Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About

Red Racing Horses analyzes and discusses elections from a Republican-leaning perspective. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog. Please read our site Terms of Use.

~The RRH Moderators: BostonPatriot, Daniel Surman, GoBigRedState, Greyhound, James_Nola, Right Reformer, Ryan_in_SEPA, and Shamlet.

Problems logging into your account? Inside information? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at: redracinghorses@yahoo.com. We check it often!

The Current RRH Race Ratings:

Senate

Governor

House

Row Officers

Q2 Fundraising


Political Roundup for January 10th, 2013

by: Daniel Surman

Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:00:00 AM EST


Welcome to Thursday's morning roundup.

Senate

New Mexico:
Jon Barela (R) is opting out of a challenge to Senator Udall (D). Former state party Chairman Allen Weh is considering a bid, and former Governor Gary Johnson (R, then L) has mentioned the possibility of a Republican bid.

Minnesota: We did not mention yesterday that former Senator Norm Coleman (R) also talked up Reps. John Kline and Erik Paulsen for a Senate bid; he further declined to say if he has met with either of them yet.

Governor

Minnesota: Norm Coleman may have said no to a senatorial bid, but that doesn't mean a run for office is out of the question. Quite the contrary- he tweeted right after he was quoted declining a Senate bid that he hoped "2 be spending more time focused on Minnesota, not on Washington." Coleman told the Star Tribune after saying no the Senate that "I haven't ruled out other things," sounding like a candidate when he noted that "Washington is too dysfunctional." While plenty of candidates are name-dropped for the seat- RNC Committeeman and Hennepin County Commssioner Jeff Johnson is exploring a bid, Senate Minority Leader David Hann is the subject of a draft effort that he seems awfully close to, and State Senator Julie Rosen is considering a run- the assumption is that Coleman would skip the endorsing convention and go straight to a primary (Coleman was fourth alternate out of his BPOU convention in 2012).

Massachusetts: Former Deval Patrick and Obama aide David Simas will not run for Governor or put himself forward as a candidate for the interim Senate appointment. Instead, he will take a job with the DNC. Fun fact: Simas has a working phone bank in the basement of his home in Taunton.

House

KY-04: Rep. Thomas Massie (R), the Paul acolyte and wealthy inventor, has already proven a rebellious legislator with votes against Boehner, Hurricane Sandy aid, and the fiscal cliff package. Massie is worth keeping an eye on though- if/when Rand runs for President in 2016, I find it hard to believe Massie would not take a look at the seat. He will be Chair of the subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.

A note: With session just starting up, now is the time to watch local newspapers for profiles of congressmen you know little about.

TX-23: The NRCC has reached out to public utility commissioner Rolando Pablos about running against Rep. Pete Gallego (D). Pablos considered running against then-Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D) in 2008 and 2010.

MI-11: Our favorite reindeer rancher, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (R), promises to focus on the national debt and constituent service. The latter is probably wise for Bentivolio, who sees trouble on the horizon.

Looking ahead to 2014, he noted a litany of Republicans is talking about running for his seat.

"At first I was a little disappointed to hear that here I haven't even been sworn in yet and they are already lining up to run against me," Bentivolio said. "On the other hand it keeps me on my toes, but I have some advice: Make sure they get all their signatures on their petitions."


SC-01
: State Rep. Chip Limehouse (R) has confirmed he will run in the special election for Tim Scott's now-vacant seat. If you are having trouble keeping track of who is running and who is not, this link is a good and regularly-updated resource.

Miscellaneous

California GOP: Former State Senator Jim Brulte is slated to become the next Chair of the Republican Party of California.

Hilda Solis
: The former Representative (D) has resigned her position as US Secretary of Labor to run for the LA County Board of Supervisors.

Daniel Surman :: Political Roundup for January 10th, 2013
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Insane
New York should be able to resolve an election before someone is sworn in.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
Various Pres-by-CD Updates (h/t DKE)
DKE went on a precinct dumpster-diving spree this week.

They now have final totals for TX-13, PA-02, PA-06, PA-13, PA-15, and NY-06 through NY-16.

Texas
Pennsylvania
New York

Lifelong Republican, TX-17


Just beautiful
PA-06 and PA-15 went from R+0 and R+1 in 2008 repsectively to just over R+3 in 2012.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07

[ Parent ]
Romney won the Brooklyn part of NY-10 by 7 points
Lost the Manhattan part by 66 points. The Brooklyn part is like 45% of the population of the district but it's only a fraction of the votes. Less than a quarter.

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Obama 97% in NY-15
Just wow.

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
D+46...


25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
It's actually D+43
although for 2012 alone, you're right. Overall the PVI changed from D+41 to D+43

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Oops
Accidentally posted the PA Link twice...here's the correct New York link.

New York

Lifelong Republican, TX-17


[ Parent ]
PA-13 and PA-14
At what point does PA-14 become more Republican than PA-13?  I am going to guess probably in 2016 or 2020.

28, Republican, PA-6

[ Parent ]
eh?
In 2008 Obama won PA-14 by 35 points and PA-13 by 31.7 points.

In 2012 those differences were 37.3 points and and 33.3 points, respectively. Both districts got bluer, but I don't see any trend like you suggest.

It probably has to wait until the next redistricting when PA-14 expands and PA-13 doesn't.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
the turnout discrepancies are staggering
Veasey gets elected with 86k votes. Gene Green gets elected with 78k votes. The guy who lost to Sessions by 16 points got 106k votes.

27, R, PA-07.

[ Parent ]
New York
Sean Maloney- D+0.2
Bill Owens- D+1.2

Chris Gibson- D+1.2
Richard Hanna- R+2.2
Tom Reed- R+2.6
Chris Collins- R+8.3

Gibson is amazing. He overperformed in his district, beating Schreibman by 5 points. A strong Democrat in the district who could beat Gibson is Ulster County Executive Michael Hein. Some Dems encouraged him to run in 2012 but he declined.  


[ Parent ]
I don't think Kline can get nominated.
He's not one of us. I think he's maxed out as far as he can go in Minn.

It's Paulsens job if he want's it.

MN-2


Amazing how little goodwill Lautenberg has in NJ
Booker would crush him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
PPP showed the same.

25, Male, R, NY-10

Booker is a media darling
I think his image would withstand a primary, but he hasn't been a statewide player yet so no one has gone after him, so we don't know.  If Lautenberg spends millions to attack him, all polls and bets at this point are off.

[ Parent ]
Charlie Crist's phoniness has deep roots
Apparently, it's his only attribute that's impervious to change...

If you want to validate your worst suspicions about the "people's governor", check out http://www.miaminewtimes.com/c... it reads like an article from People Maganize, it's replete with the right kind of gossip -- the kind that debunks myths about spineless scumbags like Charlie Crist.


Ryan/Kasich 2016


Arizona blue trends
Maricopa and Pima are slightly redder than they were 12 years ago when Gore won the popular vote by .5 points

27, R, PA-07.

AZ going blue is a farce
Georgia is the state Republicans have to worry about. Texas and Arizona are distractions.

[ Parent ]
As long as Maricopa stays red the state will too
the only weakness for the GOP in AZ is holding onto marginal seats. The Mathismander still drew 6 Romney districts (two albeit were only narrowly Romney wins)and yet the Dems were able to narrowly win 2 of those seats giving them a 5-4 House delegation advantage.

Many of the minorities in AZ have yet to get on the voter rolls to make a significant factor in the state.


[ Parent ]
Trivia question
What was the last Democratic presidential ad to air in Arizona?

Democrat, NC-11

[ Parent ]
Daisy girl?


I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
AZ has two opposite trends
The State's Hispanic population is rising and more are registering to vote.  However, the state's white population is trending Republican and that has been more than enough to keep the state Red.

23, Libertarian Republican CA-18
Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


[ Parent ]
Maybe
I'm not sure if one election makes a trend.

Gore '00: 38%

Kerry '04: 41%

Obama '08: 40%

Obama '12: 36%

The Arizona Hispanic vote went from 56% Obama in '08 to 77% Obama in '12.

In any case, I'd say the more important factor in keeping Arizona red is that this was the last Democratic presidential ad to air in Arizona.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
Ditto with TX
It's not not competitive because of the ads. It's not competitive because it's red. How much did Obama drop off vs. 2008 in the states where he rand ads vs. in the states that he didn't (aggregate)?
You have the answer.

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Well, thanks
You inadvertently supported my point. There's nothing special about the electoral movement of whites in Arizona. It fits right in the mid-range of the contested states. The major difference between Arizona and demographically similar states is that Arizona hasn't been contested since 1996.

CO: 50%, 44%
FL: 42%, 37%
IA: 51%, 51%
NC: 35%, 31%
NH: 54%, 51%
NV: 45%, 43%
OH: 46%, 41%
PA: 48%, 42%
VA: 39%, 37%
WI: 54%, 48%

Now, if you prefer to believe that campaign ads and GOTV don't make a difference, I guess you're not alone. The Romney campaign felt the same way.

Arizona whites and Texas whites are not the same.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
You didn't answer my question
It's the agreggate.

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
That's because I can't
You might recall that 29 states were cut from detailed exit polling.

Among whites nationwide, Obama took 43% in 2008 and 39% in 2012. A decline of 4%. The Arizona decline was also 4%. That means in our theoretical "white PVI" Arizona had a change of ±0. That means there is no trend among Arizona whites distinguishable from the nationwide aggregate.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
I didn't ask about whites
How much was the dropoff in the swing states combined vs. the non-swing states combined?

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Romney got
47.2% in all the swing states, same in the other states.
Advertising doesn't matter much.

25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Yes, well
I emphasized advertising, but I noted more than that. Such as: registration drives, campaign offices, get-out-the-vote efforts, etc. Here's a notable statistic:

OFA Field Offices

NV: 26
CO: 61
AZ: 2

I guess y'all are in general agreement that campaigns just don't matter. Who knew the $2.6 billion spent on the 2012 presidential campaign was simply flushed away for no reason?

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
the white vote in 2000 in those states
CO: 37
FL: 40
IA: 48
NC: 31
NH: 45
OH: 41
PA: 48
VA: 37
WI: 47

Nationally Obama 2012 did 3 points worse than Gore did 12 years prior. He lost 3 points in heavily advertised Florida and basically got the same share in heavily advertised VA, NC, OH.

It's true that Arizona's 2 point drop among whites is more similar to the 2 point drop he had among California whites. He probably gets 38% rather than 36% if the state is heavily advertised.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
Also NV
Nevada whites were 40% for Gore.

Arizona is a lot more like Nevada and Colorado than it is like Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, or Ohio.

Nationally, Obama 2012 did 3 points better in Nevada and 7 points better in Colorado than Gore did in 2000. I'm guessing that if Democrats had contested Arizona in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 like they did Nevada and Colorado, the shift in the white vote would be somewhere in that range.

But, they didn't. I guess whenever Arizona actually matters in the presidential equation, we'll find out. Well, either that or Arizona's electorate will continue to become 2% less white each cycle until it goes Democratic in 2024, all else being equal.

Unless of course you think Arizona whites will start voting like Mississippi whites before then..

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
true enough
In 2004 when none of the 3 states were seriously contested the white vote moved in parallel among all 3 states.

That said, Arizona is more religious, older, and less college educated than Colorado, and less unionized than Nevada. Whites are going to be more conservative here from any baseline.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
OK
I don't disagree with your point about the baseline. My overall point, however, remains that the key difference in trendlines between Arizona and Nevada/Colorado is that Arizona has been all but ignored by Obama (except when it's a foil in the immigration debate) while Nevada and Colorado have been the focus of intense campaign mobilization.

I'm not saying Obama would've won Arizona. I'm saying he would've gotten 3%, maybe 4%, more of the overall vote. I imagine OFA reached much the same conclusion, which is why they dropped the idea of contesting Arizona.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
So wait
You want me to believe that OFA didn't contest AZ by accident? You want me to believe they could have made it competitive by spending some of the gobs of money they had on Arizona, and they just chose not to do it by accident?

Name one state that is competitive and demographically similar. The math just doesn't work.  


[ Parent ]
To clarify
I don't just mean with the exact same demographic composition. I mean a state in which the GOP wins over 60% of whites and in which Latinos, not African-Americans, form the major minority group.  

[ Parent ]
No
What I want you to believe is that OFA realized they didn't need to win Arizona, and there was no reason to make it competitive when they already had far more expensive North Carolina to serve as a money sink for Romney..

That said, I want you to believe that Obama would've easily gained a few points on Gore and Kerry if he actually put the resources into Arizona that he put into the contested states.

As for basic electorate demographics.

CO: 78% white, 14% Latino
AZ: 73% white, 19% Latino
NV: 64% white, 19% Latino

It looks to me as if Arizona should be in the general ballpark on the top lines as well. My explanation for why it isn't is because Democrats have done a fraction of the party building in Arizona that they've done in Nevada and Colorado.

What's your explanation for why it isn't, aside from 'just because'?

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
Money sink
D:R spending ratios in North Carolina in the closing weeks were similar to the other contested states.

[ Parent ]
D:R ad spending
For the general election presidential campaign.

CO: $38 million D, $41 million R
FL: $78 million D, $104 million R
IA: $28 million D, $42 million R
NV: $26 million D, $32 million R
NH: $21 million D, $22 million R
NC: $24 million D, $45 million R
OH: $92 million D, $101 million R
PA: $11 million D, $17 million R
VA: $67 million D, $82 million R
WI: $15 million D, $30 million R

MI: $461,008 D, $17 million R
MN: $0 D, $1.5 million R
NM: $0 D, $807,359 R

AZ: $0 D, $0 R

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
I thought there was more D spending in NC?
But I was just looking at Grady's diaries for the final months, so there must have been some unmatched early R spending.

Michigan was the real money pit, although I'm not all that upset about it because a repeat of 2008 there would have been a disaster and may have pre-empted RTW.


[ Parent ]
it's not entirely incorrect
Pastor's Phoenix district is 72% Democratic and casts 80k Democratic votes. Degette's Denver district is 69% Democratic and casts 220k Democratic votes.

Part of it of course is because Phoenix is stuffed with illegals, not unlike Houston and Dallas.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
also poverty
for a big city, Denver isn't too impoverished.  It's not quite Portland but it isn't Detroit.  Phoenix is split, and Pastor has the half of Phoenix that is more like a Hispanic Detroit, while the suburban part of the city is in another district.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
SC-1 State Rep. Patrick running
Starting 2nd term member from Beaufort County. More of a longshot
http://www.islandpacket.com/20...

SC1-Charleston

NJ-Gov: Pascrell out
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Bill Pascrell, New Jersey Congressman, 'Not Pursuing' Run Against Chris Christie

He was never in of course. I'm not sure why they are even bothering to go through the motions with this.

27, R, PA-07.


Christie approval hits eve popping 78%
http://www.politickernj.com/62...

With less than 10 months until voters head to the polls to choose the governor to lead the state for the next four years, Gov. Chris Christie has a 78 percent approval rating, according to a new poll.

The Kean University/NJ Speaks poll of 1,000 likely voters showed 89 percent of Republicans approve of the job the governor is doing along with 70 percent of Democrats.

Absurd.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
Hoeven 2.0


25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
Except that there are more than 3 people in the state


25, Male, R, NY-10

[ Parent ]
IL-03: Lipinski to the Vatican?
A low turnout special with a strong Republican candidate would make this race pretty competitive.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

From IL-09, Living in PA-07


Geography is key
We need a Republican who hails from the Cook County suburbs. That's where the votes are. If he has a strong showing there, along with a pair of blowout victories in Will and DuPage County, he can conceivably win, even if he seizes ~ 30 percent of the vote in the city.

Even if Obama doesn't award Lipinski the ambassadorship, we should keep our eyes on this seat. Lipinski is unbeatable. His peculiarities notwithstanding, he has all the makings of a popular congressman: strong name recognition (thanks to his pop, fmr rep Bill Lipinski), institutional backing (he's tight with Madigan), and effective staff handling constituent services. However, once he retires, this seat should be on the NRCC's pick-up list. Although it's ancestrally Democratic, it is socially conservative. Additionally, it's more Republican than IL-08, IL-10, IL-11, and IL-17 in presidential years.  

Ryan/Kasich 2016


[ Parent ]
IL-03
The problem from a conservative standpoint is that there is no elected Democrat within the district that is nearly as conservative as Lipinski and not a single one that is pro-life. Whoever wins the Democrat primary is likely to be liberal and pro-abortion. Hopefully, this would give us a better opportunity to win.

State Rep. Jim Durkin would be our strongest candidate among currently elected officials. His only negative is that his district is on the far western end of the 3rd. Former State Senator Patrick O'Malley would also be a good candidate for us, but he has been out of elected office since his run for governor in 2002.


[ Parent ]
Romney in IL-3
He did better than he did in IL-8, 10, or 11.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
aynrandrepublican said that
Sorry, I missed it on first read.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
I'd look for a Bob Turner type here
This district is kind of NY-09 minus the Jewish population. A curmudgeonly old Catholic non-politician from the southwest side might be able to beat a progressive Dem if he or she catches the right breaks.

[ Parent ]
Also important
This district has a non-insignificant Hispanic population that would have much lower turnout in a special election.  

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
Turner was a retired media executive
True he wasn't a polished politician but he was way more sophiscated than the usual Some Dude who runs as a NYC R  

[ Parent ]
That's why he was perfect
He was a smart, capable candidate, but rough enough around the edges that he still had an everyman vibe to him.

[ Parent ]
Lemont Mayor Brian Reaves
Lemont Mayor Brian Reaves
"He started out at the age of 19 working in the parts department for a forklift/material handling dealership in Flint, Michigan where he grew up. He later relocated to Seattle to work for a Raymond forklift branch; the owner, a Chicago-based dealership, moved him 5 years later and Brian relocated again, to Chicago.

He worked with several racking/warehousing companies and gained invaluable experience in the material handling industry.  In 1999, seeing an emerging and growing market, Reaves purchased a 52-year-old company, Industrial Sales. On July 1 of that year he reintroduced it as Integrated Warehouse Systems." Type of background that could play well in this district. Only problem is I can't find any reference to his religion

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno also lives here, but would it be better to avoid candidates from Springfield?  

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
Radagno
She's pro-choice, and this is probably the one suburban Chicago district we don't want a pro-choicer in  

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


[ Parent ]
She still would be great
Hopefully, she'd run unopposed. Otherwise, conservatives would have a field day. Not only is her brand of Republicanism currently out of fashion (she's pro-choice and potentially in favor of marriage equality), her leadership style also irks GOP activists who are itching for a fight against Cullerton.

Nevertheless, Radagno would be a solid recruit. She's battle-tested, having run for Illinois Treasurer in '06 and the State Senate ever since the late '90s.

If Lipinski retired, I think she'd seriously consider jumping in. Since Madigan's gerrymandered maps are in effect until 2020, Radagno can't snag a promotion anytime soon. Unless IL undergoes a 180,

Republicans are stuck in the minority for the next decade. Why remain so powerless when you can be in the US House majority? Radagno must be pondering that question. Seeing that she's a risk-taker (she ran for Treasurer, even though it was a decidely Democratic year), there's a large chance Radagno could launch a "surprise bid" for the seat.

Ryan/Kasich 2016


[ Parent ]
Bingo
This is the only one I wouldn't run a pro-choicer in under any circumstances.

From IL-09, Living in PA-07

[ Parent ]
Bruning Not Running for NE Gov
http://www.1011now.com/news/he...

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


Not surprised
I didn't think he was going to run. He's always expressed more interest in the Senate.

42, R, NE-1.

[ Parent ]
McKinley Still Considering Senate Bid
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

He says he will watch Capito, but for now, "he likes what he is seeing", although he added "If she is not going to be that fiscal hawk that is going to make sure that we get our spending under control, then we'll find another candidate."

Rather hypocritical for him to say when he voted against the Ryan budget that she voted for. If he were to primary her, she should hammer that home all day

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...

Male, LA-01

Cassidy, Rounds, Ernst, Handel, Land for Senate!  


Yeah he didn't come off good there at all.
Really snarky interview from McKinley. Considering Capito is more fiscally Conserative then him.

21, Conservative Republican MA-04 College MA-01




[ Parent ]
how not to appeal to swing voters
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the presumptive GOP gubernatorial nominee and a rising national figure on the right, told an Iowa-based radio show Wednesday night that opponents of a federal mandate for contraception coverage should be willing to "go to jail" to fight the law./blockquote>

http://www.politico.com/story/...



Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


Lincoln most nominated film
http://www.forbes.com/sites/do...

Hollywood liberals gave Lincoln more nominations than any other film. I find that fascinating considering the film celebrates Republicans. You have Thaddeus Stevens in there who thought that Lincoln's imposition of an income tax to finance the war as a way of penalizing success.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


Most Democrats
I know love Lincoln. Don't care that he was a republican. He was a great leader period.

I do know some republicans, libertarians and acers who strongly dislike him though.  

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


[ Parent ]
Have you seen the movie?
LCL was referring to all the Democrat-bashing they do. The scenes in Lincoln's and Stevens' offices could just have well have taken place on FNC today!

[ Parent ]
As liberals would tell you...
...most of the Democrats they were complaining about would be in the Republican Party today.

More seriously though, I'll take the GOP is the Party of Lincoln claim seriously when a leading Presidential candidate can say in South Carolina, "Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents" and still win the Republican primary in that state. :)  


[ Parent ]
Ah
Good point.  Yes there was, but I didn't mind it at all.  If a Democrat takes the wrong stand like the Democrats in the film and in History, make fun of them all day long.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Oh, yeah
I can't imagine any Democrat who would have a problem with it. I just wanted to make sure you understood LCL's reference.

[ Parent ]
A liberal cheering for a Republican?
I suppose they can walk out of the theatre imagining that Republicans were different then, ignorant of the positions the party had.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Exactly
From what I understand Stevens held Democrats with enormous contempt. I think they toned it down some in the film, but what really struck me isn't how the Democrats were depicted, but how heroic the Republicans were depicted.

jessejames mentions something I've heard before. "The parties are reversed now. Republicans then would be Democrats now and vice-versa." I laugh when I hear this, mentioning that the Republican party then was the party of business and that Lincoln was a big advocate of individualism. He would've been anti-union if they existed then. Unfortunately, they were also anti-immigrant. But that also isn't a Democratic party policy.

When I was at the Lincoln Library I asked a historian what would be the biggest surprise for Lincoln in today's Republican party. He said that Lincoln would've been shocked at the Republican party being okay with big government. In Lincoln's day, even with the war, government was 2-3% of GDP. Lincoln wouldn't have understood the modern welfare state.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
But the parties have reversed
on social issues. And that is what the movie is about (politically): a president and senator who attain a liberal social goal by fooling conservatives into thinking this goal is necessary for peace. To me, it's surprising that any conservative can like it. I see it as a glorification of social liberalism, of doing what is "right" to promote equality even if some say the constitution forbids it and even if you have to lie to get support. I saw similarities with many "justice" issues for liberals, like the fights over the public option and gay marriage.

Yes, Lincoln was economically conservative. But this movie does not even touch upon that. I would suggest that it's far more significant which people are glorified than what the parties are named. It's no trifle that the movie upholds the political goals of the coalition of liberals, African Americans, and northeasterners. Think of how it portrays the Missouri couple and the Rep from Ohio. The movie may use "Democratic Party" as a pejorative, but it's (2013) Democrats' social/cultural/political beliefs that it supports.  

MA-9, IL-1 for school


[ Parent ]
I see you're new here
And I'm not sure I like you implying that there's something wrong with the 13th Amendment. Let's avoid making comments like this in the future.

[ Parent ]
what I find interesting
Is the liberties Lincoln took with, well, civil liberties. I wonder how that would play out in a modern age.

For all the screeching about the Patriot Act and everything else, the entire national security reorganization of the early 2000s has become essential permanent, with the far left and the Rand Pauls upset but the middle 80% not caring.

27, R, PA-07.


[ Parent ]
They've Also Reversed on Economic Issues
Lincoln was not "Economically" Conservative in the modern sense, nor was anyone in the Republican Party. The republicans were successors of the Seward-Clay wing of the Whig Party, and most of their politicians had spent decades fighting for federally funded internal improvements like a transcontinental railroad. In fact, much of the criticism of the South was that the South was retarding national growth, since Southern Democrats blocked the Homestead act in 1858 and the Transcontinental Railroad throughout the 1850s.

The First Republican Platform in 1856 had three key planks

1. A protective Tariff

2. Transcontinental Railway

3. Restoration of the Missouri Compromise(this later evolved into restricting Slavery to where it existed to its abolition)

The GOP did oppose income taxes but that was because it was the party of the rich.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
After a century and a half, the GOP is still the party of business.
True, Democrats have made inroads in that sector recently, but it's a pretty consistent generalization.

21, Male, Conservative Republican, TN-08 (home), VA-01 (college)

[ Parent ]
It's pretty much the same
Of course some Democrats are businessmen but now, as then, Democrats are the party of the common man and Republicans are the party of the boss.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Wow
I'm amazed at you and scientist view these things. I can't register the idea that abolition is socially liberal and thus incongruent with the modern Republican party. The Republican party wasn't advocating for some big government program like the healthcare public option or government advocating for gay marriage. Republicans then, as now, advocated for every man to have the right to achieve his own success.

There was no affirmative action being advocated by Republicans. If they were interested in "social justice" they could've given Blacks 40 acres and a mule, but they gave them nothing. Blacks faced horrific discrimination at the hands of Southern Democrats. Republicans share part of the blame because they didn't lift a hand to help them. They didn't advocate for social change. I suppose liberals can read whatever they want into it, and even decide today's Republicans wouldn't have been for abolition.

In 1856, the Republican slogan was  "Free soil, free silver, free men, Frémont." Here is the platform:

http://www.ushistory.org/gop/c...

I like this one:

The right of the people to keep and bear aims has been infringed.

Yes, the Republican party was for the transcontinental railway. Infrastructure is one of the few things that Republicans have always agreed is a key government function. Of course the railroad was an economic goal so that people could transport goods from coast to coast. It wasn't for the common man.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Republican Views on Civil Rights were complicated
Some Republicans saw African Americans as a check on the return of Pre-War elites to power who would bring the country back to the 1850s, some wanted to form an Alliance with White Pre-War Southern Whigs in favor of infrastructure improvements, and some got onboard because they were old-style Conservatives, like the Blairs, who hated radicalism in all forms including the abolitionists, but believed that the Southern Rights position in the late 1850s was the destabilizing factor in US politics.

Group 3 defected early, largely backing Andrew Johnson, and Francis P Blair who was Lincoln's key ally in Missouri in 1861 was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 1868.

The other two groups generally fought it out in the South during 1867-1876. In states where Republicans were dominated by carpetbaggers trying to use Reconstruction to maintain control, the Reconstruction Administrations tended to implode. In states where there was substantial White support for the Republican party like North Carolina, it too Mugabe-style military force to smash the party.

Those governments did create the first public school systems, charter public university's, introduce universal male suffer-age so it was not an entirely dark period. Especially compared to what followed.

Economic Conservatism and Liberalism were not really clear-cut in that era. The Democratic alliance of Urban Catholics and Southern Whites had a common platform. Generally they owed money, either because they were poor(in the north) or in extensive debt(southern planters and farmers). As a consequence they favored inflationary policies such as paper money, a national bank, and taxes that tended to target monetary assets. They also supported free trade since it kept the costs of imports down, and therefore prices generally. Republicans represented industry and finance and therefore favored property taxes, high tariffs, and government construction. Both urban workers and southern interests were skeptical how much infrastructure and national expansion would help them.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
I will add though that then as now the Democrats were the party of the Dienfranchised
They tended to derive their support post 1868 from those forces in American that felt they were at the losing end of the economic and social order.

27 NH-01/London/MA-07

Centrist Foreign Policy Realist - Tory in the UK, RINO locally


[ Parent ]
Inaccurate. Parties aren't reversed.
Psuedo History. Reality is a lot more complicated than that.

However:

The abolitionists of that day were the religious right of that day. Much as they are against abortion today they were against slavery in those days. They were against it because it was unChristian and they wanted to save souls. They certainly did not approve of the bad behavior of the plantation owners. Go back and read the writings from that day, and HOW they were criticized.  

The Free Soilers of that day are still a part of the Republican coalition today as well. Their descendants are largely in the plains states. Jackson County and Fond Du Lac County are and were still Republican leaning in most years. I don't know as much about Fond Du Lac, but a lot of people in Jackson County, esp outside the city have been around for generations.

As least two wings of the old Republicans are still around today.

MI-08 - Chairman - Livingston County Republican Party Since 2013 - Opinions are my own and not that of LCRP.  


[ Parent ]
Yep
The non-Southern evangelical right and certain rural pockets (Central PA, Eastern TN, SW Ohio, parts of Michigan and Wisconsin, etc.) have been Republican since the 1850's. All other components of our base were Democratic at some point, with the possible exception of some suburbs which didn't exist in the 19th century.

[ Parent ]
A lot didn't exist at that time
Irish Catholics were dem at that time due to the treatment from the Yankee/Brahmin Establishment. They fought on both sides (NYC Draft Riots), Charleston Confederates, Union Irish brigades. My own family immigrated in 1863 to upstate NY and fought for the Union. That's one reason why you'll never see me with a rebel flag.

Today Irish Catholics - the most dem historically of all the whites, now are estimated to be 50/50 or more to the GOP. Probably not in Massachusetts, but at least elsewhere.

Eastern Europeans and Italians which are very prominent in the NE and Midwest have not largely migrated here. They impacted both parties heavily. A lot of them were Catholic Democrats, but the Italians had a love/hate relationship with the Irish in many areas as well.

That whole period was complicated and all sides had their own reasons. The Planters were bad people no doubt probably by any standard of normal society, but much of the South didn't like them either. Those in the draft riots didn't support slavery, but didn't want "those people" moving north to take their jobs.

Times change. The North changed. The South changed.


MI-08 - Chairman - Livingston County Republican Party Since 2013 - Opinions are my own and not that of LCRP.  


[ Parent ]
Times certainly change
We need to keep in mind that issues like most social issues aren't applicable to then. While Republicans supported an end to slavery and the Black vote, many of them likely didn't think much of Negroes. They support the women's right to vote, few probably thought a woman should be in the workplace.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
partisan bashing has been around forever
I found out recently great-granddad Nunn was a printer from Texas & Oklahoma and one of his posts was a response to those calling for bi-partisanship right after the election and ended "I'll kiss your Elephant and you can kiss my" (ending right there; they used a more traditional word for Donkey back then.)


42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.

[ Parent ]
And they gave 'The Dark Knight Returns' zero nominations
Shows how petty the Academy is to a movie that is pretty much a big FU to 'Occupy Wall Street.'

[ Parent ]
It had no chance anyways
A superhero film isn't ever going to get nominations outside of the technical categories. That's the nature of the academy.

25, M, VA-11, moderate R

[ Parent ]
It wasn't a good movie, comparatively
And comic book movies never really get much attention at the academy awards.

I am a Tom Rukavina Democrat.

[ Parent ]
Nolan has gotten jobbed a couple times though
Between the Batman movies and Inception he should have been nominated for something.

[ Parent ]
Agreed
But I'm a bit biased.  I've loved all of his movies, especially Inception.

I really liked TDKR as well, I liked how dark and bleak it was.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


[ Parent ]
If a movie like AVATAR can be nominated....
It's not shocking as the Academy didn't even nominate 'Waiting for Superman' for Best Documentary while doing so for 'Inconvenient Truth.'

[ Parent ]
Documentaries
I apologize if I took this thread off topic, but you make a fine point. Both films you mention were directed by Davis Guggenheim.

There are many great documentaries which promote liberal causes. "An Inconvenient Truth" is a horrible film. There is no story. The main character doesn't grow and change. Nothing actually happens to him and we don't get any idea of who he is. He just presents us with a presentation and repeatedly makes a point. In the first 10 minutes we learn the world is getting warmer and that's bad. And then we get that over and over.

"Waiting for Superman" grabs you right away by giving you several characters who are interesting and you want to root for. He weaves their stories so well with what he's advocating. We see them struggle and some triumph while others fail.

In the first case, Hollywood nominated the message, not the movie, and in the second they disregarded the movie because they hated the message.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Regardless
Neither of them hold a candle to Hoop Dreams, one of the best movies ever made, let alone about the best documentary ever made.

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Well
I'd like to think there's more than one good movie

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

[ Parent ]
Of course
I just love Hoop Dreams lol.  

33/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat

[ Parent ]
Hoop Dreams
It inexplicably wasn't even nominated for Best Documentary at the 1994 Oscars.

24, MA-07, Rockefeller Republican. Visit me at http://twitter.com/polibeast

[ Parent ]
OH-Gov: Betty Sutton "definitely looking into" run
http://www.cleveland.com/open/...

24, MA-07, Rockefeller Republican. Visit me at http://twitter.com/polibeast

Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox