There is an interesting (and potentially important) change occurring on the ballots of states with tight Senate races. Legalization of marijuana issues are appearing on the ballots in places like Alaska and Oregon and are expected to draw in younger voters. This could be the margin that the Democrats need to reduce their expected losses. However, the Democratic leadership has followed the lead of President Obama in opposing (or at least not supporting) legalization efforts. The result is that the Democrats could benefit from the ballot pull of pot but do not appear to be capitalizing on the prospect.
Brookings Institution expert John Hudak expects an influx of potential young Democratic votes. All that is required is a couple seats to stay blue for the Democrats to keep the Senate — though Joe Biden might have to become a full-time member of the Senate in casting votes on ties. The GOP is widely expected to make gains in both houses but the pot issue could be a game changer in a couple of states. The GOP is counting on Alaska and Oregon.
These type of wedge issues have worked for the GOP with the gay marriage ballot issues in the past. Hudak says however that the Democrats are missing this “real opportunity” to use pot at the polls.
They seem to be trying to have it both ways in a political version of Bill Clinton insisting that he tried marijuana but “I didn’t inhale.”
Yes I have. San Diego is nicer, friendlier, safer, and cheaper. It is the only city in the top 10 run by a Republican. Forbes lists the 20 most miserable cities, all heading toward bankruptcy like Detroit. The ONLY city w/ a Republican mayor on that list is Warren, Mi. SWM, when you make a blatantly false statement like “with a few exceptions metro areas are doing better than rural areas” and follow it up w/ “Have you been to SF?” as proof, you diminish yourself. There are exponentially more “rural areas” than there are major metro areas. Look @ a county red/blue 2012 Presidential map. Virtually all the blue is major metro areas and major metros are dying. Your state of Illinois has 3 of the most miserable cities in the country, Chicago, Rockford and Waukegan. Chicago has the highest taxes in the country and they, and the entire state, are on the verge of bankruptcy. Dems are taxing, incompetent. politicians. We need more choices.
“Little patches of blue in failed cities run by Democrats[Seattle has not imploded yet] and huge areas of red where people work for themselves and subsidize the dying metropolitan area. An unsustainable model.” nick My point was that the Seattle metropolitan area is not dying and neither are most metropolitan areas. Have you been to San Francisco lately?
Actually, Washington State has voted for the democrat for president since 1988. It is hard not to see the world through red and blue glasses when one reads a blog like this. Democrats are called cultists and generally maligned. It seems like the republican libertarians like you so maybe you could be considered red lite.
Again, you are only providing one metric (“Actually, Washington State has voted for the democrat for president since 1988.”) That one metric is not determinate of the totality of the electorate, and its history. It is certainly more nuanced than this one stat that you have provided and to call anything as one complete absolute is not accurate. If we looked at it from a different measure and using one metric one could say Washington, and especially Oregon, are red states due to the appearance on the electoral map by county.
It is a fallacy to state that one particular fact is absolute with demographics having a majority and a totality composed of 40-49 percent opposition and disregarding third or fourth parties completely.
Darren, Thanks for an informative comment. The duopoly is the core problem. What they did in your fine state is a perfect example showing what Ralph Nader continually calls a rigged game. The rig the primaries, exclude 3rd party candidates from debates and will do whatever it takes to stamp out any 3rd party movement.
Nick – in Arizona this year, the Democrats had no competition in the primary. All of their candidates were picked in caucus and ran unopposed on the primary ballot. They were too afraid of the results. On the Republican side, one incumbent lost in the primary.
BTW, we used the new electronic system for voter IDs. They scan your ID which checks to see that it is valid. Then you sign electronically.
The ??? is regarding SWM’s assertion.
???
Nick,
What happened here was a bad affair for the voters.
Originally up until the late 80s (?). Washington had a primary system the voters liked. In the primary system then the voters decided which candidate they wanted. From those votes, the person representing the most votes for each party went on to the general election. Voters then were not tied to one particular party. Every party had representation in the state government (except the Communist Party which was prohibited (in my view unconstitutionally) from holding office. So in the end anyone could vote for a candidate from each party.
Then the politicians decided this was not acceptable. There was one incident in particular where many democrats were reported to have gone over and stacked voted republican for a completely unelectable candidate named Ellen Craswell who won the republican primary but could not win the general election for governor so the democratic candidate won. I do not remember which event came first.
Anyway despite having a primary system the voters liked, and had been in place for some 37 years. The pols succeeded in ending it. The next flavor of primaries made the voters request either a democrat or republican (or third party if there was a candidate) . People HATED this system. One reason was that Washington does not require individuals to join a political party and the voters prided themselves in being free thinkers. There was a big outrage.
Then a very dubious system was enacted. One where in the primary the top two candidates go to the general election. That ensures that the democrats and the republicans hold their duopoly in the state. No third party has a chance in my view unless it is an extraordinary as was the Ross Perot type of candidate.
After that, and for numerous other reasons, the politics became more polarized in the parties with some geographic and cultural influences that had always been there, such as Eastern WA as republican and urban western Washington as democratic. It is common in elections to have nobody make the top two except one party where they dominate the two then go on to the general election. So now it is difficult for certain areas to have representatives by the opposition and nearly impossible to have third party candidates. So in response people adhere to one party or the other to voice their concerns. And that adherence is becoming stronger unfortunately.
Nick, Actually with a few exception, metropolitan area are doing better than rural areas.
Nick, excellent comment about red-blue map. You always see facts where others prefer fiction.
Outlaw tobacco. It kills. Do not legalize pot. Or heroin. Or blue herons for that matter.
Darren, The state of Washington red/blue map looks like the entire country. Little patches of blue in failed cities run by Democrats[Seattle has not imploded yet] and huge areas of red where people work for themselves and subsidize the dying metropolitan area. An unsustainable model.
Swarthmoremom
The state did not fully support Obamacare, in fact the Washington attorney general sued the federal government over its implementation. It was fiercely opposed in may parts of the state by the electorate.
To illustrate some of the areas were republicans and democrats had majority votes by county it does not support that Washington is truly a blue state. Again, that was one election, for one political candidate; albeit for a president. That is not a sufficient metric for judging the political pool and fluidity of an entire state. In fact that dismisses geographically half of the state and declares that their vote is not measurable or important.
Moreover seeing the political world through blue colored glasses does not tend to provide a wider perspective of things.
Fiver,
Here is a definition of creationism from the Oxford Dictionaries:
noun
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism
I’ve often wondered wh so many people who were brought up in the Catholic faith left it for these fundamental mega churches. Its like voluntarily leaving the age of reason and voluntarrily entering in the dark ages.
Creationism
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism
The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.
Paul,
I don’t know any well educated Catholic that wouldn’t be offended by that limited quote (admittedly taken out of context by me). That’s not because Catholics don’t teach that God was the Ultimate Cause of creation (they do), but instead because, at least in my Catholic educational background, the word “creationism” was associated with those fundamentalist Christians who claimed the Bible as literal, inerrant truth (e.g. the world is flat, the world is 6,000 years old, Jonah and Pinocchio lived inside a whale, and The Flintstones was a documentary).
Catholics simply don’t believe that and haven’t for many centuries. Unlike biblical literalism, Catholic teachings have no problem with evolution (or physics, archeology, genetics, cosmology, etc.). That’s because the Church doesn’t teach the Bible as a history or science book. It’s simply not taken as literal truth, but, instead, as divinely inspired guidance. This is true of most mainline Protestant denominations as well.
I remember seeing Inherit the Wind (the Scopes “Monkey Trial” movie) in Catholic high school, and there was pretty much universal laughter as the “Clarence Darrow” character made the “William Jennings Bryan” character look like a fool. I honestly didn’t know people still bought into that literalism nonsense. After all, it was the ’70s and we were “modern.”
fiver – fyi Inherit the Wind played with the history. Clarence Darrow lost that case.
“President Obama won the state of Washington comfortably, taking 56.16% to Mitt Romney’s 41.29%, a 14.87% margin of victory. wiki Seems pretty blue to me.
Darren, Well, the republicans there must be more moderate and vote for democrats in state wide and national elections. After all, the state embraced obamacare.
http://io9.com/does-the-new-pope-believe-in-evolution-453874239 “The answer is actually yes. And in fact, the Roman Catholic Church has recognized Darwinian evolution for the past 60 years. It openly rejects Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism saying that it “pretends to be science.” But the Church’s unique take on the theory, what it calls theistic evolution, still shows that Catholics have largely missed the point.
Back in 1950, Pope Pius XII laid out his papal encyclical, “Humani Generis,” in which the Church’s official position on natural selection was laid out. The statement said that there’s no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and evolution. The theory, as articulated by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species, has withstood scientific scrutiny since its publication in 1859 — and the Church does not dispute this.” Catholics do not believe that the bible is literally true as the creationists do.”
Paul,
Thanks for the correction. I was taught by Benedictines (and I confess to continuing, repeated, deliberate dyslexia when abbreviating Order of Saint Benedict).