Signposts on the way down
March 22nd, 2008 3:30 pm · 12 comments
The incredible shrinking GOP:
The balance of party identification in the American electorate now favors the Democratic Party by a decidedly larger margin than in either of the two previous presidential election cycles.
In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans.
The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.
What sort of amazes me about this is that despite five years of Iraq, despite Katrina and Terri Schiavo and now the economy, all of this happens with Fox News still in full-on spin; it happens even with Limbaugh and Ingraham and Hannity and the rest of that crowd in continued full-throated roar. Yet above both the din and the spin, the defections continue.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Republican Party · Conservatism
There are currently 12 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this bloghahaha
3/22/08
3:41 PM | That is a good thing!! If the Republicans in office are not living up to what the party is supposed to represent, then people should be leaving. |
UncommonSense
3/22/08
8:09 PM | I often feel I must add missing info to Teh Leftnut's Bloggings. A closer examination of the data from the article linked in the blog indicates party affiliation during an 8 year period.
The following numbers are percentages reported for 3 years culled from the 8 years presented. I arbitrarily selected 2000 / 2004 / 2008.
For the Democrats 35 35 36
For the Independents 35 32 36
For the Republicans 31 33 27
An in all honesty, if a 4 point negative swing is all the moron in the Whitehouse has caused, it is truly miraculous. Though I don't see a decided conversion to another party, rather a swing to no party affiliation. In fact, several of the graphics further down the page show both parties losing affiliation during the long run. Perhaps people are becoming truly annoyed with the baloney and BS from both parties, and their mouthpieces.
|
gsmart
3/22/08
8:19 PM | QUOTE(UncommonSense @ Mar 22 2008, 08:09 PM) [snapback]369321[/snapback] A closer examination of the data from the article linked in the blog indicates party affiliation during an 8 year period.
Right - and notice that the GOP reached its height of 33 in 2002 - immediate aftermath of 9/11 - and 2004; it's been a steady slide since, and again, listen to what Pew had to say:
The share of voters who call themselves Republicans has declined by six points since 2004, and represents, on an annualized basis, the lowest percentage of self-identified Republican voters in 16 years of polling by the Center.
Emphasis added. In other words, at no point in time since 1992 has as few as 27 percent of voters identified themselves as Republicans.
Let's not make the mistake, by the way, that since I point these things out I simply must be a partisan of the other side. I am, to the extent that I think the dominance of the political right over the course of more than two decades was initially a good thing for the country, balancing out an imbalance that had resulted of decades of Democratic hegemony. But in recent years in particular the right's influence in this country has been actively destructive; I'm less interested in the pendulum swinging back to "classic" liberalism, whatever that is (I'm sure Rush will tell me), than I am in it swinging away from conservatism. Which it is.
The question is, what is it swinging to? Not liberalism the way it was (which is why I prefer Obama over Hillary). But something new, something more efficient, something more realistic in terms of government spending and foreign policy.
|
dragonrider
3/22/08
8:35 PM | And perhaps we are swinging to a different kind of conservative of the Huckabee type. One who is less interested in passing religous laws but in the welfare of poor, the imprisoned, the enviroment.the sick. I think this is a message of the endurance of the Huckabee campaign as repugnant as I found Huckabee I did applaud his interest in religous conservatism that went beyond gays and abortion. |
UncommonSense
3/22/08
9:02 PM | And yet Gil, you are far to often seen using terms like "wingnut(s)" "Teh Leader" etc. I guess I like to tweak right back....  Hence, Leftnut....
You and Dragonrider both make good points. Classic liberalism and neoconservatism have both failed. Maybe what we truly need is a Constitutional Convention or perhaps even the overdue revolution.......
|
dragonrider
3/22/08
9:10 PM | Or perhaps multiple party that allows for more than two choices that neither truely is satisfactory. |
gsmart
3/22/08
9:11 PM | QUOTE(UncommonSense @ Mar 22 2008, 09:02 PM) [snapback]369337[/snapback] Classic liberalism and neoconservatism have both failed. Maybe what we truly need is a Constitutional Convention or perhaps even the overdue revolution.......
I think what's going to happen is just a gradual redefinition.
I was thinking about this in the context of Rendell's plan to sell the Turnpike, for instance. It's actually a pretty "conservative" move - I'm on the Commonwealth Foundation's mailing list and they're all for it. And at first glance, I'm not for it - because I think, here's a public asset, something the public paid for and owns, and we're going to sell it - spend the money like your classic drunken sailors, or course, despite pledges or even legislation to prevent this - and then what will the consequences be of not owning it?
But the more you think about, the more you begin to realize that this classic "liberal" line runs into one very big roadblock - the Turnpike Commission.
I realize the Turnpike Commisssion is full of individuals who, on an individual basis, may be fine people, and their job permits them to raise families and contribute to their communities, etc. But I just can't justify the existence of the Turnpike Commission. It's a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars, it's patronage city, it needs to be abolished; and if it were abolished, then the turnpike would be a more profitable enterprise for PennDOT (who could take it over) and/or the state itself.
But that's a very un-liberal thing - turning against government workers like that. But one of the things I think "the new liberalism" (or whatever we're going to call it) has to be focused on is governmental efficiency. Government simply can not continue to suck up an ever-greater percentage of your paycheck and mine; it needs to be reformed, perhaps downsized drastically. Bottom line, it needs to cost less. That isn't but should be one core principle of the new liberalism. But that's what I mean about gradually feeling your way to something different.
|
Artie See
3/22/08
9:30 PM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Mar 22 2008, 08:35 PM) [snapback]369330[/snapback] And perhaps we are swinging to a different kind of conservative of the Huckabee type. One who is less interested in passing religous laws but in the welfare of poor, the imprisoned, the enviroment.the sick. I think this is a message of the endurance of the Huckabee campaign as repugnant as I found Huckabee I did applaud his interest in religous conservatism that went beyond gays and abortion. I was actually attracted to Huckabee at one point, until I read the page on his web site about how he wants to do away with tax-exempt employer-provided health care, and shift the responsibility for purchasing and paying for health insurance to the individual (a policy John McCain also supports). This would create a health care crisis in the U.S. of unprecedented proportions; we certainly would never have to worry about population control, ever again. |
lanzate
3/22/08
9:34 PM | I thought democrats have always outnumbered republicans as far as party affiliations. The only reason the R's sometimes win is that they are more die hard in voting. This is one of the reasons republicans always pray for rain on election day.
I remember hearing this when I was a kid. One of the elections, it most have been in the Reagan years or maybe the first Bush there were some people of influence who were questioned by the media because they were making voters wait outside in the rain. I guess the idea was that if they kept the lines long enough the D's would turn around and go home before they voted while the R's would stick it out.
|
dragonrider
3/22/08
9:39 PM | I was attracted to his proposal to eliminate the IRS and replace it with a consumption tax. That would certainly reduce the size of the government, reduce government intrusion into peoples lives. And collect tax from even those who earn money from untaxed sources, drug sales and prostitution, and gambling.
The tie between work and health insurance never made sense and is a remnant of a failed wage control attempt. Since businesses could not raise wages they added benefits and thus was born employer health care and retirement plans. If makes a whole lot more sense for government to be in some sense the arbiter of health insurance either direct by single payer or through the Clinton/Obama proposal of indirect involvement by collecting the funds and dispersing to insurance companies who would continue to control health care in the US.
|
Artie See
3/22/08
9:57 PM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Mar 22 2008, 09:39 PM) [snapback]369359[/snapback] I was attracted to his proposal to eliminate the IRS and replace it with a consumption tax. That would certainly reduce the size of the government, reduce government intrusion into peoples lives. And collect tax from even those who earn money from untaxed sources, drug sales and prostitution, and gambling. Most of the rest of the world depends on a "value-added tax".
QUOTE(dragonrider @ Mar 22 2008, 09:39 PM) [snapback]369359[/snapback] If makes a whole lot more sense for government to be in some sense the arbiter of health insurance either direct by single payer or through the Clinton/Obama proposal of indirect involvement by collecting the funds and dispersing to insurance companies who would continue to control health care in the US. Absolutely positively agreed. |
twinmom
3/22/08
10:55 PM | QUOTE(Artie See @ Mar 22 2008, 09:30 PM) [snapback]369352[/snapback] I was actually attracted to Huckabee at one point, until I read the page on his web site about how he wants to do away with tax-exempt employer-provided health care, and shift the responsibility for purchasing and paying for health insurance to the individual (a policy John McCain also supports). This would create a health care crisis in the U.S. of unprecedented proportions; we certainly would never have to worry about population control, ever again.
I was speaking with someone about this the other day and his thoughts were if the employer-provided healthcare was abolished and individuals were responsible to purchase their own insurance that the insurance companies would almost be forced to drop prices and offer more plans.
Whenever I see these radical change plans being touted by the candiates, I wonder what the chances are of it ever happening. It may be what the candidate wants and feels is best, but is the majority of congress going to agree?
|
View Topic | Comment on this blog
