Democratic Party seeing influx of moderate Republicans

[wyldwolf]

Welcome home, Reagan Democrats!

Donkey Rising points to admittedly anecdotal evidence of mass Republican defections to the Democratic Party:

Paul Harris of the Guardian Unlimited Observer reports on the resignation of the Kansas GOP Chairman Mark Parkinson and his candidacy for Deputy Governor --- as a Democrat. Writes Harris:

His defection to the Democrats sent shockwaves through a state deeply associated with the national Republican cause and the evangelical conservatives at its base. Nor was it just Parkinson's leave-taking that left Republicans spluttering with rage and talking of betrayal. It was that as he left Parkinson lambasted his former party's obsession with conservative and religious issues such as gay marriage, evolution and abortion.

Sitting in his headquarters, the new Democrat is sticking to his guns. Republicans in Kansas, he says, have let down their own people. 'They were fixated on ideological issues that really don't matter to people's everyday lives. What matters is improving schools and creating jobs,' he said. 'I got tired of the theological debate over whether Charles Darwin was right.'

Could this be a harbinger of a nation-wide trend of substance-hungry Republicans becoming Democrats? Maybe, suggests Harris:

...in a swath of heartland states such as Kansas, Democrats are seeing the first signs of their party's rebirth. Parkinson is not alone in switching sides. In Virginia, Jim Webb, a one-time Reagan official, is seeking to be a Democrat senator. In South Carolina, top Republican prosecutor Barney Giese has defected after a spat with conservatives. Back in Kansas another top Republican, Paul Morrison, also joined the Democrats and is challenging a Republican to be the state attorney-general.

...Parkinson's defection encouraged other moderates to abandon a party controlled by right-wing religious zealots. In political terms they are called Rinos, or Republicans in Name Only. If enough Rinos desert, the strict ideologues in the party are likely to drift further right.

Yeah, we know, this is largely anecdotal. But significant Rino defections have also been documented in recent polls (see Alan Abramowitz's May 17 EDM post, for example).

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyr...

[Captain Hilts]

1. Pro-Choice, suburban women. Most likely.

They voted for Bubba.

I wonder what the numbers are on young folks against the war. They're so hard to survey because they don't turn out to vote.

[kapkao]

33. Between Idiot A and Idiot B, I chose "leave me alone, dammit". (nt)

[The Magistrate]

2. This Is Good News, Sir

This sort of thing is essential to establishing the Democratic Party as a national majority party again.

[bemildred]

30. Yessir. A long time coming too. nt

[gully]

37. Though some will disagree, you are absolutely correct -

sir.

[LoZoccolo]

3. This is also a rebuke to the party secessionists and those...

...who don't vote for lack of a further-left candidate (of which I don't think there are nearly as many as people claim here). These centrist voters would probably be far more reliable than people who are constantly threatening to hurt the party by leaving. The high-maintanence contingent may have thought that they found a good tack with which to get what they want, but if our politicians see one group of people who say they want to be Democrats, and another who keep saying they don't, who would they seek to satisfy?

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. "people who are constantly threatening to hurt the party by leaving"

like a certain Senator from Connecticut and his followers?

[LoZoccolo]

10. No.

That completely doesn't fit. I'm talking about voters and you're talking about what ballot line a senatorial candidate runs on while keeping his party affiliation, and in an effort to keep the Republican from winning. That makes no sense.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. splitting the Democratic vote is far more apt to lead to a Republican

winning. That is obvious. As long as the Senator accepts the same committment that Mr. Lamont has already made to support the will of the voters in the primary -- there is no problem with that though.

[LoZoccolo]

14. No poll has yet shown that.

As you already know, Lieberman's entry would still have him winning handily:
Lamont 18%
Schlesinger 8%
Lieberman 56%

We do know, though, that a lone Lamont run increases Schlesinger's percentage and does not take a majority:
Lamont 37%
Schlesinger 20%

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11385.xml?ReleaseID=922

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. and none has shown Schlesinger winning--either way--but we are getting

off topic.

[LoZoccolo]

19. Right, so don't hijack any more of my posts. n/t

[snowbear]

44. Huh?

Douglas Carpenter has me corn-fused with that comment.

Either that, or I'm on here too late posting...

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. I was simply saying

that if Sen. Lieberman runs as an independent -- and we have a three way race with the Democratic vote split -- the chances of a Republican winning do increase. I am suggesting that since Mr. Lamont has committed himself to supporting the winner of the primary in would only be appropriate for Sen. Lieberman to do the same.

"GOP's Schlesinger wants 3-way race
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer

Published July 5 2006

link:

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-schlesin...


snip"

But Schlesinger said his prospects for victory could not be better, with Lieberman sweating a primary challenge from Lamont and a popular Republican governor on the ticket.

"I plan on making the best of that opportunity," said Schlesinger, 48."

snip:"The odds go way down in a two-way (race, but) I honestly believe I'm the front-runner in a three-way race," Schlesinger said.

Although a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed that a three-way race would give Schlesinger only 8 percent of the vote and Lieberman 56 percent, the Republican hopeful points to a column published last week in The Hill, a Washington, D.C., newspaper. It was written by Dick Morris, one-time adviser to Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican Sen. Trent Lott, urging Lieberman to avoid "committing suicide" in a primary and focus on his independent run.

"If Lieberman is so weakened by a primary defeat that he fades as a front-runner in the general election, we will see a three-way race that anyone can win," Morris wrote.

And Schlesinger isn't just anyone. His political career spans nearly two decades, beginning in 1979 as selectman of Orange, followed by 12 years as a state representative and four years running Derby."

[SaveElmer]

17. Sorry to disagree with you...

But by announcing that he will not abide by the will of the Democratic Party in his state, Lieberman can no longer be properly called a member of the Democratic Party. He has shown I am afraid, that his own ambition and inflated sense of importance, is more important to him than the will of the party he purports to belong to.

Lamont would defeat the Republican candidate. Lieberman simply makes it more likely the Republican will have a chance.

[LoZoccolo]

20. I believe official Democratic Party policy dictates otherwise.

Anyone who registers as a Democrat, or gives money to the Democratic Party, is a member of the Democratic Party.

[SaveElmer]

22. As a voter...

if he runs as an indpendent he cannot be listed as a Democrat on the ballot. And in my view has abandonded the Party.

I have usually defended Lieberman here, but a loyal Democrat would abide by the decision of his fellow party members and support the nominee if it wasn't him. He is jeapordizing the seat by running as an independent.

[LoZoccolo]

23. Yes, in your view. In my view there should be ice in the arena.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_Ebzlx6toA

[Reckon]

42. I agree totally....n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Going Nader and splitting the Democratic vote

is part of an effort to keep the Republican from winning?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

15. Absolutely - - Lieberman is acting just like the hard (D.U.) left

...and that was the final straw for me.

It is one thing to stand up for what you believe in, even if other people in your party don't agree.
It's quite another to express disgust at, and deliberately try to damage, the party you pretend you
belong to. In this latest stunt of trying to run as a "Democratic Independent", Lieberman is becoming
the equivalent of Nader - a clownish spoiler candidate. And anyone who supports him is exactly
like the ubiquitous self-parodying Greens in the D.U. - pretending to want America to reject
Republican policies, but in reality doing everything they can to weaken the only viable alternative.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. thank you...and I thought I would never agree with you

but yes - I certainly do think that Lamont supporters should vote for Sen. Lieberman if he does win the primary. We on the left do need to learn to face political realities (even when they feel painful to us)and work within the system that is available; not a reality and a system that simply does not exist.

[gully]

38. You got it!

Lieberman assured his own loss with his recent antics. Hopefully he won't assure the seat for the Republican challenger as well.

[bvar22]

32. You ARE speaking of the "Reagan Democrats" here....

are you not?
Those reliable centrists?

[ulysses]

47. glad you said that

so I didn't have to.

[Telly Savalas]

39. How can you call these people reliable when they didn't

merly threaten to leave the party, but actually did leave the party?

[AX10]

4. Kick and Recomended!

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. I'll Believe It When I See It

Repubs talk a good game. But they vote their party. When the time comes, and the chips are down, they'll be voting for the repubs all over again. The Arnie's, the McCain's, the Giulliani's. They'll talk and talk, but then they'll portray themselves as more moderate....just before putting their good ol' boys back in office.

When this country has at least 1 branch of government under Democratic control, I'll believe it. Until then, it's just speculation and theory. I don't see them letting us win anything of significance in November.

[philb]

6. Gee, more traitors?

Nothing annoys me more than to see this kind of crap from either party. pandering by politicians is one thing, grassroots welcoming of cross-overs is.....well.......fukking lame.

do you really want to shake hands with people that may well cross back over the road again?

no further text

[Crunchy Frog]

9. The Republicans were certainly welcoming

of Zell Miller and Ben Nighthorse Campbell.

A degree of caution is in order, but slamming the door shut to new converts is the equivalent of political suicide. The Democratic party needs all the supporters it can get, and it's never going to get them by saying "we don't want you" to new people.

If you'd ever read What's the Matter with Kansas? you would know that there is a long standing and very deep divide between traditional moderate Republicans and the new Fundie nutcase Republicans. It doesn't surprise me at all that some of them are now ready to cross over.

The Democratic party would be idiotic to not try to win new supporters, but then, maybe you already know that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. I agree we -- how else are we going to have a stable majority?

If former Republicans are joining Moveon and a number of Evangelicals are deciding that peace and justice are a moral issue -- this is all a very good sign.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I can't believe you said that

People change party all the time.

Do you think party affilliation is a birth trait, like race or gender?

Do you not want people to join with you?

Are you for real?

I'm incredulous that you won't shake their hand. How marvelously inclusive of you.

[SaveElmer]

21. Yeah we have enough Democrats already...

No reason to get any more!!!

Heck...any more switchovers...and we might win!

We can't have that now can we!

[kaygore]

7. Several of my friends who were Republican are MoveOn members!

One friend with whom I had not spoken in months told me yesterday that she had just given $100 to MoveOn. Then she went on and on about the corruption of the Republican Party and how it had lost its way, etc. This friend was a staunch Republican! She is so upset about the direction of the country that she and her husband are seriously considering moving to Europe!

We are beginning to have a real brain drain in this country. If Net Neutrality is not upheld, it will be a torrent!

[AtomicKitten]

24. Wonderful news.

[inthebrain]

25. So then all this bitching about the Green Party

"stealing votes" is just hogwash.

Afterall, this party is after liberal and conservative moderates.

Did I catch that correctly?

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. We are both for Social Progress and the core of the "Physician's Creed"

"Above all, do no harm". The Bush Administration is doing massive harm, harm to most Americans, harm to most citizens of most countries, and harm to the global environment. Real harm, harm that causes death. The harm this junta is doing must be stopped. We need millions of votes to stop it. Different votes in different places, to both advance our agenda and prevent further harm. Sometimes that means supporting a strong progressive, sometimes that means supporting a decent moderate.

So that means I would ask a radical to support a liberal in a close election where every vote was needed to stop a Neo-Con Senator from getting elected. It means that I donate money to sane moderate Democratic candidates running for Senate in Republican States against a neo-con Republican incumbent, so I donated to James Webb in Virginia. It means I support Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in CT, because we can do much better there than Joe Lieberman and still win. It means I support Jonathan Tasini for Senate in NY in a Democratic Primary challenge to Hillary Clinton, because Hillary has her eyes on 2008 right now and not on the issues that matter to many of her Democratic constituency in New York. Tasini will force her to debate the issues that matter and I want that, and I have no fear that a Republican will get elected from New York in November. I expect to vote for Clinton then, barring some incredible upset in the primary.

There will never be a one size fits all answer method to turn a nation around through semi-annual mass elections. Our work has to be ongoing both inside and outside of the electoral system.

[Reckon]

43. My thoughts exactly!.. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

35. Well I'm bastarding about the Green Party taking votes in 2000/04 nt

[inthebrain]

40. Not about Republicans?

lol

Let's spend hours bitching about a party that has little impact and backslap Republican defectors. Despite the fact that many Greens came into the fold and gave this party a fucking spine.

Try Michael Moore and Eddie Vedder for starters.

[Captain Hilts]

41. Thousands voted 'green' in Florida in 2000. Yes, they are...

in part, to blame.

[inthebrain]

48. As my point stands

you wouldnt dare point that finger at Republicans now joining your ranks. Green Party voters did not vote FOR Bush. They voted for THEIR candidate.

Just as Bush voters voted for their candidate. Many of them TWICE!!!!

They are also the ones that shunned the fact that Bush and his Republican cronies tampered with voting machines and disenfranchised black voters. It's also the same Democrats who did nothing about it (Gore) whom many won't dare poing a finger at. The very same Democrats that laughed in the face of the Democratic Black Caucaus when they only needed one signature!!!!

Green Party voters are not to blame for that nor are they to blame for voting their consicence.

[Zhade]

26. As long as they don't vote against choice, civil liberties/rights...

...worker protections, etc, they're welcome.

If they retain any support of Reagan's policies - fuck them.

[LittleClarkie]

28. YEA!!! Republicans for Kerry!!

My old buddies!!

The Lincoln Republicans!

The Teddy Roosevelt Republicans!

The Eisenhower Republicans!

The Republicans who actually stand for fiscal conservatism. The Republicans who are against the war. The Republicans who care about the environment.

Welcome!

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

31. Hey, I was one of those....

as were many members of my family.

We have ALL, and I do mean every single one of us who voted Kerry, quit the Republican party.

Maybe it's a Northeast Republican defection thing or maybe there's even a national trend.

[leesa]

34. Fine, but they better get their silly brains unscrambled.

[many a good man]

36. We don't want Reagan Democrats, we want Eisenhower Republicans

I think most of these swing voters are confused about their political identity right now. They were brainwashed to believe conservative meant steady, strong, and reasonable but are now beginning to realize they're being screwed over.

We should adopt Ike as an honorary Democrat because he has a ton of admirable quotes that speak eloquently to contemporary liberal values. He makes a helluva lot better idol for Republicans than Nixon, Reagan, or bush!

I'd welcome Eisenhower Republicans into the Democratic Part with open arms. It would define the new center of American politics and banish neocons, fat cats and fundies to the fringes for good!

America's adventure in free government is threatened by a military industrial complex. . . We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

[w4rma]

46. In 1984 Reagan took every state except one.

We want Reagan Democrats. It's impossible to win an election without the votes of folks who voted for Reagan.

[many a good man]

51. Okay. But Raygun was no Ike.

We can help them to form their political identity around Eisenhower as the center instead of Reagan. Reagan bad conservative. Ike good one. Only bad conservatives still vote G.O.P.

[Dr Fate]

45. They dont agree with the war anymore.

They know it was a sham and they know Bush is a sham.

[ulysses]

49. here's my question:

how long before we see the articles demanding the continued rightward tack of the party in order to keep these reliables in the fold?