Congresswoman Colbert from South Carolina
Yes I know I keep breaking my ignore the damnable polls rule, but the latest results showing Elizabeth Colbert Busch leading Mark Sanford by 9 points evokes visions of a liberal Democratic Congresscreature from South Carolina in my head. There's something I find deliciously weird and amusing about that.
Sure it's early and anything could change, but the other breakout numbers here that are worth noticing are these:
[Big thanks for the kind link at Mike's Blog Roundup and if you're not reading John Perr's other blog, well, you're missing some of the smartest analysis on the internets.]
Sure it's early and anything could change, but the other breakout numbers here that are worth noticing are these:
Although Sanford's unpopularity is clearly the main reason Democrats have a chance to win in this district, it's interesting to note that there is some backlash against Republicans over last week's vote on background checks. 86% of voters in the district say they support them to only 12% opposed, and 45% of voters say the GOP's opposition to them makes it less likely they'll support the party in the next election compared to only 21% who consider it a positive. That anger over the gun vote comes despite Barack Obama having only a 41% approval rating in the district with 51% of voters disapproving of him.When they've lost the gun loving deluded rubes over gun safety reform, maybe that pathetic display of general cowardice and GOP obstruction on background checks will turn out to be the seminal moment that broke the Republicans' stranglehold on the House.
[Big thanks for the kind link at Mike's Blog Roundup and if you're not reading John Perr's other blog, well, you're missing some of the smartest analysis on the internets.]
Labels: Congress, Election 2014, Gun Law, Republican obstructionism
posted by Libby Spencer at 5:16 PM
6 Comments:
Most excellent points. Mind if I borrow a paragraph and link to your post? Hope not!
Well anything that promotes the discomfiture of Republicans is something I'm in favor of, but personally the defeat of that bill hasn't got me as upset as the insistence that adding gun shows to the check list would really mean much when the checks we're doing have allowed some high profile madmen ( and women) to purchase weapons. The system is not making it mandatory enough for health care professionals and institutions to report data and besides, the data seems to show that guns bought at shows by people who wouldn't otherwise qualify aren't statistically significant.
I think we have to be careful about supporting bills just because someone calls it a crime bill or a gun bill.
I would support one that is designed so that is has to work, can't be got round and provides responsibility to anyone who fails to report things they're required to report.
Internets are for sharing, but appreciate credit and a link if you want to take something Bob.
Fogg, agree the bill was weak, but it was better than nothing. At least it would have given reform some momentum. Legislation can be changed at any time. Inertia is hard to break.
I think we could be more effective going after specific goals, one at a time rather than week but sweeping bills that frighten people. They're being told all day long that the Dams are after their guns and we sometimes confirm those fears inadvertently. Going after doctors and hospitals and clinics to report dangerous patients could be done quietly and effectively.
Agree their tactics could use much improvement, not to mention their actual policies. We're ruled largely by idiots.
Post a Comment
<< Home