Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

Unhappy Republicans pondering their choices for 2012

Gallup has a new poll up already about the 2012 elections. Who would Republicans like to see run for president next time? I turned the results into a graph, and what struck me most about the numbers is just how disgruntled Republicans are about the choices they have at hand. There's not one person in this list that is not dismissed by at least about a third of Republicans.

Scroll to the right (or click for the image in a new window) of the image for the explanation:

Nimh

Three results there surprised me; Petraeus, Jeb and Graham.

I think your notion re Petraeus and Iraq-weariness must be correct but I'd add in his lack of conservative movement/christian bona fides.

Graham looks to be associated now with McCain so strongly that he gets most disliked status.

Jeb (contrary to Joe Scarborough's prediction on Nov 5 that he was "the future of the Republican party") is clearly the victim of his brother's descent in the conservative worldview. The Bush 'brand' ain't what it used to be and that's an interesting phenomenon.

There's an inevitable consequence here in the conservative movement's defense of conservativism...if 'conservatism' is to remain pristine and without sin, then the individuals who were previously held up as exemplars of it must be made accountable for electoral losses - they really weren't 'conservatives' at all. And of course, that is just how this is playing out. No one is more vociferous in pushing this equation than Limbaugh (along with his many talk radio clones) and Fox. It's no coincidence that Palin has met the approval of these voices and registers as well as she does in this poll. See posts from okie or finn or foxfyre as exemplary.

I think this all presents a pretty good picture of how influential talk radio has become within that intellectually-isolated community which still defines themselves as R or leaning R.

An interesting and revealing historical analysis in the Annenburg "Echo Chamber" book details how Trent Lott was driven from power after his comments celebrating Strom Thurmond...that resignation was driven and made inevitable by Limbaugh.

Clear as mud, Gentel, most of the map looks black or gray, certainly not red or blue, at least on my monitor.

You possibly want to take into consideration pine trees vs people. Possibly not.

blatham, you obviously do not understand the basis of the United States Constitution. The reason some things were based upon land area, vs population, is because the founders realized it would be unwise to weight all government strictly upon the tyranny of the masses. "Possibly not" at the very least.

shake head

Example, 2 senators per state, regardless of number of pine trees they represent, blatham. LOL.

Okie, you were commenting on how most of the map looked black to you rather than blue or red. If you read the description of it that is located on the right side of the map, you'll see that the brightness of the red or black color indicates population density and how much of that population density voted for each party. For the areas that are not brightly lit that indicates a more sparsely populated area and where there is no distinction of color, that indicates a fairly even vote with no one party dominating.

That's what Blatham's cryptic suggestion was alluding to... dark color equals pine trees equals sparse population equals no distinctive dominating voting trend for that population.

Butrfly, I think I understand blatham perfectly, perhaps you do not. The map emphasizes people over land area, and my point is that sparsely populated states do count very highly, in part, constitutionally, vs densely populated states, and I pointed this out by mentioning each state has 2 senators regardless of population. So I think the map is misleading if you believe in the electoral college, which I do completely. This is the United States of America, in case some people would like to forget that simple fact. The government, as it was set up, is supposed to represent the interests of other things besides mere numbers of people, it should represent pine trees if you want to phrase it that way, because it represents all kinds of interests, land interests, commerce, agriculture, etc., that may not be purely supported by urban voters.

There are lots of rural interests maintained for the good of the country by a relatively small portion of the population, and those interests need to be protected and represented, and that is why the government has been partly framed by representation based upon population and partly by representation of land area or state. Each state has interests important to the country, different from other states, apart from its population. For example, Alaska is a huge contributor of energy, but has a very small population. So by giving Alaska 2 senators and also their own electoral votes, Alaska has been deservingly given a little bit more representation, proportionately, than it would otherwise have by virtue of only its population. There is such a thing as the tyranny of a pure majority, and that is one thing recognized by the founders.

The map isn't misleading at all, okie. It was intended to show voting results in various geographic populations with the brightness of the colors weighted by population density. Nothing more and nothing less. It wasn't meant to show anything about the electoral college. If it was, the various states would be solid red or blue based on the winner-take-all status.

You may understand Blatham but you still don't understand the map that Blatham was attempting to explain to you.

You just said it wasn't meant to show the electoral college, and this is the reason I contend it is misleading. We do not elect presidents by popular vote, by population alone, we do it by electoral college for all the reasons that I have explained. I still believe in the concept of the states and what they represent, as well as the electoral college, thus I believe the map is misleading. The dark areas are so dark as to make it very difficult to determine very easily at all whether they are very dark blue or very dark red, so the rural sparsely populated areas are essentially shown as dark gray or black, thus the people living there are essentially not represented at all on the map as it is portrayed, and I think that is very misleading.

People have opinions based upon their lifestyles and regional cultures, and I think that rural areas are just as valid as the masses living in cities And incidentally those rural areas may contribute much more proportionately to the tax base and economic base of the country, through natural resource and agricultural production, and I think that is extremely important.

By the way, Franken, the nutcase, I notice is still trying to steal the election in Minnesota.

Recounts are stealing the election?

Cycloptichorn

Why do you think that he is a nutcase? Because he disagrees with your political point of view? He's a bright man, Harvard grad (cum laude 1973), author of several best-selling books, movie actor - all-in-all a pretty successful man.

How odd it is that you think that he's trying to steal the election when MN election laws have a mandated recount when the margin is less than 0.5%. So he is not attempting to steal anything. The current re-count has it now down to trailing his opponent 215 votes out of 2.8 M MN votes, or less than 0.0075%.

Why do I think he is a nutcase? Because he is. And he is not an honest man, just my opinion, you are free to disagree. Writing books, acting, etc. is not an indicator of being bright, and for sure it isn't a proof of being honest or not being a nutcase.

The following contains an example of a vote that he is questioning.

http://thepatriotpage.blogspot.com/2008/11/us-senator-al-franken-by-hook-or-by.html

This is a Tautology, Okie. You didn't provide any proof to back up your opinion, but instead asserted the validity of it without providing any details.

Cycloptichorn

The sun came up this morning, cyclops, because it did. Is that a tautology?

Two points:

First, that isn't a tautology at all, for a tautology is this -



So when you say, 'Franken is a nutjob, because he is,' that's a tautology. What you wrote was not a tautology.

Second, the sun does not rise; the earth rotates. So what you wrote isn't technically true at all.

Cycloptichorn

on edit: I see you changed your post, to include the words 'because it did.' Yes, that is a tautology. You're explaining something using the something itself as the explanation. Logical Fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

Thats all kind of funny, cyclops. I think my point should be obvious. Consider "character" for a moment. If you judge another persons character, it is an opinion based upon ones personal mindset, and most of the time it may be obvious to most people, without citing specifics. For example, Osama Bin Laden is a nutcase. I think you might agree with that, I am not sure, but there are people that would disagree, and no amount of evidence would convince them otherwise, so citing evidence in regard to character is often a fruitless pursuit, it is a matter of opinion. But I would still say Osama Bin Laden is a nutcase, because he is, plain and simple. Now, I am in no way saying Franken is comparable to Osama Bin Laden, but I think the same principle applies, I just do not have a high opinion of his character. I would rather not waste alot of time trying to convince anyone, because the evidence is there for anyone that cares, and no amount of debating it is probably going to change anyones mind.

Similar debates exist for lots of politicians. I think George Bush is a very decent man, while the left has spun the man into a virtual devil. They will cite evidence, which I do not believe has any credibility, so the conclusion is that we will just have to agree to disagree. So if you think Franken is your man, a great billiant guy, go for it, but I do not in the least.