Gallup’s latest polling reveals the continuing collapse of the GOP base vote. The news is so very bad that there will be only one possible response from our party leadership and our radio talkers: Ignore it.
Overall: 36% of Americans now identify as Democrats and only 28% as Republicans. That 8% advantage for the Dems is the biggest since 1983, before the Reagan boom and triumph in the Cold War created a “Reagan generation” of young conservatives.
George Bush may get much of the blame. But Republicans in Congress are even less popular than Bush, with a 25% approval rating in December 2008.
State by state, the numbers look even worse. In only 7 states do more Americans identify as Republicans than as Democrats:
Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska, and Kansas, and Alabama.
The two parties are tied in Arizona and South Carolina.
In all the other 41 states, including every one of the large population states, Democrats outnumber Republicans. In 29 states, including every Northeastern state and every Midwestern state save Indiana, Democrats outnumber Republicans by 10 points or more.
Here’s what it looks like on the map:
These are the numbers that make yesterday’s flexing of muscle by Rush Limbaugh over Georgia congressman Phil Gingery not merely ridiculous but actively dangerous. When Republicans line up behind Rush Limbaugh in this way, they are dividing the country 80-20 against themselves. Our supreme priority now has to be to reinvent ourselves as a pragmatic, inclusive, modern party of free enterprise and limited government. We have to relearn how to talk to moderates, independent, younger voters, educated voters, women – it’s a long list.
Instead, our congressmen talk to and about Rush Limbaugh like Old Bolsheviks praising Comrade Stalin at their show trials. Rush is right! We see eye to eye with Rush! There is no truth outside Rush!
The relationship between these radio talkers and the larger Republican and conservative world has become parasitic and antagonistic. They flourish and profit to the extent they can polarize and radicalize. The GOP will recover only to the extent that it moderates and reaches out. They benefit from controversies that position them as the leaders and designated speakers for conservative America. But the more visible they become, the more our party is shoved to the margins and rendered unelectable. What is good for Rush is bad for the GOP, and what is good for the GOP is bad for Rush. At some time, some bold party leader will have to confront this dilemma: not by quarreling with Rush or by breaking with him, but by making it clear that our party is bigger than Rush, that it has room for more points of view, and that while Rush may speak for a party faction, he does not speak for the party as a whole.
America is not turning Democratic because Americans have suddenly become liberals. America is no more liberal than it is conservative. Most Americans are not ideological at all – and they gravitate to the less ideological party, to the party that seems businesslike, sensible, and responsible. (Or anyway: less profligate, less heedless, and less irresponsible.) For most of the past third of the century, that party was the GOP. No longer. Until we seem that way again, we will sojourn in the wilderness.
107 responses so far
1 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 7:49 am
David. By bringing up Rush, you are contributing to Rush being the face of the party. You are falling in the trap being set up by the Dems to replace the Bush boogie man with the Rush boogie man. The Dems won the indie in 2006 and 2008 mainly by saying “we are not Bush”. Want to marginilize Rush? STOP TALKING ABOUT HIM!!!!!!!! When the media brings him up, just reply that he is not an elected official. He is a talk show host. A political entertainer/commentator.
2 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 7:54 am
Praise be, at last, some actual sense. And it only took a poll showing the terrible state of your party! You follow Rush as leader at your peril. You have a deep vacuum at the top of your party and there is no one I can see who is even close to filling the void. What the vast majority of Americans want is government that WORKS. That is the lesson of 2008. They are fed up with what happened in the Bush years. Katrina was the tipping point for most people. You can argue all day long that it was the states fault, pushing blame seems to be the thing the right excels at, however the buck stops at the top.
3 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 7:55 am
The old Mark Russell quip goes that Americans are “ideologically conservative, operationally liberal.” I think it’s more accurate to say they’re “*dispositionally* conservative, operationally liberal.” And Republicans have been anything but dispositionally conservative in recent years…
4 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:01 am
The GOP in the house grovelling at Rush’s feet and apologizing to him and calling him quote ” A Conservative giant. Is what is lifting rush to fill the vacuum at the top.
5 MarkG555 // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:12 am
There is no basis whatsoever for trying to draw new policy prescriptions from this poll. The shifts it measures are based on too many factors other than the platform espoused by the Republican party from time to time.
But have it your way — based on the poll, by far the most successful time for R’s against D’s in voter identification was from 2001 to 2005. So if anything the poll proves that Karl Rove should be immediately begged to head up the RNC to replicate his prior unequalled success.
6 larryo // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:16 am
“The relationship between these radio talkers and the larger Republican and conservative world has become parasitic and antagonistic. They flourish and profit to the extent they can polarize and radicalize.” Good sense at last, as far as it goes! But Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest could not flourish at all if they did not appeal to something fundamental in their listeners/watchers. And what they appeal to is dark, selfish, narrow-minded, prejudiced, xenophobic, superstitious, opprobrious and shameful. And Republican. Address yourself to that.
7 Stewardship // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:17 am
Every self-defined conservative (and every member of the RNC national committee) should read up on Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and Richard Weaver. The conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan was based on the ideas and philosophies of those men. It is nothing like the brand of conservatism put forward as gospel by Hannity, Limbaugh, and Colter.
8 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:20 am
MarkG555: “So if anything the poll proves that Karl Rove should be immediately begged to head up the RNC to replicate his prior unequalled success.”
More Karl Rove would be politically good for us liberals, but bad for the country (and the GOP):
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fbe0b986-4a8d-11dc-95b5-0000779fd2ac.html
9 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:24 am
Rush, Coulter and Hannity are talk show hosts whose primary job is to cater to their clientele/audience. How pathetic is for the most powerful man in the world (Obama) to bring up a talk show host. That’s what Frum and other should say if they truly want to marginalize Rush while not angering that wing of the party. To attack Rush and then saying he represents an important voice is counterproductive.
10 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 am
Chekote: “How pathetic is for the most powerful man in the world (Obama) to bring up a talk show host.” The pathetic thing is a Republican establishment that obsessively reads its own press. He wasn’t bringing up only Rush, he was bringing up Rush *and* the people who tune into him. Check out the account of A. J. Rossmiller describing his anti-terror work: “Back at the Pentagon as a strategic issues expert in the Office of Iraq Analysis, Rossmiller saw the administrations heavy hand in determining how information is processed. In a dysfunctional office filled with outsize personalities and the constant drone of Fox News, he filed reports on the ever-worsening situation in Iraq. These assessments, ultimately proven accurate, were consistently rejected as too pessimistic and off message and repeatedly changed to be more in line with delusional White House projections.” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0891419144/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books Shut off Fox News. Shut off Rush Limbaugh. Actually work on governing the freaking country for a change.
11 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:37 am
suey. Why does the most powerful man on earth even care who the GOP listens to? Private or public doesn’t matter. We have facing serious economic troubles and Obama is worried about who the GOP listens to? Pathetic. Rush is a talk show host. I have been listening to his show pretty much every day since 1995. He is entertaining, funny. Most of the people who post about Rush have never really listened to him. Look Obama won. The Dems told us – during that they have the right policies to fix our problems. They increased their congressional majority. They don’t need GOP votes. So go on. The American people have given you a giant green light. Go on and don’t worry about us in the GOP.
12 MarkG555 // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:40 am
JJWFromME — My point was merely that the poll relied on does not support Frum’s conclusions.
For what it’s worth, I think the R’s current slump is due more to (1) high profile instances of R corruption and incompetence and (2) the public’s impatience with a war that could not result in a victory that was (pick one) quick or not costly. Neither of these was Rove’s fault. Ironically, I think Rove’s greatest failure as a polick-er was the his completely ineffective campaign to grow the R share of Latino vote.
13 mpolito // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:41 am
In all fairness, party ID has to do with the fact that the Democrats are employ what Jonah Goldberg has called a “coalitional ideology”- that is, they have traditionally had a larger tent than the GOP. It is a little hard to believe that Arkansas, which McCain carried by 15 points, is in solid Democratic hands. Lots of southern states have large Democratic majorities because of history. Polls also show that Americans calling themselves “conservative” total 10+ higher than those calling themselves “liberal.” In other words, there are a lot of conservative Democrats. As for Rush, why shouldn’t we demand that someone like Phil Gingrey (who represent a 70% GOP district) be a conservative? We know that any 70% Democratic district will be a liberal.
14 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:41 am
JJWF. In case you haven’t noticed, the Dems were elected by the American people to run the government. So why are you asking the GOP to focus on governing the country? That’s like asking the candidates who didn’t get the job to get to work.
15 Toral1 // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:43 am
1. The way for other factions to approach Rush is to ignore him, not renounce him or denounce him. Let him do his job and concentrate on your own, which is putting forth the policy ideas and general principles you want to promote. Obama did not renounce or denounce moveon.org or Daily Kos; he took different positions when it seemed appropriate. A Sister Souljah moment with Rush won’t win one vote.
2. I think a faction like this is best to avoid the word “moderate”. You need to put forth new ideas that are bold, innovative, inspiring and principled. “moderate” has entirely different connotations. Obama didn’t win by calling himself a moderate. He called himself a progressive and convinced people that he would in practice be moderate. Be and act moderate if you want, but don’t raise a banner ntitled “Moderation”.
3. Likewise, “inclusive” is a word you should avoid. It’s irrevocably tainted with Left connotations: soppy, mushy, marginal and politically correct. How about “broad”, “comprehensive”, “embracing”.
Toral
http://notweighingourmerits.blogspot.com/
16 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 am
Toral. Exactly my point. Ignore Rush.
17 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:51 am
“So why are you asking the GOP to focus on governing the country?” Nowhere in the constitutions does it say that the job of an opposition party is to p*ss off the party in power. The job is to actually help conduct the business of running the country. No matter what party you’re from. When you go into opposition you don’t lose that responsibility. (Although it doesn’t surprise me that some Republicans may think that they do, when you see the scorched earth attitudes of the past decade or so.)
18 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:53 am
Chekote, If he did that your next post would be that he was “ramming” through leftist ideological policy with no consultation. He was just trying to make a point lighten up. I don’ really care if the GOP congresscritters vote with us at all. I Realise that they have as a group been shoved to the right due to the loss of members from more centrist states. However I think it’s great politics for Obama to just keep up the charm offensive and let the GOP go their own way. That’s a win-win situation for him.
19 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:57 am
JJW. So now we are not allowed to disagree with the party in power because it might p*ssed them off? As a matter of fact, they losers are not Constitutionally charged to do anything. While the winners are Constitutional charge to do the job they were elected to do. Obama said he wanted to have input from all quarters. The GOP presented their alternative plan/ideas. Obama reminded them, he won. And he did. So go on. Govern. It is your turn at bat.
20 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:58 am
“coalitional ideology”–not that Republicans wouldn’t have any such ideology, right? http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062703.php
Goldberg never heard of fusionism? Then again, I can’t take Goldberg seriously in an intellectual sense, so I can’t expect normal discourse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqpqQQeSZVY
21 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:00 am
“the losers are not Constitutionally charged to do anything.” That would be true if you didn’t win any seats in congress (why do I have to explain this?)
22 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:05 am
suey. Obama and the GOP met and discussed their ideas. That’s enough. What Obama and the Dems are looking for is bipartisan cover. The reality is that N-O-B-O-D-Y knows what to do about the current economic crisis. That’s the reality. Obama and the Dems have no clue as to whether their plan will work. The GOP made the right move. Had they supported the bill, they would have shared the blame for failure while not getting any credit for in case it succeeds.
23 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:07 am
JJWF. Republicans in Congress voted based on what they thought would be best for their constituents, the country. They did their job. The Dems need to stop whining about Rush, the GOP and get on with governing the country.
24 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:13 am
I agree no one knows if this will work or what will work, in this situation where the levers on the economy are all used up you try what you can and change when you must. Obama is taking ownership of this and will be judged rightly by results. Even those results will be impossible to judge. Even if the position in 18 months is the same as it is today I would gauge that a success at that stage. I thought the role of the opposition party in congress was to be a loyal opposition, to support where they can for the good of the country and to oppose but oppose with actual ideas when they must.
25 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:19 am
suey. Exactly. There are philosophical difference her. Sincere, genuine differences. I am so tired of this bipartisanship talk. Our system is based on people fighting for what they believe and then the voters make the choice.
26 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:25 am
Chekote, you are right, Obama though whatever you think of his shortcomings is a canny politician. I had the pleasure to meet him early in the primary and found him very down to earth and able to answer my questions with clarity and obvious intelligence. I have not swallowed as much koolaid as some here may think. I will be his fiercest critic if he screws up.
27 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:27 am
suey. I don’t dislike Obama. I don’t agree with his ideology.
28 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:55 am
“The Dems need to stop whining about Rush, the GOP and get on with governing the country.” Actually, a higher profile Rush helps the Dems. The more we hear about temper-tantrum type behavior by the GOP, the more it frames the GOP as unable to govern. Then we can actually do some governing. So the more high profile Rush, the more the GOP’s popularity goes down, the better Dems can govern. If I were you guys, I would be trying to lessen the temper-tantrum image, and more coming up with, and arriving at, solutions. Not a Republican strength in recent years.
29 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:06 am
The free market is taking care of Rush. In Southern Calfornia, one of the largest talkradio markets in the country, Rush Limbaugh is bleeding market share. The afternoon rush hour shockjocks, John and Ken, openly call him the Morning Gasbag. Bill Handel, admitted at a symposium that Rush is losing money for KFI. KFI was fiercely against the idiotic choice of Sarah Palin as VeeP. Do they influence much? Bush lost California in 2000 by 10 points, 11 in 2004. McCain/Palin lost California by 23 points, the largest loss in a Presidential election in nearly 60 years.
30 Realist // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:15 am
Rush’s claim that he is simply an “entertainer” doesn’t wash anymore. He is now proposing actual policy, as opposed to commenting on its merits and ridiculing its proponents. If people view him as leader of the GOP, then that says a whole lot more about us than about him. A lot of conservatives are blaming Democrats for elevating Rush to this position. Are you kidding? Republicans ate his stuff up when Bush was riding high. Don’t think we can run away from this guy now, because he really seems to be the only “voice” getting any attention from our party right now.
31 Realist // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:17 am
Bill: “The free market is taking care of Rush. In Southern Calfornia, one of the largest talkradio markets in the country, Rush Limbaugh is bleeding market share. ”
Yeah, Rush is losing market share to Sean Hannity.
32 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:25 am
Rush is not the issue. Rush, Coulter, and their ilk have become the public face of the GOP by default–because no one with similar vision and charisma and communications skills has appeared within the ranks of elected Republican public officials. Schwarzenegger is a political superstar because he was a movie superstar. Giuliani is a political superstar because of his response to 9-11. Except for those two nationally famous superstars, the rest of the GOP comes off as white-bread, bland, colorless, and old news. Where are our powerful orators in public life who can move a crowd like Obama did?
33 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:31 am
In Southern California, Rush has the AM shift, 9am to Noon. Hannity is on KABC, KFI’s main rival from Noon to 3. His main competitor is Dr Laura. Rush’s KABC rival is Bill OReilly who has already announced that he is dropping his radio show. There is going to be a huge market slot opening up. Frankly, the tired old names of Rush, OReilly and Sean Hannity need to go. A pipe dream would be to have Michael Smerconish have a national am talk radio show. If KFI were to drop Rush, and there is plenty of talk that they are trying to do so, the face of the GOP would be further diminished. Rush is only appealing to what’s left of the GOP–the rural white Southern vote.
34 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:38 am
Rush is the face only if we fall for the Dems tactic of replacing Bush with Rush. Unless we learn to fight the constant demonization from the Left, we will never win again.
35 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:38 am
With this news, the Karl Rove playbook is now dead. That playbook was designed to win close elections. The GOP did this by making a decent showing with Independent voters, and turning out their base in huge numbers to go vote. But in both the 2006 and 2008 elections, the GOP lost because of massive defections of Independent voters, not because their base didn’t vote. It’s now clear from this latest Gallup poll that the GOP base is now so small that the GOP can’t win elections anymore just by turning out its base. Not if it can’t win back many of the Independent voters who voted for Obama. To do this, I don’t think the GOP has to be “moderate” in all things, so much as it has to be attractive and inclusive to voters who aren’t necessarily registered Republicans. Currently, the GOP platform actually suggests that any woman who has an abortion is guilty of violating the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That will frighten away all the millions of American women who have either had an abortion, or at least want to preserve that option for themselves without fear of being sent to a Federal penitentiary. The GOP platform can continue to assert that abortion is a moral wrong, even without this threatening language.
36 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:39 am
Chekote: If we don’t replace Bush with Rush, then whom should we replace Bush with? Who should be the new, charismatic, eloquent, visionary face of the GOP to the rest of the nation? Sarah Palin? Eric Cantor? Who?
37 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:43 am
sinz. I have met Cantor. He is very knowledgeable. Well spoken. Understands the issues. He is a fundraising machine. Lacks charisma. Hensarling is right on target as far as economic policy but he more an academic than a public persona type. I think the face of the GOP should be Michael Steele. He is witty. Quick on its feet. Whatever we should not allow the opposition to pick our leaders.
38 Realist // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:45 am
sinz54 said: “Where are our powerful orators in public life who can move a crowd like Obama did?” When GWB became president, the country seemed to accept the notion that you don’t need to be a great orator to be a republican president. The GOP needed to defer to the leader of the party. If any great conservative speakers did exist, upstaging Bush would not be tolerated by Karl Rove.
39 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:48 am
What’s killing the party is the SOCIAL ISSUES. You cannot make the case for smaller/limited government and at the same time advocate using the government to regulate people’s private lives. It is really that simple. I completely agree with Sinz. Take the Human Life Amendment out of the GOP platform. Just take a look at what to Colorado’s Personhood Amendment which mirrors the HLA language. It lost 73%-27%. Replace with a general statement about supporting a culture of life and move on.
40 Realist // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:48 am
sinz54 said: “The GOP platform can continue to assert that abortion is a moral wrong, even without this threatening language”. This is exactly where Michael Steele comes down on this issue. We will see if the back benchers can swallow this.
41 Realist // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:51 am
Chekote said: “You cannot make the case for smaller/limited government and at the same time advocate using the government to regulate people’s private lives”. This is the libertarian viewpoint that earned Ron Paul so much support.
42 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:52 am
To be a Republican President you have to convince an electorate of 1 The supreme Court
43 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:53 am
Is this how we are going to rebuild a conservative movement that can win? But rehashing Bush and Rove? By obsessing about talk show hosts and shock writers like Coulter? Where is the vision? Or we still can’t do that “vision thing” as Bush I said?!
44 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:54 am
Realist. Ron Paul hurt himself with Republicans over foreign policy. Also, he had a 9/11 Truther aura about him.
45 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:02 am
Chekote: “The reality is that N-O-B-O-D-Y knows what to do about the current economic crisis. That’s the reality.” That’s what one side wants you to think. The reality is actually quite different than that: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/magneto-trouble/ Of course certain people would try to *make* their own reality: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/amity-shlaes-strikes-again/ http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/01/accounting_identities_and_straussian_economics.php The problem is, for the parties trying to fuzz things up, is if the government can do things to cure this problem, what else can it help cure? Health care? Bill Kristol trembles: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015770.php
46 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:04 am
JJWF. Obama is going to implement Krugman. I just don’t understand you Dems. YOU WON THE ELECTION! BIG! Now go and govern. It is your job.
47 Realist // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:04 am
GHWB’s vision: 1000 points of light… or was it the Dow?
48 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:05 am
I just couldn’t let that one go by.
49 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:11 am
If Obama can’t talk a single House Republican into voting for his stimulus bill, how can he talk Iran out of its nuclear ambitions? Oh, I forgot. Republicans are more eviiiiiiiiiiiil than the ayatollahs.
50 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:16 am
This is making a mountain out of a molehill. People are not voting for the GOP because suddenly they fear Rush. It’s a problem with a party that cannot clearly articulate AND practice its conservative principles in current circumstances. Chekote is right…pathetic Obama and the Dems are focusing on Rush–they are trying to sow divisiveness in GOP ranks. So all of a sudden because one Repub Congressman stands by Rush we’re beholden to him? Really, this is ridiculous.
51 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:18 am
dragonlady. It is a tactic by the Dems as you pointed out. Sorry to see Frum, Brooks and other in the supposed conservative intelligentsia falling for it.
52 debs // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 am
Well said–the allusion to the Moscow show trials was all to apt and very witty!
53 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:22 am
debs. About as witty as a 2×4 hitting your head. Pleaaaaaaaaase. One congressman from a very conservative district agrees with Rush. Wow. Is there gambling going on here?
54 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:23 am
Chekote: “Obama is going to implement Krugman.” It’s interesting that Boehner had to resort to trolling the Internet for stimulus skeptics: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_12/016142.php
55 Realist // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:25 am
House republicans were in a lose-lose situtation. If they voted against the stimulus, and things get worse (which it will), then they will be seen as obstructionists, and continue to lose broad support. If they vote for it, and things get worse (which it will), they will lose their own constituencies who are still stinging from from their 2008 defeats. In the end, they realized that there is no point in worrying about appearing bipartisan because if they cant get support from their own voters, they will be out of office anyway.
56 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:41 am
Dragonlady Qoute ” Suey, keep drinking that leftist brew. Every independent newspaper review shows Bush won legally.”
Pity they could not let the actual voters decide that.
57 HollywoodBill // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:42 am
Go on to a right wing blog just to see how much influence Rush has. Some of the comments are right from his talking points. Like it or not, right now he is the voice of the GOP. In California, the Independent voters or Decline to State voters as they are called, break approximately 68/32 ( 2 to 1 for the mathematically challenged) when the GOP runs a socially conservative candidate. However when a social moderate runs, the split really evens out to 50/50. Even in conservative districts like in Duke Cunningham’s old seat, CA50, the Republican electorate is changing. Brian Bilbray, a social moderate won the nomination out of 14 Republicans including some real fire breathing social conservatives and beat the Dem Francine Busby. He handily won reelection. There is a template for winning for the GOP.
58 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:44 am
Hollywood. Most people who vote for Republicans never listen to Rush or read right wing blogs. But they are the squeaky wheel and get all the attention.
59 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:48 am
“Every independent newspaper review shows Bush won legally.” “Legal,” but ugly. “Published on Thursday, November 15, 2001 in the Long Island, NY Newsday”: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm
60 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 12:19 pm
By the way, welcome to the Internets, as we liberals have come to know it (most conservative blogs either don’t accept comments, or eliminate dissenting commenters) ; )
61 Oneon1isto // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I love how every thread tends to generate the same discussions. But such is the beginning of life, the birth of a new blog-thing. Given enough nurturing and time to grow, other discussions will bloom with the coming of spring. Looking at the numbers, and as was sort of mentioned once below, it’s tough to really draw a straight conclusion from “registered” Democrats and Republicans. Different states carry different laws requiring registration with a political party in the primaries, and some don’t track it at all. I believe in Texas, which is listed as competitive, doesn’t carry a party registration requirement in the primaries. Or if it does, it doesn’t lock you in. Either way, it’s an iffy data set. What would be really interesting is if we could get our hands on some straight ticket voting numbers, and see where the trends stand for each party.
62 HLMencken // Jan 29, 2009 at 1:39 pm
As a Democrat, I am very encouraged by the Republican Party’s behavior in Obama’s first week in office.
63 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Oneon1 This is the data set for this poll, It was not registered or potential voters but a generic across the board sample from each state. while it still says 2008 they are using the same data sets for 2009.
In 2008, Gallup interviewed more than 350,000 U.S. adults as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. That includes interviews with 1,000 or more residents of every U.S. state except Wyoming (885) and North Dakota (953), as well as the District of Columbia (689). There were more than 15,000 interviews conducted with residents of California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Florida.
This large data set provides the unique ability to give reliable estimates of state-level characteristics for 2008. Each sample of state residents was weighted by demographic characteristics to ensure it is representative of the state’s population
64 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Oneon1isto: “I love how every thread tends to generate the same discussions.” Yes, I think it’s something like this poor caller getting the same discussion with every Verizon representative he talks to: http://www.videosift.com/video/Verizon-002-dollars-002-cents The GOP has lost track of the fact that certain questions have a right and wrong answer (such as “is there man-made climate change” or “should the United States government practice torture” or for that matter, “should we deregulate credit default swaps”). The answers to these questions are either yes or no. But the questions are treated as if the decisionmakers could take or leave the answers. The decisions are made first, and then the answer is *sold.*
65 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Suey and JJ, the voters DID decide. The news reports showed there were more votes for Bush than Gore in Florida, period. And if you want to read truly tortured legal logic, I suggest you get on FindLaw.com and review the FL courts decision to keep recounting (basically just making up law) and compare that with the clarity of the SCOTUS decision. Do you ignore reporting that does not fall in line with your ideology?
66 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“The news reports showed there were more votes for Bush than Gore in Florida, period.” This is Factcheck.org: “According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.
Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.” http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/print_when_the_votes_were_recounted_in_florida.html
67 petty boozshwa // Jan 29, 2009 at 2:49 pm
The only feasible way I see for the Republican Party to again become a coalition/big tent of libertarians, social conservatives and economic realists, as we were 20 years ago, is to have reform clubhouses and machine clubhouses compete in the same market for awhile. This is how the Dems were able to span their divisions, uniting Richard Daley and Jesse Jackson, Abe Beame and Jack Newfield. There was a time in recent memory when the Republican coalition spanned from Strom Thurmond to Howard Stern, that was when we had a majority..
68 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Dragonlady. Reporters do not voters make. Since when do reporters decide elections. Voters decide elections. As the recent recount in Minnesota shows a recount properly conducted can change the outcome of a close election.
69 buzzricksons // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Oklahoma leans Democrat and Texas is competitive? That’s some surprising news, but I have to wonder how much of this polling is merely reflective of the Obama honeymoon and his very high approvals coming onto the job. Personally, I think that these polls will have more resonance in about a year’s time, when Obama’s had a chance to show his work, and the Dem Congress has shown what it’s capable of without that ever-present veto pen of Bush hanging over its head. None of the foregoing excuses the pitiful dearth of ideas among the GoP’s elected braintrust/”barntrust”, though. Aside from the Coburn/DeMint/Pence crew, there just aren’t any ideas coming forth at all. If the GoP loses seats in ‘10, expect at least a few remaining congresspersons to switch party ID to Democrat in the wake of the election. Remember the 90’s, how it worked the other way.
70 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Suey, you obviously are impervious to facts that contradict your ideology. The recount in Florida showed that Bush still had more votes than Gore. How many times do you want to recount? ‘Til you can figure out a way to drop up some votes and include others so your guy wins?
71 Rapunzel46 // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Who did this survey. As mentioned below, Ok is a definite red state and so is Arizona… we have a GOP Governor, Senators, Most congressmen, increased the GOP in both the state senate and legislature in November and yet we are not considered a GOP state???
72 jeffburk // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“Our supreme priority now has to be to reinvent ourselves as a pragmatic, inclusive, modern party of free enterprise and limited government. We have to relearn how to talk to moderates, independent, younger voters, educated voters, women its a long list.”
So, David, which is it? Pragmatic, inclusive and modern or the party of free enterprise and limited government? Because they’re not always the same thing. Should the Republicans embrace $819 billion if it’s pragmatic, includes more people in the party and seems like a modern approach to the recession? What if a majority of Americans right now are willing to live with more restrictions on free enterprise and significantly less limited government? Does the party need to change its principles, or does it need to keep those principles and work to persuade Americans back to them?
Your criticism of the GOP in this regard brings to mind two issues on which you’ve taken staunch conservative positions — immigration andy marriage — that many people would consider neither pragmatic nor inclusive. Not that you’re necessarily wrong on these issues, but why is it OK for you to oppose immigration andy marriage, but other Republicans aren’t being pragmatic when they take similarly conservative lines on other issues?
73 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:41 pm
dragonlady: “The recount in Florida showed that Bush still had more votes than Gore. How many times do you want to recount?” How many times do I have to link to the newspaper consortium study, that shows that this isn’t true?
74 JJWFromME // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Can’t get enough of Rush: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Running_against_Limbaugh.html?showall
75 sinz54 // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:26 pm
jeffburk: Here is my suggestion: Let’s be firm in defense of our PRINCIPLES, but let’s be pragmatic and flexible in the POLICIES we advocate. If the GOP does not believe in free enterprise and fiscal responsibility, then it doesn’t believe in anything. But what policies to advocate in a given year, under a given set of conditions, can and should change from time to time. And that’s what needs improvement. Too many Republicans keep waving supply-side economics around today as if it’s a panacea. The only reason? Well, it worked for Reagan. But supply-side economics was born in the 1970s, a time of stagflation, gas lines and energy shortages,a time when the marginal income tax rate was as high as 70%. Today, you can go to any auto dealership and see all the unsold cars to realize we don’t have a supply-side problem. We have a deleveraging problem. That needs new policies. Those new policies should still be firmly rooted in the timeless principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government. But they can’t automatically be the same policies as those of 28 years ago.
76 Egli Ha // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:51 am
How about a tax on car radios?
77 Robert Graves // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:39 am
Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) and Arianna Huffington (Huffington Post) are to Democrats what Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are to Republicans. If you are going to say that Limbaugh and Coulter form the face of the Republican Party, then you have to say that Moulitsas and Huffington define the face of the Democratic Party.
A New Majority will emerge because Republicans of all stripes learn how to work with each other to offer compelling solutions to the to the problems that matter to the growing number of people who look to the Democratic Party for answers. If the Republican Party can’t convince people that they can do better work than the Democrats, then the Party will be defaulting to Limbaugh, Coulter, et.al.
78 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:46 am
Robert Graves: “Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) and Arianna Huffington (Huffington Post) are to Democrats what Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are to Republicans.” You can try to demonize them that way, but you better hope people don’t actually get curious and check them out. Just because both sides are passionate doesn’t mean both sides spout falsehood and malice in equal measure. Check out this speech by Digby. She doesn’t sound anything like Rush to me: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=860546376283859020
The liberal blogosphere phenomenon, I think, is more in reaction to the Republican machine than anything else: http://crookedtimber.org/2008/01/25/we-have-seen-the-enemy-and-it-isnt-us/ People who say things like Robert Graves does tend not to know much about Moulitsas or Huffington.
79 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:22 am
Robert Graves: Your claim that “Moulitsas and Huffington define the face of the Democratic Party” is absurd. Currently, Obama and Pelosi define the face of the Democratic Party. The reason why Limbaugh is getting to define the face of the GOP, is that there is no Republican in Congress (or in the think-tanks) whom the base admires and listens to, as much as they admire and listen to Limbaugh. (cf. all the folks on RedState who say they listen to Limbaugh regularly.) Limbaugh has become the Chief Ideologist of the GOP by default–there is no one else. Whereas the liberal Democrats love Obama and take direction from him. Currently, the Republicans in Congress are engaging in parliamentary maneuvering and other such diddling–but none of them can move a mass audience like either Obama or Limbaugh.
80 Robert Graves // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:41 am
HollywoodBill, sinz54, and, JJWFromME:
I detect an intense rivalry in the making. Each of you wants to become the Rush Limbaugh of the New Majority, but only one of you can win the prize. What to do? Each of you should get a coach. I suggest Hannity, O’Reiley, and Coulter. You can’t go wrong with them.
Just remember: you’ll be going up against Moulitsas and Huffington — the best of the best on the left — so work hard.
Good luck.
81 InTheMiddle12 // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:51 am
Frum is saying people who identify currently as D or R, not who currently holds office. I think he’s trying to point out the trend that, if left unchallenged, bodes poorly for the GOP. When Americans are hurting so much financially they don’t want to hear empty rheteric from the likes of Rush, OReilling, Coulter and Hannity. They just appear f-o-o-l-i-s-h.
82 buzzricksons // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:59 am
Hate to break it to y’all, but Limbaugh was on these GOP legislators “like stink on a monkey” (to borrow a phrase from Bush 41) for the past few weeks imploring them to vote against stimulus in a unanimous block. The day after they did, we get Rasmussen showing only 42% approval of the stimulus, and a rash of opinion pieces pointing out the flaws in the House bill that passed, including the fact that under Obama’s financial advisor’s rubric, the GOP alterna-plan would create more “stimulus” than the passed bill. I think they were wise to listen to Rush this time, if that’s what it took for them to vote this way; they just made fools of the Dems and the President.
83 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:01 am
Graves: “Each of you wants to become the Rush Limbaugh of the New Majority.” Too funny. I didn’t call anyone a “traitor”, deny there’s ever been a hole in the ozone layer, or shout down all messengers who bring bad news: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/11/hannity-meltdown/
Try any of these 11,000 links: http://tinyurl.com/ddjj4x Try this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/1400048753/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
84 buzzricksons // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:42 am
If senate republicans hold firm and join their house compatriots in opposition to this bill, don’t be surprised when obama veto’s and reclaims the mantle of this “responsible governance” campaign/inaugural rhetoric.
85 gerrysh // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:50 am
zzz
86 buzzricksons // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:54 am
Gerry, the media will be carrying Barry’s bags across the threshold on that one, don’t worry. Ridiculous, I know.
87 Robert Graves // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:54 am
Good points, buzzricksons.
Lighten up, JJ.
88 ErinScott // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:59 am
Personally, I would like to see more emphasis on pragmatism and competence than ideology. The things that government is supposed to do should be done well. By far the biggest failure of the party was that they did not govern well and voters noticed. And voted accordingly.
The second big failure was in not addressing the concerns of voters. McCain tanked badly after the reality of the economic crisis hit home in September. Up until then, he had done a fairly decent job of separating his brand of Republicanism from the Bush legacy. McCain’s response to the economic collapse was truly horrible. He came across as weak, with a poor understanding of what was happening, and with no plan. Similarly, health care is a huge issue for many voters. Republicans came across as unconvincing and unsympathetic on both economic and health care issues.
The final failure, and the one that drives me the most crazy, is that the Republican party is increasingly being perceived as the anti-science, anti-intellectual party, largely because of the actions and beliefs of social conservatives (which, of course, the media loves to point out). When this is coupled with silliness like the “real America,” rhetoric from the last election, a lot of voters are turned off.
I don’t necessarily want small government (I think that boat has sailed) but I do want government that works, government that is efficient and delivers required services at minimal cost. Not the bloated mess that we have now.
89 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:02 pm
“Lighten up, JJ.” Not while you guys need a gadfly:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=15753
90 Bulldoglover100 // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:05 pm
RIGHT ON DAVID!
If this party does not stop with the frothing at the mouth at everyword from Rush and his like then we will be doomed…….people ask why we lost the election and they don’t really want to know! McCain was GAINING on Obama before he brought in Sarah the Stupid, before he allowed the really nasty spots in the media.
WE MUST start dealing with real issues and stop with the school yard antics.
91 Robert Graves // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:22 pm
JJ, be a gadfly. You’re a natural. But please take it easy with the sarcasm and anger.
92 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:41 pm
OK. I may be getting carried away with this brand new conservative blog to comment on. I’ll try to dial it back a bit.
93 Robert Graves // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Thanks, JJ. Keep us on the straight and narrow!
Bob
94 buzzricksons // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:25 pm
McCain was the loose cannon with a 30-year career of loose-cannon quotes that would’ve been readied for deployment against him regardless of what he’d said as Nov. 4 came closer. The fact that he really was an ignoramus on economics – it wasn’t just his lame soundbite telling us so – only sealed his fate. Strictly from a “epic romantic narrative” point of view, I’d have liked to see him elected, given his father’s and grandfather’s careers. I’d have taken Mr. Ford Jr. from TN as the first black president after that without being upset at all. But we live in Barry’s world now. Should be interesting.
95 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:32 pm
I think it’s great that this forum exists. And I do appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts.
96 bethunedaja // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:42 pm
David, you had your moderate “reach out” candidate in John McCain and he lost DECISIVELY! We do not need to proceed any further down that road, again. Republicans are in the minority today due to events and due to the bad policies of the Bush Administration and the very poor campaign conducted by a candidate who was little more than a Democrat-lite. When the Obama Administration makes a mess of the country, as did the Democrats of the Johnson and Carter administrations,and we offer principled conservative candidates like a Ronald Reagan then the Republican Party will revive. Your comments sound like the same kind of complaints that came from the Rockerfeller wing of the party, not too long ago, when they complained about the ideas of Goldwater and Reagan. Reagan ignore their recommendations and we will ignore yours.
97 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“Reagan ignore their recommendations and we will ignore yours.” I knew 1980. 1980 was a friend of mine. And let me tell you, 2008, you’re no 1980. The Emerging Republican Majority emerged some 30 years ago and now it’s a different electorate.
98 bethunedaja // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Also, David you should continue to read National Review on Line. Maggie Gallagher has a comment, “Obama v. Rush,” in The Corner. And if you really want to know why Rush has become Obama’s punching bag please read Maggie’s comment. This is not about Rush, David, and you are playing right into Obama’s hands by implying and acknowledging that you think it is. As Maggie puts it, “Rush is absolutely right, this is not about Rush: it’s about Obama having his cake (stimulus) and eating it too (blaming the Republicans and corporate America – not Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Democrats) for the recession.
99 bethunedaja // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:13 pm
It was a different electorate in 1980 according to everyone but Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine and he ignored those like JJWFromME who believe that Reagan represented a different electorate and a time long past. Conservative principles like limited government, free enterprize and free markets, individual liberty, self-discipline, individual responsibilty, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, constitutional originalism and a strong national defense never go out of style. Such underlying principles can be used as the basis for policies today in the area of the environment, health care, social services, education, crime, immigration, the judiciary etc. that are very different from the policies advocated by the Democrats and Barack Obama. Articulate and principled candidates can adapt these principles noted above going forward just like Reagan adapted them to the electorates of 1980 and 1984.
100 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:26 pm
ErinScott: Your points are all excellent. I have just one more point to add: The entire Republican Party, not just McCain, was left flat-footed by the sudden economic collapse during last summer. Remember that in the GOP debates during the primary season, every Republican candidate (except Huckabee) had stoutly maintained that the economy was in good shape “thanks to the policies of President Bush.” No Republicans saw the storm coming; and after the storm hit, the GOP didn’t speak convincingly as to what to do about it. The congressional Republicans seemed divided between nihilism (let the U.S. economy collapse if need be, eventually the free market will correct itself) and a wholly inappropriate application of Reaganomics to the totally different situation we faced. The economic crisis we are facing is being driven by massive deleveraging. And the GOP didn’t have any proposals for dealing with it. The Democrats pitched this as “Great Depression II,” requiring “New Deal II.” Incorrect as that may be, it was simple to explain and appeal to history–and the voters bought it.
101 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:40 pm
BethuneDaja: No one is suggesting that the GOP should abandon the principles of free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. But the specific policies we advocate can’t just regurgitate what worked 28 years ago. What we saw last year was Republicans waving around Reaganomics (or 1980s style supply-side economics) as the panacea that would get us out of our current economic troubles. That was all we had to offer: Let’s do the exact same things Reagan did, because what the heck, they worked 28 years ago. I’m not an economist. I don’t know what the conservative solution to deleveraging should be. But I do know it ain’t supply-side economics.
102 buzzricksons // Jan 30, 2009 at 5:02 pm
The thing is, Reagan came to the presidency with experience running a large state well, running a union in a complicated industry (from a labor environment point of view), and having spent decades immersing himself in these issues and coming to his own understanding of policy. That’s in part due to his engagement as a public speaker for GE (or whoever it was), where he was out preparing his own speeches all the time. Not only was he a gifted speaker and speechmaker, he was a proven political executive of a large enterprise (CA) and could debate policy from a position of understanding many facets and nuances of the issues. Arguably, Clinton had many (but perhaps not all) of those talents to recommend him as well, although he floundered as president for his own reasons. I have not heard tell of anyone with those talents currently in the GOP stables. Therefore, I do not believe the party is going to coalesce around a standard-bearing candidate anytime soon. However, it’s early yet; ‘12 is still a ways off, you say? Reagan almost beat Ford in ‘76; who from the sad sacks of ‘08 are you looking towards with great hope and inspiration in ‘12?
103 Heritage1776 // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Everything you say here David is pretty much spot on. The only point of contention that I have is that you put Bill O’Reilly in the same sack as Rush, Hannity, and Coulter. He is simply not. As Jon Stewart told him, “I like you. You’re not ideological.” This is well known, despite constant efforts by the Left to paint him as “extreme” or even “fringe” just because he shouts on his show. He is decidely right-of-center, and holds certain views that iritate the Rush loyalists quite a bit. He’s even called Rush more “entertainment” than “political commentary.”
The broad paintbrush is dangerous in the hands of anybody, David. Please be mindful. And, of course, thank you for an otherwise excellently informative article.
104 Chekote // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:33 pm
A few observations. Most people who talk about Rush never listen to his show regularly. They get their information about him through the MSM or other leftie organizations. I have been listening to Rush pretty much every day since 1995. Mac lost because he mishandled the economic crisis. He first came out against the AIG bailout. Then when Bush went ahead with it. Mac reversed his position. (Really stupid thing to do since is not like Bush would have stopped the bailout because of Mac’s position. He then compounded the problem by suspending his campaign. He threatened to be a no show for the first debate and then sheepishly showed up. More, he had little to show for going to DC. And ended up voting for that pork laden TARP bill after running around for months threatening to “name names” and “make them famous”. And let’s not forget that Obama had $600 million to spend convincing the American people that he was a tax cutter. In the end, most voters said that Obama was more likely to cut their taxes than Mac. When the GOP loses to the Dems on taxes it is over.
105 coleman // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I think David’s analysis is a bull’s-eye: Limbaugh speaks for a segment of the GOP that is loud, but shrinking. A steady diet of rancor and resentment simply fails to inspire most independents and moderates.
In fact, Talk Radio is off-putting to most Americans, appealing mostly to a core group of nativists, homophobes, and pro-life evangelicals who enjoy the bombastic rhetoric.
Michael Steele has a tremendous opportunity to move the party in a new direction, but his credibility will hinge on his willingness to counter and confront Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter when they go too far. And to invite gays, Latinos, blacks, Muslims, Jews, and people who are pro choice to take another look at the GOP.
If Steele is passive or tries to placate Talk Radio, he will quickly be deemed impotent and irrelevant.
I agree with many of the pro-Limbaugh people that Rush is very smart, often right on economic issues, and at times more of an entertainer than a pundit.
But look, he’s also a thrice divorced egomaniac with a high school education, a man with a history of drug problems who has never run for public office, who the minute Bush’s helicopter lifted off, grabbed the mantle of party leadership.
David wrote something quite perceptive: “Most Americans are not ideological at all – and they gravitate to the less ideological party….”
Steele needs to make the party less ideological, or nothing will change.
106 InTheMiddle12 // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:32 am
I really wonder about all of this Reagan worship. It seems to me Reaganomics has not only failed, it ultimately ignited a greed (remember the 80’s?) that’s driven Americans further from conservative principles than any possible New Deal II. The history on Reagan is still not in, as it isn’t in on Clinton either. It’s too soon but early indicators are that the entire government is the problem and it must be killed philosophy was the worst idea the nation grew from since slavery. Where is all the discussion about the Wall Street GOPers begging for welfare now from the very system they hoped to kill? And let’s not even talk about the 100s of thousands dead from HIV / AIDS that Reagan never acknowledged existed causing some 5-8 year delay in drugs, research and services to the sick. I’m sorry. I can’t jump on the Reagan was the best band wagon until everything is analyzed honestly.
107 gerrysh // Jan 31, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Way to project your inadequacies on others, larryo.
You must log in to post a comment.