Exodus: GOP Identification Down 18% Since 2004

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 14:16


Realignment Watch: Pew Reports On GOP Collapse--Dems Have Yet To Capitalize

The Pew report released ten days ago represents possibly the strongest indication yet of a major ongoing partisan realignment, along the lines of what was last seen in 1930/1932--or at least half of one, as people are leaving the Republican Party in droves--almost one in five since 2004--while more independents are leaning Democratic. So many other things have been happening, however, that it doesn't seem as if this report has gotten nearly the attention that it deserves. If nearly one in five people had left the Democratic Party since 2004, the coverage would have been so intense, it would have driven Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears into obscurity, but with the GOP undergoing collapse, not so much.  Still, why are WE paying so little attention?  And, more importantly, what can we do to take maximum advantage of this turn of events?

Pew (3/20):

The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles.

In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.

In particular, good as the news may be for Democrats, it's main importance may be in calling attention to a potential for even further, and much more substantial gains--if Democrats will recognize the opportunity, and move to sieze it.  One indication of that is the growth of independents, rather than Democrats, but with a widening margin of Democratic-leaning independents.  The challenge is to move substantial numbers of independents into the Democratic Party, while continuing to drive down the number of Republicans.  And the way to accomplish both these goals is for Democrats to go on the offensive, and aggressively take charge of the political narrative in America.




The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.

The Democratic Party has also built a substantial edge among independent voters. Of the 37% who claim no party identification, 15% lean Democratic, 10% lean Republican, and 12% have no leaning either way.

Despite these trends, the proportion of voters who identify with the Democratic Party outright has not increased in recent years. Currently, 36% say they think of themselves as a Democrat, virtually unchanged from 2004 (35%) and 2000 (35%). Instead, as the proportion of self-identified Republicans has decreased, the percentage of independents has grown substantially, from 32% in 2004 to 37% today.

 

This means that nearly one in five people (18%) who considered themselves a Republican in 2004--pre-Camp Casey, pre-Katrina, pre-Social Security privatization defeat, pre-Terri Schiavo, pre-NSA Scandal, pre-USA Scandal, pre-Foley/Vitters/Craig, pre-"Macaca"--no longer does so.  Nearly one in five.

Paul Rosenberg :: Exodus: GOP Identification Down 18% Since 2004


Democrats have improved their relative positions in all categories of states--Red, Blue and Swing, but the most dramatic development has been the openinig of a widening partisan gap in swing states, where narrow margins of 3% in 2004 have expanded dramatically to 11%.









The partisan gap in blue states has widened as well, and now stands at 18%, however, these states were already Democratic at the national level.  But this should help with continuing to squeeze out Republican Congressional seats.









Finally, in red states, the narrow 3-point advantage Republicans enjoyed in 2004 has vanished to nothing.




Swing states are the most important nationally, and this is where Democratic grains are especially concentrated--the best news of this report.


Among four large swing states, three now have 10-point Democratic advantages or better--12 in Ohio and Michigan, and 10 in Pennsylvania.  Only Florida remains closem wtih a 3-point margin.





In contast, among Red states, most are still quite close.  North Carolina is the outlier among large Red states, with Democrats now holding a 13-point edge.





Blue strongholds remain well out of reach for Republicans, with margins of 10 points or better.





Non-Hispanic Whites are now evenly split, narrowing dramatically from a 9-point GOP advantage in 2004. Black Republicans are still more common on TV than elsewhere.





The GOP losses among  non-Hispanic Whites can be seen in all three types of states--Red, Blue and Swing.


All the above has several consequences that stand out:

    (1) GOP loses are so severe that most, if not virtually all polling firms are probably inadvertantly inflating GOP numbers in their samples, thereby adding several points to McCain's totals across the board, with the most significant gains in Swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. With party ID as volatile as this, virtually all polls throughout this election cycle may be vulnerable to unknown uncertainties, unless pollsters seriously address this potential source of bias.

    (2) The widespread disenchantment with the GOP has not yet translated into substantial Democratic gains, but it has created an opening for Democrats to reach tens of millions of Americans who are newly more open to their message--as well as, of course, tens of millions of new, young voters. This is already evident in the increased the number of Democratic-leaning independents.

    But Democrats need to become pro-active in shaping the nature of the dominant political narratives in order to take maximum advantage. Setting the terms of debate--which the GOP has been all-too-successful at over the past several decades--is the most fundamental of strategic political goals.

    We saw a striking example of this in Barack Obama's speech on race, which did not go as far as I would have wanted, but clearly challenged the GOP's standard narrative, and did it so successfully that even many conservative praised it. We can do much more of this, particularly given the wide array of problems that the GOP has given us, based on their misguided views.

    (3) This means added opportunities for progressives who are not shy about bucking the Versailles, GOP-lite conventional wisdom. You don't pick up people fleeing the GOP in droves by sounding just like them. This should be a no-brainer. It's one thing to recognize their enduring concerns that made them Republicans once. It's quite another to sound like a weaker version of the party they just left in disgust.

    For example, projecting strength is still very important for many of them. But we can project strength by standing tall for the Constitution, we don't have to cave on NSA wireataps in the name of the very same misguided sense of "strength" that they have just walked away from.

    (4) As more and more people have left the GOP, this leaves the various different factions more sharply in tension with one another, which opens the way for even more potential factional disagreements that can continue large-scale losses. I will be posting an a diary later today that highlights hints of this in wingnut reactions to Condi Rice's appreciative comments about Obama's speech on race. This is yet another modality by which gaining control of the narrative, and setting the terms of debate confers major strategic advantages on a party.

I am sure there are more consequences that commentators here can identify.  Have at it, dudes and dudettes.  


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

They won't seize on it (0.00 / 0)
The leadership remains the group that spent much of its time first reacting to and then defending against Reaganism. This generation of Democratic politicians and existing leadership thinks in those terms.

As for the good news, you are right- that strength isn't about what position you take. It's about taking one.  


This generation (0.00 / 0)
Which is why we need to hand the reigns over to the next generation.

[ Parent ]
If Only... (0.00 / 0)
Barack Obama had ever heard of FDR, I might be more inclined to agree.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Not so much Obama (0.00 / 0)
I actually left this vague for a reason.  It isn't Obama himself as much as his voters and advisers.  The youth of the voters is obvious.  But also all of his advisers are about a half generation down from Clinton advisers.

And, of course, the next generation of leaders in congress.

Obama's lack of defending the Liberal label continues to annoy me.  How I would love at least a bone like "well some call these proposals liberal, but I just call them common sense..." tacked on to what he already says.  Even a tiny bit of lip service would help.

But in many ways I don't think this election is the true turning point, in sort of the same way I don't think all your analysis of the past elections are quite correct.  The real turning point will be the re-election in 2012 like it was Reagan's re-election 1984 that really solidified a generation of voters.

Get the younger guys and galls in office, succeed, and reap the benefits.


[ Parent ]
I don't see how they are going to suceed (0.00 / 0)
given they are a playing the politics of hope mixed in with the outcomes of lowered expectations. We hope we will do "okay." Well when you raise the bar so low I suppose it's possible,b ut its definitely not something that going to make people cling to you for decades to come.

[ Parent ]
Two Problems (0.00 / 0)
One of them is just what bruhrabbit said.  I, too, agree that it's the movement much more than the man, but the problem is that the man is not just a cipher, he's a committed cipher.

The other is not a problem problem, just a communication problem.  When I'm talking about realigning elections and such, two facts need to be kept in mind: (1) the elections themselves always come in the form of turning away from a failed system, before people can possibly know what the new system will bring.  Yet, the historical record is clear: these are the turning points.  They are often followed by more substantial victories--FDR did significantly better in 1936 than he did in 1932--but those are generally icing on the cake.  What counts is that they got into the office in the first place, and then started doing something--mostly, something that worked.

And, of course, I must reiterate for the umpteenth time that Reagan is not a legitimate realigning example.  (Don't believe me?  Just look at the 1986 Senate elections.)

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Realignment (0.00 / 0)
If I remember your realignment graphs correctly, the conservative party never gets full control; at least you never claimed that this most recent era implied Republicans had full control.  This is a mixed party era, even buying into this frame the 1986 elections don't prove anything.  (Of course, buying into this frame implies I already lost the argument, so yea, I realize I'm on thin ice, here.)  

Basically, I thought your graphs were really persuasive for some eras, but not very convincing from Eisenhower forward.  Regardless of which party wins elections I still believe 1984 solidified a conservative mindset that both parties adjusted to.  Sometimes perception defines reality.

But I also believe people were generally getting more (socially, at least) liberal during this period, they just didn't know it.  Sometimes we confuse the underlining trend with the backlash to that trend.  So yea, my views are confusing and obviously less well thought out than yours, but correct nonetheless (dagnabit).


[ Parent ]
Dagnabit, Indeed! (0.00 / 0)
Actually, the 1968-present era is an anomaly.  It's the only one where divided government is the rule, rather than the exception.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I thought about this some more (0.00 / 0)
One of the problems about tracking trends and looking for patterns is each event is preceded by another that led to it.  Choosing which even is the 'important' or 'realigning' is a bit subjective.  Here is how I think of it, explained in a way I think you will get:

1968: Welcome to the Hellmouth
1980: School Hard
1984: Surprise/Innocence

(The cancellation of Savannah would be Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, I guess.  Or perhaps the movie...)


[ Parent ]
There isn't much difference between them (4.00 / 1)
If the older generation spent time with the notion that they must defend against Reaganism in acedency, the new one accepts Reaganisms on some level as if they were facts. ie, we must pay exorbitant amounts for education because thats the way things are and its unreal to not expect things not to be this way. You aren't going to win anything else. The politics of "lowered expectations."

Ie, healthcare is about choice even if there are no real choices. It's also anti reason based analysis. I am for socialized medicine, but against mandates. Etc. There isn't any "thought" in it.

I want something for nothing. It's the Oprah , I know the "Secret," version of politics. Why didn't I suceed last week. I bought that 20 buck self help book that simply says I got to believe.  

That's the present generation coming up. They want to have suceeded last week, not next year. At the heart of all of this is a kinder gentler version of Reaganism. I wish it weren't but even as people aren't becoming the harsher GOP types, they aren't exactly embracing empiricism, reasoning and liberal thought in any mass numbers either. They are embracing personalities and rejecting idealogical far right perspectives. Again, not the same as embracing of progressivisim. In the long run, personality driven politics is the antithesis of progressive thought. Let me be clear- I don't think Obama is anymore guilty of this. You get this amongst Clinton supporters too, but its less obvious.  


[ Parent ]
Incidentally, the reason why personality (0.00 / 0)
driven politics is the anti thesis of liberalism and modernity I hope is obvious- its because of accountability.

[ Parent ]
Almost as bad as dynamism (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I don't know what that term means (0.00 / 0)
I am not an idealogue. I am guessing you are making some reference that you think I am suppose to know. I don't. My point is about just basic levels of understanding how democracies- at least the modern liberal ones- work best. The rest, all the neo theories, are nice, but frankly I do quite well with just understanding the basic ideas of our democracy.

[ Parent ]
I probably made the word up (0.00 / 0)
Seeing how the spell checker didn't like it, I probably made the word up.  My biggest problem with Clinton isn't her politics or anything she has control over.  My biggest problem is the notion of dynasties.  I just don't like the idea of someone "enheriting" their position.  This is very common in other societies (heck, even ours, see the Bushes and Kennedies), but not very democratic.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, Well, I Don't Like "Dallas" Or "Falcon Crest," Either! (0.00 / 0)
There were a lot of sucky shows on tv in the 80s, that's for sure!

And Kevin Phillips is right.  They were part of a toxic political mood.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Well I agree with you on that point (0.00 / 0)
There arguments to be made about the candidacies of both taking on anti liberal and progressive values amongst supporters. I would also argue they each have anti democratic (lower case d) supporters who could care less about the democratic process, and more than willing to engage in GOP tactics so long as they think it will net their candidate a win. I say both -- whereas until recently I might have said Clinton, but now I think its clear to me that both are capable of it. Its disappointing. But either one will get my vote on Sen 100 YEars War.

[ Parent ]
I really do feel a fish out of water (0.00 / 0)
Much of this is people re inventing wheels and thinking they are saying something new. For instances, when I hear some supporter say to me that Obama is something new- I am like- well maybe he's a new concept to you.  

[ Parent ]
New Coke? (0.00 / 0)
That's my hangup.  I remember the lamest of the "new."

Now, something gnu, I'd be down with that.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Part of the problem (0.00 / 0)
is that progressives/liberals think they are smartert han they are. Meaning, that they are above being manipulated by branding. Of course, we are the most likely to be manipulated because we think we are above it all.

All Obama has done is what Oprah does everyday- branding. To anyone not used to media branding, I am guessing this is a shock. "The Secret" is there is no secret. The "Tipping Point" is that other people can influence us.

To me, it's kind of a bit like you said- tacking "new" in front of Coke. That's the secret. That's the tipping point.  I am the "change" candidate. I believe in "hope." Please fill those words with whatever meaning you personally ascribe to them. If you are an altruist fill hope with community work. If you are sociopath what do you fill hope with?

It takes a lot of will power to remain skeptical, especially with the bandwagon effect of get on the bus (or die), in the face of such branding pressures.  


[ Parent ]
Well, One Thing I Do Is Interpolate... (0.00 / 0)
Which is a fancy ways of saying, I ask myself, "If this were the sort of thing it claims to be, then what would it contain?"

So, for example, the "dignitarian" interpolation makes some headway, which is probably the most hopeful thing I've heard from the Obama campaign.

But on economics, not so much.

There are bits and pieces.  But what's being sold isn't bits and pieces.  It's vision.  And if there's one thing I don't see there, it's vision.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Neither candidate has a vision (0.00 / 0)
I asked point blank what there vision was a view months back, and got a lot of defensive "well you support Edwards so that's why you are asking this" sort of response. Of course, I was asking it because I understood that Presidencies aren't about answers that you know, it's about what will guide you in situations that you don't know. The problem with many supporters is that they lost sight of themselves in favor of my candidate=right answer. My formulation was always right answers=candidate who gets what the right answers are. It's the branding thng, by the way, why most Obama supporters don't get the charges that they are personality centric. IF they were focused on something in terms of substance- the first thing you think when you hear a term like change, isn't "wow change" but instead "what kind of change?" to this day you won't get many to admit they have only vague notions of what he mean. Not that Clinton is much better. but this is the choice we have.

[ Parent ]
Obama's vision (0.00 / 0)
Obama's vision is the problems preventing the progress are institutional, so fix the institution and changes we need will come about more naturally.

The vision is at the meta level and you may not agree with it, but it is most definitely there.


[ Parent ]
The Technocratic Vision (0.00 / 0)
leaves a lot of folks cold.  And a lot of visionaries either chuckling or shaking their heads.

What's more, there's a good deal of history about this.  The early 20th Century Progressives tried this route, with decidedly mixed results.

OTOH, FDR combined institutional and substantive reforms, and produced the most profound transformation our country has seen.

Given that some sort of FDR-style reform is desperately needed to help millions of people victimized by subprime loans, it's close to criminal that Obama has yet to feel their pain, much less sense the need for heroic action.

A little less Oprah, a little more FDR.  That's what needed right now.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
It's not a matter of disagreement (0.00 / 0)
It's just that's not a phisophy about humans and how we can meet and adress them. It doesn't encompass complexity. It's kind of a cope out to say well its the insitution because well, duh! Institutions are based on people. How do we change people is where he will fail to change the institutions.

[ Parent ]
Made my day. (4.00 / 1)
The best part is that Republican leadership is "staying the course". Staying the course into oblivion.

Democrats Don't Know How To Talk the People's Language (0.00 / 0)
It has been decades since the Democratic Party, as an institution, has communicated with the public at the kitchen table level.

As a group, the party has been long been captured by a rotating group of consultants who plow the same old ground, election after election. Same money: Hollywood, lawyers, lobbyists. Same groups: Public employee unions, liberal interest groups, Israel lobby, real estate lobby.

There's not a lot of new blood. Even Obama isn't as fresh as he seems. Look at who's running his campaign. Familiar names, taking a familiar path. They're the Chicago Lakefront Liberals, writ large on the national stage.

Obama gives a better speech than all the rest of them put together, but it's still the same speech. For the Democratic Party to become the majority party, it'll have to start talking like America and thinking about what Americans think about from day to day.

Riddle me this one, Batman: In 25 words or less, can anyone tell me why they're a Democrat? And if you asked that one of 20 Democrats, how many of the answers would be even similar, let alone the same? The public doesn't know what we stand for. Because of that, we're forever vulnerable to being typecast as the villain of the moment.

Want to convert the independents into Democrats? Start talking like they do, and start thinking like they do.


You Wouldn't Belive How Many Dem Consultants Have Made A Fortune (0.00 / 0)
saying exactly what you're saying.

James, is that you?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Well Then ... (0.00 / 0)
... how come no one ever listens to them?

[ Parent ]
You're Kidding, Right??? (0.00 / 0)
It is you, James!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
They do and the Democrats have lost consistently (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Funny Kind of Listening (0.00 / 0)
From where I sit, the Democrats keep doing Washington-speak.

[ Parent ]
Well considering where you sit seems to say (4.00 / 1)
both that they should listen to consultants and that they should speak authentically, I think the problem is your ability to diagnose what's happening.

[ Parent ]
Did You Bother To READ What I Wrote? (0.00 / 0)
I said the Democratic Party should learn how to talk like Americans talk. It was someone else who said they've been getting this advice from consultants for years.

My reaction to that was that if this is what consultants have been telling them, then they're not listening. I haven't heard a Democratic candidate talk the people's language for a long, long time.

I have never met a political consultant. I notice that all of the Democratic campaigns, including Obama's, are using the same clique of consultants whose names I've been seeing for the last 20 years.


[ Parent ]
yeah I did read what you wrote,b ut perhaps you don't realize (0.00 / 0)
it makes no sense in context:

"You Wouldn't Belive How Many Dem Consultants Have Made A Fortune (0.00 / 0)
saying exactly what you're saying.
James, is that you?

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 23:33
[ Parent | Reply |   ]
Well Then ... (0.00 / 0)
... how come no one ever listens to them?" is the line by you in response. Your originaly post said something else.


[ Parent ]
If Consultants Are In Fact Saying This ... (0.00 / 0)
... then no one's listening to them, and the Democratic Party should start listening to them. That doesn't mean I support these consultants or am familiar with them. It means that I think the Democratic Party should talk like the people talk.

It's been a very long time since that has happened. As soon as the average Democrat opens his or her mouth, you can tell that they're either from Washington, D.C. or Hollywood, or have spent too much time there.

Even more importantly, you can see it in the policies. The Democratic Party has long abandoned the low-income worker.


[ Parent ]
ps, just to be clear this is the line that gained the reaction (0.00 / 0)
'Want to convert the independents into Democrats? Start talking like they do, and start thinking like they do.'

Consultants argue that we need to reach independents, but they defined that as reaching the right. your post is confusing since you are claiming you are saying the opposite it seems of what you wrote.


[ Parent ]
Independents Defined (0.00 / 0)
I take a wider view than others might. I think of "independent" voters as those who used to be known as "ticket splitters," along with non-voters. More important to me is non-voters. I suspect the various consultants limit themselves to ticket splitters and think the way to get them is to cut a deal with the wingnuts.

Look, in early 1960s the participation rate was 70% or thereabouts. Now it's in the low-50s. That translates to 30 or 40 million missing voters. That's where the gold is. The Republicans are doing everything they can to keep those people from participating, the the Democrats are playing the Republican game when they bargain with the devil.

Who are the non-voters? I think the studies show that this group is people who are lower-income and generally on the margins. They look at the political system and see a bunch of people who don't talk like they do, don't think like they do, and don't have a clue as to what matters to them. So they don't bother to vote because why vote for someone who lives on Neptune and talks like they're from Pluto?

Within the independents ("ticket splitters") you've got some people who are genuinely engaged and truly independent, but you've got a whole lot of people who are one step away from becoming non-voters. In fact, in every election cycle, another 1% to 2% of potential voters drop off the tree. Why? Because the political system is full of people who live on Neptune and talk like they're from Pluto.

I think this disaffected group is overwhelmingly Democratic, if the Democratic Party gave a shit about them. They're not making any money, and the system is screwing around with them. They know it, they see it, the live it. And they look around and don't see anyone in either party who has a clue, so they say, "ah fuck it."

I really don't think it would be all that hard to reach this group, oddly enough. There is one thing uniting them, and that's that they WORK for scraps. Someday, some genius in the Democratic Party is going to get the political Nobel Prize because he woke up one day and figured out how to give 30 million people a pay raise.

It would not be hard to do it, but you have to start by giving a shit, which I genuinely think very, very few Democratic officeholders do.


[ Parent ]
THe problem is that you are saying two contradictory things givenq (0.00 / 0)
the context. if consultants meant what you mean- sure, but they don't . for them 'authentic' means right. it's the central issue i have with obama -- if he were truly trying to be post partisan he would be talking to the far left as much as the far right. instead we continue to talk to the far right.

[ Parent ]
Obama's "Post-Partisanship" Is Mostly An Act (0.00 / 0)
It's a good act, by the way. It's squarely in that Chicago lakefront reformer tradition. But Obama's no more "post-partisan" than I grew up on Neptune and arrived here a week ago last Thursday.

He's a Democrat whose campaign is on a roll, at least in the primaries. If he picks Hagel (different thread on that one), he'll be a Democrat who co-opted the Republicans on the war. It'll be a masterstroke, but it won't be "post partisan." It'll still be theatre, just maybe a classic, that's all.

Authenticity? That's a little like friendship in Washington. Get a dog. The very worst thing we can do with any of these people is to actually believe their campaign literature.


[ Parent ]
Flaw in the Pew Article: State-by-State Analysis (0.00 / 0)
Where are the demographic cross-tabs?

Take the case of Colorado which is supposed to be a swing state, but actually remains fairly pink.

There is a flaw in the Pew analysis. States like Colorado, Washington and Oregon  are swing states only because they  have largish urban areas that are quite liberal (Western-style: libertarian and "creative class", if you will), but rural areas that are every bit as Kansas as Kansas. Take away Denver, Seattle or Portland, and you get Kansas or Idaho.

True, in Colorado the Democrats have had some electoral success the last couple of cycles, and the Republican Party has been taken over by the extremists (religious and anti-tax, mostly). Winning as Democrats requires balancing between Denver and the rest which relatively Republican. This has led the Colorado Democratic Party to remain cautious, moderate-to-conservative democrats.

I'd like to see a more confident, progressive and activist Party.  


Please Make Up Your Mind! (0.00 / 0)
You start off by repeating old-fashioned anti-progressive CW that flies in the face of the very changes that this diary is all about.

Then you conclude by yearning for a party that you've just argued against!

In case you hadn't noticed, Kansas has a Democratic governer and a Democratic congressmember.

Both women.

So, comparing rural parts of other states to Kansas.... Not exactly sure what that means any more.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I'm A Kinks Democrat (0.00 / 0)
As in this line from their song, Complicated Life:

You gotta stand and face it
Life is soooooooo complicated

Kansas has a Democratic governor and a Democratic member of Congress, but it's still Kansas not Seattle or Boston. Anyone with a functioning brain is going to meet paradoxes, and not just in Kansas. So quit yelling at people because they see paradox for what it is.


[ Parent ]
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox