In an area almost universally considered conservative by political pundits, a Democratic incumbent, Travis Childers, faces a campaign for re-elections in what is often described as a toss up district. He has more money than his Republican opponent, Alan Nunnelee, at this moment. Yet more than that, Childers is one the so-called Blue Dog Democrats: he is pro-gun and anti-abortion, for example, positions not readily found among the Democratic elite. What can be learned from this case?
Firstly, that the GOP doesn't necessarily have to take the whole of Congress to gain an effective control of either the House of Representatives or the Senate. There are enough conservative Democrats that a majority of conservatives may exist in reality where they don't on paper. This line of reasoning adds to the woes of the left as November 2nd approaches. Majorities may be formed along philosophical rather than party line.
But more than that. It demonstrates quite readily the lack of true party discipline within the two major parties today in the United States. Why a Democrat should have captured a seat from a solidly conservative bastion of the country shows how little party identification may actually mean in our nation. When you can file as a Democrat or Republican and win a primary election despite having a relatively small direct experience within whichever entity, something which has happened often in our history, then party affiliation be damned. It begins to mean nothing as raw political indicator.
The point is this: look beyond what party a candidate says he belongs to and actually look at what he says. You will have a better idea of who you are voting for, and a clearer view of where the nation is heading. Meanwhile, don't be too quick to use party identification as a bellweather. You will only confuse the issue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment