they mean nothing. Clinton has a double digit lead over Obama. i think McCain is rising, no question, but he's got the south to deal with, and Giuliani has huge margins in Florida, California, and New Jersey, though i do think he's now DOA.
[q]The House of Representitives has been overwhelmingly Democratic since World War II, but its been more equal in the Senate. The House of Representitives is a different ball game than the President of the United States. The majority of Americans cannot even name their Representitive. Also, conservative Democrats in the south helped keep their majority through the years, and although many of them may have been Democrats in name, many were certainly more supportive of Repuplican polices as the "Reagan Democrats" showed.[/q]
this is lame. you might as well argue that the northeast and california is filled with Republicans -- like, say, my former representative Nancy Johnson -- were Democrats in disguise. Congress is more broadly representative of the nation as a whole, and you've completely ignored both voter identification (more Democrats than Republicans and growing) and the fact that the Republican stance on nearly all social issues are trending older and older.
[q]The center is important, and when it comes to Presidential Politics over the past 40 years, the Republicans have solidly held on to that center.[/q]
they've been able to recruit the independents in a presidential forum, but not in Congress. the presidential race is far more about the individual than the party as a whole. when people vote for congress, or even state representatives, that's when party affiliations come out and people will pull all R's or all D's across the board. whereas in a presidential election, the individual candidate matters much more than his party. hence, your term, "Reagan Democrats" -- people who voted for Reagan, yet pulled D's across the board for everything else.
[q]That 18-20 years old vote more Democratic than Republican is nothing new and they continue to disapoint democrats in every election by showing up in such poor numbers. But as they age and become better educated and experienced, many move to the right and vote more. [/q]
considering those with higher educations overwhelmingly vote Democratic, there's really no point here. young people are voting in higher numbers than ever, and they vote Democratic. it is true that as young people begin to acquire capital and their incomes increase, they get swayed by the promises of lower taxes. however, these people have NOTHING in common with cultural conservatives who vote for Republicans solely because of issues like abortion. this is the "coalition" -- fiscal conservatives and social conservatives -- that was held together by Reagan and Bush 2 and that Rove used in his 50.1% strategy that brought him two extremely narrow (and one clearly illegitimate) victories.
and now, with the rise of Huckabee, that coalition has fractured. no one on Wall Street will vote for Huck, and no evangelical will vote for McCain, whereas both might have voted for Bush in 2000 (on the basis of low taxes and christianity) and in 2004 (on the basis of war/fear and hatred of gays).
things are grim for the GOP.
again, karma's a bitch.