PDA

View Full Version : You guys are too early in expecting the demise of the GOP



peb
05-14-2009, 09:24 AM
Interesting polls:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

I suspect a lot of the independants in this country who tend to be center-right are starting to realize how liberal the Pelosi/Obama/Reid team is on some of these issues.

peb
05-14-2009, 09:39 AM
3) Pelosi and Reid may be considered to be liberal or very liberal, but Obama clearly is far more centrist and moderate.



If he was far more centrist and moderate, he would not turn over major policy items to them, examples would be the stimulus bill early on and the health care policy right now. Pelosu seems to be in charge on some major items and has Obama reporting directly her office.

One has to wonder if his decision not to release those photos was an attempt to get the whole torture thing to go away in order to help out Pelosi. BTW, since it is now rather apparent she knew all about the torture, did not consent, and even questioned the CIA as to if they were doing enough to extract information, are you guys calling for her prosecution?

Keith Wilson
05-14-2009, 09:46 AM
I agree with you completely that one shouldn't expect the demise of th Republican party. They'll spend some time in the wilderness getting their act together and will come back. However, I wouldn't rely too much on Rasmussen's numbers. A couple of examples:

http://thinkery.typepad.com/.a/6a00df3520d496883301156f678acd970c-pi




http://thinkery.typepad.com/.a/6a00df3520d49688330115705dbebf970b-pi

The source of the graphs. (http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2009/04/on-rogue-rasmussen-polls.html)

High C
05-14-2009, 09:52 AM
...I wouldn't rely too much on Rasmussen's numbers....

No? How does Rasmussen's performance measure up in a poll that can actually be compared to a real result....say the 2008 Presidential election?

Keith Wilson
05-14-2009, 09:59 AM
Rasmussen did very well predicting the presidential election results. So did several other polls whose numbers now disagree with theirs by quite a lot.

John of Phoenix
05-14-2009, 09:59 AM
You guys are too early in expecting the demise of the GOP It's going to be a long, languorous, ugly death. We’re in no hurry.

(Keith and his dirty pictures. Tisk,tisk. ;))

LeeG
05-14-2009, 10:00 AM
No? How does Rasmussen's performance measure up in a poll that can actually be compared to a real result....say the 2008 Presidential election?

comparing apples to oranges

Robmill0605
05-14-2009, 10:12 AM
Liars, damn liars and then there are polls.
I think the republicans are in trouble and that they bascially no have current leadership.
The republican party has been declared dead before by democrats, namely during the Carter administration. After that fiasco, the party came roaring back ushering in the Reagan era. Depending on the outcome of the Obama agenda and its effect on the economy and national security, I wouldn't be too quick to have a funeral just yet.

Cuyahoga Chuck
05-14-2009, 10:36 AM
Well, PEB, hope may spring in the eternal breast but I feel the voting public still has a swinish taste in it's mouth from 8 (count em) 8 long years of NEOCONISM and other iterations of Rightwing practice.
Now, it is always assumed that some portion of the population will willingly accept pummeling because their guts tell them that is the rational course. If what those types think means something to you so be it. But what your descendents will read in the history books, if you have some, is that the Bush years were a plague of stupidity and knee-jerk reactionism. It is possible but not likely that a majority of our citizens will want to subject themselves to that kind of drubbing again.
Having Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney as posterboys of the Right is, indeed , a blessing to all on the Left.

High C
05-14-2009, 10:37 AM
...Keith's graphs, however, demonstrate something entirely different... and clearly demonstrate a bias in Rasmussen's reported numbers.

Given that there is no way to know if an approval poll is accurate, it is not possible to demonstrate bias in the results. There is no real event to compare the polls to to gauge their accuracy. In the one area (an election) where a poll's accuracy CAN be compared to a real event, Rasmussen led the pack in accuracy.

And Keith, the others did NOT do as well as Rasmussen. Rasmussen's accuracy was #1 of the 20 top pollsters in forecasting the '08 election results. Does this indicate bias, or that Rasmussen may be using better methods than their competitors?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fordham.edu%2Fimages%2Facadem ics%2Fgraduate_schools%2Fgsas%2Felections_and_camp aign_%2Fpoll%2520accuracy%2520in%2520the%25202008% 2520presidential%2520election.pdf&ei=-jgMSveEIJqstgeH77iQCA&usg=AFQjCNHse-XGNgxf5ZPEl08MqXgyr89yMg

Chris Coose
05-14-2009, 10:40 AM
"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows" Bob D.

A sincere debt of gratitude goes out to the dubbya. In some ways it was all worth it.

Keith Wilson
05-14-2009, 10:56 AM
HighC, you're right, of course; there's no way of refuting an opinion poll, and no doubt it's correct for the people they asked. The charts do show something unusual going on, however, when Rasmussen's results are very different from all the others. And BTW, Rasmussen wasn't that much better than other polls in predicting the election results - Pew was every bit as good, and several others were close.

There's a chance the Republican party could self-destruct and turn into a lunatic fringe of libertarians and Dominionists, capable of winning elections only in the Deep South - but I doubt it will happen.

John of Phoenix
05-14-2009, 10:59 AM
There's a chance the Republican party could self-destruct and turn into a lunatic fringe of libertarians and Dominionists, capable of winning elections only in the Deep South - but I doubt it will happen. This just in...

In an attempt to reinvent itself and broaden its appeal to a broader base, the Republican Party is planning to unilaterally rename the Democratic Party "The Democrat Socialist Party".



How do you offend a Socialist? Call him a Democrat.

With the Republican party reeling, some in the GOP think the answer to their problems could be pretty simple. It’s all in a name.

One of the agenda items at a special meeting of the Republican National Committee next week is to formally rename the opposition from the Democratic Party to the “Democrat Socialist Party” — a strategy perhaps modeled after the very successful effort to rename French fries “Freedom fries.”
IMHO, a sure fire stragety would be to change their name to The Republican Party.

We now return to your regular thread.

Captain Intrepid
05-14-2009, 11:30 AM
In an attempt to reinvent itself and broaden its appeal to a broader base, the Republican Party is planning to unilaterally rename the Democratic Party "The Democrat Socialist Party".

"We're not doing so well? Can't be anything we're doing! It must be that people don't realize that our opponents are gawddamn pinko commies! If we yell really hard at how much they suck, people will like us more!"

Osborne Russell
05-15-2009, 07:04 AM
Why would anyone say the Republican party is dead?

John Smith
05-15-2009, 07:10 AM
Interesting polls:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

I suspect a lot of the independants in this country who tend to be center-right are starting to realize how liberal the Pelosi/Obama/Reid team is on some of these issues.
And how far right those running the republicans are?

LeeG
05-15-2009, 07:14 AM
Why would anyone say the Republican party is dead?

because it's a set-up argument, like so many others.

John Smith
05-15-2009, 07:18 AM
If he was far more centrist and moderate, he would not turn over major policy items to them, examples would be the stimulus bill early on and the health care policy right now. Pelosu seems to be in charge on some major items and has Obama reporting directly her office.

One has to wonder if his decision not to release those photos was an attempt to get the whole torture thing to go away in order to help out Pelosi. BTW, since it is now rather apparent she knew all about the torture, did not consent, and even questioned the CIA as to if they were doing enough to extract information, are you guys calling for her prosecution?
I love the word "seems" and all the speculation that follows as if it were fact.

Bob Grahm came out yesterday with a statement that the CIA lies to congress. Olberman referenced Barry Goldwater making a similar statement.

I'd wager, when the truth comes out, Pelosi will look better. Remember the **** she took behind getting a bigger plane than Hassert got? Turned out is was the range of the plane, as she's from California and he was from Illinois, that caused the change.

I remember people arguing about who's going to win a football game that will be played the coming Sunday. Silly, This is the same.

Of course, we are only doing what the media does, I guess.

Problem is, when we form opinions before we have the facts, we tend, as the facts come out, to cling to those that support our opinion and ignore those that don't.

Seems a human trait that once we have an opinion, we really don't want to change it, regardless of facts.

Saltiguy
05-15-2009, 09:35 AM
I came from a Republican family and have always embraced the conservative line, and never voted for a Democrat except twice when I voted against Tricky Dick Nixon.
Now however, the Religious right and the neocons have driven me away from the Republican party. Two terms of W, the blathering of Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox news along with the astonishing greed of the banks, insurance companies, drug companies, etc has radicalized my views.
"Get rid of all of them" is my motto now. Washington has become obscene with greed and corruption.

ccmanuals
05-15-2009, 10:37 AM
I came from a Republican family and have always embraced the conservative line, and never voted for a Democrat except twice when I voted against Tricky Dick Nixon.
Now however, the Religious right and the neocons have driven me away from the Republican party. Two terms of W, the blathering of Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox news along with the astonishing greed of the banks, insurance companies, drug companies, etc has radicalized my views.
"Get rid of all of them" is my motto now. Washington has become obscene with greed and corruption.

I think what Saltiguy just said is the reason the party is in trouble and the reason the democrats control the WH and congress. Salti pretty well summed it up.

Osborne Russell
05-15-2009, 10:49 AM
"Get rid of all of them" is my motto now.

Dude, they reproduce.

How about a new party -- later for the religion, morality, social engineering, etc., just cut the damn spending.

Cuyahoga Chuck
05-15-2009, 06:49 PM
"Get rid of all of them" is my motto now. Washington has become obscene with greed and corruption.

You seem to be salving your conscience by suggesting there is another party as stupid and as toxic as the one you, lately, supported.
That's hardly possible. The Bush years have set a record that is not likely to be surpassed in this century.

Keith Wilson
05-16-2009, 10:33 PM
Here's an excellent editorial from The Economist on the subject. The True Believers won't like it, but if the Republicans don't listen, they're going to be out there in the wilderness for a lot longer.
How to fix a party
May 14th 2009
From The Economist print edition

http://media.economist.com/images/20090516/D2009US0.jpg

The Grand Old Party is getting less grand by the day. It failed to return a single congressman from New England in 2008. Republicanism is about as popular as celibacy among 18-30-year-olds. A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC poll revealed that in the party’s heartland, the South, there are more self-identified Democrats than Republicans.

So far the party has shown few signs that it knows how to reverse its slide into irrelevance. Should Republicans shout louder? Apologise for recent mistakes? Launch a listening tour? The only thing that the party’s various factions seem to have in common is an obsession with junk food. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, launched his “listening tour” in a pizza joint. Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina and one of the party’s most outspoken traditionalists, argues that Chick-fil-A would never allow its franchisees to cook their chicken any way they like; so why should the Republican Party allow its elected officials to promote big government?

Here is a modest suggestion for the Republicans: why not learn from the Democratic Party? The Democrats have had much more experience of defeat than the Republicans. They saw a two-to-one advantage in party identification in 1952 disappear by 2002. They were locked out of the White House for 20 of the 28 years between 1980 and 2008. As recently as 2003 a Democratic senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, denounced his party as “a national party no more”. But today the Democrats are contemplating power without end.

The first lesson from the Democrats is to create a “vital centre”—one that is a source of ideas rather than split-the-difference compromises. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been challenging old-fashioned liberalism since 1985. DLC-affiliated politicians have been designing centrist ideas in conservative America for almost as long: Kathleen Sebelius, Barack Obama’s health secretary, Janet Napolitano, the head of his Department of Homeland Security, and Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, cut their political teeth in Kansas, Arizona and Arkansas respectively. At the same time, Mr Obama has made a huge fuss about embracing anybody and everybody.

The Republicans are showing some signs that they understand the importance of the centre ground. They are cooing about their success in recruiting Charlie Crist, Florida’s middle-of-the-road governor, to run for the Senate, for example. But the Republican centre is very far from being vital. Most centrist politicians are opportunists rather than policy innovators. The party’s leading think-tanks are all on the right. The first priority should be to create a Republican version of the DLC, to act as a counterbalance to Washington’s conservative establishment and an inspiration to innovative Republicans across the country.

The second lesson is the importance of detoxifying the party. The Democrats have realised that you cannot win elections as long as your party is associated with toxic people or un-American causes. Bill Clinton, the detoxifier in chief, denounced Sister Souljah, an extreme rap artist, signed welfare reform into law, balanced the budget and cut 350,000 people from the ranks of government. More recently, the party has chosen strategic silence on the vexed question of gun rights.

Again, a few Republicans show signs of understanding this strategy. They have tried distancing themselves from Rush Limbaugh and his kind, issued increasingly abject apologies for following George Bush wherever he led, and generally promised to be a nicer bunch. But that is only a start. They need to follow through on their Sister Souljah moments rather than issuing abject apologies whenever Mr Limbaugh cracks the whip. They need to abandon their state of denial about global warming. And they need to recognise that gay marriage could well be their equivalent of the gun issue. The party’s opposition to gay marriage not only makes them look mean-spirited. It is also destroying any chance Republicans have of regaining the support of younger Americans. Gay marriage is becoming progressively more popular among young Americans at a time when another favourite conservative issue, abortion, is of less concern to them.

The third lesson is the importance of proving that you can run a country. Jimmy Carter destroyed the Democratic Party for a generation because voters concluded that both he and his party were too incompetent to be trusted with the White House. George Bush may have done the same thing for the Republican Party. He turned a surplus into a gigantic deficit. He launched the war in Iraq on the basis of false intelligence and wildly optimistic assumptions about how easy it would be to win. He filled important government posts with klutzes who were appointed on the basis of family loyalty and ideological litmus tests. By the final months of his presidency, Americans judged Democrats to be more competent than Republicans by a margin of five to three.

Regaining their reputation for competence is the most difficult task Republicans face. It is also the most important. The party’s current strategy is to argue that Mr Obama is too soft on America’s enemies and too loose with the purse-strings. But this is hardly likely to reassure people who associate Republicanism with military adventurism and hypocritical spending.

The Republicans need to demonstrate that they understand the importance of self-restraint, both at home and abroad. They need to prove that they are more interested in solving practical problems than in ticking ideological boxes. This suggests that the party’s revival is likely to start in the same place as the Democratic Party’s revival—among the ranks of post-ideological governors out there in purple America.

George Jung
05-17-2009, 12:18 AM
I dunno, KW - I think ol C. Chuck may be onto something:

"Well, PEB, hope may spring in the eternal breast...."

I'm not sure what the 'eternal breast' is, but it sounds intriguing... even titillating! And I suspect it's something all men would be willing to stand behind (or at least in the vicinity).

If that doesn't re-unite and ignite the Rips, nothing will.:D

mdh
05-17-2009, 12:42 AM
A different perspective. New England is devoid of Republican representation in part because most of the candidates are indistinguishable from their democrat counterparts. Look at the two Senators from Maine. Many of the democrats elected in the last two elections ran on center/right issues. Anti-gun control, pro life, fiscal responsibility, etc. The president, on the other hand, was entirely socialist, spread the wealth. Maybe populist sounds better. After 100+ days of his administration, it's obvious that Yes we can, change you can believe in, hope was just a codeword for taxing and spending this country into oblivion. It's already becoming apparent that he can't get all his wishes, even with filibuster proof majorities, because some of these democrats realize that it would mean political suicide to follow him into the abyss of of his radical naivete. On most issues, he has simply changed his mind, extending the Bush policies(without tribute), much to the dismay of leftists, but acceptable to the right.

Much has been said about where the Republican Party can go to remedy their recent losses. Most of the publicized speculation is that they need to moderate. Bunk. A point that is seemingly forgotten is the whole nominating system. In many of the early primaries, independent voters are allowed to vote in whichever primary they wish. They also tend to be in the Northeast, where democrats have a distinct numerical advantage. One reason that, as Arlen Spector noted, 200,000 republicans reregistered as democrats was Rush Limbaugh supporters, Operation Chaos voters, voted for Hillary to derail Obama's coronation. McCain was about as left as you're going to get out of the Republicans, and yet, Colin Powell couldn't bring himself to vote for a fellow veteran. So take his words with a grain of salt. When, in South Carolina, Mitt Romney was running away with the election, McCain and Huckabee combined and stole it from him. It might have been a different race had Romney won SC. Had the press covered John Edwards indiscretions when they first learned of them, the democrat primary might have come down a lot differently.

If, in November 2010, unemployment is still high, taxes are confiscatory, war is problematic, and either recession, depression, or deflation ensue, the voters will seek a new change.

LeeG
05-17-2009, 12:46 AM
speaking of demise, Mr. Cheney is going to speak to the American Enterprise Institute about how they prevented further 9/11 attacks with EITorture.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

In April 2009, almost eight years after the deadliest terrorist attack in American history, the Obama administration released four memos from the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel. These memos, which justified the use of harsh interrogation techniques against high-level al Qaeda detainees such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, have reignited a fierce debate about the United States' counterterrorism strategy.
Amid claims that the interrogation methods amount to torture and that those who approved them should be prosecuted or censured, it is clear that we know surprisingly little about the scope and efficacy of the Bush administration's national security policy. Many questions linger: What type of information did enhanced interrogation methods yield? Were lives saved as a result? Could that intelligence have been effectively collected by other means? How effective was the terrorist surveillance program in detecting the threat of al Qaeda and its operatives in the post-9/11 period? Will inhibiting these procedures cost more American lives?

On May 21, former vice president Dick Cheney will speak at AEI to address these critical issues and provide a blueprint for keeping America safe in the future.

Cuyahoga Chuck
05-17-2009, 09:22 AM
We on the Left welcome Mr. Cheney's efforts to tell us all about the Bush administration's successes at protecting America from terrorists. How he will do that without revealing classified information will be something to see. Without some specifics what he is up to could end up being a lot of empty hot air.

Keith Wilson
05-17-2009, 12:42 PM
Most of the publicized speculation is that they need to moderate. Bunk.Excellent! I love it. Please, please adopt that strategy. Yes indeed, Obama is "radical", "socialist", all you said. What you need is real serious hard-core right-wingers to run everywhere, and wake up the American people to how "radical" he is.. No compromise!

. . . .

And we'll have Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and not a single Republican president, for the next 25 years at least.

James McMullen
05-18-2009, 09:18 AM
Keith is so right! Rush and Cheney are without a doubt the two best fundraisers for the Democratic Party right now. Stay the Course, GOP!

LeeG
05-18-2009, 12:54 PM
it only gets better..

Liz Cheney defends her dad, calls Obama unpatriotic

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001339/

johnw
05-18-2009, 01:04 PM
Oh, the Republicans will come back. I think the Economist was spot-on when they said they need to restore their reputation for competence. The Republican stand on global warming seems to be based on the fact they don't like the solutions, and besides, they get a lot of funding from the oil, gas and coal industries. If you won't address a problem because you don't like the solution or you don't want to inconvenience a special interest that supports you, the voters are going to think you're not serious about governing. If you talk about cutting spending, then run up record deficits, they are going to think you are not serious about governing. If, in an economic crisis, your proposed policies are economically illiterate, and all you can do is block the president's efforts to solve the problem, voters will think you are not serious about governing.

I see some hope for the party. The national party is backing Charlie Crist for the Florida Senate seat. He's pragmatic and has shown he can govern. I think that's what people are looking for in a candidate from either party.

mdh
05-18-2009, 07:34 PM
Keith is so right! Rush and Cheney are without a doubt the two best fundraisers for the Democratic Party right now. Stay the Course, GOP!

You see, that's the part I disagree with. My vote is not for sale. No matter how many ads you run, I'll vote for the candidate that I think best matches my positions on issues. The fact that there are so many who don't, disgusts me.

LeeG
05-18-2009, 07:46 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. Since the first year of George W. Bush's presidency in 2001, the Republican Party has maintained its support only among frequent churchgoers, with conservatives and senior citizens showing minimal decline.

Keith Wilson
05-18-2009, 09:30 PM
I'll vote for the candidate that I think best matches my positions on issues. The fact that there are so many who don't, disgusts me.No, you misunderstand. Most people, particularly those in the center, don't agree with either party all the time, so they vote for the one that matches their position on the issues they consider most important, and the one that they think will be the most competent at governing. The Republicans have terrible trouble on both counts. They've done badly over the past eight years on both foreign policy/national security and the economy, and they look even worse on specific issues like heath care. People also see the Democrats as more competent in general by quite a wide margin; not surprising after the Bush administration. Don't assume voters are entirely stupid; there are good reasons for recent trends. Guns, Gays, and God doesn't cut it anymore when you might lose your job and your health insurance, and your brother-in-law has to go back to Iraq again for the third time.

mdh
05-18-2009, 10:49 PM
I understand perfectly, that it does not sway my vote one bit when one candidate has more money than another. I believe that one hell of a lot of votes are cast based on TV ads. That's how you get something like the present administration, the campaign ads and the administration are not the same. A whole lot of votes were essentially bought, and some of the voters are still buying it, whether they've been laid off or not.

elf
05-19-2009, 04:36 AM
Disgust? That's a very strong reaction, and one that reflects, to me, a basic misunderstanding of American culture.

American culture, clearly, is extremely diverse. Cheney's disgust is, by definition, Russ Feingold's delight. But those are the extremes.

I never had the impression that you were at either of the extremes, mdh.

Keith Wilson
05-19-2009, 07:27 AM
Right. So the Republicans didn't lose because most people disagree with them, or because Bush and company spent eight years screwing the pooch, or because Obama offered them what looked like a better alternative. They lost because people were deceived by TV ads? So what they need is really hard-core uncompromising right-wingers with lots of TV ads? Yep - works for me.

PeterSibley
05-19-2009, 07:45 AM
Tis truly interesting to see what Americans regard as left wing ! Most of the rest of the world would see such as centrist , some even right wing.

Keith Wilson
05-19-2009, 08:19 AM
Tis truly interesting to see what Americans regard as left wing ! Some Americans. US conservatives have tried diligently to redefine the center about 30 degrees further right, but it's only worked in their own minds; thus the nonsense about how far to the left Obama is.

ccmanuals
05-19-2009, 08:31 AM
Have to agree Norman. I don't think I would put Abby Hoffman, Bobby Seale and Barack Obama in the same political category. :)

Cuyahoga Chuck
05-19-2009, 08:44 AM
I understand perfectly, that it does not sway my vote one bit when one candidate has more money than another. I believe that one hell of a lot of votes are cast based on TV ads. That's how you get something like the present administration, the campaign ads and the administration are not the same. A whole lot of votes were essentially bought, and some of the voters are still buying it, whether they've been laid off or not.

That's certainly true in Oklahoma. Oil money gets James Inhofe sent to the US Senate over and over and Inhofe says whatever the oil guys want no matter how obsurd.

Osborne Russell
05-19-2009, 11:00 AM
Finding a suitable candidate for national offices would seem to be the immediate problem. The Hog Wallows and McBurbs have an overabundance but how to sell 'em nationally?

It requires a great deal of cognitive dissonance and it's not easy to pull off day after day, city after city, in front of crowds of foreigners. The Chimp was exceptional in this regard. For a Red, he was something of a cosmopolitan. But who can fill those shoes?

Then there's the competence thing. Remember the feeling, goldang it, someday we'll be in government, and

1. we'll kick some liberal butt and at the same time
2. show 'em how it's done

which is a simple failure of prioritization. So they had their eight years. It was a whompin' party but now the bills are piling up something serious.