If Democrats take more socially conservative positions, the "Reagan Democrats" will definitely come home.
If people are starting to realize that baby Jesus can't fill that giant f*cking hole in your wallet, then that's a good thing for common sense and reason.
Not everyone has a big hole in their wallets. Most of us in this country are doing quite well, thank you. Especially the people that vote
I don't believe the term everyone was used. However, many are hurting because of hollow promises from the republicans. Many of those people vote too.
I would be willing to wager that a large % of the people in America that are doing "quite well" have built that comfortable feeling on debt.
David Brooks has been covering this from a slightly different angle. He's making the case that suburban voters are switching to the dem brand this year. The reeps have huge problems, but none more so than the accountability issue. Rational thinking people are wondering why Rummy keeps his job and Tenet and Bremer get the medal of freedom. This problem is continualy reinforced. Last night, 60 Minutes led with a story on how $800 million is missing from Iraq, and the US is doing NOTHING about it. The reeps have another big problem - and that has to do with the nationalizing of the reep brand. Since the 94 elections, the reeps have succeeded in nationalizing the elections, first by attacking Clinton and the sleazy congressional dems, then by the war on terrrrr, and also by the crazed right-wing talk show programs promoting the far-right agenda. This national branding has worked really well. Its like going to Chile's anywhere in the country. It can comforting to know exactly what you're going to get for dinner. Now, the national reep program is on the rocks - Katrina, scandals, the lack of accountability, Iraq, you name it. Reeps are scrambling to localize each election, but they can't get away from their long-term branding strategy. This leaves the Reagan dems to come back to the fold. I don't know if I agree with that completely. I believe its the independents who have abandoned the reeps. Look at every issue - the indies are far more aligned with the dems than they are with the reeps. The Pelosi piece on 60 Minutes sure didn't hurt, either.
Off subject, but . . . Brooks can be so frustrating. Most of the time, he is merely reductive, but ocassionally he really does identify an interesting trend.
Here's a link to the 60 Minutes report on the missing $800 million. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061022/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_corruption Read it and reep.
Don't know about that, given the stagnant wages. My pay has barely outpaced inflation under the Bush Administration, and I got a big raise during that time - without the big pay jump when I moved jobs I'd be behind. And I know I'm not the only one. Tuition costs at my (public) alma mater have increased at 4 times the rate of inflation, and now costs twice what it did when I graduated in 2000. Then again, I live in one of the economically roughest states in the nation. We lost a huge percentage of manufacturing jobs since 2000. (I can't remember the number off the top of my head, but it's substantial. 20%-ish.)
Sadly, not many. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2004.html Only about half of the people in that income class are registered, and only about half of them voted - so about 25%. OTOH, nearly 75% of "middle/upper-middle class" citizens ($40-$100K) are registered, and about 70% of those people voted - so about 50%. The real winners in voting turn out are "wealthy" people - $100K+. 82% registration, and 78% turnout - or about 64% turnout. It was rather enlightening to look that up. There is little suprise that gov't tax policy favors the rich - those are the people who show up to vote. Doing some quick math, that 16 million votes from "wealthy" people, 30 million votes from the middle/upper-middle class, 6 million lower-middle class, and less than 9 million from the lower class.