A Problem of Shrinkage

[AlexanderSextus]

if the GOP ceases to exist i hope the Libertarian Party fills the vacuum.

[Lemur]

What will be important is whether these kiddies stay true to the liberal causes the older they get. The fact that so many of them are overwhelmingly liberal means they could wind up being like the Baby Boomers, forever liberal... albeit less so as they hit their golden years.

A longish article on this subject. Interesting bit:

I've been troubled in recent months when discussing the issue of young voters with some fellow Republicans. There seems to be a sort of conventional wisdom that we should expect young voters to trend liberal and Democratic, that the behavior of young voters in 2008 is not serious cause for concern. This stems from a belief in partisanship as a life-cycle factor, that voters start liberal and Democratic and wind up older, conservative, and Republican. But the data paint a very different picture. Take the graph of partisan identification for instance; over the last few decades, young voters have not identified with the Democratic party in substantially higher numbers than voters overall. Even conservatism had its moment among young voters in the 1980's. Yet with the end of the Reagan presidency, young voters shifted toward liberalism. This ideological shift did not play out into actual partisan identification in a meaningful way until 2006 and 2008.

Another bit of conventional wisdom I hear from my fellow Republicans about the youth vote is that they need to vote Democratic twice before they are "locked in for life", supporting the notion that there is still time to turn the tide among this generation. Unfortunately, given that the shift began in 2006 and not 2008, for many voters the GOP may simply be too late. For the rest, if the Republican Party does not take immediate action to repair its brand, this generation may exhibit similarly low levels of Republican identification for years to come.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A longish article on this subject. Interesting bit:

I've been troubled in recent months when discussing the issue of young voters with some fellow Republicans. There seems to be a sort of conventional wisdom that we should expect young voters to trend liberal and Democratic, that the behavior of young voters in 2008 is not serious cause for concern. This stems from a belief in partisanship as a life-cycle factor, that voters start liberal and Democratic and wind up older, conservative, and Republican. But the data paint a very different picture. Take the graph of partisan identification for instance; over the last few decades, young voters have not identified with the Democratic party in substantially higher numbers than voters overall. Even conservatism had its moment among young voters in the 1980's. Yet with the end of the Reagan presidency, young voters shifted toward liberalism. This ideological shift did not play out into actual partisan identification in a meaningful way until 2006 and 2008.

Another bit of conventional wisdom I hear from my fellow Republicans about the youth vote is that they need to vote Democratic twice before they are "locked in for life", supporting the notion that there is still time to turn the tide among this generation. Unfortunately, given that the shift began in 2006 and not 2008, for many voters the GOP may simply be too late. For the rest, if the Republican Party does not take immediate action to repair its brand, this generation may exhibit similarly low levels of Republican identification for years to come.

Big deal. We'll see what happens when it happens. The GOP will change when it needs to change. They're out of congressional power for what, 4 years and administrative power for just over 100 days - and we're sealing their coffin? How ridiculous can we be about things?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Repubs ain't going nowhere. Media is blowing Obama up as big as possible and trying to attach a stigma to anyone who identifies as a Republican, but that has not made conservatives give up their beliefs or jump the country. Wait till next election, you are gonna see a revival like you have never seen in your life. Even before the 08 election was decided there were all kinds of social groups being formed to stop Palin in 2012 :P, and the media has been trying to paint her as a failure all this time. There is a reason liberals are so afraid of her, that gal is dynamite and you are gonna see an historical reinvigoration of the republican base that you will not believe. Why do you think they are barraging her with all these BS ethics charges? Why do you think there are social groups on sites like Facebook dedicated to making an organised effort to discredit her? Why do you think the media is desperately trying to paint her as radical, gun toting loony? They are scared...scared out of their minds. If Palin runs, you will be eating your words Lemur. They say that people don't like her and that she only attracts people on the fringes, etc, but almost all the conservatives I know, an easy majority of the moderates I know, and even a few libs I know love her.
Don't get me wrong, I know she ain't perfect; I don't think she is the messiah. I am excited about her because I think that she is honest, and that her beliefs are rationally grounded, and that her politics are mostly good, and cause I know that she has one heck of a chance of taking the Obamonster out next election.

To quote Bender: Oh... your... God.

That woman is appalling on a level I never before imagined. Even after I saw Ann Coulter, I thought to myself... there is no way a woman can be as disturbed as this woman... and then we saw Palin. Who is like Ann Coulter, except more extreme and less articulate.

Liberals are afraid of her because she's a partisan extremist demagogue who WILL drive this nation into a ditch of despair and partisanship and...

South, religion, and anti-intellectualism

Which just about sums up why the Republicans are failing as a party. There's nothing inherently better or different about the South than the North, and that sort of regionalism makes people pissed off. Religion is fine but not everyone agrees with your religion nor do they believe it has a place in politics. Anti-intellectualism just feeds on the average joe's resentment with being at the bottom of the social ladder and blames everything on the evils of elitism and education. I'm all for equality but you know what? I'd rather vote for a well-educated, successful, intelligent person over someone who doesn't know what they are doing, and most people would too. Hence the resentment against such people who always lose to them in life. It's rallying people around laughable concepts like regionalism, religion-in-politics when religion is a personal thing, not a public thing to be legislated, and populist anger at not attending Harvard, which creates the feeling that everyone from an Ivy League school must be evil.

Palin is a one-trick pony. She was a third place finisher of Miss Alaska, and so therefore she appeals to certain men, and she talks about things which play on prejudices; religious intolerance, regionalism, and populism. Then she doesn't take a consistent stand on anything, smiles, and shrieks in a voice which makes paint peel, in a folksy manner (horribly reminiscent of Bush) and doesn't understand her own party's positions or the arguments she was given to parrot for them. She can't explain herself or what she believes. Maybe she is smart, but she's pulling off an incredible act convincing me that she's either dumb or terribly, terribly unqualified for any sort of public service.

More people than just liberals have an unfavorable opinion of her. There's much to be unfavorable about. And I think that the ethics complaints against her aren't fabrications, either, sorry. Convince me otherwise.

[Furunculus]

This happens from time to time, a party ceases to represent the desires of the people and without realising it they become an irrelevance, and a new party rises to fill the vacuum.

It happened to the Whigs in Britain one hundred years ago.

America won't be a one-party state, either the republicans will evolve back into the sphere of visible public interest or they will whither and a new party will arise.

it looks like labour could face terminal decline from obselescence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...don-Brown.html

[Banquo's Ghost]

it looks like labour could face terminal decline from obselescence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...don-Brown.html

If they could come back to government after the Winter of Discontent via the nadir of Michael Foot, they can come back from anything. Brown may well have condemned them to a long time in the wilderness again, but the party is likely to reinvent itself. Plus, many commentators are describing the coming election as a good one to lose - the winner is going to have to implement some very nasty tax increases and severe public sector cuts. (Excellent, one might say, but the feeble-minded electorate loves to believe that they can have it all, and will baulk at anyone who tells them the party cannot continue).

The Conservative Party has performed the same resurrection trick. After Major's defeat, pretty much everyone said they were finished - and like Labour before them (and despite that lesson) they retreated into the core vote, elected some astonishingly silly leaders rather than the moderate heavyweights they had available, in a desperate spiral of searching for "purity". A party that for fifty or more years had been the "natural party of government" (through pragmatism of an exemplary standard) made itself utterly irrelevant. Finally, more by accident than judgement, they ended up with Cameron and came back towards the centre. Like New Labour, they are ideology free, but Brown is such a spectacularly incompetent leader, he gifts them endless opportunity whilst all the Tories have to do is watch and laugh. There's no evidence of an appetite for a Tory agenda, but no-one outside of a mental institution is considering voting for Brown. Yet if he hadn't been yellow to the very spine, Mr Brown may well have won a snap October 07 election and Cameron (who was on the verge of being dumped by his own party) would have made the same foot note in history as Iain Duncan Smith.

Such are the vagaries of power. The Republican party looks as if it might be in danger of imploding in the way some do when they think their core is all-important, but they'll recover their senses. Maybe not soon, but that will depend on the Democrats - it is almost always the government that loses elections, not oppositions that win them. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle facing any US party trying to rebuild is the primary system. As I understand it, only candidates who can mobilise the core vote have much of a chance these days, and thus those who then face the wider electorate (where they need to change significantly to appeal to those voters who currently don't like them) are often unappealing.

[Furunculus]

i agree with you, it takes a lot of hard work over a long time to become completely irrelevant to the voter, quite how the whigs/liberals have managed to perpetuate such a feat is beyond my imagination.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If they could come back to government after the Winter of Discontent via the nadir of Michael Foot, they can come back from anything. Brown may well have condemned them to a long time in the wilderness again, but the party is likely to reinvent itself. Plus, many commentators are describing the coming election as a good one to lose - the winner is going to have to implement some very nasty tax increases and severe public sector cuts. (Excellent, one might say, but the feeble-minded electorate loves to believe that they can have it all, and will baulk at anyone who tells them the party cannot continue).

The Conservative Party has performed the same resurrection trick. After Major's defeat, pretty much everyone said they were finished - and like Labour before them (and despite that lesson) they retreated into the core vote, elected some astonishingly silly leaders rather than the moderate heavyweights they had available, in a desperate spiral of searching for "purity". A party that for fifty or more years had been the "natural party of government" (through pragmatism of an exemplary standard) made itself utterly irrelevant. Finally, more by accident than judgement, they ended up with Cameron and came back towards the centre. Like New Labour, they are ideology free, but Brown is such a spectacularly incompetent leader, he gifts them endless opportunity whilst all the Tories have to do is watch and laugh. There's no evidence of an appetite for a Tory agenda, but no-one outside of a mental institution is considering voting for Brown. Yet if he hadn't been yellow to the very spine, Mr Brown may well have won a snap October 07 election and Cameron (who was on the verge of being dumped by his own party) would have made the same foot note in history as Iain Duncan Smith.

Such are the vagaries of power. The Republican party looks as if it might be in danger of imploding in the way some do when they think their core is all-important, but they'll recover their senses. Maybe not soon, but that will depend on the Democrats - it is almost always the government that loses elections, not oppositions that win them. In my opinion, the biggest obstacle facing any US party trying to rebuild is the primary system. As I understand it, only candidates who can mobilise the core vote have much of a chance these days, and thus those who then face the wider electorate (where they need to change significantly to appeal to those voters who currently don't like them) are often unappealing.

I see where you are coming from - these are rational thoughts and expectations. On the flip side, the US is a different place than Britain and the difference is more than just locale. Republicans could implode just like the tories in a monumental desert-destined defeat. Or not.

I do like the Idea of the big tent. We need to include everyone who supports at least one pillar of that tent. This shouldn't be a hard sell. There are plenty of Republicans who seem to have their heads on straight and can convince people in a crowd that they have decent ideas.

I'm not all that afraid. I plan on changing my registration to Republican as my own counterbalance. I was an Independent when they were in power and I will be a Republican when they are out of power. Democrats havn't won the social debate, they havn't won the economic debate (they are barely letting anyone know what the plan is here) and they've essentially caved on the foreign policy debate into a transcendent pan-party ideology.

We just need to wait for their large scale failure on one of those pillars to inflame sensitivities JUST enough to get people to stop thinking that the GOP is the enemy of hip and smart. PLUS we have to welcome more "smart".





Which pillar will it be?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I see where you are coming from - these are rational thoughts and expectations. On the flip side, the US is a different place than Britain and the difference is more than just locale. Republicans could implode just like the tories in a monumental desert-destined defeat. Or not.

I do like the Idea of the big tent. We need to include everyone who supports at least one pillar of that tent. This shouldn't be a hard sell. There are plenty of Republicans who seem to have their heads on straight and can convince people in a crowd that they have decent ideas.

I agree that there are significant differences.

The challenge of 21st century Big Tent Republicanism is one that faces a lot of "conservative" parties these days. It is the huge chasm between the ideologies of fiscal/small government/libertarian conservatives and social conservatives. The former is entirely predicated on reducing and removing government and societal control of citizens' lives. The latter is entirely about regulating citizens' lives down to their very morality, and invariably relies on one single tradition (usually religious) to set the parameters of that control. This of course, is directly antithetical to a free and pluralistic society.

As with the European Union in Britain (it tore apart the Tories for years, but for no reason as the allegedly pro-Europe Blair proved) sacred cows split parties. If the GOP finds the courage to ditch social conservatism and embrace the fiscally responsible constitutionalist soul* it used to have, it will reappear as a powerful force that really appeals to middle America, particularly in these gravely worrying times when an alternative to government largesse and associated power grabs is sought by many, I suspect.

* Including dumping the foreign entanglements.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree that there are significant differences.

The challenge of 21st century Big Tent Republicanism is one that faces a lot of "conservative" parties these days. It is the huge chasm between the ideologies of fiscal/small government/libertarian conservatives and social conservatives. The former is entirely predicated on reducing and removing government and societal control of citizens' lives. The latter is entirely about regulating citizens' lives down to their very morality, and invariably relies on one single tradition (usually religious) to set the parameters of that control. This of course, is directly antithetical to a free and pluralistic society.

As with the European Union in Britain (it tore apart the Tories for years, but for no reason as the allegedly pro-Europe Blair proved) sacred cows split parties. If the GOP finds the courage to ditch social conservatism and embrace the fiscally responsible constitutionalist soul* it used to have, it will reappear as a powerful force that really appeals to middle America, particularly in these gravely worrying times when an alternative to government largesse and associated power grabs is sought by many, I suspect.

* Including dumping the foreign entanglements.

There are differences between social conservatives and those who would rule the nation as a theocracy. Ron Paul is agaisnt Abortion, Banquo - in fact he was the only candidate to go to the march for life during the election year.

Most Democrats believe that people should be able to have sex with whomever they'd like at all times and murder their own children as long as they are out of sight. BUT they believe that if you don't wear a seatbelt or recycle you are a monster and should be arrested/killed. Illogical dichotomy is not an exclusive hallmark of the right.

[HoreTore]

but you are forgetting that multi parites is a mess. just look at israels system. to get a government going, you need the majority of the seats, and since that is so hard to do, coalitions are formed and its a mess.
if there were more than 2 parties, getting the 270 electoral votes to win would be really hard.

The simple solution to that problem:

Make it so that you don't have to get a majority in parliament to rule. You only need a majority to throw the government out. As for the practical ruling stuff, they still need a majority on each case, which they will find by seeking support from the other parties. If the other parties decide they no longer wants them in charge, they'll refuse to pass the budget, and the government must take their hat and leave, and another government is formed(minority or majority).

We've had dozens of minority governments, all of them have functioned well. The current government is actually the first majority government we've had in quite some years.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Most Democrats believe that people should be able to have sex with whomever they'd like at all times and murder their own children as long as they are out of sight. BUT they believe that if you don't wear a seatbelt or recycle you are a monster and should be arrested/killed. Illogical dichotomy is not an exclusive hallmark of the right.

I didn't claim it was.

But, your hyperbole aside, the Democratic party seems to have forged a consensus towards the middle ground which eludes the GOP at present. And it is the GOP's return to power which we are discussing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I didn't claim it was.

But, your hyperbole aside, the Democratic party seems to have forged a consensus towards the middle ground which eludes the GOP at present. And it is the GOP's return to power which we are discussing.

I agree with your point, although I'm not sure that their policies are middle ground. I think they've fielded a talent in Obama and he is using that talent to "put lipstick on a pig" as it were. He has made previously distasteful ideas go down more smoothly, not because he has worked out the kinks, but rather because of the way he words his agenda.

The party is in office because a number of Republican policies have failed miserably. Like you've said, elections are usually lost by the party in power rather than won by the usurper. Obama has been a miraculous talent BUT, as most posters believed, Hillary Clinton would have won the election handily if he had not been present - and she is one of the least politically talented politicos in recent history. I bleeive that a Dog scratching its way out of a paper bag would have been elected before a Republican after the last 8 embarrassing years. Nontheless, talent like Obama managed to make his way to the top of a vacuum and seal the deal, probably for a while.

I give him endless credit. He has put garnish on a glass of pee when the united states is trying to get the taste of GOP vomit out of their mouths.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I believe the same hyperbole can be used for the so-called right:

Most Republicans believe that people who are born with a same-sex preference are horrible sinners who will burn in hell and don't deserve equal rights, freedoms, and protections as straight people. They also don't seem to care about that one percent or so of people who are born hermaphroditic or otherwise sexually irregular, due to intelligent design of the human species. Of course, due to that design, doesn't that mean God welcomes his creations as he made them? BUT they believe that the government has a right to intrude into the bedrooms of consenting adults. If you don't believe that we should allow people to become obscenely rich while others are dying from curable disease, then you're a godless communist. They believe that anyone from Mexico, south America, China, or Arab countries are a threat to this country, regardless of being legal immigrants or second-generation. They think that it is OK for people to own any kind of assault weapon and that's the same as legitimate hunting or home defense firearms. They harp on and on about the rights of the people and the big bad government, then they remove people's rights both domestic and foreign and support the use of torture, in spite of their moral grandstanding on other issues like the life of the unborn, and paint the people who think if a woman has been raped by her father and would not like to have the child and that should be legal as being some child-murdering monsters, overlooking a woman's sovereign right to govern her own body from invaders. If a person is in your home uninvited, don't you have the "right" to shoot them on sight in many states? How is that different, in any way shape or form, from abortion? They also seem to think anyone who votes Democrat must be a pot smoking hippie who should be arrested/killed.

This kind of rhetoric gets us nowhere. Twisting the extremes of a party and then attributing that to the entire party is a pretty strong example of a straw man argument.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe the same hyperbole can be used for the so-called right:

Most Republicans believe that people who are born with a same-sex preference are horrible sinners who will burn in hell and don't deserve equal rights, freedoms, and protections as straight people. They also don't seem to care about that one percent or so of people who are born hermaphroditic or otherwise sexually irregular, due to intelligent design of the human species. Of course, due to that design, doesn't that mean God welcomes his creations as he made them? BUT they believe that the government has a right to intrude into the bedrooms of consenting adults. If you don't believe that we should allow people to become obscenely rich while others are dying from curable disease, then you're a godless communist. They believe that anyone from Mexico, south America, China, or Arab countries are a threat to this country, regardless of being legal immigrants or second-generation. They think that it is OK for people to own any kind of assault weapon and that's the same as legitimate hunting or home defense firearms. They harp on and on about the rights of the people and the big bad government, then they remove people's rights both domestic and foreign and support the use of torture, in spite of their moral grandstanding on other issues like the life of the unborn, and paint the people who think if a woman has been raped by her father and would not like to have the child and that should be legal as being some child-murdering monsters, overlooking a woman's sovereign right to govern her own body from invaders. If a person is in your home uninvited, don't you have the "right" to shoot them on sight in many states? How is that different, in any way shape or form, from abortion? They also seem to think anyone who votes Democrat must be a pot smoking hippie who should be arrested/killed.

This kind of rhetoric gets us nowhere. Twisting the extremes of a party and then attributing that to the entire party is a pretty strong example of a straw man argument.

mine was 2 lines and meant to be humorous. Yours was long and boring! teehee

I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the right BUT that it was not exclusive to the right.

[Askthepizzaguy]

mine was 2 lines and meant to be humorous. Yours was long and boring! teehee

I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the right BUT that it was not exclusive to the right.

I am pointing out that accusing all democrats of being cold, heartless child murderers isn't actually that funny, accurate, or fair. And as for illogical dichotomy, I pointed out that illogical dichotomy was a hallmark of the left BUT that it was not exclusive to the left.

If you can do it, I can do it. It's a fair argument that way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And all the while, the Whigs are eating your babies.

The Republicans will pick themselves up. People always think parties are dead after a bad election defeat, then as soon as the opposition are in power for a while people forget about the past government and blame everything on the current one. People are just plain stupid, no government will ever be good enough.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And all the while, the Whigs are eating your babies. :juggle2

I KNEW IT!!! Damn those Whigs! Let's get them!!!

[Xiahou]

There are differences between social conservatives and those who would rule the nation as a theocracy. Ron Paul is agaisnt Abortion, Banquo - in fact he was the only candidate to go to the march for life during the election year.

There's plenty of common ground between social and economic conservatives. Respecting social tradition isn't incongruous with wanting a smaller, less costly government- the two line up in numerous ways. In fact, I'd say a consummate conservative would want both respect for tradition and a return to a smaller government such as we had pre-New Deal.

[ICantSpellDawg]

There's plenty of common ground between social and economic conservatives. Respecting social tradition isn't incongruous with wanting a smaller, less costly government- the two line up in numerous ways. In fact, I'd say a consummate conservative would want both respect for tradition and a return to a smaller government such as we had pre-New Deal.

Xiahou, that goes beyond mindless criticism - I don't think it will fly. Social conservatives are moronic zealots who have nothing in common with anyone and should be left on the proverbial curb.

Everybody knows that.

[Xiahou]

Here's an article on a recent Pew survey:

The results also suggest that the public recently has rejected the GOP for poor performance, not because it disagrees with the party's positions on key issues. That means beleaguered Republicans looking to rebound must convince voters they are still good stewards of those values while improving the GOP's image and morale.

To which I respond "DUH!". Again, America is a right-leaning country. Voters didn't reject conservatism, they rejected the GOPs failure to follow it.

[Lemur]

Again, America is a right-leaning country.

They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month. I think it depends entirely on how you choose to define "right," a nebulous term at best. Almost as bastardized and ill-defined as "conservative" and "liberal," words that have been twisted into pretzels in the last three decades.

I think Americans are more moderate and nuanced on the issues than either party would like to believe. From the article you linked:

This group hews more closely to Democrats than Republicans on social values, religion and national security. But it also is more conservative on several key issues including the economy, partly because of steady defections from the GOP, and more skeptical than two years ago of expanding government assistance, a typically Republican position. More in line with Democratic thinking, most independents support expanded government intervention and regulation in the private sector, albeit reluctantly.

Does that mean "center-right"? If so, why?

That said, the latest polls are not good.

[Askthepizzaguy]

They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month. I think it depends entirely on how you choose to define "right," a nebulous term at best. Almost as bastardized and ill-defined as "conservative" and "liberal," words that have been twisted into pretzels in the last three decades.

Finally someone who understands me.

The political language has been turned into nonsense. These shorthand terms for very complicated and nuanced political viewpoints have been abused beyond recognition. I refuse to identify as right or left wing, because those things no longer have any meaning that can't be twisted to mean its exact opposite. I know it's the same tired debate procedure "well first we have to define our terms..." but to be frank, we no longer have any terms I can relate to.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As an aside; all I hear from Fox is attempts to define and re-define everyone and everything. Those aren't conservatives they are Neoconservatives. Those aren't Democratic party members, they are Democrat socialists. In spite of a recent election where the moderate/liberal gets elected by a good margin, we're a "right" leaning country. America is a "Christian" country even though we're officially secular. Obama is a "fascist" for returning the tax rate to Clinton-era levels. Everyone besides Christian conservative Republicans are "un-American".

I grow weary of the rhetoric, along with the abuse of language.

[drone]

That said, the latest polls are not good.

And with the RNC's continuing descent into madness, it's probably not going to be getting better any time soon. They need to fix themselves quick, I'm going to need someone sane I can vote for once the Dems get drunk with power (i.e. 2010).

In general, I do believe the US to be mainly center-right (in the classical sense). And Fox will continue to bang this drum to spin things. The problem is that the GOP doesn't represent the center-right, right, or even the far-right, they just have everyone thinking that they do.

[Lemur]

In general, I do believe the US to be mainly center-right (in the classical sense).

But what does that mean? "Left" needs something to be left of, and "right" needs something to be right of. America is "center-right" in relationship to what? America? Does that even make sense?

Was Genghis Khan more "right" than Mussolini? Was Pol Pot more "left" than Castro? How can you even use such soft and nebulous descriptors and hope to express anything that has meaning?

I think saying "America is a center-right" country means this, precisely: "Yes, we lost the last election very badly, and our party is in eclipse, but more Americans agree with us than with anyone else, so everything's going to be okay."

Nothing more, nothing less.

[CountArach]

To which I respond "DUH!". Again, America is a right-leaning country. Voters didn't reject conservatism, they rejected the GOPs failure to follow it.

I disagree (As I can assume you knew I would ). Take a look at the following chart that shows American opinions on certain economic issues (Social issues will come later - but I have to leave soon):

There is still strong support of regulation of businesses and more people are beginning to believe it does more good than harm. There is HUGE support for the Government making health care affordable - showing a rejection of free-market values, while at the same time the voters making it clear that they do not want the government becoming *too* involved. However, the most telling quote comes from the Pew Survey results release statement:

The public continues to be of two minds in its opinions about both government and business. Business generally, as well as Wall Street specifically, is viewed as playing a vital role in American society, but both are viewed as excessively concerned with amassing profits. In addition, although support for government assistance to the poor has declined, opinions about the government itself – whether it is wasteful and inefficient, whether it is run for the benefit of all – have moved in a positive direction.

But anyway I really have to go now, I'll be back to look at the social issues - where there is no way someone can claim America has moved to the right.

[Xiahou]

But what does that mean? "Left" needs something to be left of, and "right" needs something to be right of. America is "center-right" in relationship to what? America? Does that even make sense?

In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center.

And Fox will continue to bang this drum to spin things.

all I hear from Fox is attempts to define and re-define everyone and everything.

They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month.

Ok, I've got to ask: What's with the Fox obsession? I didn't mention it or link it and yet the next three replies all attack it. Is this the new "Fox News" defense debate tactic I've heard about? Can I retaliate with the Chewbacca Defense ?

[CountArach]

In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center.

What someone labels themselves as and what someone actually believes can be remarkably different. Look at the above table - note that 48% of Republicans want government regulation of the market in some way! How is that at all conservative?

[Lemur]

In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center.

Sounds plausible, but I haven't seen a poll that supports it.

This poll shows Independents, Dems and Repubs, in that order. As for "conservative" and "liberal," words you use as though they had a commonly accepted definition (they don't), let's see the data. You've made a straight factual assertion, so I'm assuming you have something to back it up.

Ok, I've got to ask: What's with the Fox obsession? I didn't mention it or link it and yet the next three replies all attack it.

When you repeat a well-known Fox News talking point verbatim, people just might notice.

[Xiahou]

Sounds plausible, but I haven't seen a poll that supports it.

This poll shows Independents, Dems and Repubs, in that order. As for "conservative" and "liberal," words you use as though they had a commonly accepted definition (they don't), let's see the data. You've made a straight factual assertion, so I'm assuming you have something to back it up.

I've posted it before, I'll post it again. Maybe one of these times you'll remember it. The Battleground Poll has been carried out since 1991. Question D3 asks respondents to self identify as either Very Conservative, Somewhat Conservative, Moderate, Somewhat Liberal, or Very Liberal. See for yourself.. 59% identify themselves as somewhat or very cosnervative, 36% identify as somewhat or very liberal. Very conservative vs Very liberal is 20% vs 10%.The entire point of my previous post was that the GOP is in decline because voters have lost all confidence in their ability to live up to their ideals. Presenting polls, as you have, that less Americans identify themselves as Republicans doesn't refute that- if anything it supports it.

When you repeat a well-known Fox News talking point verbatim, people just might notice.

So it is the Fox News Defense. Good show.
My only response is: Why would a Wookie be on Endor?