Democrats pick up seats in the Virginia House and take control of the Virginia Senate. This, it seems, has some implications for redistricting after the 2010 census which, in light of the heavy GOP tilt of the current House delegation and the blue trend sweeping the state, ought to be a productive opportunity for Democrats. Meanwhile, I'd say this bodes particularly poorly for Republicans because it was hard to use Iraq or Bush's general unpopularity as issues in this election, but it was possible for Republicans to run on immigration, which appears to be their big idea this cycle. But it didn't work for them, and things like Bush and Iraq will be much more in play a year from now when people are running for federal office.
« The Shah of Pakistan | Main | Bhutto Versus Sharif »
Blue Virginia
07 Nov 2007 08:53 am
Comments (20)
If Virginia is in play for the Democrats in 2008, then no Republican nominee stands a chance of winning.
I wonder how many routs have to occur before a political party is considered irrelevant. The way things are going, the President of Hillary Clinton will be chosen in the New Hampshire primary in February 2016 but the inaugural will no occur until January 2009. Maybe people need to begin thinking about how the U.S. will function as a one party state.
Immigration is also likely to be in play on a federal level a year from now. Judging from VA's results, it's a good news, bad news situation: The good news is that it didn't get the play you might have expected. The bad news is, in close national elections, it might be enough. See the results of the two candidates who made "getting tough" on immigration their platform: Corey Stewart and Eugene Delgaudio.
See the results of the two candidates who made "getting tough" on immigration their platform: Corey Stewart and Eugene Delgaudio.
Point taken. Then again, my state senate incumbent, O'Brien (VA-39), also made "getting tough" a big part of his campaign and lost.
While the issue may help the GOP in some races, I can't help but think that it will doom them in places like Florida, without which they have no chance of winning.
Is the blue trend sweeping the state, or is it mainly Fairfax County joining the other inside-the-beltway jurisdictions as a Dem stronghold? Fairfax, don't forget, is huge, with a population of over a million.
Is the blue trend sweeping the state, or is it mainly Fairfax County joining the other inside-the-beltway jurisdictions as a Dem stronghold?
It's both. Fairfax Co is the tip of the spear, but the collar counties (Loudoun, Prince William) got bluer, the Hampton Roads area swung Democratic, and the GOP vote fell in the southwest. The GOP took over in the 90s when Dixiecrats finally jumped into the fold, and for a while they nestled uncomfortably with the moderate tories who'd always made up the state GOP. But the wingnut base has started cannibalizing the moderates and the people who run the party keep running angry anti-immigration, anti-tax campaigns, ceding the "but I just want a short commute and good services!" vote to the Democrats.
Yeah, Fairfax, and to a lesser extent the other NoVA counties are finally starting to get with the program. Arlington, of course, has long known that GOP stands for Greed Over People. I love living in a county where no Republican candidate got more than 38%:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/elections/2007/results/general_arlington.html
While immigration may not be the most important topic, I think it bodes ill for the Democrats if they fail to articulate a message and a plan that is more than just being "compassionate." There are a lot of liberals, myself included, who thought the immigration bill was overly generous and whatever the merits may -- may -- be of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, for all too many people that's a no-brainer: "You want to do WHAT?" Right now all the candidates except for Dodd are holding the party line on immigration, but that line plays only to the base and the elites. Independents take a much dimmer view of "amnesty," licenses for illegal immigrants, etc. The idea the all Latinos favor looking the other way is just not borne out by the facts -- almost half of the Hispanics in Arizona voted to deny state services to undocumented immigrants, for example. The fact that the DREAM Act, which even skeptics like me supported as commonsensical, failed, should give pause for thought. I'd really hate to see immigration put a git like Giuliani over the top next year, but I fear it will unless Hillary and Obama et al rethink the limits of their compassion.
There's no good argument for IllegalImmigration. The only arguments those Dems who support massive illegal activity can articulate aren't arguments at all: they're sleazy attempts to stop the debate (see the first comment for an example). If the GOP can disclose everything involved in this issue - and where applicable discuss the links their opponents have to foreign governments and the like - those Dems who support illegal activity are toast.
There's no good argument for shoplifting either, but that doesn't mean we should spend ridiculous gobs of money, or engage in ethnic profiling, to stamp it out.
If the GOP can disclose everything involved in this issue - and where applicable discuss the links their opponents have to foreign governments and the like - those Dems who support illegal activity are toast.
Are you just guessing/hoping the GOP could find these links, or is there something more you want to say?
TLB -
I'm not sure what conspiracy theory planet you live on, but the group that benefits the most from illegal immigration in the US is Big Business - specifically Big Agribusiness, and the group that benefits the second-most is Small Business. In order to "disclose everything involved in this issue" as you say, the GOP would pretty much have to go after Big Business interests.
So until the GOP realignment that kicks Big Business interests to the curb in favor of hardcore populism (which, depending on how the GOPers do in '08 may not be as far-fetched as it seems right now), I don't think that this issue is the clear-cut "winner" that anyone in the GOP voting base seems to think it is.
NonyNony writes: "So until the GOP realignment that kicks Big Business interests to the curb in favor of hardcore populism (which, depending on how the GOPers do in '08 may not be as far-fetched as it seems right now), I don't think that this issue is the clear-cut "winner" that anyone in the GOP voting base seems to think it is."
Democrats are already beating Republicans in contributions by 2 to 1. Big Business has already kicked the Republicans to the curb. Big business has money, but votes are a different story. Somewhat freed from the influence of big business's money, Republican candidates should be far freer to support the hard-line immigration policy that it's grass-roots voting base (as well as a portion of the democrats base) prefers.
magisterludi writes:
"I heard yesterday that the GOP considers immigration their new divide-and-conquer issue. Fomenting hatred seems to be their only talent."
Baseless insults seem to be your only talent. Americans have the right to decide the future of their nation. What is your problem with democracy? Elitists like you can go to hell for all I care.
I take that back, I don't wish hell on anyone (if it exists).
Disillusioned as I am with the Dems, it's great to see the GOP get a well-deserved stomping on terrain that ought to favor it. If Hampton Roads and the SW Va. are rejecting Republicanism, maybe we really are looking at a 1932-style blowout in '08.....
kth says: There's no good argument for shoplifting either, but that doesn't mean we should spend ridiculous gobs of money, or engage in ethnic profiling, to stamp it out.
I'll only mention one of the many things wrong with those few words: stopping this illegal activity is actually much simpler than it might appear. We simply work to completely discredit those who advocate for it. Once it loses its advocates - such as politicians or pundits - it will be very difficult for it to continue.
Rambuncle: I've actually written several pages discussing those links. You can see this page or this among others: tinyurl.com/27hys2
As for NonyNony's concerns, he might want to look into who funds and has links to racial power groups that support illegal activity, such as the NCLR or those named here: tinyurl.com/2vbydv Those groups are in turn linked to MattY's party.
HEy i have an idea to take advantage of this. Lets nominate a 'NE liberal' who supports the war.
So if incredible cost without measurable result is a reason to abandon a policy please explain what you would do with education.
In short between the 1970's and 2000 the United States more than doubled the amount spent per child, and that is in inflation adjusted dollars.
Class sizes reduced by over 30%.
Increased administrative staff to compensate for new technology introductions and removed administrative functions from teachers.
Now heres the kicker. While doing this the scores measuring achievement remained static or fell.International rankings fell also while we outspent several other countries in per child spending.
So we doubled the money, added a third more teachers, and removed non-teaching duties from teachers with overall negative results. The Democrat answer is increase education funding. Haven't we yet proven that doesn't work?
I thought I should include this little factoid. In 2004 California spent aprox 10 billion dollars on service for illegal immigrants. This was divided between paying for health care for criminals, incarcerating these criminals, and educating the criminals children. In 1994 the state spent aprox $1 billion on illegal immigrants.
So let me see. We are already spending "gobs" of money on illegal immigrants. I would rather we spend this money on something else. Lets see the US shares a border of aprox 2000 miles with Mexico, where the bulk of California's illegal immigrants hail from. If the 10 billion the state spent instead went to building a fence we would have about $5,000,000 to spend per mile of fence or border. Hmm $5 million that mile could be well secured with that. I personally think we could do it with half that, resulting in a savings of 5 billion for California alone. And that is if we took all of the money for the fence from California, which isn't how it would happen.
Comments closed November 21, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I heard yesterday that the GOP considers immigration their new divide-and-conquer issue. Fomenting hatred seems to be their only talent.
Posted by magisterludi | November 7, 2007 9:28 AM