And it was generous of the author to acknowledge that the GOP has "a ray of hope." <G>
Sigh! I tried to warn people off reading the article saying that the paragraph I posted was the only one on the subject I raised. The only reason I posted the link was that it would have been rude not to do so. I don't much care if either party is concerned that demographics might be working against it. My personal preference is that both parties spend all their money on polling and other relatively innocuous activities to minimize the damage they do.
The only thing of interest to me in the article was the data about an increase in people who don't go to church. It would please me very much if we could be recognized as warranting a bone now and again.
But since you had to go and read the article...
I assume from your comment that you saw bias in the article. I thought it was pretty even handed. I did not see a point of view in the article except, perhaps, for some surprise that any Republican operative might lack confidence that demographics favor the GOP. My sense is that you find that surprising, too. The gist of the article was this:
<<No clear consensus has emerged. Some Democrats, for instance, are worried that the strength of GOP voting in some of the fastest-growing regions could undermine their increased influence among various constituencies. However, what seems striking is the large number of Republicans strategists worried that the trends are working against the GOP.
If there is one shared view, it is an agreement on the central importance of Hispanic voters. But strategists on both sides also are looking to woo other constituencies -- some, like suburban voters and women, already a target of both sides in recent elections -- and others, like the rising numbers of non-religious voters, a newly emerging force.>>
I went back and reread the article and I don't see the author postulating that the electorate is moving left. If you do, I'd be interested in seeing the particulars.
Karen |
