Showing posts with label Voters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voters. Show all posts

Thursday, April 3, 2014

An example of low information voters

At Not Just The News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Not Just The News and how it is used.


Log Files


Like many other Web sites, Not Just The News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.


Cookies and Web Beacons


Not Just The News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.


DoubleClick DART Cookie


  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Not Just The News.

  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Not Just The News and other sites on the Internet.

  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Not Just The News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.


Not Just The News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.


You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Not Just The News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.


If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.



An example of low information voters

Saturday, March 15, 2014

North Korean Voters Unanimous: We Are The 100%!

At Hey WTF? News, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Hey WTF? News and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Hey WTF? News makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Hey WTF? News does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

  • Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Hey WTF? News.
  • Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Hey WTF? News and other sites on the Internet.
  • Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Hey WTF? News send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Hey WTF? News has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Hey WTF? News"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.


North Korean Voters Unanimous: We Are The 100%!

Thursday, March 6, 2014

The GOP"s problem with non-white voters, in one awesome picture

Empty ballroom at CPAC for panel on
What’s that they say about pictures worth 1,000 words? Try 10,000.


Big problem for GOP. Most important #CPAC2014 panel. Topic: minority outreach. View: largely empty room. http://t.co/…
— @JohnJHudak


Let’s be honest. CPAC should’ve been better prepared. By, like, scheduling that panel in a broom closet.

@JohnJHudak Must have been a panel on disenfranchising poor people down the hall #priorities
— @SHC_PR




Daily Kos



The GOP"s problem with non-white voters, in one awesome picture

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Pot Taxes, GMO Labels, And Other Ballot Questions Voters Are Deciding Today

Last year, people in 38 states weighed in on 174 ballot measures questions. Today, just six states are putting such questions in front of voters, and the 31 items up for decision are a motley bunch, ranging from the bizarre (storage and taxation of airplane parts, anyone?) to more hot-button topics. Here are some of these state-level issues that may end up having larger national implications.


Put a GMO label on it (Washington)
Both sides have already poured nearly $ 30 million into Washington’s fight over whether to label foods containing genetically modified organisms. While twenty-five other states have considered similar legislation, the vote could make Washington the first to pass a such a requirement. Poll watchers aren’t certain which way this one will go: a KING 5 News survey released two weeks ago showed 45 percent of respondents in favor of GMO labeling and 38 percent opposed, with a full 16 percent pleading uncertainty.
 


Tax tokers (Colorado)
After Colorado’s approval one year ago of a measure to legalize recreational marijuana use, the state now wants pot users to cover the costs of overseeing the new industry. Proposition AA would add a 15 percent excise tax and a 10 percent sales tax to marijuana sales, meant to pay for retail regulation of the drug as well as some school construction. The measure seems likely to pass, having drawn 77 percent support in an April poll. That hasn’t stopped proponents of low-tax weed from throwing free joint parties in protest.
 


Supercharge schooling (Colorado)
This ballot measure would raise taxes by nearly a billion dollars to overhaul education, by increasing teacher pay, charter school funding, and money for early childhood development and English-language programs. The measure has the support of Gov. John Hickenlooper and many prominent state Democrats; opponents include the current Republican state treasurer and the subtly named Coloradans Against Unions Using Kids As Pawns. The initiative’s passage hinges on whether voters can stomach the tax increase in a still-rough economy: 44 percent of voters opposed the measure in a September poll; even more people (52 percent) said they would oppose after hearing how much individual tax rates would increase.
 


Raise the minimum wage (New Jersey)
After a veto from Gov. Chris Christie, New Jerseyans will decide whether or not to raise the minimum wage from $ 7.25 to $ 8.25, and set up a system of annual automatic cost-of-living increases. Despite Christie’s popularity, 76 percent of state residents—including many registered Republicans—favor the increase, according to a Rutgers University poll from September. California and Minnesota recently passed minimum wage increases of their own, while South Dakota voters will decide one next year.
 


Screw Atlantic City (New York)
Gambling conglomerates and New York state Democratic leaders, including Gov. Andrew Cuomo, are hoping voters will amend the constitution to allow seven Vegas-style casinos, with four upstate and three in the Big Apple. The initiative comes a year after Maryland’s passage of a measure to expand gambling, which drew a record $ 90 million in campaign spending. New York’s fight won’t be nearly as expensive—the main committee in favor has raised just north of $ 2 million, while those opposed have raised almost nothing. (What opponents lack in funds they make up for in sledgehammer stunts.) Still, it’s a rare issue that has managed to unite the editorial boards of both the New York Times and the New York Post—both are opposed.



Politics | Mother Jones



Pot Taxes, GMO Labels, And Other Ballot Questions Voters Are Deciding Today

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

O"Reilly On Colorado Gun Recall: Have Voters Finally Had Enough?"





O’REILLY: I want the best problem solvers to be elected and I don’t care what party they are in. But this country is becoming far too dependent on government and the intrusion from Washington and from state capitols is sapping initiative and actually punishing people who achieve things.




RealClearPolitics Video Log



O"Reilly On Colorado Gun Recall: Have Voters Finally Had Enough?"

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Voters mad about NSA spying face uphill battle







President Barack Obama leaves after his news conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Friday, Aug. 9, 2013. The president said he’ll work with Congress to change the oversight of some of the National Security Agency’s controversial surveillance programs and name a new panel of outside experts to review technologies. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)





President Barack Obama leaves after his news conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Friday, Aug. 9, 2013. The president said he’ll work with Congress to change the oversight of some of the National Security Agency’s controversial surveillance programs and name a new panel of outside experts to review technologies. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







WASHINGTON (AP) — Charlotte Scot isn’t one to take things lying down — like the time President George W. Bush was re-elected and she moved to Canada in protest.


So when the 66-year-old artist from Old Lyme, Conn., heard that major telecommunications providers have been turning over data about every Americans’ phone calls to the government since 2006, Scot demanded that her own phone company tell her what, if anything, it had shared about her.


She soon received a non-response from an unnamed customer service representative informing her how to opt out of its marketing program, which only made Scot angrier.


“Dear Anonymous,” Scot fired back in an email, “I have always opted out of all advertising emails. … However, my question was not about advertising. It was about what information AT&T turns over to the federal government and NSA. I appreciate an answer to this question.”


AT&T eventually responded with a link to its privacy policy and a promise that, while it doesn’t comment on matters of national security, “we do comply with the law.”


Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about government invasion of privacy while investigating terrorism, and some ordinary citizens are finding ways to push back. They are signing online petitions and threatening lawsuits. Like Scot, some are pressing their providers to be upfront when data is shared with the government, which federal law allows as long as the person isn’t being investigated under an active court order.


The question is whether these anti-surveillance voters will be successful in creating a broader populist movement. Many lawmakers have defended the NSA surveillance program — a program Congress itself reviewed and approved in secret.


And unlike the anti-war effort that rallied Democrats during the Bush administration, and the tea party movement that galvanized conservatives in President Barack Obama’s first term, government surveillance opponents tend to straddle party lines. The cause appeals to libertarian Republicans who don’t like big government and progressive liberals like Scot who do but favor civil liberties. Together, these voters would have little in common otherwise.


Another complication is the potential of another terrorist attack. One spectacular act and public opinion could flip, much as it did after 9/11, back to favoring government surveillance. Politicians know this, with many of them opting to blast the Obama administration for not being more transparent but most opposing an end to broad surveillance powers.


“If in fact something happens, you’re basically putting yourself in a position to look like you didn’t do something when you should have. And that’s got to be in the back of their head,” said Ed Goeas, president of the Tarrance Group in Alexandria, Va., a Republican survey research and strategy company.


That leaves voter-activists like Scot with little to work with, even with midterm elections next year that expose one-third of the Senate and every member of the House.


“I don’t believe it’s going to be a driving issue” in the upcoming elections, Goeas added. “It’s got to be the total picture” on national security that appeals to voters.


At issue is whether the government overstepped its bounds when it began collecting and searching the phone and Internet records of Americans to gather information on suspected terrorists overseas. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released late last month found that Americans are divided over whether they support the surveillance programs revealed earlier this year, but most Americans — 57 percent — still say it’s more important for the government to investigate terrorism than to put privacy first.


Like their constituents, lawmakers too are divided. Last month, a House proposal that essentially would have made the NSA phone collection program illegal failed in a 217-205 vote that didn’t fall along party lines. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California were among the 217 who voted to spare the program.


In the Senate, a small group of lawmakers — namely Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — is taking a stronger line in favor of civil liberties. But progress has been slow, with few co-sponsors joining their legislative proposals to limit NSA spying powers. Meanwhile, such influential senators as Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have defended the program and said Edward Snowden, who leaked details of the NSA programs, is guilty of treason.


Doug Hattaway, a Washington-based Democratic strategist, said the reluctance by most lawmakers to take sides isn’t surprising, considering that most Americans say they want both security and privacy.


“I don’t see Democrats benefiting from joining forces with libertarians,” he said. “If voters are looking for balance, I wouldn’t hop on the bandwagon with Rand Paul.”


Another challenge for surveillance foes is that industry isn’t exactly fighting back. Technology and phone companies often say they are prohibited from divulging details about government surveillance requests, but that’s only partially true. Federal law prohibits alerting customers when they are surveillance subjects as long as a court order remains in effect. But not all gag orders last forever.


So when AT&T wouldn’t tell Scot whether her information had ever been shared with the government, chances are that’s because it didn’t want to — not because it couldn’t.


AT&T spokesman Michael Balmoris declined to comment on Scot’s case in particular or matters of national security. “We value our customers’ privacy and work hard to protect it by ensuring compliance with the law in all respects,” he said.


Meanwhile, Scot says she can’t understand why other customers are not just as angry. She’s now looking to switch providers, and has downloaded a mobile application called Seecyrpt that offers encrypted phone calls for $ 3 a month. But she knows it’s unlikely that a majority of Americans will follow her lead.


“I’m just one of these people who gets riled about things,” she said. “People are like sheep.”


___


Follow Anne Flaherty on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AnneKFlaherty


Associated Press




U.S. Headlines



Voters mad about NSA spying face uphill battle

Voters mad about NSA spying face uphill battle







President Barack Obama leaves after his news conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Friday, Aug. 9, 2013. The president said he’ll work with Congress to change the oversight of some of the National Security Agency’s controversial surveillance programs and name a new panel of outside experts to review technologies. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)





President Barack Obama leaves after his news conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Friday, Aug. 9, 2013. The president said he’ll work with Congress to change the oversight of some of the National Security Agency’s controversial surveillance programs and name a new panel of outside experts to review technologies. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)













Buy AP Photo Reprints







WASHINGTON (AP) — Charlotte Scot isn’t one to take things lying down — like the time President George W. Bush was re-elected and she moved to Canada in protest.


So when the 66-year-old artist from Old Lyme, Conn., heard that major telecommunications providers have been turning over data about every Americans’ phone calls to the government since 2006, Scot demanded that her own phone company tell her what, if anything, it had shared about her.


She soon received a non-response from an unnamed customer service representative informing her how to opt out of its marketing program, which only made Scot angrier.


“Dear Anonymous,” Scot fired back in an email, “I have always opted out of all advertising emails. … However, my question was not about advertising. It was about what information AT&T turns over to the federal government and NSA. I appreciate an answer to this question.”


AT&T eventually responded with a link to its privacy policy and a promise that, while it doesn’t comment on matters of national security, “we do comply with the law.”


Americans are becoming increasingly concerned about government invasion of privacy while investigating terrorism, and some ordinary citizens are finding ways to push back. They are signing online petitions and threatening lawsuits. Like Scot, some are pressing their providers to be upfront when data is shared with the government, which federal law allows as long as the person isn’t being investigated under an active court order.


The question is whether these anti-surveillance voters will be successful in creating a broader populist movement. Many lawmakers have defended the NSA surveillance program — a program Congress itself reviewed and approved in secret.


And unlike the anti-war effort that rallied Democrats during the Bush administration, and the tea party movement that galvanized conservatives in President Barack Obama’s first term, government surveillance opponents tend to straddle party lines. The cause appeals to libertarian Republicans who don’t like big government and progressive liberals like Scot who do but favor civil liberties. Together, these voters would have little in common otherwise.


Another complication is the potential of another terrorist attack. One spectacular act and public opinion could flip, much as it did after 9/11, back to favoring government surveillance. Politicians know this, with many of them opting to blast the Obama administration for not being more transparent but most opposing an end to broad surveillance powers.


“If in fact something happens, you’re basically putting yourself in a position to look like you didn’t do something when you should have. And that’s got to be in the back of their head,” said Ed Goeas, president of the Tarrance Group in Alexandria, Va., a Republican survey research and strategy company.


That leaves voter-activists like Scot with little to work with, even with midterm elections next year that expose one-third of the Senate and every member of the House.


“I don’t believe it’s going to be a driving issue” in the upcoming elections, Goeas added. “It’s got to be the total picture” on national security that appeals to voters.


At issue is whether the government overstepped its bounds when it began collecting and searching the phone and Internet records of Americans to gather information on suspected terrorists overseas. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released late last month found that Americans are divided over whether they support the surveillance programs revealed earlier this year, but most Americans — 57 percent — still say it’s more important for the government to investigate terrorism than to put privacy first.


Like their constituents, lawmakers too are divided. Last month, a House proposal that essentially would have made the NSA phone collection program illegal failed in a 217-205 vote that didn’t fall along party lines. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California were among the 217 who voted to spare the program.


In the Senate, a small group of lawmakers — namely Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Mark Udall, D-Colo., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. — is taking a stronger line in favor of civil liberties. But progress has been slow, with few co-sponsors joining their legislative proposals to limit NSA spying powers. Meanwhile, such influential senators as Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have defended the program and said Edward Snowden, who leaked details of the NSA programs, is guilty of treason.


Doug Hattaway, a Washington-based Democratic strategist, said the reluctance by most lawmakers to take sides isn’t surprising, considering that most Americans say they want both security and privacy.


“I don’t see Democrats benefiting from joining forces with libertarians,” he said. “If voters are looking for balance, I wouldn’t hop on the bandwagon with Rand Paul.”


Another challenge for surveillance foes is that industry isn’t exactly fighting back. Technology and phone companies often say they are prohibited from divulging details about government surveillance requests, but that’s only partially true. Federal law prohibits alerting customers when they are surveillance subjects as long as a court order remains in effect. But not all gag orders last forever.


So when AT&T wouldn’t tell Scot whether her information had ever been shared with the government, chances are that’s because it didn’t want to — not because it couldn’t.


AT&T spokesman Michael Balmoris declined to comment on Scot’s case in particular or matters of national security. “We value our customers’ privacy and work hard to protect it by ensuring compliance with the law in all respects,” he said.


Meanwhile, Scot says she can’t understand why other customers are not just as angry. She’s now looking to switch providers, and has downloaded a mobile application called Seecyrpt that offers encrypted phone calls for $ 3 a month. But she knows it’s unlikely that a majority of Americans will follow her lead.


“I’m just one of these people who gets riled about things,” she said. “People are like sheep.”


___


Follow Anne Flaherty on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AnneKFlaherty


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



Voters mad about NSA spying face uphill battle

Monday, July 22, 2013

Voters shifting right force House GOP to keep pace







Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., center, and Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., right, chairman of the House Education Committee, walk to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote to delay the individual and employer mandates of President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, July 17, 2013. It’s the 38th time the GOP majority has tried to eliminate, defund or scale back the program since Republicans took control of the House in January 2011. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)





Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., center, and Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., right, chairman of the House Education Committee, walk to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote to delay the individual and employer mandates of President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, July 17, 2013. It’s the 38th time the GOP majority has tried to eliminate, defund or scale back the program since Republicans took control of the House in January 2011. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)





Chart shows exit poll data for voters supporting Republican congressional candidates since 1976; 2c x 4 inches; 96.3 mm x 101 mm;













Buy AP Photo Reprints







(AP) — House Republicans feel growing pressure to steer firmly right on key issues, thanks to changes in primary-election politics that are complicating Congress’ ability to solve big problems.


Independent research supports the belief by these lawmakers that they owe their jobs to increasingly conservative activists, and that it’s safer than ever to veer right on many subjects rather than seek compromise with Democrats.


On the flip side, House Democrats face a more liberal-leaning electorate in their own primary elections. But the trend is less dramatic for Democrats, whose supporters are more open to compromise to help government work, polls show. And Republican control of the House makes the GOP dynamic more consequential.


The House’s recent struggles to handle once-routine tasks — such as passing a bipartisan farm bill and raising the federal debt limit — partly stem from the millions of Republican primary voters who elect representatives with stern warnings not to compromise with Democrats. It’s also a reason that efforts to rewrite the nation’s immigration laws face problems in the House, where Republicans quickly dismissed the Senate’s bipartisan approach.


In interviews, House Republicans often cite worries about a possible challenge from the right in their next primary. Many of them represent districts so strongly Republican that it’s all but impossible for the party’s nominee to lose a general election to a Democrat. Also, these lawmakers say, it’s highly unlikely that a moderate Republican can wrest the party’s nomination from a conservative incumbent.


“There aren’t a whole lot of moderate Republicans who participate in the primary in a conservative district,” said Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas.


That leaves many House Republicans with only one prerequisite to assure their re-election: Never give a hard-charging conservative enough room on the right to mount a viable challenge in the primary.


In practice, the task doesn’t seem so hard. Only six House Republicans lost their re-election primaries last year. Half of them fell to fellow incumbents in redrawn districts that forced two colleagues to oppose each other. The other three lost to challengers with strong tea party support.


Rep. Jean Schmidt’s loss was instructive. A conservative by almost any measure, the three-term Ohioan was attacked nonetheless for voting to raise the federal debt ceiling and for giving President Barack Obama a peck on the cheek as he entered the House for his 2012 State of the Union address.


Memories of what happened to Schmidt — and to veteran Republican senators such as Bob Bennett and Richard Lugar, who also lost primaries to tea party-backed challengers — come up repeatedly in political discussions, House insiders say. GOP lawmakers regularly take the temperature of their districts’ conservative activists, who are crucial in primary elections, which often draw modest turnouts.


“House members are better at reading their districts than anyone else,” said Republican lobbyist and pollster Mike McKenna.


McKenna said it’s not unusual to discuss immigration reform with House Republicans who say, “I’m getting emails from people who vote in primaries. They say ‘I don’t care what the Farm Bureau says, I hate this stuff.’”


Rep. John Fleming, R-La., tracks such emails and phone calls. He said his office recently received 80 calls about immigration, “and all of them were against the Senate bill.”


The Senate bill would create a pathway to citizenship — or what many conservatives call “amnesty” — for millions of immigrants living here illegally. Fleming, asked whether he ever worries about going too far right for GOP primary voters in his district, said: “What’s the chance of a moderate Republican coming in and saying, ‘Oh, I’m for amnesty’?”


Marchant, the Texas congressman, said he’s a lifelong conservative who has watched GOP primary voters in his west-Dallas district lean increasingly to the right. Tea partyers who once cast their votes for Libertarian Party candidates, he said, now are full-fledged Republicans.


“The mainstream Republicans, as a result, have become more conservative,” Marchant said. Tea party activists, he said, “found that they could go into the Republican primary and make a real difference.”


GOP Rep. Howard Coble, elected to 15 terms from central North Carolina, dates the change in primary voters’ behavior to the mid-1990s. Conservative groups, he said, “were challenging Bob Dole for not being pure enough.”


“That has opened the gates to primary races” against Republican incumbents, Coble said.


Voter surveys support the view that Republican voters are becoming more conservative.


On average, from 1976 through 1990, 47 percent of people who voted Republican in House races considered themselves conservative, according to exit polls. A slightly smaller share called themselves political moderates.


During Bill Clinton’s presidency — which included bruising fights over health care, gun control, taxes and his impeachment — Republicans’ conservatism began rising. From 1992 through 2006, GOP voters were 52 percent conservative on average and 41 percent moderate.


And in the most recent House elections, 2008 through 2012, more than 6 in 10 voters who backed a GOP candidate described themselves as conservative. About a third called themselves moderate.


Meanwhile, those who vote for House Democrats have become more liberal. But self-described liberals still comprise less than half of that group. In the pre-Clinton years, 25 percent considered themselves liberal; 33 percent on average did so from 1992 to 2006; and it stands at 40 percent across the last three elections.


Michael Dimock, who tracks such trends for the Pew Research Center, said that several years ago there was a notable difference between social conservatives and business conservatives in the Republican Party. Today, he said, Republican voters are more unified — and solidly conservative.


“The socially conservative right has adopted that anti-government, small-government principle, and it’s largely consolidated,” Dimock said.


Rep. David Price has watched the two congressional parties grow farther apart for decades, first as a Duke University political science professor, and for 25 years as a Democratic House member from North Carolina.


At a recent Yale University conference on Congress, Price said: “Reaching agreement was extraordinarily difficult in the 1990s. It seems almost impossible now.”


___


Associated Press Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.


___


Follow Charles Babington on Twitter: https://twitter.com/cbabington


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



Voters shifting right force House GOP to keep pace

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Holder: Despite ruling, DOJ will protect voters


The Justice Department will continue to protect Americans’ voting rights by all legal means, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday, responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a key piece of the Voting Rights Act.


By overturning the formula that forces certain states and localities to seek advance permission for changes to voting procedures, the high court has ”invalidated an essential part of the Voting Rights Act, a cornerstone of American civil rights law,” Holder told reporters.


But the Obama administration will keep pushing to protect voters, he said.


“Let me be very clear: We will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action using every legal tool that remains available to us against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling by hindering eligible citizens full and free exercise of the franchise,” Holder said, not long after President Barack Obama said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling—a phrase Holder echoed twice.


Problems with voting “have not been consigned to history,” he said, and the Voting Rights Act has proven key in defending voters. In 2012, lower courts ruling on preclearance requests blocked a South Carolina voter ID law and a Texas congressional redistricting map, the attorney general noted. “Without the Section 4 coverage formula, neither of these discriminatory voting changes would have been subject to review, and both could have been implemented immediately,” Holder said.


Again echoing Obama, Holder called on Congress to take action to counter the ruling, and said he is “hopeful that new protections can and will pass in this session of Congress.”


The last reauthorization of the act, in 2006, got nearly unanimous support in Congress and was signed by President George W. Bush, and previous reauthorizations have been signed by other Republican president, because it was “in accordance with core nonpartisan American values,” the attorney general added.


Read more about: , , , ,




POLITICO – TOP Stories



Holder: Despite ruling, DOJ will protect voters