A Problem of Shrinkage

[CountArach]

Interestingly, Palin has both the highest favorable and the highest unfavorable ratings of any.

She is the best known of those and as such has fewer undecideds. This is a huge liability in an election where you have a net favourability rating of +1 because there are few voters who will change their mind on you.

A far more acurate look would be the net favourability ratings which are +1 for Palin, +12 for Romney (Thought -12 in January last year when he was campaigning), -3 for Gingrich and +11 for Steele (Though admittedly, there isn'y much point measuring it when 63% of people don't know). That would imply that Romney is the best bet for the Republican Party as he has a good net favourability AND a lot of undecided voters. It is just a matter of not being painted as the plutocratic candidate which he was presented as last year. If he can avoid that he can at least keep his favourables in the right territory.

[Xiahou]

A far more acurate look would be

Accurate for what? I said she has the highest favorable and unfavorable of any in the poll. I didn't claim she was going to be the next presidential candidate.

However, among Republicans, Palin enjoys a very high +56pt net favorability rating- which none of the other "leaders" in the poll can even approach. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the general public's favorability and the party's ratings of her. I thought she was considered damaged goods by a lot more people than that.

Regardless, the poll is certainly good news for Romney- who clearly has aspirations of running again.

[CountArach]

However, among Republicans, Palin enjoys a very high +56pt net favorability rating- which none of the other "leaders" in the poll can even approach. Frankly, I'm a little surprised by the general public's favorability and the party's ratings of her. I thought she was considered damaged goods by a lot more people than that.

Candidates often recover after the heated and intense partisanship of a campaign. Even Bush's approval is recovering from where it once was. Don't be surprised if she decides to run in 2012 (As I suspect she will) and has her favourability rating decrease. Several other Republican candidates *might* be able to blame her for the election loss in '08 and that would reduce her own party's favourability rating.

[Furunculus]

some local colour for you:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...vative-nation/

PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite the results of the 2008 presidential election, Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal, 39% to 18%, with 42% saying they have not changed. While independents and Democrats most often say their views haven't changed, more members of all three major partisan groups indicate that their views have shifted to the right rather than to the left.

looks like the republican party still has a future, provided they can adapt to the needs of the electorate.

[CountArach]

looks like the republican party still has a future, provided they can adapt to the needs of the electorate.

People get more conservative as they get older. Besides, more Americans identify themselves as Conservative anyway and are thus more likely to say their views grow more conservative over time. The same thing can be seen when people are asked if X will make them more or less likely to vote for someone. This usually breaks along partisan lines, despite the reality being that people aren't changing their opinions.

Don't read too much into that poll.

[Lemur]

Well, Audra Shay has now been elected as the new leader of the Young Republicans. Let the rebirth begin! (Note: Her comments make Devastatin' Dave look like a model of circumspection and restraint.)

[woad&fangs]

*Yawn*

She's obviously an idiot but the author is stretching it a lot.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, Audra Shay has now been elected as the new leader of the Young Republicans. Let the rebirth begin! (Note: Her comments make Devastatin' Dave look like a model of circumspection and restraint.)

Not really...

CR

[Lemur]

Not really...

Really? I have a hard time imagining DD approving of the racist epithet "coon."

[woad&fangs]

Dear Friends and Supporters,

Yesterday on Facebook, an unfortunate incident occurred. An individual posted two comments on my Facebook wall, the first comment arguing against big government and the second filled with racially charged comments. I responded supporting the individual’s first post, to continue the fight against big government spending. I was not aware of the racial comments until sometime later, when a third individual brought it to my attention. I immediately deleted the derogatory and outright disgusting comments and subsequently posted a statement on my Facebook Status stating that in no way, shape or form are the comments posted by other individuals a reflection of me or my beliefs as an American, a Veteran, a Mother or a Candidate. I do not, nor would I ever, condone that type of language or behavior.

bolding is mine
link

Sounds plausible

[Lemur]

Sounds plausible

Sounds like a bald-faced lie. She fails to mention that she de-friended the two friends who brought the racist comments to her attention, while staying friends with the dude who made them. And from looking at a cache of the page, the timing doesn't even work.

Damage control, nothing more.

[woad&fangs]

Sounds like a bald-faced lie. She fails to mention that she de-friended the two friends who brought the racist comments to her attention, while staying friends with the dude who made them. And from looking at a cache of the page, the timing doesn't even work.

Damage control, nothing more.

Ah, I don't think that information was mentioned in your link. In that case, I hope the Republicans banish her from the party.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Really? I have a hard time imagining DD approving of the racist epithet "coon."

Hmm, good point. Either way, it doesn't seem like a good choice.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Does a thirty-eight year old really qualify as a "young" Republican?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Does a thirty-eight year old really qualify as a "young" Republican?

Apparently.

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

Apparently.

Hmm. I wondered if I had misunderstood.

Surely one of the key demographics the GOP would like to recapture is young people? There must be some charismatic young people with conservative views that can appeal to and energise their generation.

What would the normal route(s) into national politics look like for a young person full of vim and vigour?

[Lemur]

There are campus organizations in which a young(er) person can enlist while still at Uni. A lot of politically inclined people start there, and go on to intern in campaigns, for Congresscritters, etc.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I wasn't sure whether to post this article here, or in the Palin Resigns thread, for it neatly concatenates the two. I think it belongs here, because it addresses (albeit from a conservative UK viewpoint) the core concern of the future of the GOP. I'd be interested in views from our American colleagues.

The maths of politics aren’t very complicated. If you want to win and you don’t have enough votes from people who agree with you, you have to win support from people who don’t by accommodating their views. You cannot win elections by getting the same people to vote for you by pulling the lever harder. This, however, is the strategy the Republicans seem to be embarking upon.

Footnote: I think Mr Finkelstein's copy editor may have missed a mistake, since this sentence doesn't make sense (at least to me) unless the examples are placed the other way round: "The experience of the British Conservative Party is that trying to sack your voters — effete chattering-class liberals — and replace them with a new set — hard-working strivers — doesn’t work very well."

[Furunculus]

I wasn't sure whether to post this article here, or in the Palin Resigns thread, for it neatly concatenates the two. I think it belongs here, because it addresses (albeit from a conservative UK viewpoint) the core concern of the future of the GOP. I'd be interested in views from our American colleagues.

The maths of politics aren’t very complicated. If you want to win and you don’t have enough votes from people who agree with you, you have to win support from people who don’t by accommodating their views. You cannot win elections by getting the same people to vote for you by pulling the lever harder. This, however, is the strategy the Republicans seem to be embarking upon.

Footnote: I think Mr Finkelstein's copy editor may have missed a mistake, since this sentence doesn't make sense (at least to me) unless the examples are placed the other way round: "The experience of the British Conservative Party is that trying to sack your voters — effete chattering-class liberals — and replace them with a new set — hard-working strivers — doesn’t work very well."

is that a reference to conservative threats to sack some of labours client electorate (the public sector) by reducing public spending?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The GOP needs to recapture the votes of adults. We need to open the door to the youth eventually crossing over by not having some ignorant boogyman fear of one of the 2 main political parties in the nation. We should stand for interesting things, like calling for more libertarian laws on digital copyright - because the Democrats use that one to placate their financial base and it would piss off musicians and hollywood types; backing up on marijauna legislation before the Democrats eventually do it.

I don't care about marijana, but it sounds pretty dumb that the party defending smoking ciggarettes and drinking booze is attacking marijuana which is just as dumb.

Democrats in power will make themselves the party against freedom on their own. Republicans have the opportunity to play up the freedom strangling of the majority governemnt and show themselves to be a real alternative sensistive to Americanisms. To get adults back we need to put money in their pockets after the democrats take it away.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The GOP needs to recapture the votes of adults. We need to open the door to the youth eventually crossing over by not having some ignorant boogyman fear of one of the 2 main political parties in the nation. We should stand for interesting things, like calling for more libertarian laws on digital copyright - because the Democrats use that one to placate their financial base and it would piss off musicians and hollywood types; backing up on marijauna legislation before the Democrats eventually do it.

I don't care about marijana, but it sounds pretty dumb that the party defending smoking ciggarettes and drinking booze is attacking marijuana which is just as dumb.

Democrats in power will make themselves the party against freedom on their own. Republicans have the opportunity to play up the freedom strangling of the majority governemnt and show themselves to be a real alternative sensistive to Americansims. To get adults back we need to put money in their pockets after the democrats take it away.

I'm not getting any sleep tonight, so pardon me if I sound inarticulate, but I have some commentary.

The GOP needs to recapture the votes of adults. We need to open the door to the youth eventually crossing over by not having some ignorant boogyman fear of one of the 2 main political parties in the nation.

This sounds like the GOP just needs voters to survive politically; talking about demographic groups they need to improve in, rather than why those groups would have an interest in supporting the GOP. Are there groups that the Republican platform naturally represents that are under-represented in the party? Adults may be too generic a group, as all voters would have to be adults anyway. Are there "family values" voters who have temporarily jumped ship to the Democratic party that you're looking for? After the Bush administration becomes more of a memory, and the recent rash of Republican governors and congressmen caught in scandals becomes forgotten, those family values votes will return and vote along abortion/gay marriage/etc lines once again. I don't think the current Democratic party will ever support a more conservative morality platform, so voters who disagree with the Democrats on those issues will head back, if they ever really left to begin with.

As for fear of political parties; that won't go away anytime soon. It is far too lucrative a business on both sides of the aisle to stir up passions and incite division in our society by playing on fears. Conservative talk radio and liberal media outlets will still be there, books and op-eds will be written, talking heads will continue to paint the United States into red and blue camps. Almost any kind of controversy gets ratings and is therefore valuable. Not to mention both parties are at war with one another and will use every resource at their disposal to win the war for the sake of winning. Looney liberal will keep voting for the more liberal party, uptight conservative will keep voting for the more conservative party, and the major parties will continue to jump through hoops for the undecideds who can't make up their mind and are attracted to shiny things, scandals and controversy, and of course, promises that can't be kept without bankrupting the country or worse. And so the sane people who are simply voting in their best interest won't shift around too much, and the nation will continue to see-saw based on the whims of those with amnesia or attention deficit disorder or chronic indecisiveness, as well as the occasional moderate whose views aren't properly represented by either party.

We should stand for interesting things, like calling for more libertarian laws on digital copyright - because the Democrats use that one to placate their financial base and it would piss off musicians and hollywood types;

I think the things the GOP currently stands for are plenty interesting. Nothing more lively/unruly than the abortion debate or the gay rights debate or the gun rights debate... I doubt the prospect of more lax copyright laws will attract many voters. It would absolutely cause many in those industries to become single-issue voters and vote against the Republicans closer to 100% of the time. That's almost like asking the oil industry to give up it's right to charge for oil, something it expends considerable resources producing, refining, and distributing. I am no expert but it sounds like a bad idea if you're looking to gain voters. It's not important enough an issue to the mainstream to really cause people to jump from one party to another, except those who will have a real big fat problem with it, such as those in the industry who are already less interested in voting Republican than the average voter. You're also looking at provoking those upper class, rich, and obscenely wealthy types to dump a considerable amount of money on opposing such "libertarian" laws, further strengthening the Democrats or anyone else opposed to the changes.

backing up on marijauna legislation before the Democrats eventually do it. I don't care about marijana, but it sounds pretty dumb that the party defending smoking ciggarettes and drinking booze is attacking marijuana which is just as dumb.

You could end up splitting the GOP along "morality" voter lines. I'm not saying I disagree with the idea, but it will get progressively harder and harder to raise the banner of "goodness and decency" while promoting less restrictions on vice and "sin". But I would certainly agree that current drug policies don't make sense. It would be quite a shift though to go from being more conservative than Democrats on an issue to more liberal, and I am not sure how realistic that is.

Democrats in power will make themselves the party against freedom on their own.

So far as I am aware, the Republican platform against abortion, gay rights, the ongoing campaign for abstinence-only education, and conservative social policies in general mean that they are the more restrictive party on a slew of personal freedom issues. The Democrats seem to support slightly more taxation and more restrictive gun control laws.... not sure what else qualifies the Republicans to market themselves as being for more "freedom" than the Democrats. It does seem to be a very superficial marketing campaign that you're talking about... there's not much you're proposing in terms of serious policy changes, more like flipping sides on a couple issues and attempting to market that as being a real libertarian shift.

Republicans have the opportunity to play up the freedom strangling of the majority governemnt and show themselves to be a real alternative sensistive to Americansims.

That would certainly be different from their current strategy... seems like they are engaging in a move to the "base" which is more (ugh... I hate this terminology) "right-wing", and attempting to market themselves as being for fewer taxes and economic regulation, yes... but perhaps even more conservative than before; the recent campaign seems to be very centered on fears of whites regarding affirmative action, which doesn't do much to build the GOP a broader base of support among non-whites. As for being sensitive to Americans (?) the GOP seems to be almost stubborn in its refusal to back down on clearly unpopular policies that were recently rejected at the ballot box. Indeed, the marketing has been geared towards trying to sell the same product as before, and telling the voters that that's what they REALLY want, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

The deregulation and lower taxes the Republicans are suggesting is the exact same thing they supported during the Bush administration, and before. The temporary boost in consumer spending caused some short term economic stimulus, but the lack of revenue and no significant drop in spending caused massive budget problems, and then having to bail out several industries which failed due to corruption and deregulation caused even more problems... there isn't much support for more of the same.

To get adults back we need to put money in their pockets after the democrats take it away

Mostly what's taking away our money is the rampant unemployment, lack of affordable healthcare, rising cost of living, and collapse of the housing market along with several industries. It's hard to put money back in people's pockets without addressing those issues, and the Republican platform seems to be vehemently against doing much of anything about any of those issues.

Perhaps my reaction here is predictable, but... I am trying to look at this from a very neutral and nonpartisan standpoint and see what you're saying, and it just doesn't seem to match the facts of what is going on. I have no idea if what the Democrats are doing will turn the country around, and I'm not using this post to advocate for what they have in mind. I'm just saying, from my perspective, where the GOP currently stands on these issues is not very popular, and I don't believe it will be popular anytime in the near future. It seems to be ignoring the huge disconnect between what the GOP wants to do and what the public wants the government to do, which is something besides lowering taxes. More Bush-era policies which people seem to think caused many of these problems is not what the public is clamoring for, and minor changes on some libertarian causes probably won't unite the Republican party, and it in fact may alienate certain groups even more and divide values voters from libertarians. And it still ignores the meat of the entire policy debate: How to address the main problems the country is facing in a way that is different from before. So far, the GOP has come up with nothing truly innovative. Feel free to correct me on this, if you have examples of any real shift in policy since Bush left office.

[Furunculus]

republicans get a hard on for Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...he-States.html

[Banquo's Ghost]

republicans get a hard on for Cameron:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...he-States.html

The article doesn't really seem to canvas serious commentary from the Republican party leadership. It's very wishful thinking, mainly aimed at British Conservatives.

David Cameron is somewhat left of President Obama on most policies. Whilst the GOP might need to appeal more to the centre ground, one hopes that they won't adopt the vacuous pseudo-socialism of the UK Tories under Cameron.

Cameron and Osborne are, much like Brown and his cronies, merely flirting with the idea of fiscal constraint. No-one is finding the courage to talk about real, long-term fiscal responsibility in the light of the massive public debt that has been rung up. There is some light in the area of reducing the state's erosion of individual liberties but since David Davies has been cast into the darkness, and the rhetoric is very flimsy, one cannot believe that once in power, the Tories won't follow the same route as Labour.

Social conservatives in the GOP would be horrified at Cameron's "conservatism". Personally, I think the Republicans would benefit from laying off the hard-line social controls they have boxed themselves into, but I'm not American and have never really understood the paradox between the States' libertarian soul and the desire for the state to force fellow citizens into one brand of Christian morals.

I believe that many of the Western democracies would embrace parties that guarantee hard-line fiscal conservatism alongside more libertarian principles. Governments that really design smaller government, not just fire a few civil servants. Get out of the business of legislating morals (with the costs that incurs). Jeffersonian democracy, if you like.

But that also means getting shot of expensive foreign military ventures and reducing the power of corporations to influence public spending - and in so doing, removing the taxpayer "guarantee" for those corporations currently deemed "too big to fail".

I have yet to see a really "conservative" platform. It would be good to see the GOP taking this line. To do so however effectively, I suspect they might need to address the rampant anti-intellectualism that is another baffling aspect of the US political scene.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ma_48_palin_42

Obama 45%, Romney 45%? Weeeeeeee. Keep screwing up, Barry.

[Lemur]

Yup, 2012 is Obama's to lose, and lose it he may.

[seireikhaan]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ma_48_palin_42

Obama 45%, Romney 45%? Weeeeeeee. Keep screwing up, Barry.

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work, but one needs to keep in mind there's a reason that Romney utterly failed his last attempt to get the Republican nomination. He's comes off as an arrogant, divisive, plastic man. Palin is probably out of the picture as well, as there are simply too many theories about why she quit and a lot of people who are irked that she would do it regardless of circumstance.

Gotta remember, folks- the Republican nominee will likely need to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, lest they be seen by the rest of the country as "unelectable". Admittingly depending a bit on who else runs, Romney hasn't got a shot at either. Palin might have a shot, but I think she'll stay low for the next election cycle. The Republican party will most likely be looking at someone besides either of them.

Plus, we are.... oh... THREE YEARS away from the election.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Its easy to be popular when you basically don't have to say anything. Granted, that can work, but one needs to keep in mind there's a reason that Romney utterly failed his last attempt to get the Republican nomination. He's comes off as an arrogant, divisive, plastic man. Palin is probably out of the picture as well, as there are simply too many theories about why she quit and a lot of people who are irked that she would do it regardless of circumstance.

Gotta remember, folks- the Republican nominee will likely need to win either Iowa or New Hampshire, lest they be seen by the rest of the country as "unelectable". Admittingly depending a bit on who else runs, Romney hasn't got a shot at either. Palin might have a shot, but I think she'll stay low for the next election cycle. The Republican party will most likely be looking at someone besides either of them.

Plus, we are.... oh... THREE YEARS away from the election.

We need a businessman/woman. I suspect that a "feel good" candidate isn't going to get too far in the event that the worst "recession that isn't a depression" stretches. That means tokens are out, so first women, indians, trannys etc probably own't have a chance - and Barry can't guilt us into voting for the first black president to be re-elected this time. If a woman comes around blasting through with business acumen, maybe she has a shot, but the novelty of her privates probably won't stir much when pensions are drying up and America is becoming more testosterone filled and less sensetive.

[Lemur]

Let's all pretend this is an Amish barn raising, and work real hard and sing Kumbaya and try not turn this into yet another thread about Obama.

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

[seireikhaan]

Let's all pretend this is an Amish barn raising, and work real hard and sing Kumbaya and try not turn this into yet another thread about Obama.

In support of which, why wouldn't the Republicans embrace Romney? He seems like the natural choice and the best shot for 2012, but large chunks of the Repub base are cool toward him. Is it the Mormon thing? The Massachusetts thing? What? 'Cause the dude is extremely smart and successful, and a poster child for economic development. He seems like the strongest choice.

So why isn't he the obvious choice?

Well, I can't speak for every state, but in Iowa, its basically for the reasons I listed, with a bit of the mormon thing thrown in to boot. People here view him as plastic model of a 60-ish year old man who's dishonest to the core. His ability to make people think he genuinely cares and relates to them is severely lacking, and you pretty much need that in Iowa. If he's not in his comfort zone, he's very clearly very far away from it, as evident by his "who let the dogs out" debacle in Florida.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well, I can't speak for every state, but in Iowa, its basically for the reasons I listed, with a bit of the mormon thing thrown in to boot. People here view him as plastic model of a 60-ish year old man who's dishonest to the core. His ability to make people think he genuinely cares and relates to them is severely lacking, and you pretty much need that in Iowa. If he's not in his comfort zone, he's very clearly very far away from it, as evident by his "who let the dogs out" debacle in Florida.

I like the campiness. I don't trust people who are too slick and "i'm your best friend" ish. I like Romney because he is and seems like a business man. He seems like an executive and has gotten things done and righted listing ships in his lifetime, sometimes forgoing pay for a cause.