A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Reporter Arrested on Orders of Giuliani Press Secretary
Charged with Criminal Trespass Despite Protest of CNN Staff and Official Event Press Credentials at GOP Debate in New Hampshire http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/060607Arrested.htm

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Republican self-identification in US hits new low

More independents then Republicans now - ouch

Cycloptichorn

Not huge news. They've lost 1.3% over the last 6 months. Democrats slipped 1.7% over the same period. Neither stat means much of anything, really.

0 Replies

I just finished watching the debate on CNN.com. Am I the only one who thinks that Ron Pauls utter reasonableness stood out among the other nine candidates? McCain was kind of okay too, but the rest of them were just different shades of scary.

0 Replies

No... I noticed Ron Paul... and think he did splendidly for independents and could probably even pull quite a few Democrats in the general election that he won't be participating in because he's aiming for the Republican nod.

0 Replies

Isn't that strange though? He is one of the most conservative Republicans in the House, according to his voting record, as ranked by voteview.com. He should be one of those candidates whom Republicans love and Democrats/Independents hate. But apparently "being Republican", in the current political climate, still is synonymous to "supporting George Bush" and "approving of the war on Iraq". These two issues dominate so much that a candidate can be super-conservative and still appear too liberal for mainstream Republicans to appreciate him.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Not huge news. They've lost 1.3% over the last 6 months. Democrats slipped 1.7% over the same period. Neither stat means much of anything, really.

Well, its not short-term news; the numbers of the last six months are not spectacular, even ambiguous.

But take a step back here.

In 2004, the Republicans carried the Presidency with a 3% margin of victory.

But that was at a time when 37.2% of Americans described themselves as Republicans, and 38.7% as Democrats.

As almost throughout the past century, the Democrats had a lead - but it was threadbare. Independents made up just 24.1%.

If you count the Republicans and Democrats as voter blocks for the respective presidential nominees (not quite true, but more true in '04 than it had ever been, and the cross-voting minorities largely cancelled each other out), then you can see that Bush only needed to win over the barest of majorities of the Independents to carry the elections.

Soon as the Independents would break 13% to Bush, 11% for Kerry, Bush was in.

OK, fast forward to today.

Just 30.8% of Americans describe themselves as Republicans. 36.3% describe themselves as Democrats. And a whopping 32.9%, the highest in many years, describe themselves as Indys.

OK, again, take the Reps and Dems roughly as voting blocks. Now, if the Republican still wants to win, the Independents would have to break 20% to him against just 13% to the Democrat.

Not impossible, but its a big bump in their road. The difference with '04 is significant.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I just finished watching the debate on CNN.com. Am I the only one who thinks that Ron Pauls utter reasonableness stood out among the other nine candidates?

He was much helped by the loud presence of Tancredo, who was kind of invisible last time round.

I mean, thanks to Tancredo, Ron Paul suddenly sounded sane in comparison. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

I thought I read recently that Bush was responsible for losing about 25% of the conservative base, and that resulted in the bad showing for the GOP during the last election - including, but not limited, to those high level congressmen who got caught with lies, sex scandal and money.

The latest problems for the GOP is their support of Bush even though most Americans want our troops to come home on some sort of schedule rather than "stay the course." The pundits are saying many of those will also be losing their seats in congress in November.

What da ya think?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Not huge news. They've lost 1.3% over the last 6 months. Democrats slipped 1.7% over the same period. Neither stat means much of anything, really.

Well, its not short-term news; the numbers of the last six months are not spectacular, even ambiguous.

But take a step back here.

In 2004, the Republicans carried the Presidency with a 3% margin of victory.

But that was at a time when 37.2% of Americans described themselves as Republicans, and 38.7% as Democrats.

As almost throughout the past century, the Democrats had a lead - but it was threadbare. Independents made up just 24.1%.

If you count the Republicans and Democrats as voter blocks for the respective presidential nominees (not quite true, but more true in '04 than it had ever been, and the cross-voting minorities largely cancelled each other out), then you can see that Bush only needed to win over the barest of majorities of the Independents to carry the elections.

Soon as the Independents would break 13% to Bush, 11% for Kerry, Bush was in.

OK, fast forward to today.

Just 30.8% of Americans describe themselves as Republicans. 36.3% describe themselves as Democrats. And a whopping 32.9%, the highest in many years, describe themselves as Indys.

OK, again, take the Reps and Dems roughly as voting blocks. Now, if the Republican still wants to win, the Independents would have to break 20% to him against just 13% to the Democrat.

Not impossible, but its a big bump in their road. The difference with '04 is significant.

You can't take statistics that far, Nimh. Those who recently decided they don't want to be counted with the Republicans (likely, largely, because of Bush... who isn't running) aren't magically going to become dead-center-middle-of-the-road average among Independent voters. That simply means the arbitrary drawing line has moved a little. I believe it's probably, mostly an ABB hangover, because the people are still the same. One look at the latest General Polls with and without names should show you that.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I mean, thanks to Tancredo, Ron Paul suddenly sounded sane in comparison.

Actually all the others looked scary. When Blitzer asked him what the most pressing moral issue of our time was, all the others delivered some "pro life" sermon. Paul said it's the general acceptance of preventive war as a policy tool, and expressed his shock that other candidates were casually talking about a nuclear attack on Iran. I could have reached through the screen and smooched the man. He was the only one with the courage to state the obvious.

0 Replies

Somebody posted on another thread that Bush's approval rating is now 29%. It has the potential to go lower, and I'm only wondering how low it can go with so many die-hard Bush supporters.

0 Replies

Of the lot I like Paul the best. He's not pandering to the conservative base. He's probable the only honest one out there.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Those who recently decided they don't want to be counted with the Republicans (likely, largely, because of Bush... who isn't running) aren't magically going to become dead-center-middle-of-the-road average among Independent voters. [..] I believe it's probably, mostly an ABB hangover, because the people are still the same.

Fair enough.

Its also true that there are slices of voters who call themselves Independent, but in practice most always vote for the Reps, or for the Dems. So its fair to point out that there's people who now call themselves Indys, but considering how recently they still described themselves as Reps, you can assume them to still be right-leaning.

But if you're looking back at how they described themselves in 2004 to relativate their current self-description, why not look further back at how they described themselves in 2000 or before as well?

The October 2004 data that had 37% identifying themselves as Republicans was right at the peak of partisan identification with the Republican Party. Ergo, the 37% who described themselves as Republicans in 2004 included a fair number of people who had not described themselves as Republicans five or ten years previously.

And I'm guessing its much the same people who moved into the Republican column between 9/11 and the 2004 elections, who are leaving it again now.

So yes, you can say - well, just three years ago they called themselves Reps so you can count on their hearts still beating reliably on the right. But you can also say - hey - Bush got his narrow 2004 victory thanks to an unprecedented shift of party identification to his side - and now, that flood has turned into ebb again. People who were no Republicans before 9/11 are going back to being no Republicans again now.

0 Replies

Nimh: Oh, I certainly agree they can't be "counted upon" to vote Right; but let's be honest here. I consider myself an independent. Better yet. MM considers himself an independent.

I think it's safe to assume that a majority of those who moved into self-identifying with the Republican Party were already leaning that way, no? Look at the other side... "I'm probably going to vote for the Democratic candidate; unless it's Hillary Clinton". How many people who consider themselves "independents" reside there? How many do you suppose would really pull the trigger for anyone but Hillary if she was in a tight race against Newt? I just don't think a self assessment between Right and Right-Leaning-Independent (or the Left equivalent) is very compelling at all.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Nimh: Oh, I certainly agree they can't be "counted upon" to vote Right; but let's be honest here. I consider myself an independent. Better yet. MM considers himself an independent.

I think it's safe to assume that a majority of those who moved into self-identifying with the Republican Party were already leaning that way, no? Look at the other side... "I'm probably going to vote for the Democratic candidate; unless it's Hillary Clinton". How many people who consider themselves "independents" reside there? How many do you suppose would really pull the trigger for anyone but Hillary if she was in a tight race against Newt? I just don't think a self assessment between Right and Right-Leaning-Independent (or the Left equivalent) is very compelling at all.

All very true.

But then with your logic you could declare any change in party ID numbers over five years irrelevant, because there's always the thing about how 'just five years ago, the same people called themselves X, so they wont really have moved far'.

Whereas eventually, there are changes over time, where a significant share of voters moves from center to right or vice versa, or from left to center or vice versa. Under Reagan, for example, the shift to the right. Under FDR, to the left. Shifting tectonical plates. Just look at this magnificent graph for a hint of how such shifting tectonics over five or ten years can mark entire generations.

Your points are all well taken, for sure. But a party ID drop of 7 points in three years, considering just how slow and gradually that indicator generally changes, does seem about as strong an indication of shifting tectonics as the party ID numbers can ever give. So unless you reject the relevance of party ID numbers completely, this is not meaningless.

0 Replies

Or, to put it in a more simplistic way:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Those who recently decided they don't want to be counted with the Republicans (likely, largely, because of Bush... who isn't running) aren't magically going to become dead-center-middle-of-the-road average among Independent voters. [..]

This is obviously true - but if there is a significant slice of voters that shifted from explicitly Republican to Independent-leaning Republican, wouldnt it be a logical guess that a similar slice moved from Independent-leaning Republican to dead-center-middle-of-the-road (and thus into tossup voter status)?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Or, to put it in a more simplistic way:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Those who recently decided they don't want to be counted with the Republicans (likely, largely, because of Bush... who isn't running) aren't magically going to become dead-center-middle-of-the-road average among Independent voters. [..]

This is obviously true - but if there is a significant slice of voters that shifted from explicitly Republican to Independent-leaning Republican, wouldnt it be a logical guess that a similar slice moved from Independent-leaning Republican to dead-center-middle-of-the-road (and thus into tossup voter status)?

I suppose that would be a logical guess, but a guess just the same. I'd find that argument more compelling if the Democrats had seen a similar surge... but they didn't. In a two party system, by that logic, shouldn't there be a measurable increase on the Left side if we're assuming a shift towards middle also pushes the middle over center? Why does the assumed shift suddenly stop dead, just short of the next measurement? I'm not suggesting there none... just that I don't see it as significant.

I think the more likely causation remains the ABB effect. Look at Thomas's point about Ron Paul having a strong conservative (supposedly a Republican trait) record, yet he's being rejected by the Right... that is continuing to be Bush-like. Obviously; the strategists must think that Bush-like= Republican for that to occur. Meanwhile; some 70% of Americans don't approve of Bush. It doesn't strike me as at all odd there'd be some disassociation going on. America loves a winner... and they obviously don't like Bush.

0 Replies

O'Bill: America loves a winner... and they obviously don't like Bush.

You would think that most people would have learned after six years something was awfully wrong with Bush; he doesn't listen to his experts, the American People, or congress. (Even ignored the whole world when they demonstrated against going to war in Iraq.)

Bush praises everybody that's worked for him, even the ones who have shown incompetence in their jobs.

The most incompetent of them all is Bush; he can't see his own party leaving him, and he seems oblivious to the low poll ratings that continues its downward spiral. [size=7]He's an idiot, and there are still 29% who support him.[/size]

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I just finished watching the debate on CNN.com. Am I the only one who thinks that Ron Pauls utter reasonableness stood out among the other nine candidates? McCain was kind of okay too, but the rest of them were just different shades of scary.

Actually, I liked some of Paul's answers more than I thought I would. All of the Republicans were at least proud of America instead of running the country down, as the Democrats do. Sharp contrast there.

Paul's most impressive answer was in regard to gays in the military where he pointed out that rights should stem from being an individual, not from being a member of some group, which of course the Democrats are a bunch of groupees. He pointed out the constitution protects individual rights.

Tancredo went way down in my estimation. Of course he never had a chance anyway. Some of his points were valid, but his general theme of sour grapes was not leadership quality. Also, when he indicated Bush would not be welcome in the White House, that was rather shocking, and totally uncalled for. I think we can disagree without being vindictive. We do not want that in a leader.

Although Paul has some good points, he is also rather shrill and is more or less a pipsqueak type of image, and just does not fit the mold of a leader that can inspire. Of course he has no chance and never will.

I am looking for not only a platform that I agree with, but a leader that has the temperament and leadership qualities to be president. None of the Democrats come even close to fitting the mold. Of the top 3 Republicans, I would favor Romney I think. Guiliani may be good manager, pro business, and is patriotic, but somewhat liberal. I have a hard time visualizing the man as president. McCain is at least patriotic and can be inspiring, but is totally naive, and says things I know he will not back up, such as "I will veto every bill that comes to my desk with pork" or some such statement. I said, you are lying on that one, John, only saying stuff to appeal to people. All candidates do a little in that regard, but outright lies are a little too obvious. And his immigration bill will work no better than his campaign finance bill, another total fiasco that should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain. Romney is slicker than I would prefer, but he has shown managerial skill, decent personal morals and family, and has youthful energy and optimism to bring to the problems facing us.

Of the darkhorses back in the pack, Duncan Hunter showed me more than any of them. Huckaby is a good down home guy, decent, and shares some good views, but seems to lack the presence needed in a leader. Same with Brownback.

0 Replies

okie, It's interesting how you're able to say liberals run the country down, but you are completely oblivious to the destruction of this country by Bush and his cohorts.

1. We've lost most of our allies during Bush's tenure.
2. The rich are getting richer, and the poor is getting poorer. More than six million more Americans are without health insurance.
3. The Katrina disaster is still a disaster after Bush said "we're going to see the biggest reconstruction building program in the US..."
4. The Iraq war has so far cost about 3,500 of our military, over 100,000 Iraqis, and about two billion of our tax dollars every week that could be better spent at home.
5. Rumsfeld, Brown, DeLay, Ney, Frist, Halliburton, Abramoff, Rove, Cunningham, .......and many more.
6. Increased our enemies in the Middle East.
7. Made the world less secure; terrorism increased since Bush took over in the white house.
8. Bush believes in teaching ID in our schools.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know