It Was Bound To Happen: The Civil War In The Repuke Party

[cali]

Or why I like democratic chances in November.

The fundies, or social conservatives, whatever you want to call them, are an essential piece of of repukes winning elections. They expected much greater advances in issues important to them. Their expectations were unreasonable, but they still had them, and now they're pissed and disappointed. They believe that six years of a repuke majority should have garnered them greater gains. Significant numbers of them may sit it out in the upcoming election, or vote third party.

The fiscal conservative wing of the party is plain out appalled. They look at spending under a repuke majority and long for gridlock. The Medicare drug bill, ballooning deficits and the cost of Iraq are issues that they're not likely to forget in November. Some of them are going to vote democratic.

The immigration is the only issue that counts crowd. Their are a lot of them, and they're furious. I don't know whether this anger is displaced free floating frustration that alit on this issue, or xenaphobia or something else altogether, but these are the folks that seem angriest at the GOP, and are threatening the loudest to stay home.

Some of these groups obviously mix with one another, but overall I think that a good number of them will stay home, while others vote for dems.. I know the arguments about voting machines and I'm not discounting them, nor am I ignoring the obvious, that 6 months is a lifetime in politics, but if the current trend holds, repuke turnout will be low, Independents (who have other issues that have turned them away from the GOP) will swing toward dems, and democratic will be motivated and turn out.

I hope I'm right and I also hope that my more fevered paranoid imaginings don't come true.

[robbedvoter]

1. Does Diebold know that?

[AndyA]

2. Touche. n/m

[cali]

3. Uh, did you read the entire post?

And the repukes can't rig machines throughout the country. Not every precinct uses Diebold or Sequoia. A crumbling of the repuke base with the attendant shortage of voters it will cause, makes fraud much more difficult. That's assuming that the repuke actually did steal 2004 and 2002. There's evidence both for and against that argument.

[Dhalgren]

6. It is one thing for this criminal bunch to perpetrate election fraud

when you're talking about 5% points or less in a given race. But if you are talking about a 10 or 15% spread, it becomes much more difficult to pull off. If they do steal the election with a wide margin going the other way, can we call them fascists without people looking down their noses at us?

[helderheid]

8. I'd say you are right but remember Ohio in 2005 - exit polls on

something to do with election reform - said it would pass 60% and it was exactly flipped with the votes. Anyone remember this and have links?

[helderheid]

10. HERE we go:

http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1559

Snip:

The Dispatch's Sunday headline showed "3 issues on way to passage." The headline referred to Issues One, Two and Three. As mentioned, the poll was dead-on accurate for Issue One.

Issues Two-Five were meant to reform Ohio's electoral process, which has been under intense fire since 2004. The issues were very heavily contested. They were backed by Reform Ohio Now, a well-funded bi-partisan statewide effort meant to bring some semblance of reliability back to the state's vote count. Many of the state's best-known moderate public figures from both sides of the aisle were prominent in the effort. Their effort came largely in response to the stolen 2004 presidential vote count that gave George W. Bush a second term and led to U.S. history's first Congressional challenge to the seating of a state's delegation to the Electoral College.

Issue Two was designed to make it easier for Ohioans to vote early, by mail or in person. By election day, much of what it proposed was already put into law by the state legislature. Like Issue One, it was opposed by the Christian Right. But it had broad support from a wide range of Ohio citizen groups. In a conversation the day before the vote, Bill Todd, a primary official spokesperson for the opposition to Issues Two through Five, told attorney Cliff Arnebeck that he believed Issues Two and Three would pass.

The November 6 Dispatch poll showed Issue Two passing by a vote of 59% to 33%, with about 8% undecided, an even broader margin than that predicted for Issue One.

But on November 8, the official vote count showed Issue Two going down to defeat by the astonishing margin of 63.5% against, with just 36.5% in favor. To say the outcome is a virtual statistical impossibility is to understate the case. For the official vote count to square with the pre-vote Dispatch poll, support for the Issue had to drop more than 22 points, with virtually all the undecideds apparently going into the "no" column.

The numbers on Issue Three are even less likely.

Issue Three involved campaign finance reform. In a lame duck session at the end of 2004, Ohio's Republican legislature raised the limits for individual donations to $10,000 per candidate per person for anyone over the age of six. Thus a family of four could donate $40,000 to a single candidate. The law also opened the door for direct campaign donations from corporations, something banned by federal law since the administration of Theodore Roosevelt.

The GOP measure sparked howls of public outrage. Though again opposed by the Christian Right, Issue Three drew an extremely broad range of support from moderate bi-partisan citizen groups and newspapers throughout the state. The Sunday Dispatch poll showed it winning in a landslide, with 61% in favor and just 25% opposed.

Tuesday's official results showed Issue Three going down to defeat in perhaps the most astonishing reversal in Ohio history, claiming just 33% of the vote, with 67% opposed. For this to have happened, Issue Three's polled support had to drop 28 points, again with an apparent 100% opposition from the previously undecideds.

The reversals on both Issues Two and Three were statistically staggering, to say the least.

The outcomes on Issue Four and Five were slightly less dramatic. Issue Four meant to end gerrymandering by establishing a non-partisan commission to set Congressional and legislative districts. The Dispatch poll showed it with 31% support, 45% opposition, and 25% undecided. Issue Four's final margin of defeat was 30% in favor to 70% against, placing virtually all undecideds in the "no" column.

Issue Five meant to take administration of Ohio's elections away from the Secretary of State, giving control to a nine-member non-partisan commission. Issue Five was prompted by Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's administration of the 2004 presidential vote, particularly in light of his role as co-chair of Ohio's Bush-Cheney campaign. The Dispatch poll showed a virtual toss-up, at 41% yes, 43% no and 16% undecided. The official result gave Issue Five just 30% of the vote, with allegedly 70% opposed.

But the Sunday Dispatch also carried another headline: "44 counties will break in new voting machines." Forty-one of those counties "will be using new electronic touch screens from Diebold Election System," the Dispatch added.

Diebold's controversial CEO Walden O'Dell, a major GOP donor, made national headlines in 2003 with a fundraising letter pledging to deliver Ohio's 2004 electoral votes to Bush.

Snip

[drm604]

9. There's only so much of that they can get away with.

It has to be "close enough to steal" for them to fool with the machines and still come up with believable numbers.

At least I hope that's the case. I guess a blatant attempt at theft is possible, and some of them may be desperate enough to try it. I'm just trying to imagine what would happen in this country if there was obvious rampant election theft (more obvious than previously). I can't imagine that the people would stand for it but what would we do? What would be our recourse? I don't have an answer to that.

[helderheid]

11. see post 10

[drm604]

18. Yes, I'm aware of that issue.

It's blatantly obvious and there doesn't seem to be anything being done about it. But I think it's below the horizon for most people. It's an issue in one state only, Ohio, and even there I'm guessing that most people aren't really aware of it. I'm NOT minimizing it, I've been personally outraged about it. But the general population is much more aware of candidates than they are of ballot issues. I'm hoping that a large scale multi-state theft of political offices that is obviously against the will of the people would get much more attention, or at least I'm hoping that anyone considering such a theft would be hesitant because of that possible attention. I'm hoping that the fear of getting caught and going to prison would deter it. I could be wrong. I hope I'm not.

[helderheid]

20. I hope you're not wrong either! My county clerk has basically said off

record that she would encourage people to vote absentee. I will be doing so.

[depakid]

4. I think you misunderestimate the fundies

If the past is any indication, they'll be out in full force- and unlike progressives, they've had more than a few bones thrown their way over the past 2 years.

If any groups are going to stay home, it'll be independents, past non-voters and nominal Dems and Republicans who sit on the fence and don't always turn out for midterm elections.

As to immigration, my guess is that it may help Dems in certain districts, but for the most part, it'll end up a wash.

[cali]

7. Visit some conservative websites

the discontent is real. Fundie expectations were high for years. They're a pretty embittered crew now.

[aquart]

13. You're wrong.

The fundies are confused, unsettled, unhappy. It's not playing the way it was sold. People turn out in righteous wrath. They aren't absolutely sure about the righteous part right now.

The fiscal conservatives have boiling guts. They want to strangle Bush.

The progressives/liberals have a deep cold hatred of BushCo. We'll vote if the polls are on fire.

The independents want CHANGE. Particularly in their pockets instead of the oil companies'.

This mid-term is going to be a vent for pure, undiluted rage. I expect people who have never voted will register to get rid of these thieves. It's the price of gas, stupid.

As for immigration, I can't attend rallies this year so I don't know the population of the events. BushCo has trashed the Hispanic vote. They split the Cuban vote a few years ago when they went hardline on family visits and sending money home. What I want to know is if the Asian voters are turning out for immigration rallies. Chinese people value authoritarian, patriarchal rule and they vote Republican. Will they still? Or is that another minority down the drain?

Take a look at the polls. The people who HATE BushCo way outnumber the people who merely dislike them. And the people who HATE BushCo way outnumber the people who like them a lot.

The deep likers may show up to vote, but there aren't many of them. The haters WILL show up to vote, and they're in the majority big time.

[helderheid]

14. I truly hope you're right but please read post 10 - it's chilling

[depakid]

21. We shall see

I think a lot depends on whther the Dems provide any sort of contrasting alternatives. Right now, people are fed up alright, but that doesn't necessarily translate into votes for Dems.

See, e.g. The Outrage Gap

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x204447

[Jade Fox]

5. It's been brewing for 25 plus years.....

The GOP first made the move on the Christian Right for their votes when the Fundies helped elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Republicans have been making promises they haven't kept to the Fundies ever since. Apparently, the Christian Right let the GOP know in 2004 they were tired of this situation, and that the Party had better actively start enacting the Fundie agenda. This is a good thing, because even if the GOP President were not a lying idiot, it would be doing big damage to the Republican Party.

[ComerPerro]

12. The Republican party keeps driving home one point

"The Democrats are worse."

I hear it everywhere.

No matter how bad things are under republicans, the party faithful will still choose a Republican over a Dem, because they are constantly reminded by the party that Dems are worse.

[Strawman]

15. Fractures in the Republican coalition are inevitable, but slow in coming

I think eventually they will stay home, but it may take longer than one would expect it to take. I recently read an article on Bush by Stephen Skowronek from last December and at the end of it he suggests that

"There is some reason to think that divisions andresentments are simply slower to come to a boil among Republicans than among Democrats."

He continues...

"It is a commonplace of American politics that the Republican party and the Democratic party were put together somewhat differently from the get-go, that the former has always been a bit less dispersed as a coalition of interests and a bit more coherent in its general purposes. Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment—thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican—affirms both faith in this fact and knowledge of its limits. That there are limits—that this greater capacity to forestall implosion in the face of schismatic pressures is only relative—is indicated by the plight of Bush senior in the midst of what would otherwise seem a remarkably advantageous turn of events. Having taken over a party already eight years under the thumb of a Republican president, he found that fighting a tidy little war of his own, a war even more masterfully won than McKinley’s, was not enough to hold things together. The first-term success of Bush junior, following a Democratic interregnum of eight years, might seem a bit less remarkable on this accounting. What appears today like skillful defiance of the implosive political effects of orthodox innovation may be just a matter of the Republicans’ relatively slow-ticking clock."

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/PerspectivesDec05Skowronek.pdf

I also think the fundie factor has amplified this historically observed relative resilience of Republican regimes. These people are not particularly independent minded. They are followers. They will do as they are told by the mega-church pastor. Look at what those key actors in the fundie wing of the Republican party network are saying. If they say turn out for the GOP, I think they will. If they say stay home or don't say to turn out, I think your optimism is well founded. Eventually they will stay home. The clock is ticking.

[cali]

16. What an excellent

piece you posted. Thank you so much for it!

[Strawman]

22. I think Skowronek is really interesting

I think he is spot on about Bush in that article. If you liked that, and you're interested in the presidency, you'd probably like his book too:
http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=skowronek&y=7&tn=The+Politics+Presidents+Make%3A+Leadership+from+John+Adams+to+George+Bush&x=19

[rniel]

17. I think immigration was a karl rove plan

may work very well for them. Just like gay marriage did.

[cali]

19. I'm aware of that particular meme,

and I find it ludicrous. I suggest a quick trip over to that cesspool FR to see what a disaster this issue is for the repukes. And it's by no means limited to freepers. The party is completely divided on the issue. I don't mean rank and file members; I'm talking about the leadership and members of Congress. In addition, anyone who follows issues, is aware that illegal immigration has been a long simmering and high profile issue. It didn't simply burst forth out of rove.

[lpbk2713]

23. Like the old saying goes .....

Give em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.


Their big mistake was in not policing themselves sufficiently. They knew they had a lot of shady deals going on but their hierarchy turned a blind eye to it. Now they have a stigma to deal with. They are now known as a bunch of crooks and liars. The numbers for the rethug party are spiraling downward just like Smirky's. He's leading them all right into the toilet and it's a lovely sight to behold.