to the above shows they ususally have two opposing sides arguing a point.Obviously some of these shows have a one sided editorial point of view like Dobbs and O’Reilly but that’s no different than C. Mathews and K.Olberman on MSNBC.
As a lawyer, I’d be the last to suggest that there is no truth-revealing function to be had from adversaries arguing opposing viewpoints. The trouble with these news argument shows is that they are, at best, two dimensional when the truth is more complicated; and there is no real guarantee that the “facts” asserted in support of one of the points have any real truthful foundation.
Doug –
Sadly, in the public sphere we see a whole lot of arguing to win for the sake of winning – and very little honest debating to seek the truth of a proposition.
One of my dreams is to see an actual presidential debate – as opposed to the group symposiums that we are usually subjected to. (Typically with bad moderation to add insult to the injury…)
I personally would like to thank the “assault weapon ban” for letting me get an AR-15 at a $400 discount once the ban was lifted. All because it was made during the “ban” and therefore doesn’t have a flash-suppressor. So a little flame shoots out the end and it’s loud. Come the apocalype, I want a loud gun.
Magazines were more expensive. But they last forever if you treat them right.
So does anyone know if Ackerson is for or against abortion? I’m trying to be open minded based on whether people are republican or democrat here, but that is an issue I like to know the standings on. THanks!
I’ve been looking all over the web, and I can’t find a single thing about his position on abortion nor on redefining the word “marriage.†I hate to jump to conclusions, but that indicates to me that he is antichoice (meaning pro-abortion) and anti-family (meaning pro-redefinition). Kind of a shame, really. :-(