Mary Beth Schneider, writing for the Indy star, has an article entitled “Voter ire may tip balance in House.” The article takes a look how the Toll Road and the Daylight Saving Time issues in particular might affect the balance of power in the Indiana House in 2006.
All The Democrats have to do is come up with an overall theme and the Republcians are in trouble in Indiana…
it’s an interesting dichotomy because many of the republican voters are one-issue social conservative voters. For some who are really upset with the Toll Road deal and DST vote, they may still hesitate to vote Democrat,or in favor of ‘abortion and gays'(as they would see it).Might be a VERY tough choice for them!
Things are tight enough that it may be sufficient for the Democrats if such voters to simply stay home or (and Mike can hope) vote Libertarian.
Doug may have it right about Republicans simply staying home. A demoralized GOP supporter is more likely to turn “passive agressive” and just stay home than he/she is to turn to the Democrats. As for small government conservatives, I cannot see what they would see in the party of Bosma and Daniels. The closing arguments for the Toll Road lease came straight from the Keynsian Economics playbook of Government spending being the source of prosperity.
We’re all Keynesians now.
“We are all Keynesians now”, Nixon wasn’t it?
Well, Keynesianism beats bread and circuses for keeping people (at least pedestrians) off the streets. The Republicans though only hauled out the Keynesian argument when it suited them, which wouldn’t be much of a point except that the logic of Keynesianism would also have suggested that improved service from the BMV through new and expanded branches (funded by sale of the toll road!) would also be a boost to the State’s economy. Improved service from the BMV would seem to offer Hoosiers as much of a chance for “saving time” as the road projects being proposed and think of all the construction projects!
Lou, you do make a good point.
I often vote Republican because few (but not all) Democrats are pro-choice. There are many policies that I disagree with Republicans on, and the total number of things I disagree with are proablly more than I disagree with Democrats on.
However, I want to see the most lives saved. From my view, abortion costs more lives that the Iraq war or other things Bush has brought. So, I vote for those that I feel will kill the fewest people.
Now, I don’t want to start another abortion debate (we already have a great thread for that a few posts back). I mainly wanted to point out that for many a single issue can outweigh a great deal of other issues. I would assume those who have no strong feelings on abortion but do on war would vote Democratic regardless of how many policies they might disagree with the party on.
So, of the growing middle ground, how many vote for a single issue, and how many add up the like / don’t like for each person and vote that way?
jason,
I wish anti-abortion people would look at a person’s WHOLE life span as ‘life’,but that would require a totally socialist government to intervene all along the way.So you guys ‘pick and choose’when life is important enough for government to become involved.Just be consistant.
Lou,
Please re-read the 3rd sentence of my post. My point was that I would like to vote for more things that would increase the care and support given to people after birth. However, all that is moot if people are prevented from even being born.
I am trying to be consistant. The current structure of the people I can vote for prevents that. So, I choose the option that, from my point of view, give the best chances for life to the most people.
Show me a person that repects life at all stages and they have my vote. But please, don’t lump me in with people who may share my view on one issue and assume I support them on their other heartless views.