Grappling with Obama's Huge Personal Popularity

Republicans looking for a comeback have yet to come to terms with a basic fact in today's polling: Obama's strongly favorable personal ratings.

Too much of what passes for sea changes in public opinion on policy are in fact residual effects of a narrow partisan advantage magnified by the huge personal popularity of that party's leader. This is how JFK's political position was never seriously dented or in doubt. Or how Ronald Reagan always seemed to bounce back from serious political crises. In Reagan's case, the Gipper's personal magnetism created an opportunity to move the country to the right. Obama is now doing the same for the left.

The tale of the tape is indeed telling here. Obama's personal popularity stayed remarkably stable throughout the course of the campaign, and the average unfavorable rating barely ever cracked 35%. Obama the campaigner looks downright polarizing compared to Obama the President, who now sports a 65/25 fav/unfav in the average.

Why is this important? Republicans right now haven't the slightest idea of how to reduce the President's appeal because they've never actually done it before. It would be one thing if Obama had become a controversial figure during the campaign, like Bill Clinton did in 1992, providing fodder for a comeback once he did get into office, but that possibility scarcely exists today.

While personality may not be everything, and real-world policy outcomes provide opportunities for inflection points, it rarely ever works out that a President's policy agenda is unsuccessful while he remains personally popular. Yes, there are weird situations where a President might be personally loathed (Clinton post-Monica) but politically successful, but not (that I know of) the other way around.

While attempts to remake Republican policy may be all well and good, to pretend the American people will listen to new policy ideas in a vacuum, without reference to their satisfaction (or lack thereof) with Obama is silly.

This hopelessness with respect to Obama's popularity might be cause for more long-ball type thinking and for cultivating charismatic young leaders who too can put an attractive face on conservative ideas, not for seeking short-term tactical wins. Paradoxically, the more irrelevant Republicans become, the easier it is (or should be) to think outside the box. And it is in this intellectual ferment that a comeback will be born.

Your rating: None


Like Phoenix, Goposaur will 'rise' from feces

Paradoxically, the more irrelevant Republicans become, the easier it is (or should be) to think outside the box. And it is in this intellectual ferment that a comeback will be born.


John Feehery (Dennis Hastert ex-staffer):

Story Highlights, CNN:

  • John Feehery: The Republican Party is struggling, but isn't dead
  • He says there are five good reasons to think the GOP will bounce back
  • U.S. system is designed to provide checks on the majority party, he says
  • Republicans are in position for creative thinking about ideas, Feehery says


5 reasons GOP will rebound. There's a long list he didn't address, including "concentrating on Terri Schiavo was a terrific idea" and "we handled the Mark Foley affair so well" and "Newt Gingrich is the future of the GOP" and my special favorite, "the GOP doesn't believe in evolution, so why would we recognize that we've become dinosaurs?".


Comment privileges revoked

Lest you think we weren't serious, comments like those from this user will no longer be gracing the comment section at the The Next Right.  

With All Due Respect

If unemployment remains high, people won't care if Obama is the coolest guy around. They voted for results. If they see that he's incompetent, that's enough to put alot of D's in trouble in 2010. If the NRCC puts some good fundraising numbers together to go along with Obama's dropping JA rating, that puts D's in a world of hurt.


The electorate desired competency after years of an out-of-touch administration.  The message behind it, ie "Hope and Change" as in "I hope to God something will damn sure change!" should be enough to indicate that.  This in a time of $4 gas in the midwest.

People will tolerate a lot more idiocy from the Left if things are (perceived to be) going well for them.

And they already are, to some extent.  Not the big changes that were expected though. 


"The electorate desired competency after years of an out-of-touch administration." 

That's what happened in 1980. We dumped Carter.

In 2008, though, Bush was not directly on the ballot. What made Obama win was  the biggest media misdirection and fluffing for Obama combined with his blatantly dishonest running as a Reagan ("tax cuts for all!"  "family values!") against a poor GOP candidate who carried the banner of 'the maverick' who was actually a shill for bad bipartisan bills - like the bailout they both voted for. That  made 2008 the worst election result vis a vis image vs reality in many elections. (Maybe since 1992 when Clinton won on his dishonest middle class tax cut that never happened; the other dishonest election in our recent history was the 1960 one, where JFK ran and won ona 'missile gap' that was purely myth).

But that Obama election was 4 million jobs ago,  and a dozen broken Presidential promises ago. $10 trillion in new debt planned, reality of socialized medicine the cap-and-trade-and-tax global warming tax and massive new govt GREEN-doggles and pork spending and higher taxes are fewer jobs. A BRAVE NEW LESS-FREE AMERICAN WORLD. ... OBAMA LIED, JOBS DIED.

Sure he has the media primping him up with barfable Pravda-style reviews, but that hasnt stopped him from having a HUGE number of 'strong disapproves' out there. America is very divided, and the numbers he has are middling for the 100 day mark, but the strong disapproves are not likely to 'come home' since it is based purely on Obama's extremist and dangerous Leftwing agenda... which won't change, it will only get passed (and screw America) or get defeated or partially implemented (which means it remains a threat so long as Obama is in the White House).

People will tolerate a lot more idiocy from the Left if things are (perceived to be) going well for them.

Been there done that. It's so funny to see the libs act like the GOP are old hat, when Ras polls show the GOP head-to-head already better than they've been in 5 years.


Hope it helps

Wishful thinking, but I know it helps you sleep at night.

I hope he sleeps alone



I hope he sleeps alone...

Sleep talking, or somniloquy, is the act of speaking during sleep. It's a type of parasomnia -- an abnormal behavior that takes place during sleep. It's a very common occurrence and is not usually considered a medical problem.

Talking in your sleep can be a funny thing. Perhaps you chitchat unconsciously with unseen associates at the midnight hour. Or maybe a family member unknowingly carries on nightly conversations. It can also be violent or a sign of some other disorder....

REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) and sleep terrors are two types of sleep disorders that cause some people to shout during sleep. Sleep terrors, also called night terrors, usually involve frightening screams, thrashing, and kicking. It's hard to wake someone having a sleep terror. ...

People with RBD yell, shout, grunt, and act out their dreams, often violently.


How about some non-Ras reality?

Ras polls show the GOP head-to-head already better than they've been in 5 years.

from last week'sResearch 2000 national poll:

PRESIDENT OBAMA 70 (68) 25 (26) +3
PELOSI: 38 (37) 45 (44) +0
REID: 35 (34) 49 (48) +0
McCONNELL: 21 (22) 60 (58) -3
BOEHNER: 16 (17) 62 (61) -2
CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 44 (43) 49 (50) +2
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 14 (15) 71 (70) -2
DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 54 (53) 40 (41) +2
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 22 (23) 68 (67) -2


Enjoy. GOP doing GREAT head-to-head.

It's not just Obama's popularity(70/25) you need to grapple with. But also the sky high difference in Dem(54/40) and GOP(22/68) favorability.


Scott Rasmussen is

a corrupt Republican hack. 

He does automated (robo call) polls and then massages the data (like party ID) using methodology he refuses to reveal, unlike the R2K poll mentioned above, every bit of which is totally transparent.

Keep lying to yourselves -- yeah that'll get you out of the hole you guys are in.

Those bumperstickers

...that said "Bush - McCain '08" were something of an indication.

I'm not going to relive a failed campaign; but I would like to note that McCain consistently tried to distance himself from Bush, while part of the Obama strategy was to try to equate the two, as ludicrous as it is.  They had significant success with that one. 


McCain pretended to love W for the base

Yeah, because he separated himself from Bush in every way except that which really matters. Keeping W's appearances to a minumum isn't distancing yourself from him. Embracing the policies that he championed just to play for the base is how he kept Bush in a warm, loving embrace.

Obama connected him to W because things McCain used to be against things he was suddenly for to make the base happy. Like the Bush tax cuts, for instance. Like how the economy was fundamentally strong. It might not seem like it, but that statement is defending the way Bush ran things.

Obama's narrative about McCain came true because McCain was defending all of those policies during the campaign.

Refusing to say W's name or not being in a photo-op with him isn't how you distance yourself from him.

oh, so the immigration debate

the bizarre caving on torture?

the insistence on tax cuts as everything that's right in america?


didn't happen, no sir.

the abandonment of all republican principles of fiscal discipline (shades of dole,t here)

Link Obama with Washington

Make him out as the nice guy in charge of a dysfunctional, overbearing federal government. The model here is Carter, who claimed he too would change Washington, and then became Washington.

The problem here is our own Beltway elite are part of the problem too, and are offering zilch in the way of useful, productive opposition.  Any effective opposition will need to rise from the state level, and the "house conservatives" of the MSM spend most of their time dissing the Palins and Jindals who are light years ahead of any Republicans in either house of Congress.

I'm thinking that until we peel off yet another layer of GOP "leadership" we can't advance. The silver lining to another subprime GOP election performance might be getting the ineffective Boehner and McConnell away from the microphones.   


I'm thinking that until we peel off yet another layer of GOP "leadership" we can't advance. The silver lining to another subprime GOP election performance might be getting the ineffective Boehner and McConnell away from the microphones.

My thoughts exactly. 


Quite right

Personally, I  think the next standard-bearer for the right is someone who nobody's heard of yet, at least not outside their home state, or quite possibly their home district. Where was Obama in the summer of 2001? Who had ever heard of him? I've spent most of this decade in downstate Illinois and he wasn't even a household name around here until he started running for the Senate in '03.

It is not going to change

Given that the Republicans are going to have to wait until after President Obama leaves office in 2017, there is no hope for the Republican Party.  Given that non-whites will support President Obama no matter how high unemployment goes or how badly the economy could become, there is no hope for the Republicans.

Since there is no time machine that will allow conservative to go back to 2000 and keep the incompetence and stupidity of the Bush Adminsitraitron, and the Republican controlled congress from occuring, there is no chance of the Republican form recovering.

In the next generation, the U.S. will be less than 50% white and in such a country conservatives have zero chance of success.

You realize, don't you, that what you just wrote was foolish.

 You write as if you served on the GM Board of Directors in 1965 just as the little Japanese Datsuns were starting to come off the container ships.

"What's good for the GM is good for the Country...." Well, we see how that turned out. Just substitute the words "Democratic Party" for the term "GM" and you'll see how much trouble you're in long term.

This is a revealing moment in the history of liberalism: to watch what liberals look like and how they act at the zenith of their power. Tad Szulc once asked Fidel Castro why he didn't have elections. The Jefe responded, "I would never have elections. I am a slave to power!" That's today's Democratic Party.

You realize, of course, that voting patterns in ethnic groups change over time, as do the emphasis on issues in political parties? Jesus, I shouldn't even have to be writing this to you.

Less triumphalism, more reflection.

less triumphalism

it's kinda funny to hear that criticism coming from someone on the right. That's all you had going the first 5 years of Bush. But in any event, I do think you have a point that things will change and hubris doesn't really serve anyone very much.

If I could sprinkle fairy dust and make the republican party behave the way I wanted, I'd suggest that you guys improve the quality of your criticisms of Obama. The cries of socialism and anti-capitalist etc etc are simply not credible and make you irrelevant. Those are cartoonish critiques and they make you look silly. I think now would be a time for honest what-do-we-do-next-ism, including agreeing with Obama where possible. Your goal should be--once the immediate financial  crisis is over--to create a finely tuned alternate approach that is relevant to today's world. Tax cuts don't solve every problem. Vilifying government doesn't really accomplish anything. You've gotta come to terms with social conservatism vs your libertarian instincts.

So I say, take your time and come up with some provocative, realistic, coherent alternatives. People will start listening to you probably in the middle of Obama's 2nd term. That's how much time you have, so pace yourselves!

Liberal Hubris and their Special Olympics President

Given that the Republicans are going to have to wait until after President Obama leaves office in 2017, there is no hope for the Republican Party.

Then take a break from politics libs ... it's easy cruisin' for 8 years.

Obama is more out-of-touch with America than Jimmy Carter was. Obama's 'competence' is in fact a papered-over barely-competent administration primped up by kneepad media that covers his sins daily and goes gaga of him like a proud parent of a Special Olympics kid.

Obama is clueless and misunderstands American economics, culture and our values and freedom, and the beltway media likewise is carried along by it since they share the same elitist tin ear and prejudices.  The result is a circle jerk that is completely out of touch with real Americans. The vast majority of Obama's agenda is opposed by most people. As a result Obama's popularity will NOT save Democrats from getting defeated in elections in 2010 and 2012. In fact, the people may very well want a GOP Congress to counterbalance Obama's hubristic arrogant and radical administration.

Almost a million people had the Tea Parties in April. 9 out of 10 people couldnt attend, and were too busy. They wont be on election day.

In the next generation, the U.S. will be less than 50% white and in such a country conservatives have zero chance of success.

Yeah right. A black conservative woman just got elected Mayor in Galveston. Keep telling yourself those lies and the first woman President just might be Sarah Palin.

Shock to the system

Amazing how Obama's out of the mainstream, yet he got elected.

Some of you are going to wake up and realize that what you think is what's out of the mainstream. Some of you won't.

It's going to be extremely painful when that day comes. A shock to the system. I just hope you can recover.

victim mentality

you have an amazing victim mentality. If only the MSM weren't against you, if only people didn't believe Obama's lies, if only...if only.... i wasn't vicitimized by adult reality all the time! Then my side would have won!!! You could be an awesome welfare queen with all this attitude.

The country has moved left. It was totallty predictable with 8 years of a Republican with, shall we say, mixed to awful results, that the country recoils a bit wants to try the other team. Instead of throwing tantrums, maybe try to look at what's really going on and where your party's relevance may lie within the next 7 years. Cuz that's how long you got to figure this out, and so far, your type of  "argument" isn't helping your cause any.



Not hubris...


The Left are not the pussies you've been hearing about in your comfy little echo chamber.

We're pissed, we've got you down and we're kicking the crap out of you.  And everyone that pays even the least bit of attention is cheering us on.

Whine as much as you like.  It's not going to stop. 

You guys wrecked the world and you haven't come close to paying for that yet.

He ain't the first teflon president, is he Patrick?

I think you might have profited if you had taken the pencil to the sharpener & hone the point a bit before writing, Patrick.

There are at least three things at play here: 1) a prez's personal popularity, 2) his approval rating and 3) the role of the pro-Obama, anti-W and anti-GOP MSM & all its horey succubi.

As PrezReagan proved during the Iran-Contra Affair, you can have high personal ratings but see your job approval rating plummet.  Or, in his case, you can be head of state, C-in-C, leader of the Free World, prez of the USA but not be held responsible for what happens on your watch.  It's why my-favorite-pol-to-dislike, CongressCharacterPattieSchroeder of Colorado, first called Reagan the Teflon Prez with this famous, famous spot-on quote: "After carefully watching Ronald Reagan, I can see he's attempting a great breakthrough in political technology. He has been perfecting the Teflon-coated presidency. He sees to it that nothing sticks to him. He is responsible for nothing."

The GOP need not fear the political wilderness we now habit due to some crafty voter fraud by ACORN, a seamlessly manipulative lying prez candidate in Barack, or even the 4.1m disloyal, backstabbing soc-cons who stayed home on Election Day when the GOP needed them to tuff-it-up and vote... the GOP only need remember that Obama's personal popularity can shine like Reagan's and his approval ratings can drop like a cement block around the feet of Antoin "Tony the Legs" Rezko... Obama's favorite underworld slimebag after Rod "StickyFingers" Blagojevich left office.

The computation you made about Obama's newTeflon coating shouldn't be a concern to GOPers.  The problem is breaking the lock-grip his worshipful boosting MSM pals and all their evil succubi have on keeping Obama afloat --no matter what.  That's the rub, eh?

That's the problem for the GOP.  To that, they need a more atuned, saavy, pithy set of pundits pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes... he's in bed with the MSM lying to American people while releasing terrorists, making us more vulnerable than a college intern in SlickWilly's office and doing it with a smile.

Of course, all that personal popularity explodes if Americans are attacked again by terrorists or Obama's War in Afghanistan goes badly.  Those two events won't protect the Prez anymore that sandpaper protects the Teflon coated pan.

But in order to seize any advantage, the GOP needs only keep harping on Obama's Way is the Wrong Way and waiting in the tall grass  --like MoveOn and CodePink and TrialLawyers and others did with the GOP.

Sharper pencil, Patrick.  It isn't an issue of weeding out the 2d or 3d layers of GOP leadership in Congress... it's finding capable pundits like KarlRove and DanaPerino and others to blunt the MSM Obama Blitz.  And people like you in blog-o-land doing better, pointed analysis.

SuperDestroyer... wait, doesn't your side HATE the military?

SuperDestroyer writes: "Given that the Republicans are going to have to wait until after President Obama leaves office in 2017, there is no hope for the Republican Party. "

I think I heard the GeorgiaMafia brought in with JimmineyCricketCarter's campaign say something equally stupid.  Right.  Good political insight there.

'Long Ball' is right on . . . and 'local' may I add.

What I speculate is on the local level . . . traditional conservative reps will give a big FU to the larger leadership and get elected. This will happen in places where Obama is not popular. They'll stay there awile . . . Obama will get re-elected, I'd bet any amount of money on any odds . . . and be the next wave sometime down the road. Not bad. And they might win if

1). Get ride of social conservatism

2) embrace MSM

3) distance themselves from the leadership now . . . right now. Obama paved his way by being against the war during Dem Convention Speach. That was a BIG gamble that paid off years later. It made him look credible when everyone else was scrambling after a vote for the war.

If a brave Rep can say . . . 'gay marriage . . . we lost' and say it with a smile on Colbert, embrace limited abortion rights and stand up for limited goverment spending . . . you may have a contender in 2016. Otherwise, welcome to another four years on the margin AFTER another Dem is voted in.


As for those here who may be against gay marriage and for abortion . . . did you ever notice how Dems don't bring up gun rights anymore? It's not that their position has changed, it's they don't bring it up unless it is brought up. It's not a winner, so why try to make it one. Move on.




Ahhh, the declaration of "Victory" where none exists...

cr offers: "If a brave Rep can say . . . 'gay marriage . . . we lost' and say it with a smile on Colbert, embrace limited abortion rights and stand up for limited goverment spending . . . you may have a contender in 2016."

First, why would anyone with credibility even be on StevenColbert's "show" unless it was to hawk a farLeft book to a farLeft audience of lemmings?  And an audience, I might add, that when added up for an entire week of viewing is 1/4th of RushBlow's DAILY audience or less than 1/4th of BillOReilly's TheNoSpinZone's DAILY audience?

Right, is it 'reaching out' or just a little more time to smear sh*t on a GOPer's face in public by fake news reader Colbert?

And what's with the "gay marriage... we lost" contrition?  I mean there's a lot to regret for GOPers... but being on the winning side of now 17 state constitutional votes where the pro-traditional marriage segement was in excess of 60% seems like your agenda is more about advancing gay marriage than realistic political appraisals.

Gay marriage, increasingly, exists because the will of voters is NOT being heard... it isn't the other way around cr --no matter how bad you might want to marry into a triad group, your pet dog or your teenage niece/nephew.

I get the Libertarian agenda that runs --well, more like aimlessly wanders-- through these threads.  But even you can't, with a str8 face, contend that the GOP or conservatives have been on the wrong side of the marriage equality debate.  Oh wait, you're a Libbie; you can deny reality with your LibbieClubCard and DeCoder ring.

ahh! the man who derides traditional marriage!

well played sir, well played. I too despise Juliet's marriage at age 14...


what? you haven't posted the bans yet?


okay, I've had too much SCA for one week. Let me know if anything of what I've said above is decipherable. I'm going to go chant war songs again.


libbie . . . if you mean libertarian, yes, I am.

Go on Colbert because it's funny and its liberal. I content that Reps talking to reps is getting stale. Heck, skip Colbert and go on Maddow. Embrace the MSM. You won't always be liked or agreed with but you'll get respect . . . especially from the middle with reps are losing.

Also, yes, you're on the wrong side of the marriage debate. Gays want the same right as everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. And support is growing . . . so it's a political LOSER no matter what you or I think.  As for abortion . . . I don't think there's a right side, but I do think the country wants some form of abortion. It's a lost issue. As I said in another post . .. the left want more stringent gun laws but they don't push for it anymore because they've lost on it time and again. As a political issue it's over. At least for the foreseeable future. I'm not saying agree with it, but at least recognize that having that as one the predominate issues of the plant isn't working . . . if only hurting.


The voters are being heard. They voted left. And looking at Rep numbers, they're leaving the party. Is there some hidden cavern where cold-war-nuclear-experiment-republican-mutants live? "The Hills have Republicans". No, party is shrinking.

Drink some political reality, not that Libbie koolaid

cr offers: "Embrace the MSM. You won't always be liked or agreed with but you'll get respect " --um, two words & two words & two words & two more words of reality for you, cr.

1. John McCain.  2. NY Times.  3. Been there.  4. Didn't work.

You have got to be kidding to have failed to learn that basic lesson of the 2008 Election, right?

cr then offers: "you're on the wrong side of the marriage debate" and "so it's a political LOSER no matter what you or I think".  Umm, again, a little political reality for you: the voters in 17 states in the last 5 years have overwhelmingly --overwhelmingly as in 60+% vote-- supported a constitutional BAN on gay marriage, cr.  I don't know what rose colored glasses you're wearing these days, but if you think that's a "loser political position", you can't see and you also can't count, dude.

I don't think there's a need to reply the balance of your rant except to say if you haven't learned a basic lesson from the 2008 Election like the MSM is in the tank for the Dems and Obama, and propose that GOPers have some opportunity to court the MSM and win favorable treatment, then you shouldn't be making your uninformed opinion known to anyone outside your Mom and hairdresser.

Gheesh, what passes for informed political opinion these days is frighteningly shallow.  You have zero, nada, no business advising anyone inside the GOP what to do... or what's ahead... or what caused A, B, or C.

look at the stats

Fact:    McCain got more favorable press at the beggining of the election cycle than Obama. Remember, Obama was an underdog for most of primaries. It's only when he beat Hillary in the first primary that he became the press darling. Everyone likes a winner and a good human interest story. That sales papers. And McCain made a number of different gaffes that made him look stupid and out of touch. Then he picked Palin who worked initially, then bombed on the larger stage. Again, the press is certainly biased, but not as much as people think . . . except for headlines. Papers love headlines, they sale papers. If Reps want to bash MSM, the MSM is certianly willing to villify the bashers. Papers aren't defenders of the truth . . .kind of . .  they're also private business trying to make a buck. They're interested in what people are interested in. If you split from MSM, the MSM won't cater to you becuase you're not the ones buying their papers. Libs don't advertise on National Review, why should they. Problem is that MSM is by definition . . . mainstream. Mainstream means that is where your average american gets their news. The average american is leaving the republicans

Fact: support for gay marriage is RISING. It's still under fifty percent . .. but it was in the 20s at one point.  Look at the poll of your choice. Won't matter. Again, it's rising. You watch, now that some states have it, by default others will follow. It's hard to get around 'equal protection under the law". The states that banned will it turn  . . . eventually. Go ahead, make it an issue. It won't win except in local politics.

Media bias

McCain got more favorable press at the beggining of the election cycle than Obama.

ROFLMAO! Yes he got great coverage from the New York Times - when McCain was the liberals favorite Republican. Once McCain was the nominee, the Times went after him with a bogus story about a lobbyist that reeked so bad it was quietly buried.

Meanwhile the media was too busy getting thrills up their leg to ask any serious questions about Obama's radical leftwing associates and legislative record. The right-wing media did the heavy lifting and it only partially got out there. To this day, the media covers for Obama. has the stats on te massive media bias in 2008. Biggest bias ever, for Obama.



again and again and again

Hillary threw out Ayers in the primary. It didn't stick. Again, the news goes with what sales. And McCain was a moderate favorite (Rep and Dems). Again, he flubbed and got angry when there was a small dip. He used to love being an underdog, but he got mean. And Reps pounced on him as well. So don't put it all on NYT.

And speaking of that. . . it was bad reporting and it didn't go away quitly. They took a drubbing from that.

You just lost. You're angry  . . . and no one likes an angry loser . . . so you'll probably lose again.


And any politician knows you control the press cycle.  . . you just don't beg for good converage. That's why all good prezs and candidates have good press people. Rep or Dem. God, you think Reagan just put on a smile and hoped it would all work out for him? That guy could take an issue and make a ming vase (and most of the time he didn't even know what he was talking about). . .and now all republicans can do is cry like whiny two year olds.  No wonder you don't get any respect. What the fuck happened to you people?

cr, try cleaning up your act and your logic...

cr, I'm not sure why, when pressed on simple untruthful statements made by you, you resort to swearing, ranting and fuming... all while contending your side won on ElectionDay and GOPers are the angry men in the crowd?

Here's the rub of it, in case you missed this political lesson leading up to 2008 like you did the other political lessons of 2008, the farLeft Democrats and their media-thugs and Hollywood groupies spent 8 yrs BEFORE 2008 screaming about W and the conservatives in Congress in an endless venting spewfest that would make millions for anger-management consultants if ever hired by ScreaminHowieDean for the DNC-faithful.

Anger works, cr.  It builds passion in the base.  Negative campaigning --far from what candidate Obama lied about-- does work and he still uses it in his never ending campaign even today (please see slamfests against RushBlow, W, Cheney, et al).

You need to either ratchet up your intellectual skills or learn some basic lessons from the 2008, cr.

Until then, you're just another reality-challenged bloviator trying to spin your version of reality.  Like the earlier nonsense that being in favor of traditional marriage is a losing political position... even though majorities in 17 states have adopted constitutional amendments in the last 6 yrs to protect marriage.

You gotta get a new act, dude.  I suggest "reality" is an act you might want to embrace.

I feel calm actually

And I'm not the one saying 'anger works'. I think it works in the short term, but overall it's a pretty bad idea the govern your life by it. Haven't you ever seen 'Star Wars'? The path to the dark side starts with fear, fear leads to anger. . .

I'm not disagreeing with you that two handfulls of states have passed some amendment banning gay marriage, but that is slowing down and legislated laws allowing gay marriage are increasing. And I won't profess to know what 'reality' is, but I generally believe numbers are the closest thing to describe pieces of it. So don't listen to me . . . because you won't. But crank up the google machine and look for polling data.

here,  and older but better and there's plenty of where that came from.

However, I'm not even here to defend gay marriage. I'm for it, but really it doesn't affect me much. However, my original point was that Reps are losing on social issues. Bush was social conservatives best shot at abortion and gay marriage. Those things died (politically) with him. Again, on a local level, they will work in some places, but nationally, expect the prez candidates to moderate their views. They won't listen to me, or you. Or media 'thugs'.

They'll listen to polling numbers.

cr: "I feel calm, actually" why the swearing rants?

cr, you spin faster than a Whirling Dervish on uppers.

cr offers: "I'm not disagreeing with you that two handfulls of states have passed some amendment banning gay marriage, but that is slowing down and legislated laws allowing gay marriage are increasing."

Ummm, for the record, that would THREE HANDFULS OF STATES (actually threehandfuls and then some... like 17 states) PASSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS to ban gay marriage.  Toss in NY and Maryland's Supreme Courts holding man-woman marriage is NOT constitutionally prohibited and we get to 19 states.

Those states allowing gay marriage? Let's see, not Maine yet.  Not Vermont yet.  CT and Iowa.  Wow.  Talk about the hotbed of progressive, radical reform, eh?  Connecticut and Iowa prove your case that "things are a'changing"?

Ummm, yeah, right.  You run with that spin, dude.  It's all you got on your BEST day.

Here's what the Democrats need to do to get back in touch

face it, the Democrats are hubris-mode steering themselves over a waterfall.

Great for the GOP, as 2010 is shaping up to be 1994 all over again. But the Dems can stop it if they are smart:

1) Reject Obama and his imminent failures and extremism in socializing healthcare, freeing terrorists, and destroying industrial jobs with cap-and-trade-and-tax-and-regulate.

2) Quit trying to shove failed cultural marxism down American people's throats - stop supporting gay marriage, abortion on demand, multiculturalism, PC on campus, and amnesty for illegals

3) Stop being anti-science and rejecting the sounds science that has proved that global warming is not a threat and polar bears are not going extinct. Recognize that cap-and-trade is bad for USA and give up on it.

... in short, the Democrats need to stop being deranged out-of-touch leftists and start moving to the center.

And if you liberal trolls think "That's crazy advice, why would the Democrats give up their core values" one has to wonder why you think similar advice to the GOP isn't any less crazy.




You make a great point

in that there are 2 fundamentally ways of looking at the world. What you describe to me is absolutely nuts and not where the country is at. But I'm sure you see it as the exact inverse. I think the thing we have to acknowledge is the Right had it's way for the last 8 years, and lost a decisive election in '08. That means that your views are not ascendant, rather on the decline. Sure that can change in time, but for now, that's the dynamic whether you acknowledge it or not.Tthe fact that you don't like the ideas that are ascendant has no relevance to what will be successful, politically or in practice.

And I would offer you this: if it isn't successful in practice, then the Left and Obama will be in a world of hurt. If it works, it will have discredited your entire idealogy. See, the stakes are pretty high and I can't wait to see how it all plays out!

You are quite right in a way . . .

I was discussing at another point in this post and I pointed out that Reps shouldn't give up their core values . . . it's a free country still, right?


Dems won on those issues so why would they move? Actually Dems might have had a very big win in a way. Yet to be seen, but Dems didn't discuss moving more center during the Bush years. It was never up for discussion; however, now Reps are on defensive arguing with themselves about where they should be.

It will be seen during next congressional election. If Dems keep their gaines ( a referendum of the far right?) then Replican prez candidates in 2012 will be forced to sound more moderate than McCain. The 'base' will then be in effective exile.

However, if Reps make significant gains then  . . . game on!

I don't profess to know, but that is what is setting up. I've just been noticing Romney moving toward the center were he was before his first run. So I can only think he thinks Reps aren't going to make significant gains. Palin doesn't have a chance nor Jindel (even thought I like the guy). Is there someone else that has a chance against a very popular Obama?

Giulliani . . . he he.


And I forgot to say if Dems expand in 2010 then its catastrophic meltdown for the Rep party. Reps will never rebound (and they will rebound at some point) in time to reverse most of the Dem initiatives and court choices.

GOP Support Lies Dormant...

...its not that Obama is so popular in some of these slanted, biased and manipulated polls taken.  Not at all.  The problem is that the GOP is in complete disarray. No connection with Mom/Pop middle America.  They're saying all of the wrong things. 

There are good Republicans but they're lying low.  Keeping their mouth shut. Cowards if you ask me.  Instead we're stuck with this bunch of rino's out on their "listening tour".  There is nothing for the nations conservatives to be enthusiastic about.  DD


What exactly is a good republican? And you'd kick the RINOs out so that instead of 23% (I believe) you'd have a smaller, leaner and more powerfull 18%? The RINOs are listening . . . to blacks, latinos, women and younger voters leaving the party . . . leaving not mom and pop middle america . . . but grandma and grandpa middle america.

If GOP support gets any more dormant, it'll have to take up ACORN tactics and register dead people.


Well lets start with...

...the 59.9 million solid conservatives who held their noses and voted McCain. Not for McCain but against Obama (count me=in that group).  Then add the 10 - 20 million highly principled conservatives who decided to either "stay at home" on 11/7/06 & 11/4/08 or protest vote against the do-nothing collection of transnationalist rino's who've hijacked the GOP.  The GOP is being punished for moving from the right, back leftward, toward the center.  And in McCains case, past the center. 

And Repub's will be further punished on 11/2/10 if they don't acquire a backbone and re-connect with the conservative Base.  The GOP has to go to the Base. The Base will not come to them.  And the Base is way over there on the right.  And there's  plenty of them to give the GOP a very comfortable victory if the GOP conveys the correct message.  DD

You wish there was 10-20 million more conservatives

In what dreamworld do you think 10-20 million conservative voters stayed home on election night? Please, back away from the kool-aid.

Those polls that show more people consider themselves conservative is very misleading for you. Conservative, liberal, moderate, these are broad, vague terms. They can mean a lot of things.

John McCain believes he's a conservative. A lot of you don't. Get the picture? A whole hell of a lot of 'conservatives' voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore, and Clinton.

Party ID is what's important. Breakdown is Dem-35%, Indy-35%, Repub-28%. That's reality.

Conservative polls better than Liberal

"Party ID is what's important. Breakdown is Dem-35%, Indy-35%, Repub-28%. That's reality"

It is ALSO reality that Conservative polls much better than Liberal. yes, it does mean things. People are VERY Conservative, much more so than Govt policy on a range of issues.

The fact is that GOP underpolls conservative and Dem overpolls liberal. Media bias is very helpful to the Dems in hiding their liberal agenda and/or confusing people over who stands for what. The way to cut through that clutter is to have bold, strong and clear policy agenda-driven campaigns. Are you for or against gun control? Are you for freeing terrorists (Obama), or for getting tough on interrogating them (Cheney)? Higher taxes and more spending or lower taxes and less govt spending?

McCain was a bad candidate because he was incapable of drawing that sharp distinction and call out Obama as the left-liberal elitist that he is. Cap and trade? the bailout? Massive govt spending?  Yes, McCain lost votes from conservatives (bad move for them). Obama's massively dishonest campaign even had the most pro-abort nominee in history managing to troll for votes in pro-life groups.

This is a complete and utter case of campaign style beating substance. Millions of voters voted for "change" last november and didnt even know that CHANGE WOULD REQUIRE FIRING PELOSI AS SPEAKER!

Ignorance was Obama's best campaign friend.




I'm more conservative than YOUUU ARE!

(yes, that was childish).

But who saves half her salary for emergencies?

Who would be able to actually save money on unemployment (no, i'm not joking -- the fact that you all are such wasteful spendthrifts...)?

Who actively pays more to the government than she gets back?

ahem. that would be me. and I do it willingly.


If all that, plus my wonderful family values, dont' count as conservative... I dont' want to know what does!

Squeezing the balloon

Numbers change and number can be changed, but a better thing to do (and not always reliable) is look at trends. Republicans are losing numbers . . . and polling very bad with minorities. Of course you've lost blacks, but you're losing the hispanics you did have. And then their is the youth vote that is skewed heavilly towars dems. And then then number of evangelicals is decreasing.

And Rush's audience is mostly over sixty five.

Is this a boon to Dems? I wouldn't say that. There is certainly a reason the indies are the fastest growing party. But even that is bad for far-right conservatism. There's no chance of indies adaquately representing the far right.  They are the non-aligned center.

Dems don't have never had a big push towards ideological purity and are happy to reach into that pie. I know the far right tends to group all lefties into some big marxist cabal but the Dems are a fairly diverse and messy party. They are by their own definition the big tent party. Big, inclusive and unorganized. However, when they do get a very good leader . . . like Barack and the point of this post . . . they do very well.

And whatever anyone thinks of his policies . . . he is a leader. I think its a no-contest in 2012. He's as smart as Clinton and as clean as Carter. 2016 will be interesting. Until then all the action will be local. Reps are polling pretty good considering the drubbing they took in the general election . . . it will be interesting if Barack can swing some (not all) locals.

60 seats is a lot to ask for, they may only have it for five minutes, but . . . we'll see. In that five minutes though, they'll put in a lot of cour nominations . .. gauranteed.

They used to be called Reagan Democrats...

...they're conservative and nationalistic in their personal lives. They're not involved in politics unless they can get enthusiastic about a candidate. As they were w/Reagan.  But the watered down, transnationalist GOP has become a big turn-off to them. 

These are blue-collar types.  They're out there waiting for the GOP to turn 180 degrees from the direction that the Bush family steered her.  Once that happens they'll come back in droves and the GOP will once again enjoy decisive victories.  DD

 The GOP needs to connect to

 The GOP needs to connect to the American people. We saw 8 years of social conservative rule. That is a trickle down that did not trickle down. A war on convenience and not of necessity. A military stretched thin on two wars. Losing Osama Bin Laden and abandoning Afghanistan. Add to that deficits and debt. We have seen free trade destroy middle class jobs with no answer. We also saw the arrogance, ignorance, lies, deceit, neoconism, the attempt of religion in government, blunders, and incompetence. Yeah, we saw the right. Now, can you come back to the middle and fix the problems at hand?

The American People are Social Conservatives

A great example of that is 95% of blacks in California voting for Obama and then voting for prop 8.

While the American people are that way, the elites are not, and the cultural marxists who control academia, influence the media and are part of the leftwing agitprop noise machine that prevents

Arrogant elitists like Obama go around putting their noses up at the bitter clingers, in between attempts to pander to those same voters. Rather than respect their values, he tries to corrupt them and make them dependents, so that they will vote for Sugar Daddy govt.

It works so long as enough suckers are willing to pay the bill for bad, wasteful, job-killing government welfare state.

"We have seen free trade destroy middle class jobs with no answer." 

You have seen high Govt taxes, overregulation, and a govt policies that are explicitly anti-white-middle-class-male ship jobs overseas and screw the pillars of our formerly strong economy.

We also saw the arrogance (OBAMA), ignorance (BIDEN), lies (PELOSI), deceit (REID), neoconism (OBAMA'S AFGHAN POLICY), the attempt of religion in government (REV WRIGHT), blunders (OBAMA'S PHONY STIMULUS), and incompetence.

"Now, can you come back to the middle and fix the problems at hand?"

The #1 problem at hand is that outright job-killing socialists are in control. The best way to steer the country to the middle is to elect more Republicans to balance the most leftwing Congress in US history.

 If you are upset at Obama

 If you are upset at Obama and the direction of the country, then you should have done a better job in the last 8 years. Frankly, I don't care anymore. We have seen both parties with failed policies. I disagree with your assumption on the loss of middle class jobs. We cannot compete with 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians with cheap labor. The architects of free trade have no answer to the loss of jobs. We live in the age of globalization, and third world countries will win. Our wages have to come down to their level, add to that the loss of healthcare and pensions. So add it up, by going overseas a company does not have to pay middle class wages, healthcare, pensions, social security, and not have OSHA standards.

The Globalization Thingee

If you are upset at Obama and the direction of the country, then you should have done a better job in the last 8 years.

I did a fine job, my net worth more than doubled, my family increased, and the Republican state I am in (TX) grew and expanded jobs faster than any other state. People escaped from other states to come here. Life was good. The next 8 years are a question mark.

Frankly, I don't care anymore.

Stay off of political boards then. Apathy sure saves you time worrying about things!

We have seen both parties with failed policies. I disagree with your assumption

But it's the same failed policies for both of them: Overspending, over-regulating to the point of killing jobs and prosperity, and a tax system that punishes production and rewards over-consumption. You see, if you want to keep jobs in the USA, it would help to have the copr tax rate NOT be the highest among the OECD; and we could pay down that rate if we ended the mortgage interest deduction, a subsidy for big housing.

on the loss of middle class jobs. We cannot compete with 1 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians with cheap labor. The architects of free trade have no answer to the loss of jobs. We live in the age of globalization, and third world countries will win.

You say there is no answer. Wrong. There's your answer. Globalization. It cannot be stopped. So lets learn to live with it, since we cant fight it. Figure out how to live with it and win.

What the heck do I know. I have weekly calls to our co-workers in India. Danged if I know how to stop the progress of being able to shoot information around the globe in a millisecond. I have children and I dont know if they will be able to secure a better life than someone in India. But maybe that's the wrong question, maybe we shouldnt worry if India will catch up, just worry if WE are moving forward.

Our wages have to come down to their level, add to that the loss of healthcare and pensions.

Regulations that raise the cost of healthcare make it harder to add jobs here. Obama will only make it worse.

So add it up, by going overseas a company does not have to pay middle class wages, healthcare, pensions, social security, and not have OSHA standards.

We can have a win/win if we educate our children to high standards (school choice, accountability, end to lax standards), and work to keep a competitive economy (low taxes, and a non-screwed up Govt regulation/litigation environment).