Why is the GOP so popular?

[Prison Bitch]

At the state level? (Yes yes - self congratulatory pat on the back for my epic thread 10 days ago about the GOP being in fine shape here: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=269387).




Opinion
»

PUBLISHED: FEBRUARY 7, 2013 12:01 AM EST
UPDATED: FEBRUARY 6, 2013 11:25 PM EST
Jonah Goldberg: Why GOP succeeds at state level

Jonah Goldberg

The Republicans are doomed. Conservatism is over. President Barack Obama is conducting a mop-up operation at this point.

That's the basic consensus in places like New York City, Washington, D.C., and other citadels of blue America.

And let's be fair, liberals have every reason to gloat -- a little. The GOP has its troubles. Long-term demographic trends; often-irrational animosity from Hollywood, the media and academia; a thumbless grasp of the culture on the part of many Republicans: All of these things create a headwind for the party and the broader conservative movement.

But here's the weird part. That's all true of presidential politics, but less so when it comes to state politics or even other federal races. In 2010, the GOP had its best performance in congressional races since 1938.

In North Carolina, a state that is supposed to represent the trends benefiting Democrats -- it's attracting liberal Northern transplants, immigrants, high-tech workers, etc. -- the GOP now has veto-proof majorities in the state House and Senate. Last November, North Carolina became the 30th state with a GOP governor.

What gives?

There are a lot of possible explanations that are not mutually exclusive. Obama is more popular than his party. Mitt Romney was less popular than the ideas he had such a hard time expressing. Presidential electorates are different.

This last one is definitely true when you compare who voted in 2010 and who voted in 2012. The 2010 electorate was older and whiter. The Obama coalition of 2012 included younger voters, minorities and so-called "low-information voters."

No matter the merits of these observations, they don't fully explain why Republicans are doing so well on the policy front. In states as diverse as Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas and a half-dozen others, Republicans have been implementing impressive -- even miraculous -- reforms.

In pro-Obama Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker beat back a historic attack from organized labor. And Michigan -- Michigan! -- recently became a right-to-work state, which I'm pretty sure is mentioned in the AFL-CIO's bylaws as a sign of the end times.

I think an overlooked part of the story is the fact that Americans tend to see federal and local governments differently. At the local level, people seem to have a better grasp that it's their tax dollars at work. They are far more sensitive to tax increases and more easily outraged by spending boondoggles. They understand the importance of sustainable economic growth.

At the local level, this fact benefits Republicans.......


http://www.goerie.com/article/201302...at-state-level

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I am not sure I agree entirely with Jonah Goldberg here. I think more people are disgusted with both parties at the national level. Since Jonah is a NeoCon, he's blind to how most people feel about the constant warfare. That comes out of DC politics.

Look what this shows using Republicans, Democrats or Obama. It's what does the internet think of them.

66% negative for Rs but 83% negative for Democrats. Congress has a negativity of 96.5% and Obama's negativity is 74%. I realize it's not scientific but ...there have been other polls showing disgust at both parties. There never seems to be a poll as to why.


Oh and Ron Paul got 17.9% negative but 81% positive !

And he came as close to winning the presidency as I did.

[BucEyedPea]

That's not what the thread is about.

Ahem! "In government, the scum rises to the top."~ Hayek

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

Not as much influence from Hollywood and the cable news networks on the local races.

Good point.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

Not as much influence from Hollywood and the cable news networks on the local races.

True. And as Goldberg points out, spending is critical at the state and local level. People don't like waste when it's local and identifiable. When the Feds waste money, who cares? It's probably some dude in Alaska or New Hampshire screwing the country and there's nothing I can do about that anyway.


But the local guy? I can and will vote him out.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by GoChargers

You mean the same gerrymandering that the DNC does just as much when they get into power?

This isn't a partisan thing, it's yet another corrupt politician thing that both major parties are equally complicit in.

of course. Both sides are guilty of the practice. But, that's why the Dems didnt take the house since they received 1 million more votes than R's. Thats why the R's seem popular.

If you or anyone else think that Republicans are truly popular, that the American public is on board with their political goals........... get out of the bubble.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Yes it is. Five changing would be a lot. I mean there's only 50 states.

You have to understand the liberal mind when it comes to math. Switching only 5 governorships is nothing really, only 10% of the available. But the Democrats 8 seat lead in the US Senate is INSURMOUNTABLE and a CLEAR INDICATION OF DNC DOMINANCE DAMMIT!


So since the Dems hold a 53-45 lead in the Senate, that means only 4 seats out of 100 much switch. A far lower hurdle.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

You have to understand the liberal mind when it comes to math. Switching only 5 governorships is nothing really, only 10% of the available. But the Democrats 8 seat lead in the US Senate is INSURMOUNTABLE and a CLEAR INDICATION OF DNC DOMINANCE DAMMIT!


So since the Dems hold a 53-45 lead in the Senate, that means only 4 seats out of 100 much switch. A far lower hurdle.

It takes 60 votes to get anything partisan done. A majority is irrelevant anymore.

Yet, the R's could have had a Republican majority in the Senate if they wouldn't have ran far right tea party candidates. They blew at least 5 Senate seats that were a shoo-in until the tea party candidates opened their mouths and people were like WTF?

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

It takes 60 votes to get anything partisan done. A majority is irrelevant anymore.

Yet, the R's could have had a Republican majority in the Senate if they wouldn't have ran far right tea party candidates. They blew at least 5 Senate seats that were a shoo-in until the tea party candidates opened their mouths and people were like WTF?

So what is the Dems excuse for losing so badly at the state level across the country? Oh wait....lemme guess.....

......


......


......

GERRYMANDERING!