PDA

View Full Version : Troubling news for the GOP



ari1013
05-03-2009, 11:01 AM
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_Topline_April_2009.pdf


Take a look at page 21 in that survey. I know it's just one poll, but it's following in the line of polls showing a steady decline in GOP affiliation. Over the course of the last 5 months since election day:

Dem range 36-40
Ind range 22-26
GOP range 18-26

With leaners included, Dems have 46% and Republicans just 28%.

I'm starting to believe this isn't just a post-election dip. The difference just keeps getting wider.

Is Obama making people want to be Dems?
Or are Boehner, McConnell, and Steele making people not want to be Republicans?

SmthBluCitrus
05-03-2009, 12:37 PM
I honestly believe that it's the latter. I think this one is less about Obama and more about the GOP leadership trio.

cabernetluver
05-03-2009, 01:43 PM
It is necessary that we have a two party system, but, if the leadership of the Republican Party continues on the path they are currently following, it will be a new party. Maybe the death of Kemp will make them recheck how they got to a majority status (appealing to minorities, unions, poor) with things like enterprise zones in poor areas. Or they can continue to be the party of God, gold, and guns and shrink even further.

Doc Fluty
05-03-2009, 01:51 PM
i dont think people just change there views because a guy gets caught in the bathroom doing stupid stuff. I also dont think people stop being Catholics because some priests molest little kids...

I think its just not popular thing right now to admit your a republican.. its more chic to say your independent or whatever... that way you dont have to routinely justify your positions on the war, bush, gitmo, wire tapping and everything else.

some day some competent republican with actuall conservative values will ignite people again... he will try to bring up obamas spending and liberal policies while trying to get the independants with lower taxes.. lower corporate taxes and more private sector jobs...

my point is.. its a cycle... gop has the white house and the majority before also... that wasn't the death of the left.

ari1013
05-03-2009, 03:00 PM
i dont think people just change there views because a guy gets caught in the bathroom doing stupid stuff. I also dont think people stop being Catholics because some priests molest little kids...

I think its just not popular thing right now to admit your a republican.. its more chic to say your independent or whatever... that way you dont have to routinely justify your positions on the war, bush, gitmo, wire tapping and everything else.

some day some competent republican with actuall conservative values will ignite people again... he will try to bring up obamas spending and liberal policies while trying to get the independants with lower taxes.. lower corporate taxes and more private sector jobs...

my point is.. its a cycle... gop has the white house and the majority before also... that wasn't the death of the left.
Yeah but it was always relatively close. The Dems have a favorable cycle coming up and now have an outside shot at a 2/3's majority in both Chambers.

And meanwhile the GOP is still clambering about "conservative values" even as voters continue to leave them in droves. The GOP isn't missing those values. It's missing a competent set of principles with which it could have a system of governorship.

And until then, there's just no chance that they will regain a majority unless the Democrats have a colossal failure. So that's why all you hear about from the Talk Radio hosts is how and where the Dems are failing. But you'll never hear about any conservative achievement -- because there just isn't any right now.

Arlen Specter may now be a DINO, as he has yet to vote with the Democrats on anything since switching ties. But by leaving the Republican party he simply put a public face on the movement that's been building up since 2006. The GOP is in a state of collapse.

Maybe we'll see the birth of a new party or the propping up of something like the American Conservative Party as the new counter-balance to the Democrats. But then you've got a rightwinged party vs. a center-left party. And even if this is a center-right nation, the center will still belong to the Dems. So that means we're more likely to see something of the original Republicans (of the Lincoln, Roosevelt, Rockefeller persuasion) simply retake and rebrand the GOP.

lamar2006
05-03-2009, 07:28 PM
its because newborns are not white old men. the base of the GOP. the demographics are just againts the republicans.

hoosiercubsfan
05-04-2009, 09:53 AM
Yeah but it was always relatively close. The Dems have a favorable cycle coming up and now have an outside shot at a 2/3's majority in both Chambers.

And meanwhile the GOP is still clambering about "conservative values" even as voters continue to leave them in droves. The GOP isn't missing those values. It's missing a competent set of principles with which it could have a system of governorship.

And until then, there's just no chance that they will regain a majority unless the Democrats have a colossal failure. So that's why all you hear about from the Talk Radio hosts is how and where the Dems are failing. But you'll never hear about any conservative achievement -- because there just isn't any right now.

Arlen Specter may now be a DINO, as he has yet to vote with the Democrats on anything since switching ties. But by leaving the Republican party he simply put a public face on the movement that's been building up since 2006. The GOP is in a state of collapse.

Maybe we'll see the birth of a new party or the propping up of something like the American Conservative Party as the new counter-balance to the Democrats. But then you've got a rightwinged party vs. a center-left party. And even if this is a center-right nation, the center will still belong to the Dems. So that means we're more likely to see something of the original Republicans (of the Lincoln, Roosevelt, Rockefeller persuasion) simply retake and rebrand the GOP.

This does not surprise me in the least. The Republican party has moved ever to the left since the 80's before you scoff at this let me give you a few examples of this. Then the Republicans where "for" smaller government, against abortion, against massive entitlement spending, believed in being fiscally responsible. Now the Republicans are all for expanding government as fast as they can as long as it isn't a program come up with by the Democrats, have completely backed off the anti abortion and now mostly just hold to the partial birth portion, Prescription drug plan? (don't think anything more needs to be said about that). For those in this country that are Conservatives with the big C the party has completely left them behind. So it is not surprising that they are leaving the party what other choice do they have?

In my opinion the current form of the Republican party is hardly any different than the Democrat party. I really don't believe that even if McCain had won the election would he be doing anything really different than what Obama is now. Arlen Specter is just a flat out dirtbag who knew he was gonna get taken out in the primary that is the only reason he left the party. The move was all about self preservation and nothing more. He will give all this Bull **** about the party moving to the right but he was never a conservative to begin with so he was never a part of the party. So maybe it will take the birth of another party for the Conservative movement to show back up. Something along the lines of a Constitution party would bring back a lot of the people being left behind by the current form of the Republican party.


Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government. Milton Friedman

SmthBluCitrus
05-04-2009, 10:21 AM
This does not surprise me in the least. The Republican party has moved ever to the left since the 80's before you scoff at this let me give you a few examples of this. Then the Republicans where "for" smaller government, against abortion, against massive entitlement spending, believed in being fiscally responsible. Now the Republicans are all for expanding government as fast as they can as long as it isn't a program come up with by the Democrats, have completely backed off the anti abortion and now mostly just hold to the partial birth portion, Prescription drug plan? (don't think anything more needs to be said about that). For those in this country that are Conservatives with the big C the party has completely left them behind. So it is not surprising that they are leaving the party what other choice do they have?

In my opinion the current form of the Republican party is hardly any different than the Democrat party. I really don't believe that even if McCain had won the election would he be doing anything really different than what Obama is now. Arlen Specter is just a flat out dirtbag who knew he was gonna get taken out in the primary that is the only reason he left the party. The move was all about self preservation and nothing more. He will give all this Bull **** about the party moving to the right but he was never a conservative to begin with so he was never a part of the party. So maybe it will take the birth of another party for the Conservative movement to show back up. Something along the lines of a Constitution party would bring back a lot of the people being left behind by the current form of the Republican party.

First, we're the Democratic Party ... not the Democrat party. Having discussed things with you in the past, I'm pretty sure you weren't using this as a derogative; but please make sure you use the appropriate form from here on out.

And, second -- and no surprise -- I disagree with you. If the GOP was "moving to the left" as you say then Washington would be fairly equally split between the two parties. As they are, however, they're not. There's a lot of Democratic control, there were overwhelming numbers of Democratic registrations in the fall, and there is an ever waning number of GOP identification. Had the GOP been becoming more "Democratic" as you suggest, I believe we'd see less obstruction and more mutually defined objectives. That just isn't the case. The GOP is fairly isolated on the far right.

hoosiercubsfan
05-04-2009, 11:26 AM
First, we're the Democratic Party ... not the Democrat party. Having discussed things with you in the past, I'm pretty sure you weren't using this as a derogative; but please make sure you use the appropriate form from here on out.

And, second -- and no surprise -- I disagree with you. If the GOP was "moving to the left" as you say then Washington would be fairly equally split between the two parties. As they are, however, they're not. There's a lot of Democratic control, there were overwhelming numbers of Democratic registrations in the fall, and there is an ever waning number of GOP identification. Had the GOP been becoming more "Democratic" as you suggest, I believe we'd see less obstruction and more mutually defined objectives. That just isn't the case. The GOP is fairly isolated on the far right.

First off no it wasn't meant as a dig at Dem's. For the longest time I have heard them referred to as Democrats. So if you take offense to the word Democrat i am sorry but it seems a little silly to me. Especially when I am in no way trying to make a dig at the party especially when I have plenty to dig at about the Repub party.

And of course I didn't expect you in particular to agree. Again no dig at you in any way shape or form but you are the closest of anyone to the Democratic party. But you are seriously going to tell me that you think the party is moving to the right? The party who passed a massive drug bill. A party that has completely lost all semblance of fiscal responsibility. To me the current Republicans are Democrats light. They aren't full blown progressives that the Democratic party is but they are well on the way. I am not sure that short of massive shakeups in the hierarchy of the Republican party is it going to be able to be saved. Right now the Republican's have allowed themselves to be labeled by the media and they have done nothing to show that is not the truth. Right now it just isn't "cool" to be a Republican right now on top of the party all but losing its identity under the Bush years.

SmthBluCitrus
05-04-2009, 11:53 AM
First off no it wasn't meant as a dig at Dem's. For the longest time I have heard them referred to as Democrats. So if you take offense to the word Democrat i am sorry but it seems a little silly to me. Especially when I am in no way trying to make a dig at the party especially when I have plenty to dig at about the Repub party.

Individuals are Democrats (I am a Democrat). The party name is the Democratic Party.

As to the rest ... I just can't agree. The GOP is running hard right on nearly every issue; whether it's social, fiscal, or foreign. They're not running moderate candidates at election time and they're primarying the moderates that don't toe the party line to a T. In this political climate, it's the Democratic Party that has actively recruited the middle (candidate-wise) and the GOP that has shifted to the right. There has been no leftward shift by the GOP.

You're drug plan (Part D, I assume) that you referenced was a plan for the pharma lobby. There's a reason that public health care supporters on the left are the biggest critics of it.

hoosiercubsfan
05-04-2009, 12:30 PM
Individuals are Democrats (I am a Democrat). The party name is the Democratic Party.

As to the rest ... I just can't agree. The GOP is running hard right on nearly every issue; whether it's social, fiscal, or foreign. They're not running moderate candidates at election time and they're primarying the moderates that don't toe the party line to a T. In this political climate, it's the Democratic Party that has actively recruited the middle (candidate-wise) and the GOP that has shifted to the right. There has been no leftward shift by the GOP.

You're drug plan (Part D, I assume) that you referenced was a plan for the pharma lobby. There's a reason that public health care supporters on the left are the biggest critics of it.

We are really splitting hairs over a simple word so will just have to agree to disagree on it. I again think its silly to take offense to a word. So from here going forward if i happen to type Democrat versus Democratic don't take offense please. To me it is the exact same and neither has a derogatory meaning in my mind. So I am sure its going to slip because I just don't see there being a difference with or without the ic added to the end.

The GOP is running hard right currently on all issues because it is the opposite to what the Democratics (or whatever you want it called now) are running. Does this mean they all believe the exact opposite? I don't believe they do but they can't be seen as going along with the opposing party. If the tables where turned I would expect the exact same results. It seems like there will always be the two parties voting opposite of each other especially if passage of whatever bill is not in question. It is them hedging their bets that if the bill is bad they can say they didn't vote for it. They are not running moderate candidates are you serious? What do you call John McCain he sure as hell is not a true conservative. The Democratic Party did a great job of recruiting the more conservative Blue Dog's to retake Congress this is very true. And to this point the Republican's have yet to figure out what they need to do to bring back the people that are fed up with them. So I guess the result of all this is we will just have to agree to disagree on the GOP moving to the left. I just don't think it is as pronounced as the move to the left that the Democrats have done.

SmthBluCitrus
05-04-2009, 12:43 PM
The GOP is running hard right currently on all issues because it is the opposite to what the Democratics (or whatever you want it called now) are running. Does this mean they all believe the exact opposite? I don't believe they do but they can't be seen as going along with the opposing party. If the tables where turned I would expect the exact same results. It seems like there will always be the two parties voting opposite of each other especially if passage of whatever bill is not in question. It is them hedging their bets that if the bill is bad they can say they didn't vote for it. They are not running moderate candidates are you serious? What do you call John McCain he sure as hell is not a true conservative. The Democratic Party did a great job of recruiting the more conservative Blue Dog's to retake Congress this is very true. And to this point the Republican's have yet to figure out what they need to do to bring back the people that are fed up with them. So I guess the result of all this is we will just have to agree to disagree on the GOP moving to the left. I just don't think it is as pronounced as the move to the left that the Democrats have done.

John McCain managed to win the GOP Presidential Primary because he snuck through the middle ... he beat fiscal conservative Mitt Romney and theo-conservative Mike Huckabee because McCain was always the secondary vote getter. The Republican Party tripped and landed on John McCain -- it wasn't the right saw him as the best candidate to win. Remember, his campaign was left for dead in October 2007. He had an above expected showing in Iowa and then rolled in New Hampshire.

But, he also ran a campaign of an uber-right winger. And, bringing on Sarah Palin added to that (in an appeal to the far right base).

ari1013
05-04-2009, 01:31 PM
Hoosier, for what it's worth, I agree with what you're saying -- but I think you're confused about something:

Namely that a BAD idea that involves spending (like Medicare D) is a liberal idea because it involves spending. That's far from true. It's not fiscally conservative, but that doesn't mean it's a progressive idea either.

See the difference?

So while I agree that the GOP is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility -- they dropped that mantle in the 1980s under Reagan -- they still are the socially conservative party (even if the lines are starting to blur for you as to how socially conservative they are).


Neither party is acting fiscally responsible right now. But we clearly have one progressive party and one conservative party when it comes to social programs and issues. And while the Dems tend to take positions more close to that of the average American when it comes to those issues and programs, the GOP is starting to move more towards the fringe right on those issues and programs. So from that point of view, it's easy to see why Blue Dogs helped the Dems build a commanding majority.

But I believe it still comes down to the ability to govern well and the GOP hasn't shown that it has any one who could be a legitimate leader of their movement.

hoosiercubsfan
05-04-2009, 04:14 PM
Hoosier, for what it's worth, I agree with what you're saying -- but I think you're confused about something:

Namely that a BAD idea that involves spending (like Medicare D) is a liberal idea because it involves spending. That's far from true. It's not fiscally conservative, but that doesn't mean it's a progressive idea either.

See the difference?

So while I agree that the GOP is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility -- they dropped that mantle in the 1980s under Reagan -- they still are the socially conservative party (even if the lines are starting to blur for you as to how socially conservative they are).


Neither party is acting fiscally responsible right now. But we clearly have one progressive party and one conservative party when it comes to social programs and issues. And while the Dems tend to take positions more close to that of the average American when it comes to those issues and programs, the GOP is starting to move more towards the fringe right on those issues and programs. So from that point of view, it's easy to see why Blue Dogs helped the Dems build a commanding majority.

But I believe it still comes down to the ability to govern well and the GOP hasn't shown that it has any one who could be a legitimate leader of their movement.

I agree with what you are saying for the most part here Ari. I was not pointing at Medicare Part D as a liberal idea at all but more to the fact that it is very anti fiscally conservative. I completely agree that neither party is acting at all fiscally conservative which I hate to say I expect from the Democratic Party but did not from the Repub's. But I just don't see how they are moving toward the fringe right to me they are both Spaniels one being a Springer and the other being a Cocker. Granted they aren't the same but when you get down deep they are very close. I firmly believe that you could take out Obama and put McCain in his place with solid Republican majorities and I really don't believe they would be doing anything different than what is going on now.

And I also agree that it comes down to the R's showing that they can lead. And to this point they have not done that whatsoever. That is why I almost believe that its gonna take the birth of a third party to either absorb or kill off what is left of the current GOP. I just don't think in the current party it has the kind of people that are really going to resonate with those that are disenfranchised with the current status of the party.

cabernetluver
05-04-2009, 05:59 PM
I agree with what you are saying for the most part here Ari. I was not pointing at Medicare Part D as a liberal idea at all but more to the fact that it is very anti fiscally conservative. I completely agree that neither party is acting at all fiscally conservative which I hate to say I expect from the Democratic Party but did not from the Repub's. But I just don't see how they are moving toward the fringe right to me they are both Spaniels one being a Springer and the other being a Cocker. Granted they aren't the same but when you get down deep they are very close. I firmly believe that you could take out Obama and put McCain in his place with solid Republican majorities and I really don't believe they would be doing anything different than what is going on now.

And I also agree that it comes down to the R's showing that they can lead. And to this point they have not done that whatsoever. That is why I almost believe that its gonna take the birth of a third party to either absorb or kill off what is left of the current GOP. I just don't think in the current party it has the kind of people that are really going to resonate with those that are disenfranchised with the current status of the party.

Frankly, by profession, I know more about part D than most. If you want to see why it was a bad law, you can, as you have looked at the money from a distance, but the real bad part of part D was the GOP clause that stopped government from negotiating with the drug companies as they do with the VA drug benefit. Drugs are part of medical care, and as such are worth including in Medicare, if you are willing to stipulate that Medicare is necessary in our society.

ari1013
05-04-2009, 06:12 PM
I agree with what you are saying for the most part here Ari. I was not pointing at Medicare Part D as a liberal idea at all but more to the fact that it is very anti fiscally conservative. I completely agree that neither party is acting at all fiscally conservative which I hate to say I expect from the Democratic Party but did not from the Repub's. But I just don't see how they are moving toward the fringe right to me they are both Spaniels one being a Springer and the other being a Cocker. Granted they aren't the same but when you get down deep they are very close. I firmly believe that you could take out Obama and put McCain in his place with solid Republican majorities and I really don't believe they would be doing anything different than what is going on now.

And I also agree that it comes down to the R's showing that they can lead. And to this point they have not done that whatsoever. That is why I almost believe that its gonna take the birth of a third party to either absorb or kill off what is left of the current GOP. I just don't think in the current party it has the kind of people that are really going to resonate with those that are disenfranchised with the current status of the party.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/gingrich-2012-might-see-a-third-party-movement-if-the-gop-doesnt-shape-up/


Something on that note from Newt. Maybe he steps up and starts up his own party. I think the "excitement" alone should bring some of the indies back into the fold for the "Grand New Party."

hoosiercubsfan
05-04-2009, 07:47 PM
Frankly, by profession, I know more about part D than most. If you want to see why it was a bad law, you can, as you have looked at the money from a distance, but the real bad part of part D was the GOP clause that stopped government from negotiating with the drug companies as they do with the VA drug benefit. Drugs are part of medical care, and as such are worth including in Medicare, if you are willing to stipulate that Medicare is necessary in our society.

I do see Medicaid/are as a necessity for society. I from the outside looking in see the bill as just a bad expensive piece of legislation. I just don't think it saved near what it was intended and ended up costing far more than it should.

cabernetluver
05-04-2009, 07:55 PM
I do see Medicaid/are as a necessity for society. I from the outside looking in see the bill as just a bad expensive piece of legislation. I just don't think it saved near what it was intended and ended up costing far more than it should.

I did say I am an expert by training in this area, and you never claimed it, so if this is picky, I apologize in advance.

Medicare is an entitlement. It is generally for all people over the age of 65.

Medicaid is part of the welfare system for all poor people.

Medicare Part D has nothing to do with Medicaid.

Once again, a lot of people confuse them, so, I apologize in advance.

hoosiercubsfan
05-04-2009, 08:11 PM
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/gingrich-2012-might-see-a-third-party-movement-if-the-gop-doesnt-shape-up/


Something on that note from Newt. Maybe he steps up and starts up his own party. I think the "excitement" alone should bring some of the indies back into the fold for the "Grand New Party."

I could see something like that coming out of the discontent there is for the GOP. I also believe that they could be fairly strong fairly quickly as long as its put forth in good faith. Meaning that it has to have the ground work laid now for it to be successful. If people see this as a legitimate third party you will start to see more qualified candidates than what you have seen in the past. You only see the cooky candidates come out when the third party is not seen as a serious candidate because the candidates get lumped in as not being serious either. So in order to tap into something like that you have to have a very reasoned and responsible platform which has been lacking thus far.

hoosiercubsfan
05-04-2009, 08:23 PM
I did say I am an expert by training in this area, and you never claimed it, so if this is picky, I apologize in advance.

Medicare is an entitlement. It is generally for all people over the age of 65.
Medicaid is part of the welfare system for all poor people.
Medicare Part D has nothing to do with Medicaid.

Once again, a lot of people confuse them, so, I apologize in advance.

I do at least understand the difference between the two. But my response was to your statement in your previous post.


Drugs are part of medical care, and as such are worth including in Medicare, if you are willing to stipulate that Medicare is necessary in our society.

I think both Medicare and Medicaid are necessary in our society. I know a touch more about Medicaid because our daughter would qualify for it since she was born hearing impaired/disabled. I believe such a program is necessary because it should cover those that aren't able to either afford/get private insurance on their own. I don't really agree with everyone being insured by the government because I just don't think they are capable of running something like that with any effectiveness whatsoever. But that is an entire thread on its own that would completely divert the intention of this thread.

ari1013
05-05-2009, 09:14 AM
I'm sorry if this is too personal, but did you know anything about Medicaid before your daughter was born?

I've found that a lot of the time people will criticize a program without knowing anything about it -- and then once they are personally affected, they change their mind on the issue completely. For example, take Pete Domenici (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1848887,00.html) and Arlen Specter's turn-arounds (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Arlen_Specter.htm) when it came to health care after both had up-close and personal health issues.

And that brings me right back to a problem I have with the GOP -- it's as if they need a personal connection to something before they feel that it's an important issue.

SmthBluCitrus
05-05-2009, 09:25 AM
I'm sorry if this is too personal, but did you know anything about Medicaid before your daughter was born?

I've found that a lot of the time people will criticize a program without knowing anything about it -- and then once they are personally affected, they change their mind on the issue completely. For example, take Pete Domenici (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1848887,00.html) and Arlen Specter's turn-arounds (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Arlen_Specter.htm) when it came to health care after both had up-close and personal health issues.

And that brings me right back to a problem I have with the GOP -- it's as if they need a personal connection to something before they feel that it's an important issue.

Nancy Reagan and stem cell research.

ari1013
05-05-2009, 09:47 AM
Nancy Reagan and stem cell research.
Well I raise you a Steve Schmidt and gay rights!

SmthBluCitrus
05-05-2009, 10:03 AM
Well I raise you a Steve Schmidt and gay rights!

:laugh2:

Umm ... I'll see your Steve Schmidt and gay rights and raise you a ... umm ... oooh! Raise you a "any politician that rails against earmarks and then requests earmarks!"

hoosiercubsfan
05-05-2009, 11:00 AM
I'm sorry if this is too personal, but did you know anything about Medicaid before your daughter was born?

I've found that a lot of the time people will criticize a program without knowing anything about it -- and then once they are personally affected, they change their mind on the issue completely. For example, take Pete Domenici (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1848887,00.html) and Arlen Specter's turn-arounds (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Arlen_Specter.htm) when it came to health care after both had up-close and personal health issues.

And that brings me right back to a problem I have with the GOP -- it's as if they need a personal connection to something before they feel that it's an important issue.

If I knew anything about it at all it was very limited. But personally I have always felt that those cannot legitimately help themselves deserve help from society as a whole. Be that from the Government or local churches or what have you they cannot be left to fail because they are unable to care for themselves.

I think its a problem with both parties to be honest. Both have become so beholden to their particular special interests that if it doesn't get directly tied to them they are less than willing to go out of their way to help. This whole bailout mess started with the GOP and Bush wanting to bail out wall street and big business. And it was continued by Obama with the continued bailout of the auto industry and big labor. They screamed that bankruptcy is not an option while funneling billions into these sectors and guess what Chrysler is in bankruptcy with GM soon to follow I am sure.

gcoll
05-05-2009, 11:11 AM
As long as favoring limited government can be painted as "not caring" the GOP is gonna lose. That's why it's generally tougher to sell a conservative message. Which is why you need competent leadership, who can articulate the philosophy without "we want more tax cuts!!!" which is all the GOP seems to want nowadays.

And tax cuts have been taken away with the "no more tax cuts for the rich!" type ****....which disturbs me on a number of levels.

degnor
05-07-2009, 01:02 PM
yeah, im a conservative, voted for mccain, and see no reason to vote for a democrat anytime soon, but i am registered as an independent. Its more about political identity, not true feelings of a nation. I prefer not to be associated with a political party atm, and i know plenty of people who are the same way (conservative and liberal). this poll means nothing

SmthBluCitrus
05-07-2009, 02:36 PM
Alright HCF -- so the GOP is moving further to the left? It's for reasons like these that I don't buy that sentiment.

Coming to a Neighborhood Near You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRmBsvWgdbE) -- Paid for by Republican Senators

ari1013
05-07-2009, 10:36 PM
yeah, im a conservative, voted for mccain, and see no reason to vote for a democrat anytime soon, but i am registered as an independent. Its more about political identity, not true feelings of a nation. I prefer not to be associated with a political party atm, and i know plenty of people who are the same way (conservative and liberal). this poll means nothing
Possibly -- except that Obama's approval ratings among independents are very solid and his approval ratings among Republicans are terrible. So that tells you that there's definitely different mindsets emerging here among voters on the right.

SmthBluCitrus
05-09-2009, 10:19 AM
This is definitely a problem for the GOP. Women are much more likely to identify with the Democratic Party than the GOP. We typically ID better with the left though ... the only problem is actually getting women to the voting booth. It's tougher than one might think.

From Matthew Yglesias (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/the-gender-gap-in-party-id.php):


The Gender Gap in Party ID

Gallup looks at the gender gap in party ID (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118207/Republicans-Face-Steep-Uphill-Climb-Among-Women.aspx):

Image (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/gendergap.jpg)

The results among women “are typical of what Gallup has found over the past year” and “the current 41% female Democratic identification matches the high achieved several times since 2000.” Among men, however, the GOP seems to be deteriorating:


At various times over the past decade, the plurality of male partisans have shifted between Republican and independent identification, with no more than 31% of men identifying as Democrats in any quarter. Since late 2006, however, the gap between the percentage of men identifying as independents and the percentage identifying as Republicans has grown, and independent men have outnumbered Republican men for the last two years running. Over this time, Republican identification among men has largely been on par with Democratic support, a clear negative sign for the GOP given the solid support the Democratic Party has among women.

Seems Sarah Palin didn't have quite the positive effect the GOP was hoping for among women.

SmthBluCitrus
05-13-2009, 10:22 AM
Didn't think it deserved it's own thread ... but this is how you win elections. :laugh2:


GOP, RNC to rebrand Democrats as 'Socialists'

A member of the Republican National Committee told me Tuesday that when the RNC meets in an extraordinary special session next week, it will approve a resolution rebranding Democrats as the “Democrat Socialist Party.”

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22445.html)

cabernetluver
05-13-2009, 10:30 AM
This is what happens when a party runs out of positive ways to apply their own philosophy and can only rely upon silly attacks.

BroadwayJoe
05-13-2009, 10:53 AM
neo-mccarthyism ftw!