Democrats & Liberals Archives

Woody’s 2006 Senate Forecast: August Edition

As the name suggests, this will be a regular feature. See you again in September.

Predicted Breakdown: 51 R, 49 D.

Predicted Democratic Takeovers
(In Descending Order of Confidence)

PA – This is closest the Democrats have to a guaranteed takeover, as Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. has consistently outpolled Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum. Good riddance. Rick doesn’t have to feel bad though. He is probably the first senator in history to have a frothy mixture of bodily fluids named after him.

OH – This race has been up and down, but the latest Zogby/WSJ poll shows Sherrod Brown (D) with an 8% lead over incumbent Mike Dewine (R). It’s a bad year to be a Republican in Ohio.

RI – This race has gotten strangely little attention. The Wall Street Journal completely ignored it in their recent Senate forecast. (Little bit of wishful thinking there?) Nevertheless, the odds favor a Democratic pickup. The Republicans have a contested primary. If incumbent Lincoln Chafee wins, the latest Rasmussen poll shows him losing to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse 46 to 41. If Republican challenger Steve Laffey wins the primary, Whitehouse beats him by a whopping 57 to 29.

Now, I know what you are thinking: why would the Republicans nominate someone like Laffey who is destined for defeat? Because Lincoln Chafee is a true RINO who is constantly at odds with the GOP. Conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt went so far as to say (MSNBC, 3/06) that if Chafee wins the nomination, Republicans should vote for the Democrat in the general election. That is some pretty hardcore opposition.

I have a written a lot about the parallels between Chafee and Lieberman, and I don’t want to overstate the point. Nevertheless, if both go down in their primaries, I think you can call it a trend. Voters in both parties are angry and polarized, and aren’t in the mood for diplomacy.

MO – Aside the from pro-Democratic breeze blowing, Jim Talent (R) has gotten in trouble over his opposition to stem cell research. Recent polls have been mixed, but most have favored Claire McCaskill (D).

Possible Democratic Takeover

MT – This is another race the Wall Street Journal chose to ignore. Rasmussen Reports (7/6) shows Democratic nominee John Tester with a 50-43 lead over incumbent Conrad Burns. Older polls show a closer race, though, so I remain skeptical. A Republican incumbent losing in Montana seems too good to be true, even if it is someone who has been strongly tied to Jack Abrahamoff.

Other Races to Watch

MD – It looked like Michael Steele (R) had a shot at pulling off a takeover for the R’s, but his clumsy handling of the “scarlet letter” comment probably finished him off.

A thought that crossed my mind: Why didn’t he run as a Democrat or Independent? Yes, I realize that he is a conservative, but there is such a thing as a conservative Democrat. Really. The media would have really dug this. Just think of all the nicknames: The Black McCain. The Black and Blue Dog. The Cosbycrat. (OK, I'll stick to making predictions...)

NJ – Jon Corzine may have really screwed the Democratic Party. First, he retired his Senate seat. (The Senate Democrats have really been hurt by untimely retirements in recent years.) Then as the Governor of New Jersey, he caused a government shutdown so he could push through an unpopular tax increase. Despite all of the help from Corzine, Democrat Bob Menendez should be able to hold onto his narrow lead in this Blue State.

WA – Incumbent Maria Cantwell (D) continues to hold onto a modest lead, but she isn’t out of the woods.

MN – Republicans were hoping for a takeover this year, but Democrat Amy Klobuchar has consistently been ahead.

CT – I only mention this race lest readers think I deliberately ignored it. The partisan breakdown of the Senate is not at stake in this race, because it will almost certainly be won by either a Democrat or an “Independent who caucuses with the Democrats”. (There should be a snappier name for this by now. Indiecrat?)

Summary

With the current split being 55-45, the most likely scenario seems to be a 51-49 Republican majority. A 50-50 split, with Dick Cheney casting the deciding vote, is probably the best the Dems can hope for. Either would be a big improvement over the status quo. There would be no danger of another "nuclear" standoff, for example.

Postscript (9 am): Rasmussen just released polls showing McCaskill ahead by 3, Cantwell ahead by 11.

Posted by Woody Mena at August 1, 2006 8:37 AM
Comments
Comment #172518

Steele doesn’t stand a chance at taking MD, believe me. He’s not popular at all here, and as of right now, Mfume is beating cardin in democratic polls. That eliminates the stupid racial aspect of the contest, if and when Mfume wins the nomination, Steele will see himself crushed in polls and in the election, because MD will not vote republican if there is a sane democratic challenger.

(Everyone from the state who’s progressive has just shuddered said the name Kennedy-Towson and spit to avoid the curse associated with uttering her name)

By the by, Indiecrat is great.

Posted by: iandanger at August 1, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #172519

Great post Woody.
A truely informative piece with just enough personal opinion to make it entertaining. With the elections coming up, I have been looking forward to these type of posts.

As I am from Missouri, the Talent and mccaskill race will be interesting.
Talent gets most of his support from the little guys and mccaskill gets her’s from the big cities. She has always known how to play and pander KC and St. Louis.
I believe she will win, Missouri will loose and the Dems will pick up this seat.

Posted by: kctim at August 1, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #172520

Thanks, kctim.

When someone predicts things won’t go the way they want, that always carries more weight with me. Why do you think Talent is in trouble? Is it really stem cells?

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 1, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #172521

From the STL side I would say I have to agree. Though Talent does not live up to his name, McCaskill will be a win for Democrats but a loss for Missouri. We truly need someone better than either of them.

Posted by: DOC at August 1, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #172532

“”As I am from Missouri, the Talent and mccaskill race will be interesting.
Talent gets most of his support from the little guys and mccaskill gets her’s from the big cities. She has always known how to play and pander KC and St. Louis.
I believe she will win, Missouri will loose and the Dems will pick up this seat.”“

Having cut my political teeth in the campaigns of former Missouri Gov. Warren Hearnes in the 60’s, I have learned that while one can speak of St. Louis and Kansas City as Democratic strongholds, it is more useful to look another demographic variable: level of education.

On a county-by-county basis, the Democratic/Republican vote split essentially mirrors a county’s level of education distribution. The best predictor of how a Missourian votes is their level of education when controlling for race.

This, of course, has been true in 41 of 50 of the states since the mid 1990s. Nationally, those voters who are part of the religious right segment of the Republican coalition has an average level of education of just under 12 years (12 years = high school graduate). On the other hand, 78% of persons with 16 years (an undergraduate degree) or more years of education vote Democratic. Persons with doctoral degrees vote 86% Democratic.

In short, I am suggesting we should think not just in terms of urban vs suburban vs rural. A significant part of Republican campaign strategy since the late 1960s is the targeting of the under-educated be denigrating education and the educated (the so-called Southern Strategy is but one example). Hence, Republican’s disdain for science. This is the means by which the Republicans get under-educated voters to vote against their own best interests and the basis of the party’s aversion to policies that would increase the number of Americans with college degrees. Education is the natural enemy of the modern day Republican party.

As far as McCaskill vs Talent: McCaskill is certainly no Sen. Tom Eagleton. Nevertheless, she would be a significant improvement over the hateful and untalented Talent.

Posted by: Dr. Poshek at August 1, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #172537

As yet another Missouri resident (from the STL side - where are you, DOC?), I’ll chime in.

Dr. Poshek’s comment on adding education to the urban-rural mix reminds me of one of the other big debates in this state - how to pronounce its name. Is it Mi-ZUR-ee or Mi-ZU-rah? Polls show that the younger, more urban, and more educated a resident is, the more likely he is to say Mi-ZUR-ee, and the older, the less educated, and the more rural a resident is, the more likely he is to say Mi-ZU-rah.

Anyway, it does seem that McCaskill currently has the advantage, but it’s far from settled. Missouri (however you pronounce it) is the second most “average” state in the union, but it leans a bit to the conservative side, falling firmly on Bush’s side the last two elections.

Yes, Woody, the stem cell debate has been big here. Part of Talent’s problem is that he didn’t immediately pander to his base, and he spent time actually to consider the merits of the issue before coming to his anti-embryonic-stem-cell-research position. It seems that much of what should be his base here is still mad at him for considering the possibility that a knee-jerk acceptance of their position might not be the best policy. I would expect, though, that all will be forgiven by November.

It’s a toss-up.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 1, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #172544

I have enjoyed the comments. I am confused however with the education analysis. Democrats tend to be younger and smarter than Republicans? Why do they contineu to lose elections?

Posted by: Jim at August 1, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #172547

Jim,

Because older people are more likely to vote. And less-educated people are less likely to be cynical about the election process.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at August 1, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #172552

Jim,

Also because “nice guys finish last”.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 1, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #172555

LawnBoy - St Louis here.

Younger and more educated also tends to equate to the ability to affect change. As we all know, the more limited the education the greater the fear of change. You fear things you don’t or can’t understand. Fringe conservatives capitalize on this and turn stem-cell-research into “Frankenstein”, and civil unions into “Naked male dancing at Disneyland on Sundays”.

Posted by: DOC at August 1, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #172558

speaking as a college educated professional living in a rural area, I find the educational breakdown amusing. I’m a Christian, Republican and “nice”. I vote in every single election there is and encourage everyone I know to vote. My thought is ” if you don’t vote, you can’t bitch”. Now if i could just get all those overeducated welfare recipitants in Detroit to vote out Levin and Stabinow…….

Posted by: Ilsa at August 1, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #172559

You remember the old statement that if you are not a leftist when you are 20 you have no heart, but if you are still a leftist when you are 40 you have no brain.

Some of this is an artifact of our society’s continuing increase in education. Young people are more educated than old people (in formal “booklearnin” years). But as they get more experience, they move to the right.

I do not really buy the figures, however. Please look at the CNN chart from the last election
Kerry won the HS drop out vote. Bush won HS and university graduates. Kerry won the PhDs.

Democratic support is bimodal. They get the very poorly educated and the very highly educated. Ordinary college & HS grads go Republican. And nobody gets 78% of the college grad vote. If they did, they would almost always win. In the last election the college educated vote (undergrad and grad together) split exactly evenly between Bush and Kerry.


Posted by: Jack at August 1, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #172564

There is one point you failed to mention about the Senator that will return. Seniority.
In Wisconsin, Sen. Kohl is going to be re-elected not just by a landslide, but because he is well liked and respected. His Seniority will increase as new Senators come in.
As will Sen. Feingold’s, and all the other incumbants that get elected.
Even if the GOP does retain control, they will always have an eye on 2008, seeing that they are likely to loose seats in both houses.
With as many GOP dissenters on many votes in this last session, that will continue, as the 2008 campaigns will be going strong in Jan.

Posted by: Joe at August 1, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #172567

“Also because “nice guys finish last”.

great line from Ice Age:

“All the sensitive guys get eaten.”

Posted by: tony at August 1, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #172577
PA – This is closest the Democrats have to a guaranteed takeover, as Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. has consistently outpolled Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum. Good riddance. Rick doesn’t have to feel bad though. He is probably the first senator in history to have a frothy mixture of bodily fluids named after him.

I wouldn’t count Santorum out just yet. The GOP is providing financing to a Green Party candidate who is expected to siphon votes away from Casey.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 1, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #172578

Doc…I am really confused by your “Frankenstein” comment about Bush and Stem Cell Research. Unless my memory is really failing at my age 65, Bush is the first President to ask for any federal money for stem cell research. I also recall that Bush and company have not tried to ban research, they just don’t want those taxpayers who are adamently against their tax dollars being used for this being forced to fund it. And, whatever else you hate about Bush, don’t you at least admire the fact that he has tried to keep his campaign promise? I hear all of us admire certan democrats who have the courage to stand for their convictions. Do we only admire those who stand strong for what they believe if their beliefs agree with ours?

Posted by: Jim at August 1, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #172580

Jim,

Don’t give Bush too much credit for being the first to ask for federal money for stem cell research; there wasn’t really an area for research until a breakthrough in late 1998. Basically, Bush is both the first to allow any funding and the first to restrict funding because the category didn’t exist before the end of his predeccessor’s term.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 1, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #172582

Jim,

Ah, the Two-Faced Stem Cell Defense. Face one: Bush is a man of principles who doesn’t believe that taxpayer dollars should be used to pay for stem cell research. Face two: Bush was the first president to allocate federal funds for stem cell research.

Brain.. locking.. does… not… compute.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 1, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #172584

Jim - I somehow think that “fringe conservatives” somehow registered in your mind as “George Bush”, which was not my intention. The point I was addressing had nothing directly to do with the President, but moreso of those who are willing to play on the uneducated, by exagerating something with which they disagree into the scariest possible scenario.

Posted by: DOC at August 1, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #172586

I say we throw out every single incumbent Senator and Representative. All of them, Republican or Democrat. Not necessarily replace them with the opposite party, just get rid of all the incumbents. All the time people complain about how messed up our government is. What kind of a signal would it send if we threw every last one of them out of a job. That would put the fear of God into every new guy and they would probably think twice or more about going against their constituents or accepting bribe money and they would probably stay far away from lobbyists.

Posted by: Silima at August 1, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #172587

I haven’t looked at the poll and I know it is a somewhat long-shot but why not include Bill Frist’s open seat in Tennessee?

As a Tennessean I think it is possible albeit not the most probable.

Posted by: Tom L at August 1, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #172588

DOC

How different is Republicans scaring the crap out of the less educated different from Democrats scaring the crap out of their people with ideas of what a society controlled by republicans-suppressment of women and minorities, government sactioning of Christianity, etc.?

Posted by: Silima at August 1, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #172589

Silima - Aye-yaye-yaye! If I had meant Republicans I would not have written “fringe conservatives”. There is little comparitive difference in this manipulative behavior between extremists on both the conservative and liberal ends, as it pertains to the uneducated.

If you are asking for my opinion as to how our examples differ from each other, I would say that stem-cell-research and gay marriage have a basis in “science and human rights” and are turned by the extreme right into “horror and perversion” with the covert use of Christian religious dogma. That dogma is “not” transparent and is then received and translated by the extreme left into oppression and forced moral structures.

I also suspect that an educated Democrat as well as an educated Republican would tell me I’m full of it, if I was full of it.

Posted by: DOC at August 1, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #172591

Jack

You are truly an advocate, which is okay, but your willingness to distort the information in links in order to support your assertions is disappointing. You’ve done this before; I figured it was time to call you on it.

The data you cite does not necessarily support your assertions about age or education and whom a person would vote for. Clearly you cannot look at the results of one election and make the general claims that you are asserting. The polling information also does not distinguish between graduate studies and PhD’s honors. If you look at the voting trends of all college graduates versus non-graduates you see that the results were split 49% Republican versus 49% Democrat. Furthermore, there is no indication what the percent error that should be associated with this CNN poll.

Most important of all, if you compare the results of 2004 vs. 2000, you will see that despite what you said, there is no generality you can make between age and which party a person would vote for. In the 2000 election, the majority of voters for the age groupings above 29 did not vote for Bush, hence did not vote Republican. This is clearly indicated in the CNN Poll you provided the link for, either you were unable to interpret the numbers given, or you chose to ignore them.

Posted by: Cube at August 1, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #172613

Cube

Okay. The figures are unclear.

I think we do see a definite bimodal pattern in voting, but each election is different. I do not think the link between education and party identification is particularly strong. So why don’t dems just give up on this idea they they represent the smarter, more educated part of the population?

As we both pointed out, the college educated group split evenly between Kerry and Bush. The figures do not prove Republicans are smarter than Dems, but they also do not indicate the other way around. That is the fallacy I was trying to disprove.

So if you (Dems) all will stop asserting that Dems represent the smarter half of the population, I will stop calling YOU on it.

BTW - Don’t even start with that blue/red crap or before you do take a look at the more detailed county by county maps and remember that not everyone is a state votes the same way.

P.S. the thing about being a leftist at age twenty but not being one at age forty is just an old saying. It fits with my observations, but I don’t suppose it is statistically provable.

Posted by: Jack at August 1, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #172616

Tom L,

Good question. Some pundits say the Dems have a shot at winning a majority, and the difference is that they include TN. Unfortunately, recent polls show the Republican favorite Bob Corker with a big lead over Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. This may have something to do with the fact that Ford’s uncle is on trial for political corruption (as you probably know).

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 1, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #172698

Jay Jay: I hope you post that link about Rep support for the Greens on the indi. site.

Dear Jack: The exception that proves the rule.


Conservatives by definition disdain change,support the status quo(source:dictionary). This is not necessarily an indication of lower intelligence or less education but more a matter of position and limited vision. A reluctance to consider potential alternatives that may be superior but carry a real or imagined risk. This is not an attempt to be unflattering but those are also attributes of the less gifted and ignorant. A “we don’t like what we have but we are used to it so leave us alone” reaction to most social problems. Case in point, Single payer health care. It works pretty good in every other western industrial democracy,not perfect but pretty well. Evince of this is overwhelming. People there must like it. They are democracies after all and any candidate that even thinks about eliminating it has no future. Plenty more evedence. The average Frenchman gets better care than even wealthy Americans. All for much less money. Problem: It represents a major change. Conservatives fear this and grab hold of any piece of anecdotal negative evidence they can to argue against it. Fear of change. They have healthcare and fear the possibility of loseing it. This attitude holds us back in important ways. Of course the contrary argument has some merit also. That attitude can and has probably kept us from doing some bonehead things. Single payer is not one of them. A more equitable distribution of the fruits of our labor is not one of them. Fossil fuel replacement is not one of them. The list goes on.They force us to take small steps when what is often needed are leaps.

Posted by: BillS at August 1, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #172725

this is exactly what I predicted. http://www.xanga.com/Matt2h

Posted by: Matt Henderson at August 2, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #172728

BillS

In the saying “The exception proves the rule” the word “proves” is used in an archaic fashion (from the time when the saying originated). It means “tests”. So a modern translation is “The exception tests the rule.” In this case it doesn’t apply.

If you use the dictionary definition of liberal, you may as well put a picture of Newt Gingrich next to it because he is the most liberal politician by the definition. The American usage of the terms liberal and conservative do not go with the definitions since they also have changed over time.

A liberal in the U.S. is what you would call a social democrat in Europe and a conservative in the U.S. is what they call a liberal in Europe. In most of the world, neo-liberal refers to the ideas we call neo-conservative. So please forget about that definition. It is as useful as saying that the exception proves the rule.

The actual voting records show that educational levels have little to do with voting except at the very high and very low levels. I detect in the figures the HS dropouts voted more for Dems and so do people with advanced degrees, while HS and college grads vote more Republican. The college educated vote (undergrad and grad combined ) divided exactly in half in the last election.

You also have the problem with education not equaling intelligence. Sometimes it depends on what you are studying and why. I am not sure a professor of gender studies would come off winner in a battle of wits with a manager of a Wal-Mart who just had his GED. I know from my own academic experience that many people get advanced degrees because they have trouble getting jobs.

The bottom line is that intelligence is not particularly associated with either mainstream political ideology. Ironically, for your definition, most of the new ideas in the last 30 years have come from conservative think tanks. Liberals have been fighting rear guard actions to protect patterns of thought that peaked in the 1960s great society.

P.S. I have never been to the hospital in France, but I experienced socialized medicine in Scandinavia. It has its good and bad parts, but in general I prefer the care I get in the U.S. That does not mean we should not improve our system, but socialized medicine along the European models is another old solution. We should probably come up with a neo-liberal alternative.

Posted by: Jack at August 2, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #172734

The actual voting records show that educational levels have little to do with voting except at the very high and very low levels.

Jack

After hammering you about misquoting the poll you cited, I tried to give you a pass after the explanation you gave. Yet you continue to try to prove Republican’s intelligence by misinterpreting that poll. Certainly…Hopefully you should realize that a one percent differential in the non-High School education does not signify that a majority of poorly educated people vote predominantly Democrat. A one percent differential in consideration with the margin of error that would be associated with the 2004 poll, would only indicate at best that the poorly educated voted fairly equally for both Democrats and Republicans. The 2000 poll may possibly support what you are trying to assert, but without more information, you cannot surmise which election was an aberration or what the 2000 poll really indicates.

Then you go play advocate and try to lay conservative claim over some non-existent grand ideas. Since the 1960’s, we have been slowly incorporating and refining the radical ideas of the 60’s, while simultaneously shifting the political spectrum further to the left. This is no rear guard action, but fruition from the liberal thought that has become ingrained in the fabric of our society. FDR initiated this shift and it gathered steam as the twentieth century progressed. Should we consider President Bush a natural correction in this path? Was that his intention, or is he a moderate that sold his soul to the right in order to get elected?

Don’t bother answering the above questions. The answer really doesn’t matter. You should just stop distorting information in order to prove a point. If you can’t advocate a position without distorting the truth, then I suggest you rethink your position.

Posted by: Cube at August 2, 2006 4:12 AM
Comment #172759

Matt,

Yes, we did get the same breakdown, albeit with slightly different states. You give the Dems Montana and the Reps Missouri; I did the opposite. Each of those races is basically a coin toss.

I think the House is actually a little more likely to shift than the Senate, or to be precise I am less certain that it won’t shift. The Democrats only need fifteen seats to take the House, and I don’t think anyone honestly has a clue whether they can get those seats.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 2, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #172813

Cube

I don’t see how it is distorting. My contention is that intelligence is distributed fairly evenly among the parties. I detect a bimodal distribution, but it is not strong. Overall, the college educated crowd split evenly between the parties.

You (and please correct if I am wrong) contend that Democrats as a whole are smarter than Republicans as a whole. If that is not what you are saying, I appologize. If it is what you are saying, the evidence indicates you are wrong (or at least there is no evidence to prove you right and experience goes against you).

I am glad to hear liberals are trying to develop their ideas. When I see the platforms that harken back to the 1960s or depend on Democrats NOT being Republicans, I did not notice the new stuff. Sine the 1970s, how have those new idea been working out for you?

Maybe the electortate is too dumb to understand the elegance of liberalism. Even the most successful recent Democrat (Bill Clinton) is best remembered for a business friendly administration, whose big achievements were NAFTA, NATO expansion and welfare reform. I don’t recall the radicals of the 1960s chanting about those things. Maybe part of the liberal strategy is to be more conservative. If so, I think you have a winner.

Posted by: Jack at August 2, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #172815

Woody
“Why do you think Talent is in trouble? Is it really stem cells?”

Stem cell crap may be some of the problem but I don’t really believe Talent has energized his voters enough to show up in mass this time.
McCaskill is McCaskill, a very boring lady who has been smart enough, so far, not to give Talent any ammunition, like anti-2nd Amendment, anti-religion, anti-working people, type of stuff.
I can’t speak for St. Louis, but Kansas City is a pretty racist and sexist place. If your a white Republican male, you have no real chance of winning, no matter how good you are. McCaskill is guaranteed those votes and playing the fear card will get those voters out to vote for her.
Talent needs to get his voters to vote but so far its almost like he thinks the “Vote for me, I’m not a liberal” line will be enough.
Didn’t work for kerry, won’t work for him. IMO of course.

Posted by: kctim at August 2, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #172833

Wow, kctim. If a white Republican male can’t expect automatically to be elected, the only explanation is that all the people are racist? Wow.

I guess we should go back to the days when only white men could run for office - then racism would be eliminated.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 2, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #172841

Jack

I don’t contend that Democrats as a whole are smarter than Republicans. I only contend in your zeal to prove that, your argument was flawed. You tried to prove Republicans were intelligent by inferring that Democrats were not. While there is I believe fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats beyond policy, intelligence isn’t one of those differences. I don’t buy into the idea that Republicans are hicks, or not fully aware of the choices they make.

“Maybe the electortate is too dumb to understand the elegance of liberalism.”

I don’t understand your obsession over the idea of intelligence. My only argument is for intelligent discourse.

Posted by: Cube at August 2, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #172845

Very weak LawnBoy.
Nobody said they should be “automatically” elected, I said the people should give everybody a fair chance, but they can’t look past color or sex so any so-called non-minority doesn’t stand a chance and the candidate can count on their vote everytime.
Kansas City has a history of choosing race and sex over qualifications in local elections.
You are naive if you believe those factors don’t play a factor in how voters decide, especially in big cities and very rural areas.

Posted by: kctim at August 2, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #172848
You are naive if you believe those factors don’t play a factor in how voters decide, especially in big cities and very rural areas.

No, I’m not naive. I know those are factors. The problem is that you reach to the labels of racism and sexism when looking at the minority of communities where the constituencies are not overwhelmingly white.

Let’s look at the who has been the mayor of Kansas City.
Current mayor is Kay Barnes, a white woman Democrat.
Before that was Emanuel Cleaver, a black male Democrat.
Before that was Richard L. Berkley, a white Jewish male Republican.

Huh. Jews and Christians. Men and women. Blacks and whites. Democrats and Republicans. It looks to me like it might just be that the people of Kansas City are a bit more open in their voting patterns than you give them credit for.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 2, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #172876

Hardly LB.
From the school board on up, KC primarily votes without considering qualifications. The school board in fact, is an excellent example.
KC is no more open in their voting patterns than a small rural town which refuses to vote in a black sheriff or mayor.

Besides, as I said, mccaskill has St. Louis and KC locked up based on my opinion.

Posted by: kctim at August 2, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #172879

Sooooo… you just ignore the counter examples of the mayor’s office without comment because the facts disagree with your thesis?

I agree that McCaskill has the two big cities locked up - they are Democratic strongholds. However, they are balanced almost evenly by the rest of the state.

It makes me chuckle that you accuse KC of being racist for supporting the white McCaskill instead of the white Talent.

Oh well.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 2, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #172984

LB
I am ignoring nothing. The other part of what I said was that it is sexist. Kay Barnes easily qualifies as a female mayor and from what I have been told, Berkley wasnt considered to Republican by many.
And I did NOT accuse KC of being racist for supporting mccaskill over talent. I said KC uses race and sex rather than qualifications in most elections and I believe this attitude will help claire.
Just as I believe alot of small rural areas will support Talent by doing the same thing.

Posted by: kctim at August 3, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #172985

Wow. A woman gets elected to a position of power, and it must be sexism. Too bad women have the right to vote, huh?

Your personal sexism and racism shows through more blindingly each time you post. I’d advise you to stop now; the hole is deep enough.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 3, 2006 9:18 AM
Comment #173215
It makes me chuckle that you accuse KC of being racist for supporting the white McCaskill instead of the white Talent.

Hehe, yeah I was wondering about that too. Funny how people use the “r-word”, especially conservatives!

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 4, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #173246

I believe I also mentioned sexist, did I not?
Claire and Jim? Sure sounds like a man and woman to me.

I also accused small rural areas of being racist and sexist in their voting, funny how you all don’t mention that. I guess you two believe its ok for one side to do something and only complain when the other side does it.

I’m willing to use the “r-word” fairly, its not funny that you are not.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #173394

kctim,

Claire and Jim? Sure sounds like a man and woman to me.

I see. So, if they elect anyone other than a white male, they’re either racist or sexist, right? That’s your claim, right?

I guess in your eyes, someone’s being unfairly discriminatory if they vote for anyone that isn’t a white male. If they support a white woman, it’s sexism against men! If they support a black man, it’s racism against whites! When your standard is that the only way to elect someone fairly is to choose a white man, then you’ve got the problem.

Two of the last three mayors have been men - does that show sexism against men? Two of the last three mayors have been white - does that show racism against whites?

Absolutely not.

They have elected men and women, blacks and whites, Jews and Christians, Democrats and Republicans. How you can draw inferences of racism and sexism from that????

I also accused small rural areas of being racist and sexist in their voting, funny how you all don’t mention that. I guess you two believe its ok for one side to do something and only complain when the other side does it.

Yes, you said that, but it’s not relevant, is it?

I’m willing to use the “r-word” fairly, its not funny that you are not.

You use it, but far from fairly. Remember, 1/3 of their recents mayors have been white men, 1/3 black men, and 1/3 white women. How you draw any inferences of racism and sexism from a mixed bag like that is beyond all logic.

Then again, you think that a group that is neutral on a position you hold is at war against your position, so I shouldn’t expect much.

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 4, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #173605

Oh, and kctim,

You once mentioned the school board as indicitive of the way that KC won’t elect white men. Let’s look at the school board:

9 people total.
4 black members, 5 white members (not very racist against whites, huh?)
4 women, 5 men (not very sexist against men, huh?)
3 white men.

What’s your point again?

Posted by: LawnBoy at August 6, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #173649

I dont like what the Democratic party stands for. However, after watching what Bush and company have done to the country, the American people should send the whole “conservative” movement into a hellish oblivion. I thought Bill clinton was a below average president….ha ha ha, Bush takes the worst of the worst presidents cakes and eats it too. These guys are out-right EVIL.

Posted by: Anthony Mason at August 6, 2006 4:14 PM
Post a comment