Arlen Specter: The end of the GOP...or their new hope?

[TheNextEra]

Spector was a RINO....Good riddance.............

I'm curious did you call Ben Nighthorse Campbell a DINO and good riddance?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You are going by the media coverage that he got. Whatever the media might choose to show, he still won the primaries.

Just because you hear all about those Republicans who hate moderates, and those Democrats who love them, doesn't mean that's the way things are. I know many moderate Republicans (here in NOVA that's pretty much the only type you'll get) and none of them have switched parties yet.

Both parties have an equally large tent; one of those tents just happens to be fuller than the other one now.

I disagree.

A full 71% of Republicans identify themselves as Conservative. Only 21% of Republicans identify themselves as Moderate.

Not Your Father's RepublicanParty - Swampland - TIME.com

With Democrats, the split is near 50/50 between moderates and liberals in the party. I have read enough of your posts to know that you have far more in common with Blue Dog / DLC moderate Democrats than you do with the base of your own party.

There are large caucuses of moderate and centrist Democrats, yet there is only a handful of moderate Republicans in the entire capital. Republican's cannot even win their primary without touting their "conservative credentials" in debates, all engaging in a big Reagan circle jerk trying to one up each other on who is more like him.

To put it another way, if the Democratic party was ideologically as far left as the Republican Party has moved to the right, then the Democratic Party would be comprised of 77% Dennis Kucinich clones. Yet he is the far left of the party.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Why do you think that?

Let me clarify, it would "pave the way" for toomey to win, but it wouldn't be handed to him on the silver platter, an upset loss by Arlen Specter in the dem primaries could very well split the state democrat party(much like in 2008) and would create a HUGE opportunity for Toomey to find a weakness in the entrenched Penn. state democrats, and if exploited correctly, would surely give a win to Toomey, that is, if he campaigns better than McCain.

 

[Zyphlin]

I disagree.

A full 71% of Republicans identify themselves as Conservative. Only 21% of Republicans identify themselves as Moderate.

Not Your Father's RepublicanParty - Swampland - TIME.com

With Democrats, the split is near 50/50 between moderates and liberals in the party.

And I'm sure as you should with all polls you try to look at it taking it at a grain of salt since there are numerous other factors that could affect this.

For example, I'd love to see a similar poll go asking both the philisophical political lean people identify themselves with AND their political views and judge it.

For example, you have people like Devil505 and WillRockWell on this forum sitting at "Centrist" and "Moderate" but posting and acting no different than some of our most extreme liberals like HelloDollyLlama. There's not a single thing I've EVER seen come out of WillRockWell's fingers that indicates at the least a "centrist" view point. Yet that's what he identifies at.

A poll such of this can easily be flawed because its asking people what percentage THEY consider themselves to be, however is not basing it on anything beyond that.

Though looking through your link, I actually don't see anything in regards to Liberal/Moderate Democrats and the split being 50/50. Is that just your view/

Its an interesting poll, and one to perhaps take some notice in, but its far from definitive evidence of what people are nor would a Democrat version of it.

I will also say a bit of information in it showed me something interesting. Prior to 1998 there was a general 50/50 split between social and militaristic sides of the party and the governmental and fiscal sides of it....a balanced party, as I've been saying for a while now. After 1998 is when the balance became horribly untilted, with fiscal and governmental concerns went down to under 1/5th of the party's focus by this poll, with social and expansionist military views taking the forefront.

Again, IF we take this thign at face value, which as I said I take most polls as an interesting bit of information but not gospel, it just furthers my belief that losing Arlen isn't "Bad". Its not about getting "Moderates", its about getting BALANCED conservatives. Arlen was in no way a "balanced" conservative as my previous posts showed. He was a moderate social person with seemingly as many liberal as conservative views, and was ambivilent to the other portions of the ideology, likely to vote against it as much as for. He was a moderate, across the board, that happened to be identified as an R and was going to lose his spot to a balanced conservative in the coming election so made a deft political move.

Bring the party back into Balance and it'll be brought back into prominense.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And I'm sure as you should with all polls you try to look at it taking it at a grain of salt since there are numerous other factors that could affect this.

For example, I'd love to see a similar poll go asking both the philisophical political lean people identify themselves with AND their political views and judge it.

For example, you have people like Devil505 and WillRockWell on this forum sitting at "Centrist" and "Moderate" but posting and acting no different than some of our most extreme liberals like HelloDollyLlama. There's not a single thing I've EVER seen come out of WillRockWell's fingers that indicates at the least a "centrist" view point. Yet that's what he identifies at.

A poll such of this can easily be flawed because its asking people what percentage THEY consider themselves to be, however is not basing it on anything beyond that.

Though looking through your link, I actually don't see anything in regards to Liberal/Moderate Democrats and the split being 50/50. Is that just your view/

Its an interesting poll, and one to perhaps take some notice in, but its far from definitive evidence of what people are nor would a Democrat version of it.

I will also say a bit of information in it showed me something interesting. Prior to 1998 there was a general 50/50 split between social and militaristic sides of the party and the governmental and fiscal sides of it....a balanced party, as I've been saying for a while now. After 1998 is when the balance became horribly untilted, with fiscal and governmental concerns went down to under 1/5th of the party's focus by this poll, with social and expansionist military views taking the forefront.

Again, IF we take this thign at face value, which as I said I take most polls as an interesting bit of information but not gospel, it just furthers my belief that losing Arlen isn't "Bad". Its not about getting "Moderates", its about getting BALANCED conservatives. Arlen was in no way a "balanced" conservative as my previous posts showed. He was a moderate social person with seemingly as many liberal as conservative views, and was ambivilent to the other portions of the ideology, likely to vote against it as much as for. He was a moderate, across the board, that happened to be identified as an R and was going to lose his spot to a balanced conservative in the coming election so made a deft political move.

Bring the party back into Balance and it'll be brought back into prominense.

Here are some more numbers:

Pew Research Center: Winds of Political Change Haven’t Shifted Public’s Ideology Balance

That is Pew Research which generally has some of the best poll numbers out there. Anyway you spin it, the Republican Party has moved more and more to the right, and become less and less moderate. While the Democratic Party is far more diverse ideologically, and more matches the ideological leanings of independents.

I have only been pointing this out for years now, and you guys keep refusing to accept that the rightward drift of the Republican Party is what is hurting it.

 

[Zyphlin]

As I keep saying, correlation does not equal causation.

Notice in your past poll you can even see that while the shift from conservative to moderate has happened slightly, the shift from a balanced platform to social and security platform has happened in a major way. You wish to attribute it all to the shift to the right, personally I think its more on the fact that its such a focus on only one aspect of the right.

Your own poll shows that your belief is not 100% factually correct but your opinion, and as I've already stated, you know how much I value your opinion on anything having to do with Conservatism or Conservative Ideology.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

As I keep saying, correlation does not equal causation.

Notice in your past poll you can even see that while the shift from conservative to moderate has happened slightly, the shift from a balanced platform to social and security platform has happened in a major way. You wish to attribute it all to the shift to the right, personally I think its more on the fact that its such a focus on only one aspect of the right.

Your own poll shows that your belief is not 100% factually correct but your opinion, and as I've already stated, you know how much I value your opinion on anything having to do with Conservatism or Conservative Ideology.

The problem is that you have this idea about the Republican Party of what you want it to be, but its blinding you to what it really is. It's kind of like the parents of a flaming gay teenager that brag on their son taking "two girls to the prom", completely blind to what everyone else can obviously see.

The fact is, the Republican Party has largely become a regional party whose nearly all white base primarily consists of religious conservatives and talk radio devotees. Its a group in a bubble that has deluded themselves (largely because they interact with each other in a huge echo chamber) into thinking that they represent "true America" and there is still this silent majority out there thats with them - All they must do is find a true conservative leader and that silent majority will once again come to the forefront again.

So basically, you have a party base that is blinded to the fact that the nation has changed a great deal both ideologically and demographically since 1980.

At the same time, there is an intellectual conservative / moderate contingent in the party that doesn't realize just how much of a minority in the party base they are now, and thus is blinded to how extreme much of the party base has become. When someone points out how far to the right the party has become, how extreme the views are of many in the base of the party are (with polling), they are dismissed by this willfully blind intellectual / moderate minority that they don't know what they are talking about.

Look, I have SouthernDemocrat for my name because when I first signed on to the forum years ago I was a moderate registered Democrat. I am not a Democrat any longer, I am an independent. I vote in state and local elections for Republicans when I have the opportunity to vote for a mainstream coalition Republican (such as our districts state rep, and city mayor). However, the moderate Republicans in my county and in the neighboring county are the only moderate Republicans with any power in the entire state. So while I would like to have more of a choice at the polls, I don't really have one because of the the extremists in the party. Whether you like it or not, whether you will accept it or not, extremists - many of them flat out nutjobs, have "hijacked" the party and until the party realizes it has to make a choice between them and the more moderate / libertarian younger generations, its not going to be palatable to the majority of Americans.

You can't have a base that consists of anti-evolution / anti-gay / anti-immigrant / anti-modernity nut jobs and expect to bring new generations into the fold.

 

[WI Crippler]

The problem is that you have this idea about the Republican Party of what you want it to be, but its blinding you to what it really is. It's kind of like the parents of a flaming gay teenager that brag on their son taking "two girls to the prom", completely blind to what everyone else can obviously see.

The fact is, the Republican Party has largely become a regional party whose nearly all white base primarily consists of religious conservatives and talk radio devotees. Its a group in a bubble that has deluded themselves (largely because they interact with each other in a huge echo chamber) into thinking that they represent "true America" and there is still this silent majority out there thats with them - All they must do is find a true conservative leader and that silent majority will once again come to the forefront again.

So basically, you have a party base that is blinded to the fact that the nation has changed a great deal both ideologically and demographically since 1980.

At the same time, there is an intellectual conservative / moderate contingent in the party that doesn't realize just how much of a minority in the party base they are now, and thus is blinded to how extreme much of the party base has become. When someone points out how far to the right the party has become, how extreme the views are of many in the base of the party are (with polling), they are dismissed by this willfully blind intellectual / moderate minority that they don't know what they are talking about.

Look, I have SouthernDemocrat for my name because when I first signed on to the forum years ago I was a moderate registered Democrat. I am not a Democrat any longer, I am an independent. I vote in state and local elections for Republicans when I have the opportunity to vote for a mainstream coalition Republican (such as our districts state rep, and city mayor). However, the moderate Republicans in my county and in the neighboring county are the only moderate Republicans with any power in the entire state. So while I would like to have more of a choice at the polls, I don't really have one because of the the extremists in the party. Whether you like it or not, whether you will accept it or not, extremists - many of them flat out nutjobs, have "hijacked" the party and until the party realizes it has to make a choice between them and the more moderate / libertarian younger generations, its not going to be palatable to the majority of Americans.

You can't have a base that consists of anti-evolution / anti-gay / anti-immigrant / anti-modernity nut jobs and expect to bring new generations into the fold.

I used to take you seriously SD, even though I disagreed with you on much. But now all you do is paint with the same broad stroke that any rabid partisan does. I no longer see you as an objectionable voice on this forum. Of course you are free to your opinions and whatever methods you might need to validate those opinions, But I have lost a degree of respect for you as you seek to chastise those that have a different view than what you think is appropriate. I'm not talking about your interactions with people here at DP. I'm talking about those you shelve off into little groups of "intolerance", simply because they have remained republicans or listened to talk radio.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I used to take you seriously SD, even though I disagreed with you on much. But now all you do is paint with the same broad stroke that any rabid partisan does. I no longer see you as an objectionable voice on this forum. Of course you are free to your opinions and whatever methods you might need to validate those opinions, But I have lost a degree of respect for you as you seek to chastise those that have a different view than what you think is appropriate. I'm not talking about your interactions with people here at DP. I'm talking about those you shelve off into little groups of "intolerance", simply because they have remained republicans or listened to talk radio.

Geez. I am not chastising anyone that has remained Republican or listens to talk radio (unless they listen to that sociopath Savage). I am just saying that the base of the Republican Party, that group that Palin was supposed to appeal to, is hurting the party in terms of attacking moderates or independents. Moderates and independents see them as a bunch of nut-jobs.

If the party does not wake up to that, and does not decide that they are not going to let Limbaugh and the Christian Coalition dictate the parties platform and agenda, then they are not going to start winning majorities again. You guys can shoot the messenger all you want, but its as simple as that. A political party that is as hostile to moderates as the Republican Party is now has little chance of becoming a majority party again.

I mean come on, did you watch the last CPAC? That is the Republican Party base right now. Not exactly what most people would consider mainstream. Your beef should be with the party base, not the messenger.

 

[Zyphlin]

<----- is one of those "nutjobs" that became more interested in the ticket when Palin was put on it and yet gets criticized by some of the ones you'd undoubtably lable as "extreme nutjobs" as being a moderate person. As WI say, you paint with FAR to large of a brush.

 

[WI Crippler]

Geez. I am not chastising anyone that has remained Republican or listens to talk radio (unless they listen to that sociopath Savage). I am just saying that the base of the Republican Party, that group that Palin was supposed to appeal to, is hurting the party in terms of attacking moderates or independents. Moderates and independents see them as a bunch of nut-jobs.

If the party does not wake up to that, and does not decide that they are not going to let Limbaugh and the Christian Coalition dictate the parties platform and agenda, then they are not going to start winning majorities again. You guys can shoot the messenger all you want, but its as simple as that. A political party that is as hostile to moderates as the Republican Party is now has little chance of becoming a majority party again.

I mean come on, did you watch the last CPAC? That is the Republican Party base right now. Not exactly what most people would consider mainstream. Your beef should be with the party base, not the messenger.

I consider myself to be moderate or independent and I don't find the likes of Palin to be a nut-job. Certainley her lack of experience was an issue and ultimatley kept me from casting a vote for McCain(among other issues with McCain himself), but I didn't see, nor hear, anything from her during the campaign that I considered extreme, or ideologically out in left field. She had the same response as Joe Biden on gay marriage during the debate and yet Joey Biden isn't painted with the extremist brush. She acknowledged global warming as a problem, something you won't hear many right-wingers say.

I did not watch the last CPAC, and in fact, have not watched any CPAC ever. I don't consider myself a conservative, and have no interest in an event where people get up to basically talk to each other. Yes, I have issues where I agree alot with conservatism and I certainley lean more right than left. But there are issues where I disagree with conservatism be it rooted in libertarian ideology, or social conservatism. Thus I don't consider myself a conservative nor do I try to paint myself into the libertarian role, because I do not agree with everything they believe.

What I have seen from you lately, is a mirroring of what appears to be liberal talking points. You ran around here with the "Jesus was a community organizer" sig line when that was the popular leftist rebuttal to Palin's remarks about mayors being community organizers with responsibilities. Now you are running around perpetuating the current talking point that the Republican base is full of nothing but regional white evangelical racists who hate gays, or immigrants. So now I have my doubts that you are willing to look at things in a non-partisan scope.

I will agree with anybody(to include you) that states the republican party is fractured, disorganized, lost, unfocused, etc...I have no problems with somebody saying something like that. I do however think their is some intellectual dishonesty happening when the republican base is painted as extremists, racists, homophobes, etc....

IMO the Republicans are either trying to find their message, or waiting for the Democrats to just **** things up like they did. What the Republican base needs, is simply leadership. Strong coherent leadership that clearly articulates a position that is appealing to Americans. That does not mean they need to stray from conservatism to pick up moderates. It means they need to humble themselves, admit their mistakes in not doing the job their people elected them to do, and then outlining a plan that shows how they can make America better. The Democrats won, because they convinced Americans, through a myriad of avenues, that they could do better than the last 8 years. The hard left and hard right do exist and will not leave their parties. But I hesitate to call either one of those "the base" for their repsective political parties of choice. There is extremism, and then there is a liberal ideology and a conservative ideology. You seek to mix extremist right-wing ideology into the base of conservatism, but have ignored or rarely ever focused on the extreme-left wing ideology that would be an equivalent base in the liberal party. If extremists are the base of the Republican party, then why aren't the extremists in the Democrats party considered their base as well?

Leadership is the key. Obama convinced America he would be the better leader. All the Republicans need, is someone to be that leader, who can make that same convincing argument, just from a conservative POV and their party will take back the reins until they **** it up again and the Democrats convince Americans that they will be able to lead us to a better life. Wash, lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

<----- is one of those "nutjobs" that became more interested in the ticket when Palin was put on it and yet gets criticized by some of the ones you'd undoubtably lable as "extreme nutjobs" as being a moderate person. As WI say, you paint with FAR to large of a brush.

Ok, I am supposedly painting with too broad of a brush because I point out a that the bulk, not all, but the majority of the Republican base is far enough outside of the mainstream that they scare away moderates and independents.

The nomination of Sarah Palin was a perfect example of that. Her nomination energized the Republican base. However, she is the first VP nominee since Thomas Eagleton to actually cost the ticket votes. Why? Because the base has moved so far outside of the mainstream that a candidate that energizes them loses the ticket moderate and independent votes. I said that is exactly what was going to happen way back in September and you guys accused me of painting with a broad brush. Well, thats exactly what ended up happening. You would think that would have been a wake up call to the GOP, but alas it wasn't.

I will give you a perfect example of the state of the Republican Base today. I live just inside of Kansas in a suburb of KC. Kansas is not really the bible belt. Its a religious state, but not to the degree as southern states are. It is however a very red state. There are for all intents and purposes 3 parties in the state. The Democrats, the moderate Republicans, and the conservative Republicans. The conservative Republicans dominate local politics throughout much of the state and dominate the state house. So here, in a red state that is not even in the bible belt, what have been the major priorities of the Republican base:

1. To redefine the definition of science in the public schools here so that science is no longer limited to empirical observation of the natural world.

2. To introduce Intelligence Design as an alternative to Evolution in science class.

3. They fought like hell to maintain a law on the books that, I **** you not, would sentence an 18 year old guy that slept with his 15 year old girlfriend to a maximum of 15 months in jail, but would give an 18 year old gay guy 17 years in prison for blowing his 15 year old boyfriend. The Republican base demanded it go all the way to the Kansas Supreme Court where the courts finally struck it down.

4. A constitutional amendment banning marriage and civil unions for same sex couples.

5. Trumping up charges for abortion providers (all of which were either thrown out of court or later acquitted).

6. Going on which hunts where they attempted to open the full medical records of nearly every woman that had an abortion in the state of Kansas in an attempt to find where laws had been broken.

7. Requiring doctors to report every act of consensual underage sex as a sexual abuse.

That has been the agenda the last few years for the Republican Base in the state of Kansas. There is nothing overly unique to the Kansas GOP about this either. That is your party's base. Thats why Republican Party identification has declined as much as it has. Thats why the GOP has little support among moderates and independents.

Now honestly, do you think that young Gen X / Gen Ys are going to line up for that party?

 

[Dav]

The nomination of Sarah Palin was a perfect example of that. Her nomination energized the Republican base. However, she is the first VP nominee since Thomas Eagleton to actually cost the ticket votes.

Completely, and utterly, false.

Sarah Palin for President: Some revealing exit poll numbers

 

[Zyphlin]

This is a common line that hyper partisans like Southern has been acting like lately love to blather on about, but just doesn't show reality.

Sarah Palin's pick likely saved McCain from being blown out of the water months before the election even OCCURED.

McCain had been trailing Obama for months, unable to gain a lead and routinely falling further and further behind. His base was not enthused, money wasn't coming in, there was absolutely ZERO momentum.

Sarah Palin in the span of a month changed that.

Sarah Palin energized the base, bringing money into the campaign. Money that would allow it to be run potentially more successfully. Sarah Palin gave the race its first lead in the polls....mind you, not polls of just republicans, but general population polls....in MONTHS. I need to go back and check my thread, but I believe Sarah Palin's speech even caused a larger pop in the polls than Obama's did for him. Her coming onto the ticket allowed the republicans to not only negate Obama and his stadium filled convention, but then run out a few good paces ahead of it.

If not for Sarah Palin there would've been no race to be had, this thing would've been a forgone conclussion a month or more out. Instead it was actually predicted that it could go either way relatively close to the time of the actual election.

Sarah Palin was a politically intelligent pick that was handled amazingly poorly. Sarah Palin arguably GAINED McCain votes that wouldn't have been cast that day without her. Sarah Palin did not lose the campaign for McCain. Horrible campaign strategy and handling on a large scale caused McCain to lose the voters and campaign.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Completely, and utterly, false.

Sarah Palin for President: Some revealing exit poll numbers

Here home town newspaper disagrees:

Polls suggest Palin has become a big drag on GOP ticket
MODERATES: Alaska governor alienates all but strict conservatives.
By DAVID LIGHTMAN
McClatchy Newspapers
Published: October 27th, 2008 11:24 PM
Last Modified: October 28th, 2008 01:16 AM

WASHINGTON -- Sarah Palin has become a drag on the Republican presidential ticket, the first time in recent political history that a running mate has made such a difference.

Read more here Polls suggest Palin has become a big drag on GOP ticket: Top Stories | adn.com

The first step to recovery is recognizing the problem you know.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This is a common line that hyper partisans like Southern has been acting like lately love to blather on about, but just doesn't show reality.

Sarah Palin's pick likely saved McCain from being blown out of the water months before the election even OCCURED.

McCain had been trailing Obama for months, unable to gain a lead and routinely falling further and further behind. His base was not enthused, money wasn't coming in, there was absolutely ZERO momentum.

Sarah Palin in the span of a month changed that.

Sarah Palin energized the base, bringing money into the campaign. Money that would allow it to be run potentially more successfully. Sarah Palin gave the race its first lead in the polls....mind you, not polls of just republicans, but general population polls....in MONTHS. I need to go back and check my thread, but I believe Sarah Palin's speech even caused a larger pop in the polls than Obama's did for him. Her coming onto the ticket allowed the republicans to not only negate Obama and his stadium filled convention, but then run out a few good paces ahead of it.

If not for Sarah Palin there would've been no race to be had, this thing would've been a forgone conclussion a month or more out. Instead it was actually predicted that it could go either way relatively close to the time of the actual election.

Sarah Palin was a politically intelligent pick that was handled amazingly poorly. Sarah Palin arguably GAINED McCain votes that wouldn't have been cast that day without her. Sarah Palin did not lose the campaign for McCain. Horrible campaign strategy and handling on a large scale caused McCain to lose the voters and campaign.

I am hardly hyper partisan.

You are right, McCain was running behind Obama the polls prior to his Palin pick. He got a post convention bump, and then went right back to polling behind Obama.

You are right, Palin brought money in and energized the base. I said the same thing earlier. The problem for Republicans is that John McCain, a man with an 80% plus lifetime conservative union rating, was not legitimately conservative enough for them thus they would not get behind him. That is the problem for today's Republican Party. That is what you don't seem to get. Your party has a huge problem if it only gets energized by candidates that are hard core conservatives. It would be like Obama having to pick Dennis Kucinich as his running mate to appease the base and bring money in. Can you imagine the state the Democratic party would be in if it was so far outside the mainstream it had to resort to that?

As I pointed out, her own hometown paper reported that she cost the ticket support among moderates and independents.

 

[Zyphlin]

Lets look at your article, just for ****s and giggles. Cause you know, its not like you could ever look at something and come up with WILD ways of reading it.....

In regards to her being a drag?

"Nice lady, no experience. It's so sad. She's a gigantic drag," said Chris DePino, a Republican consultant based in New Haven, Conn.

A key reason is that "the Palin choice reflects poorly on Sen. McCain's judgment," said vice presidential expert Joel Goldstein, a law professor at St. Louis University.

Hmm, seems as much of an argument can be made that IF there was a drag it has as much, if not MORE, to do with people being upset about her experience and judgement than the fact that she's "extreme" right wing.

But I mean...of course you wouldn't mention that. That wouldn't fit with your grand old wide brush you try to paint with.

Lets keep looking.

The only survey it brings up? Whether people had an unfavorable view of Palin. At the time of the election it was 49 unfavorable, 44 favorable.

That's odd. I figured with SoutherDem's argument this would NATURALLY state "Do you find Palin's views and conservative values favorably" but, funnily enough, it does not. It just asks about favorably. And AMAZINGLY, and I say amazingly because SouthernDem must've just completely forgot to have mentioned this, it seems to focus as much in this article on people being bothered by her experience, her judgement, and her being repeatedly the butt of jokes as much as her starting "controversies" such as the "palling around with Terrorists" comment (Notice, this is the ONLY thing in the article even suggesting somehow what some consider her "extreme" conservative side hurt).

Oh, and whether those numbers ACTUALLY influenced things more than the typical 1% the VP sways voters? Well, it doesn't say for sure, just that they THINK they WILL end up getting a bigger number. They also make no mention if that number is bigger just because of people upset about Palin or also because of people voting for the ticket DUE to Palin. Which, funnily enough, it acknowledges likely happened later on due to McCain's lack luster support by conservatives.

But hey, lets look at those numbers SouthernDem is trying to hype up so much and juxtapose them to the numbers from the other poll.

While people may've had a slightly more unfavorable opinion of her than favorable (49 to 44), those that actually most likely mattered in voting....those that thought she was an important factor....voted for McCain a good deal more often (56 percent to 44 for others).

Seriously SouthernDem, you do better with your ignorant broad strokes when you don't try to back it up....when you do the obviousness of your bias shows through with just a little bit of reading.

 

[Zyphlin]

I am hardly hyper partisan.

You are right, McCain was running behind Obama the polls prior to his Palin pick. He got a post convention bump, and then went right back to polling behind Obama.

He didn't just get a "post convention bump". If he was to get a "post convention bump" one would assume that all he would've done was catch up to being BEHIND Obama as Obama had HIS post convention bump as well.

That's not what happened.

Obama had a bump, but a mild one, in part because of the pick for Palin shortly before it.

The RNC bump did not only erase Obama's bump, but then catapulted in front of it as well.

It did eventually go back down, which wasn't too surprising. Doubly not surprising when you had media coverage as it was where interviewers took statements COMPLETELY out of context, presented sentences in broken form, and then attempted to play "gotcha" games with her using it while decieving the population.

You are right, Palin brought money in and energized the base. I said the same thing earlier. The problem for Republicans is that John McCain, a man with an 80% plus lifetime conservative union rating, was not legitimately conservative enough for them thus they would not get behind him.

Note life time. In recent years however, McCain has hardly been that sound. For the fiscal conservatives in the voting electorate you had a man that voted against the tax cuts time and times again. For those caring about Social Issues he had a myraid of issues as he jumped back and forth on his stance on many of those from before the campaign to during it. For those caring about government involvement and constitutionality this was a man that was viewed to have negated free speech through his finance laws. For both social and governmental sided people, this was a man strongly supporting what was viewed as an amnesty bill. For most conservatives, this was a man that was helping to stop the appointment of two justices roundly thought of in most sectors of conservatism as great candidates.

This was a man that conservatives could not trust, who routinely would go along with the flow until there was a chance to make headlines by playing the strong opposition and would jump to the other side. This was a man that did one thing for 8 years and then told us he'd act completely different. This was a man who during the campaign and before kept stressing compromise but his history showed that he did not COMPROMISE but CAPITULATED with the other side, generally interjecting nothing conservative into the things he signs on to allow it to be presented with the facade of "bipartisanship".

You keep, foolishly, trying to point this as some social conservative folly. McCain was disliked by the vast majority of conservatives...rather fiscal or governmental or social. He was not trustworthy in the least and had a poor track record in many of the key facets people cared about...from taxes to immigration to judges to social issues to size and scope of the government.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Look, you can call hyper-partisan and bias all you want. It is as simple as this.

If what appeals to the republican party base does not appeal to moderates and independents, then you have a problem - and what appeals to the republican base does not seem to appeal to moderates and independents. I can't imagine why thats so controversial to you, but evidently it is.

Your calling me hyper partisan because I am pointing out the obvious. The Republican Party has to become more libertarian on social issues, moderate as to the role of government, and more pragmatic in general if it wants to start winning elections again. You don't need another Reagan, you need another Eisenhower.

The party is currently polling lower than it has in decades. Has had its ass handed to it in the last 2 elections. Cant even win in large (populated) swaths of the country. Yet, I am painting with a broad brush and being hyper partisan for pointing out the obvious. I think you have some pretty thick partisan blinders on if you can't see that. Here you are taking it as a personal affront simply because I am saying that the base of your party is too far outside of the mainstream.

 

[akyron]

Here are some more numbers:

Pew Research Center: Winds of Political Change Haven’t Shifted Public’s Ideology Balance

That is Pew Research which generally has some of the best poll numbers out there. Anyway you spin it, the Republican Party has moved more and more to the right, and become less and less moderate. While the Democratic Party is far more diverse ideologically, and more matches the ideological leanings of independents.

I have only been pointing this out for years now, and you guys keep refusing to accept that the rightward drift of the Republican Party is what is hurting it.

"The Democratic Party's advantage in party identification has widened over the past two decades, but the share of Americans who describe their political views as liberal, conservative or moderate has remained stable during the same period."

According you your own numbers there all parties have remained stable not drifted anywhere from 92-08..

Maybe because you are looking at less guys you think their ideology has changed. Common statistical mistake when the pure count isnt diluted with off numbers.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

"The Democratic Party's advantage in party identification has widened over the past two decades, but the share of Americans who describe their political views as liberal, conservative or moderate has remained stable during the same period."

According you your own numbers there all parties have remained stable not drifted anywhere from 92-08..

Maybe because you are looking at less guys you think their ideology has changed. Common statistical mistake when the pure count isnt diluted with off numbers.

Let's break this down:

The share of Americans that are liberal, moderate, and conservative has been fairly stable.

Yet, the Democratic party has grown while the Republican Party has shrank. So what does this mean?

It means that the Republican Party has lost its moderates to the Democratic Party. So Democratic Tent has grown at the expense of the GOP. Which is exactly what I said earlier. Thats the problem for Republicans. With their current strategy of moving further to the right, their only hope of gaining more votes would be if all of a sudden a much larger percentage of Americans started becoming conservative.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Let's break this down:

The share of Americans that are liberal, moderate, and conservative has been fairly stable.

Yet, the Democratic party has grown while the Republican Party has shrank. So what does this mean?

It means that the Republican Party has lost its moderates to the Democratic Party. So Democratic Tent has grown at the expense of the GOP. Which is exactly what I said earlier. Thats the problem for Republicans. With their current strategy of moving further to the right, their only hope of gaining more votes would be if all of a sudden a much larger percentage of Americans started becoming conservative.

OR, it could mean that the republicans have lost their base. Tell me, how can the non-conservative republicanism of the last 8 years, and the known moderation of McCain, keep the conservatives with the republican party?

 

[Zyphlin]

Let's break this down:

The share of Americans that are liberal, moderate, and conservative has been fairly stable.

Yet, the Democratic party has grown while the Republican Party has shrank. So what does this mean?

It means that the Republican Party has lost its moderates to the Democratic Party. So Democratic Tent has grown at the expense of the GOP. Which is exactly what I said earlier. Thats the problem for Republicans. With their current strategy of moving further to the right, their only hope of gaining more votes would be if all of a sudden a much larger percentage of Americans started becoming conservative.

Except the party is not moving further to the right the past 8 years as they've been losing votes. They've been moving right in some areas while going left or becoming a strange hybrid that isn't truly moderate but isn't really conservative either in other areas. The only area they've moved to the Right on is the social side of things, and that's not even what bothers most conservatives I think as much as it is the WAY in which most of those that focus only on the social issues try to do it, which is not a "right" sided method.

But....I mean, thinking of other options would mean you'd have to look at things without your gigantic stereotyped preconcieved notions of the hateful, aweful, racists, homophobic, cultist conservatives.

:roll:

 

[Dav]

I personally think that the shrink of the Republican Party doens't have to do with a tilt in its ideology, but rather, losing people of all ideologies- conservative, moderate, and liberal.

SD, you bring up the point that the Democratic Party has more moderates than the Republican Party. But consider this: If there are almost twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, wouldn't it be given that the conservative party is more conservative than the liberal party is liberal? If both parties are equal, wouldn't this be the natural state of things?

 

[akyron]

Let's break this down:

Yet, the Democratic party has grown while the Republican Party has shrank. So what does this mean?
.

To me it means they have moved AWAY from their conserverative foundation and lost their base and rightly so. Who do you vote for when you are not represented in an election? I know I was not represented this past election at all.
I vote against the federal reserve puppets the media covers in honey and puts in front of us.