This Year’s Soccer Mom Voter
Every year there is some group of voters that are just about worshipped by the media. This of course was made famous with the label “Soccer Mom” voter a few elections ago and every two years since we get another group. The media paints some mystic aura around these deep-thinking independent voters who just can’t seem to make up their mind. We’re told that these are the voters who will determine the election, as opposed to the other millions of voters who don’t I guess. As you can tell, I’m not a big fan of this theory. I don’t think you can nationalize a group of voters like that. I think it’s true for regions, or states, or regions within states, but it’s a bit ridiculous to do that at the national level. Seriously, what do soccer moms in Alabama have anything to do with soccer moms in California. Not much frankly except children with an affinity to play soccer, and maybe a minivan. Beyond that, I’d suspect they care about different issues, and face different challenges.
At any rate, Steve and Cokie Roberts, took this idea of regional groups of voters and saw seven around the country that they thought would determine this election. It’s not a bad piece really. They see these seven groups as making the biggest impact in this election along with the location:
1. Married Moms (I guess that’s this year’s version of a soccer mom, although I’m sure how they are different.) Missouri
2. Moderate Republicans - Connecticut
3. Independents - Tennessee
4. Hispanics - New Jersey
5. Midwesterners - Ohio (Won’t that mean everyone in the state?)
6. White Catholics - Pennsylvania
7. New Borderlanders - Colorado
I think they left out one group - a pretty big group - conservative Republicans. This group will definately make an impact here in PA, as I’m sure they will in some other parts of the country as well. Since I’m one of them, I think I can describe who they are and why they matter. The reason they will make a huge impact on this election is simple - they are pissed off at their own party.
They have been told time and again, elect us and you’ll get smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations, and a host of social issue goodies. Frankly, their tired of the talk. We gave the current crop our patience and then we’re told the size of the majority isn’t big enough, we need more. This only frustrates the conservative base. See, then we are sent conflicting messages - we have to support RINO Republicans in order to keep the majority, but we don’t have enough conservative Republicans to move the agenda forward. Well, WHICH IS IT? Make up your damn mind.
We attempted to cure this problem two years ago by voting for Toomey over Specter, which went against the establishment. This is the same establishment that tells us we need more Republicans in order to make real changes. I think most conservatives are left thinking that these people are inept and wouldn’t be able make significant changes if there were only Republicans elected throughout the country. Somebody in the establishment would whine about not having enough even then.
The real problem is that we have too many whimpy Republicans. Oh how fast they will rant and rave against someone like me who calls them to the carpet for being weak when facing off against liberals. Well, they are frankly. Get a damn backbone. You’re not elected for the honor and privledge - you’re there to make changes. Get off your ass, stop worrying about who likes you and who doesn’t and start making changes - or else go home because you are worthless and weak.
It’s my guess that conservative Republicans will vote against the Republicans not because they like the Democrats or what they stand for (The D’s will assume they received some kind of mandate I’m sure - they are just blind). No, conservative Republicans will reject the party they built up for one simple reason - elected Republicans have turned their back on conservative Republicans too many times and conservative Republicans just don’t trust them to get the job done anymore. They will clean house and start anew with people who might actually have a backbone and take the fight to the liberals, instead of bickering with people within their own party.
It’s sad when you have a situation where primaries are feared more than a general election. We should welcome primaries and primary opponents with open arms - competition, even within a political party, is a good thing and produces better candidates. Maybe we can learn this lesson here in PA. Although considering how think-headed most of the establishment is here in PA, I don’t place much trust in our “leadership” actually understanding the message.
Is this self-defeatist? Maybe it is. I don’t think it is. It’s a benefit in the long run. We get rid of the Perzel’s of the Republican Party. We get people elected who actually believe in the principles of the Party. We get candidates who actually had to earn a nomination and are hence better campaigners. We get a party that is vibrant and growing and with many factions - and that’s ok because every faction has an opportunity within the party and they aren’t looked on as subhuman for challenging the other factions.
That would be a breath of fresh air in my book.