Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Gallup Poll: Republican Shrinkage Widespread

A new Gallup analysis shows that the precipitous decline in the number of people who identify themselves as Republicans is widespread across nearly every demographic group -- a development that suggests that there is no simple solution to solving the party's current problems.

As we have written about before, the number of self-identifying Republicans stood at 21 percent last month -- the lowest it has been since the fall of 1983.

This tendency for people to disassociate themselves with the Republican Party is echoed in Gallup's data. Combining several months of surveys -- with a large sample of more than 7,000 adults -- shows that over the last eight years self-identifying Republicans have gone from 44 percent to 39 percent while self-identifying Democrats have risen from 45 percent to 53 percent. (These numbers push independents who lean in one direction or the other into the party toward which they lean.)

While Republicans have lost ground in nearly every demographic group, the decline is particularly pronounced among college graduates (a 10 percent loss in party identification between 2001 and 2009), people 18 to 29 years old (nine percent) and those of "moderate ideology" (nine percent).

The only groups among which Republicans have not lost ground over the last eight years are those strongly within the base (conservatives, weekly church goers) and those that were never inclined to support them (black and Hispanic voters).

Put simply: Toss-up demographic groups eight years ago have moved en masse in Democrats' favor, leaving the GOP with only its base still on its side.

This Gallup analysis makes clear the significant brand damage the last eight years of the Bush Administration have inflicted on the party and seems to suggest that the problems are so widespread that no one candidate or even one election will solve them.

While former president George W. Bush is not on the ballot in 2010 (or even 2012), the party must find a way to re-define itself away from the past eight years if they want to recruit swing demographic groups back to their side.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 18, 2009; 5:02 PM ET
Categories:  Parsing the Polls , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gibbs A-Twitter!
Next: White House Cheat Sheet: Steele Tries To Turn the Page

Comments

At least no one is talking about the thread topic.

Posted by: JakeD | May 20, 2009 6:50 AM | Report abuse

Wow, a wealth of jaked quotes to cite the next time he pretends to be a moderate, calm, polite voice of reason. I particularly look forward to stringing together "watermelons on the white house lawn" with "HUSSEIN" and "cock-sucking male prostitute." jaked's greatest hits.

Posted by: nodebris | May 20, 2009 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Stupid gooper troll doesn't even know how we KNOW he's lying about having a degree. Well, the moment I saw his extended answer to the tax question I knew in the same fashion that it was someone else's work and all I had to do was look up a few words and right away found the original.

Just like we've been saying about the gooper trolls in general and JakeD in particular .. they are dishonest and stupid. Low intelligence and lacking in scruples, but JakeD with his endless prompting for attention is most desperate to create an impression, and the likeliest to fake it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 11:38 PM | Report abuse

"I never over-stated the American-Independent Party's growth or importance, and every single one of my statements as to the Democratic and Republican Party LOSING members here in California were linked to SecState web page."

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:51 PM

______________________________________

The senile old schmuck doesn't even know when he's lying.

Here, for example, is the entirety of one of his posts:

"Here in California, Republicans AND Democrats are losing numbers -- there's a tax revolt going on out here against BOTH -- the fastest growing party in the American Independent Party:

http://www.aipca.org/"

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:25 PM

Here's another:

"Another FACT: here in California, at least, Republicans AND Democrats are both losing numbers -- there's a tax revolt going on which will hit the airwaves tomorrow -- the fastest growing party in California is the American Independent Party:

http://www.aipca.org/"

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:49 PM

Note the complete lack of linkage in both posts to the "SecState web page."

I could go on but what's the point?

If Jake the Jackass went to Stanford Law it was at night, as a janitor.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Well golly gosh darn Jakey-boy, for a party that's "losing member" the Democrats sure have done a quick job of taking all the levers of power away from the GOP.

I mean, NORTH CAROLINA is a blue state now, and there are only five (5) states with GOP majorities.

The only reason the AIP even shows up as a blip if you can call it that is the number of people who think it means unaffiliated.

Your entire party wouldn't even fill a modest sports stadium.

I'm heading home to my gay relationship.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 9:05 PM | Report abuse

I did graduate at the top of my class from Stanford Law School, and I do indeed have plenty of time to waste pulling your chains here.

==

You are collecting psychiatric disability is my guess.

And you honestly don't understand why we on the other side of the keyboard are so certain that your claims are lies

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 8:53 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! For the record, lots of "Independents" voted for McCain and Obama. I never over-stated the American-Independent Party's growth or importance, and every single one of my statements as to the Democratic and Republican Party LOSING members here in California were linked to SecState web page. I did graduate at the top of my class from Stanford Law School, and I do indeed have plenty of time to waste pulling your chains here. Other than that, I answer every question asked of me in a civil manner as long as you return the same courtesy to me.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Last time a gooper troll was as obsessed with me as Jake his wife divorced him. Google Cheopys and Uncle_Meat. U_M devoted so much time to trolling me his wife left him. My same-sex interracial relationship remains intact.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 8:48 PM | Report abuse

To review:

Jake the Joke began the day by promoting "Independents."

When confronted with the fact that he was shilling for the American Independent Party (as far from being "Independent" as it is possible to get), Jake the Joke began making ridiculous and easily-disproven statements about the growth and importance of the American Independent Party.

After an inane and unprompted lie about graduating from Stanford Law, Jake the Joke admitted that he doesn't actually vote for the American Independent Party.

If you can believe a word he says, the senile old fool now claims to have voted Republican.

Around and around he goes -- where he and his plagiarism and his idiocy will end, nobody knows.

But for someone who claims to have graduated top of his class at Stanford Law (excuse me while I snicker), he has a non-existent grip on logic, facts, how to argue his case, or how to profitably spend his time.

The only break he has taken from this forum today was, according to Jake the Joke, to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

How else would someone who graduated top of the class at Stanford Law spend his time?

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Sudan People's Liberation Army?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:39 PM | Report abuse

Fine by me, chrisfox8. Can someone else explain what "going spla" means?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Now the guy who claims a law degree can't spell "plagiarism." And it is plagiarism because you didn't post attribution.

As for copyright, there are many sites that would ban you for it. This isn't one of them.

I don't believe you have any kind of degree, for the same reason it was so easy to recognize writing that was not yours. I have a pretty good idea how smart you are, and how smart you aren't, and how well you can stay focused without going spla and writing about "cock sucking male prostitutes," and there is no way you could manage a university degree, much less law, much less Stanford, and certainly not summa cum laude.

You are a phony, and a gay liberal programmer caught you red handed. As for the legality you can take it up with others on other comment threads where I will be sure to invoke it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 8:33 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! As I already told you (since you just admitted you don't have a law degree): "There's no plagerism because there's no false claim of authorship. Just as there's no copyright violation because of the 'fair use' doctrine." CITE: JakeD (May 19, 2009) http://voices.washingtonpost.com

Again, nice try. Maybe next time ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:26 PM | Report abuse

pali: bookmark this thread and next time JakeD pulls any of his crap post a a link to it. I certainly will.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse

So Jake the dopey, geriatric, old, self-described lawyer is really Jake the dopey, geriatric, old, guilty-as-sin plagiarist.

Surprise! Surprise!

And the demented old simpleton is so out of touch with reality that he pretended to have graduated top of the class at Stanford Law.

ROFL.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Stop trying to act mirthful, troll, I'm not your friend, and I caught you trying to pass someone else's writing as your own.

You could have done a link and a quote and answered the question and that would have been fine, but you decided to try to pass it off. It was obviously not your writing, you're not smart enough to put together a sequential set of points like that.

So you spend most of your time paraphrasing Rush Limbaugh in these pages but when the time comes to do a subtantive response -- you and your "questions" -- you need to plagiarize.

I have no such need, because I am a lot smarter than you. Liberal, gay, and better than you.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Tell that to Al Franken!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:10 PM | Report abuse

I can do better than that, troll, I can grasp that the difference between the two is too small to be statistically significant.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 8:08 PM | Report abuse

So, unlike "pali2600" you at least grasp the fact that 7,650,243 is LESS than 7,683,495.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:04 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't study crap like law or economics, troll, my degree is in Mathematics.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

The filter on "The Fix" won't let SOME curse words through at least ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! Which law school did YOU graduate from?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:58 PM | Report abuse

I don't give a sh*t if you answer my questions or not, you stupid troll. You'd probably paste your answers from someone else's work anyway since you're too feeble-minded to write your own.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Too bad you decided to not answer my questions on other threads, chrisfox8, or I would have gladly answered yours.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

And I remember when the GOP had something to offer the country. Your point?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:50 PM | Report abuse

I remember went "gay" meant something completely different ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

That's a compliment coming from a cock-sucking male prostitute.

Posted by: JakeD

==

heh heh heh

snapping, Jake?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Ironic said "gay man" talks about HONOR.

==

Indeed this gay man does talk about honor, but this this gay man does all his own writing.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I thought I already "told a gay man" that his relationship(s) were WORSE than screwing animals since you should know better than the dumb animal. Ironic said "gay man" talks about HONOR.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going anywhere until the Good Lord takes me home!

==

you mean the tooth fairy, don't you?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

You may have your teeth but your honor is in rags. And you'll only have your teeth as long as you keep your despicable remarks safely anonymous as a Keyboard Kommando. Tell a gay man that his relationship is akin to screwing animals and your teeth will follow your honor down the sewer.

Everyone: read the link I posted and compare it to Jake's response. He tried to pass off someone else's work as his own.

Typical GOP troll, incapable of his own work.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:38 PM | Report abuse

P.S. don't tell anyone, but Jim Glass = scrivener50.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm not going anywhere until the Good Lord takes me home!

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

At least I still have all of my teeth. I thought that "blarsen1" had (finally) answered my questions, so I loked up the answer for him. There's no plagerism because there's no false claim of authorship. Just as there's no copyright violation because of the "fair use" doctrine. Nice try though.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Time for you to leave, Jake.

Off with you, now. Shoo!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

So Jake does Jim Glass know that you post his writing and claim it to be your own?

That's pretty damned shabby, dude.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

heh heh heh

being exposed as a plagiarist is never a compliment, Jake, no matter who does it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Under Eisenhower it was 92%. He was a republican and would cringe at his party today.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8:

That's a compliment coming from a cock-sucking male prostitute.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

suesher:

Sorry, I thought you were blarsen -- thanks for answering though -- care to take a crack at my latest question to blarsen (he won't answer it, obviously).

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Busted, you lying incompetent cretin

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Jake's tax response is copy-pasted without attribution from someone else's writing:

http://economistmom.com/2009/03/why-does-obamas-fiscal-vision-look-so-much-like-bushs-fiscal-legacy/

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Again, like pulling teeth though. Here are your answers:

Q. When does life begin, Jake?

A. At the moment of conception.

Q. Do animals count?

A. No.

Q. And your point is?

A. That there is ALWAYS "hope for recovery" (proving your point to the contrary wrong). I also don't agree that Reagan was a very bad President.

Q. Did "trickle-down" economics do anything for YOUR family?

A. Yes.

Q. How about them apples?

A. I prefer oranges.

Q. Your [SIC] why are you obsessed with bestial tendencies?

A. If that's what you intended to ask, I'm not "obsessed" -- I mentioned other reasons too -- for instance, if REAL murder happens, I want that punished as well (even if the APA "officially" says it's really O.K. -- using best Stuart Smalley voice).

Q. What was the nominal tax rate on the upper 5% for the MAJORITY of Reagan's two terms?

A. It's a little more complicated than that. When Kennedy took office with the famous nominal 91% top tax bracket in place, the top tax rate on capital gains was only 25%, and the average actual effective tax rate paid on capital gains was 15%.

When the Reagan 1986 tax reform dropped the top tax bracket for all income to only 28%, the capital gain tax preference was eliminated, so the rate on gains also was 28%, and the actual effective rate paid on all capital gains rose to 23%. But, that's not the whole story.

It is an Iron Law of taxation economics that higher tax rates = more loopholes, and the people who make the most benefit of loopholes are the rich. The pressure to create loopholes increases exponentially with rate increases. So during the era of the 70% to 90% tax brackets, those with the very highest income levels had lower effective tax rates than others at lower income levels.

And as top income tax brackets rose again post-Reagan, loopholes and tax preferences such as for capital gain income returned and started increasing again too —- during 1998 to 2000 with Clinton’s higher top 39.6% tax rate, the preference for capital gain income was back and the average effective rate on capital gains was down to 19% -- maybe that was the reason for the lack of complaint about “confiscation”.

Lowering tax rates of course lowers the pressure to create loopholes —- so it becomes possible to eliminate them -- so the rich lose the benefit of deductions and preferences. With all the loopholes, some "rich" people weren't paying ANY taxes.

Now, one for you: which situation do you most approve: a nominal top tax rate of 91% with the richest actually paying 15%, or a nominal top tax rate of 28% with the richest actually paying 23%?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Jake - I'll answer your questions
1) You really think it's "impossible" for the Republicans to win back the White House in 2012? I do NOT think it's impossible - look what happened in 2000! Anything is possible.

2) Why not just make polygamy and beastiality legal while we are at it? Why not indeed since both are practiced by otherwise law abiding pro-lifers such as yourself.

3) Maybe the NYT and WaPo can start counting [ABORTION] deaths on their front pages (since they've stopped counting American troop deaths now that Obama has taken over)? Counting dead fetuses - let's give YOU that job! When does life begin, Jake? Do animals count? Go to your local pound and start counting....

4) Remember the Reagan Democrats? And your point is?
Reagan was a charming man but a very bad President. Did "trickle-down" economics do anything for YOUR family?

Posted by: suesher | May 19, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe the NYT and WaPo can start counting [ABORTION] deaths on their front pages (since they've stopped counting American troop deaths now that Obama has taken over)?"

==

That isn't even a question, it's just some snotty sarcasm with an inappropriate question mark attached to the end.

Not to mention being completely absurd. Why would newspapers carry abortion statistics as a daily feature? Why would anyone outside the 21-percenters even care?

I think JakeD has snapped.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

I think JakeD has snapped

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Let me school you Jaked. The tax rate under Reagan for the upper 5% for the majority of his term was 50%. How about them apples?

==

And the goopers call Obama "extremist" for wanting to raise that rate to 40%

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I guess if the APA "officially" removes sociopathic murder from it's little handbook, I guess that will make it O.K. too.

LOL!!!

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Let me school you Jaked. The tax rate under Reagan for the upper 5% for the majority of his term was 50%. How about them apples?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1 (I'll give you one last chance -- "yes" or "no" would be perfectly acceptable -- then I would be glad to answer ALL of your questions):

1) You really think it's "impossible" for the Republicans to win back the White House in 2012?

2) Why not just make polygamy and beastiality legal while we are at it?

3) Maybe the NYT and WaPo can start counting [ABORTION] deaths on their front pages (since they've stopped counting American troop deaths now that Obama has taken over)?

4) Remember the Reagan Democrats?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Homosexuality is not "deviant" behavior, Jake, the APA officially removed that category from the DSM in 1974. There was no clinical evidence that couldn't be fully explained by the pressure from ignorant bigots such as yourself. Gay Americans are fully functional in society and unlike most of the remaining Republican base, gays are capable of the same achievements as everyone else.

You are batting 0.000 and some of your recent posts suggest you are starting to lose your mind completely.

And if you want to alienate the Log Cabin Republicans to the Democratic Party along with most of their other former supporters, you go right ahead. Just be sure you don't say it to anyone's face or your face will get changed a lot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

to quote george costanza "the water was cold"

Posted by: praxitas | May 19, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Whoopsie daisies!! All my teeth are still intact ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't think it's equivalent. You should know better than some dumb animal.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Hey Jake, you tell me or any other gay man that our committed relatiohnships are equivalent to having sex with animals and you'll be picking your teeth off the sidewalk.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I think that chrisfox8 engages in deviant sexual behavior.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I think Jake has snapped.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

Claiming that my questions are "inane" is not the same as answering said questions. How about I just claim that your questions are inane too, and we'll call it even?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else think that Elizabeth Edwards looked cute when she first got married?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse

You're questions are inane. Polygamy and bestiality? What's that all about? I told you I voted for Reagan. Your Wa Po and NYT wasn't even a question. Why don't you tell me what the tax rate on the upper 5% was during the majority of the Reagan years?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, kinda like Joseph ROBINETTE Biden (D-MBNA) did all those years in the Senate.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

And what do the Democrats have to offer the Middle Class?

Taking their side against usurous credit card companies for one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/20/us/politics/20web-credit.html?hp

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:54 PM | Report abuse

At 21% there are fewer people who identify as Republican than there are who believe in the Genesis cosmogeny. The GOP can't even get all of the kook vote!

And you expect them to win a national election in three years?!?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

You haven't answered my questions yet

==

crybaby

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

You haven't answered my questions yet. That's fine, though -- if you don't want to answer my questions, but rather resort to ad hominem personal attacks, it's no skin off my nose -- have a nice life.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

If you really are 72 Jake instead of 14 as you appear to be, you stand very little chance indeed of seeing your abhorrent ideas regain representation in American government before you kick the bucket.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is having kittens again - poor JakeD.

Posted by: skimom27 | May 19, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Same-Sex Marriage and abortion are only going to raise ire among the 21-percenters, Jake. Despite a veritable march of progress on SSM there has been no discernible movement your way, ON THE CONTRARY, as the topic of this thread shows, the GOP continues to lose ground even as gay Americans gain it.

Sucks to be a gooper, doesn't it!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

At this point in time, the republicans don't have a prayer of winning ANYTHING in 2012. Your why are you obsessed with bestial tendencies? I was a Reagan democrat and regret I ever voted for him. Now you tell me this: what was the nominal tax rate on the upper 5% for the MAJORITY of Reagan's two terms?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Why not just make polygamy and beastiality legal while we are at it?

==

This is offensive to gay Americans, who make up a significant and active portion of the electorate.

Keep digging. You'll reach China any day now.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

hahahahah "rising interest rates."

Damn right they're going to rise, they can't go any lower.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1 (here are my questions again, you already said it was "easy" to answer -- yes or no would be perfectly acceptable -- and I have answered ALL of your questions):

1) You really think it's "impossible" for the Republicans to win back the White House in 2012?

2) Why not just make polygamy and beastiality legal while we are at it?

3) Maybe the NYT and WaPo can start counting [ABORTION] deaths on their front pages (since they've stopped counting American troop deaths now that Obama has taken over)?

4) Remember the Reagan Democrats?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

It wasn't "activist courts" that passed same-sex marriage in Iowa, Jake, it was the legislature. And yes people are putting up with it just fine, matter of fact the big backlash you keep visualizing just isn't happening at all. It's an idea whose time has come and there is nothing you can do by play Tantalus and yell at the tide to stop coming in.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

You can always tell a republican when the first words out of their mouth is "I'm not a republican". Dead giveaway, just like "I am not a crook" and "...but when the president does it, it is not illegal".

Tax cuts for the rich is the ONLY thing that the right is touting. They aren't even mentioning abortion. They were in control 14 years and never mentioned overturning Roe V Wade. It's all a sham to get the moronic religious middle, who don't seem to care if their sons and daughters get blown apart in the desert just as long as we aren't electing baby killers. You people are the sickest and most demented people on earth. You love the fetus and hate the child. Don't give children health care or education, early childhood learning, etc. Don't give single or low income families any options for childcare. You love Alito and Roberts, that says it all. You're nothing but a knuckle dragging conservative who is so self absorbed you probably have a hard time breaking away from the bathroom mirror.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"Are you going to answer ANY of my questions?"

==

crybaby

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Read Strauss and Howe, Jake, learn something about our society. One decade is not the same as another, and one winter is more like the previous year's winter than like the autumn just before it. To look for a time like now don't bother looking to the 80s, look to the 30s. You guys have DECADES to go before you will get another shot.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:26 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

You really think it's "impossible" for the Republicans to win back the White House in 2012? If activist Courts keep forcing immorality down our throats, there's only so much we can take. Are you going to answer ANY of my questions?

MITT Romney might look like a very good choice after a year or two of 20% unemployment, rising interest rates, and run-away inflation ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

More States granting same-sex marriage "rights" (or worse) would do it too.

==

Then why is the GOP getting ZERO traction as one state after another crosses this watershed?

Wrong AGAIN, Jake. Being wrong all the time must be tiresome, take a break

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Nightly broadcasts of taxpayer-funded abortions would, I think, turn off many Obama voters.

==

No, people would change the channel.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

More States granting same-sex marriage "rights" (or worse) would do it too. Why not just make polygamy and beastiality legal while we are at it?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Will the GOP be able to come up with a charismatic figure like Reagan again? Where? Sarah Palin? Mitt Romney? You're dreaming.

Not to mention that the decade was a terribly shallow time, the age of disco and Dallas and Dynasty, we're going through a most opposite time now, people yearning for substance and solidity, abandoning churches but seeking an authentic spriritual dimension in their lives, exactly the kind of time they are LEAST likely to adore a congenial old fool like Reagan, even if the GOP could come up with someone that didn't make most Americans want to puke.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the NYT and WaPo can start counting those deaths on their front pages (since they've stopped counting American troop deaths now that Obama has taken over)?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Nightly broadcasts of taxpayer-funded abortions would, I think, turn off many Obama voters.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

As I said, I don't have a dog in the GOP hunt -- but they have a better chance than "no hope for recovery" that's for sure -- for one, the youth vote for Obama is going to become very disillusioned very quickly. The GOP was at lower than 21% in the fall of 1983 and Reagan won every State except Minnesota. Remember the Reagan Democrats? Maybe this time it will be the Romney Independents ...

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I guess a rotten economy and a useless war trump abortion of any sort. Better hope middle class "republican" America finds an issue that has some traction.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Why, if they form a "coalition" with the AIP then they'll be up to 21.03%!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

21% of registered voters identified themselves as republicans. What could you ever hope to win with those numbers?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

76% of Americans favor abortion being legal in some or all circumstances, Jake. We've already been over this. Do you have trouble incorporating information?

You certainly seem to have trouble reading a simple set of poll results.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

The MAJORITY of "middle class" are pro-life. If you have any questions about that, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Last time the GOP lost so badly they were out of power for FORTY EIGHT YEARS.

There is no hope of imminent recovery, which is why the filth are pining for the country to be ATTACKED

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

He didn't ask about you, JakeD, he asked about what the GOP has to offer middle-class Americans. If you're such a narcissistic twit that you think you personify all middle class Americans then go see a psychiatrist.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

You asked for one reason. If you want to discuss any of the FIVE reasons I gave (abortion rights being #2), let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

You did read in the original article: The GOP had a lower number of self-identifying party members in the fall of 1983 -- so, the reports of their death are greatly exaggerated -- please look up the 1984 Electoral Map when you get a chance and then tell me there's no hope for recovery.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Your preoccupation with abortion as a low-information voter is well-known here, Jake, but it is a dead issue. Partial birth abortion is rarely the "convenience" that you crow about, it is almost only performed to save the mother's life.

If the GOP wants to dig deeper by demanding that we let women die then by all means let them do so. I'd like to see the Dems have so many Congressional seats that the GOP needs to change just to bloody survive.

Is there any other issue you care about? No? Then shut up.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Reason #3 tax cuts. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are reasons #4 and #5.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

As I mentioned, before, there has been no terrorist attack(s) on U.S. soil since 2001. If you would have asked me if that was even a remote possibility back then, I wouldn't have put money on it.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Your party--whatever it is--is so fragmented they have no hope of recovery.

Posted by: blarsen1

==

Not for a long time, anyway, at least several more electoral cycles. It's worth noting that the loyalists pin all their hopes on a terrorist incident, openly wishing for an attack and for the deaths of millions of Americans as a way back to power. Leaving aside the raw sickness of this wish, it underscores their desperation and their recognition of it: they have no hope to win elections on ideas, only on fear.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

Well, the reason I voted Republican was for the social issues -- for instance, plenty of "middle class" voters find partial-birth abortion abhorent -- that ban finally stuck with GWB.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"But the GOP is not that credible check, far from it."

Exactly, I think "moderates" tend to move instinctively to parties or candidates that do serve to check overreach in either direction when it becomes apparent. If the Republicans continue to destroy their own credibility so completely, I can actually imagine the formation of a new party if and when enough voters become uncomfortable with the Democrats. The Republicans have all but destroyed their brand name loyalty.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

JakeD--

Your party--whatever it is--is so fragmented they have no hope of recovery. They are an intellectually bankrupt party. They identify with corporate America and want them to pay lower taxes, yet offer nothing to the middle class except a few time-tired sayings that have no meaning anymore. What are they offering the middle class. Name me ONE thing.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Why would the GOP form a coalition with a party representing no more than a twentieth or one percent of the electorate, an affiliation that would only corroborate their extremity in the public mind?

"You thought we were nutty with McCain and Palin? Now we're connected to Alan Keyes!"

Get real.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

I don't mind a "coalition" type government between the GOP and Independents. Once the excesses of the Dems hit home, that's what will happen anyway.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Douglas sounds like Billy Kristol and others who claimed that Specter's departure was a good thing for their party.

What they don't get is that the country is essentially moderate overall. And moderates are not strictly ideological by nature. Moderates will tolerate some foraging to the right or left, but they are not going to go far along with a radically ideological agenda either way.

So if the Democratic party is taking in moderate Republican politicians, they are taking in moderate Republican voters. Specter was not simply self-serving in wanting to remain a viable candidate, he simply did not want to be beholden to the shrinking minority of Republican voters in his state that were essentially far-right wing ideologically.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

We're done talking about you, Jake

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

They made bad choices, it's as simple as that.

==

And showing no more maturity than four-year-olds they would rather go on sinking and collapsing than admit their mistakes.

So be it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

Did you see my answer to you (posted at 3:38 PM), and do you have any more questions for me, Counselor?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The republicans are facing an identity crisis. They don't want to amend their platform and move to the middle where they would most certainly reclaim much of their lost tribe and they want to move further to the right where the Palin-Jindal-Rush supporters are, but voters are fewer in numbers. They've made their choice. They decided to cut off their proverbial nose and now have to live with their decision, which they don't seem to like. They made bad choices, it's as simple as that.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I'm essentially in agreement with Robert Stacy McCain. However, the Democrats should take heed, as well.

==

Even as thoroughly as I despise what the GOP has become since they abandoned logic for power, I don't like the idea of a one-party country. The Democrats are prone to excesses and flailing gestures and their excesses need a foil. Bohr had Einstein, the Democrats need some credible check on their tendency to throw money at problems indiscriminately (no I am not talking about the stimulus).

But the GOP is not that credible check, far from it. The GOP holds a vote tomorrow to rename the Democratic Party, dropping the -ic and adding "Socialist." This kind of frivolity may play to the dollar seats and the nasty-grimies who would cheer a Palin presidency, but it's not good for America.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Astonishingly, the denial is as complete as ever:

"At American Power, Donald Douglas is not as concerned as some righty observers: “Franky, this could be the best thing to happen to the party since Barry Goldwater in 1964.”

The bottom line is this: As the party in power, the Democrats have quite likely reached the peak of their congressional majority. The winnowing of GOP moderates is having the counterintuitive effect of shifting the entire Congress more firmly to the ideological right.

Most importantly, the Obama administration will now bear the burden of governing responsibility in upcoming elections. While the GOP has little chance of regaining the majority in either chambers of Congress for the next couple of cycles, partisan trends favoring the Democrats have pretty much topped out. If leftists are ecstatic today at the GOP’s decline - as measured by Gallup’s findings above - the danger for them is that the victory tide might now begin rolling back out to sea."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm essentially in agreement with Robert Stacy McCain. However, the Democrats should take heed, as well.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

And after a reference to Chris' column, the article goes on with:

"Robert Stacy McCain isn’t buying that kind of analysis, and instead wants to blame the “Republican elite’s anti-grassroots strategy” for yielding the results Gallup has documented.

Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing fails like failure. A political party that is disloyal and disrespectful toward its core constituents, as the GOP was during the Bush/Mehlman era, will not attract new adherents. Who wants to sign up to be treated like a doormat?

The Bush-era GOP believed that its base would be satisfied with superficial gestures (e.g., the Terri Schiavo drama) and ignore the party leadership’s pursuit of policies (e.g., McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D) which were directly at odds with the party’s fundamental principles.

This perverse conception of one-way loyalty — where the underlings are expected to show a loyalty toward the elite that the elite is never required to reciprocate — is characteristic of any dysfunctional organization. “The beatings will continue until morale improves!” "

==

"don't look good"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Más:

"At the American Conservative, Daniel Larison writes, “This is the hollowing-out of the Republican coalition as we know it.”

The Midwest figures are stunning: Republican ID in this region has dropped by nine points. This is not just the heartland, which the GOP is supposed to represent so well, but it has been the historic core of Republican politics at a national level since the founding of the party. Even having lost the Northeast is not quite as bad as being decimated in the Midwest. The GOP has even lost five points among married voters, six points among whites, seven points among men and nine points among middle-income voters, all of which are equal to or greater than the national average. This is the hollowing-out of the Republican coalition as we know it. "

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse

"mil1" wrote:
"-your just such a easy target for a totally troll response."

==

"you're"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

If we're done talking about JackeD and anyone is interested in the GOP crackup, there is a new article in the NYT about it.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/the-republican-crackup-part-the-xxxvith/

"The results, taken from months of surveys totaling 7,000 adult respondents, are striking. The Republican Party has lost ground in every region, every age group, every ethnicity, every income level, every educational level, every ideology, and both genders. The drop off was strongest among college graduates (down 10%), Americans under 30 (down 9%), Americans making under $75,000, Midwesterners, and self-identified moderates. . . .

Which groups showed GOP gains? There weren’t any. . . . "

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox8: Since your are the last man standing, so to speak, on this forum I am surprised you think I am Jake D in another "form". I wouldn't be so sure that I am Jake D (I believe for one he is actually a guy and a lawyer--I am neither of those. Also, I think my subscription to National Review since I was 13 might bely the "centrist" title but as I said I am Republican--thought pali2600 was looking for some to have a discussion. Being sarcastic about your comments was just a bonus for me. But sorry, I try not to be evil--your just such a easy target for a totally troll response...again sorry.

pali2600: does this mean you only wanted to "dis" those who aren't Democrats? or you just thought I was boring? If its the latter--sorry. But thanks for the questions and inviting me in.

Posted by: mil1 | May 19, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

So many words to say so very little.

Why did you bother?

Posted by: pali2600

==

You do know that all anyone need do is log out and log back in under another email address, or even from another browser on the same machine, to create an appearance of corroborating support?

I've never posted anywhere with gooper trolls who didn't post under multiple accounts.

It would never occur to them not to.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:48 PM | Report abuse

pali2600:

I don't usually post more than once but I am happy to answer questions. So:

1. I am a nominal Republican and I read these comments. I realize that this is just anecdotal but here I am. I am a nominal Republican because my state says I must declare for the primary and for the most part I wish to influence the party I think represents less govt.(which means I have voted for Democrats but maybe their party wasn't thrilled with their less govt stance.)

2. I don't listen to Hannity etc. I do listen to Rush. (I know you probably lump all conservative talk radio together--I also listen to Handel in the Morning in LA ; maybe he is considered a conservative in Calif. but he can't be called a Republican). Rush isn't shrill; he is acidly sarcastic. The difference is that simple and ugly name call is what happens in the 'trons at WAPO whereas Rush's not so subtle innuendo (fema-Nazis, the New Castrateti, etc) is sightly more like political satire then say chrisfox8's "Alan Keyes, one word: joke" but that's just my point of view. (Sorry chrisfox8 but you are a troll and not a nice one).

I know pali2600 have realized that Jake D is our local troll (Jake D I say that with the greatest affection as many times your posts are what cause me to stay and read the rest). And besides there were 8 of you piling on and it just seemed like you needed a voice that wasn't quite as--well wasn't Jake D. (although great job, Jake D no one is talking about that poll!)

And so pali2600 I do try to be nice and reasonable; now a question to you on shrill and nasty--watch Keith Olbermann (sp?) much?

Posted by: mil1 | May 19, 2009 4:30 PM |

___________________________________

So many words to say so very little.

Why did you bother?

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

(although great job, Jake D no one is talking about that poll!)

Posted by: mil1

==

So you applaud Jake's successfully derailing a discussion?

You certainly are a Republican, and a "centrist" one at that.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:43 PM | Report abuse

pali2600:

I don't usually post more than once but I am happy to answer questions. So:

1. I am a nominal Republican and I read these comments. I realize that this is just anecdotal but here I am. I am a nominal Republican because my state says I must declare for the primary and for the most part I wish to influence the party I think represents less govt.(which means I have voted for Democrats but maybe their party wasn't thrilled with their less govt stance.)

2. I don't listen to Hannity etc. I do listen to Rush. (I know you probably lump all conservative talk radio together--I also listen to Handel in the Morning in LA ; maybe he is considered a conservative in Calif. but he can't be called a Republican). Rush isn't shrill; he is acidly sarcastic. The difference is that simple and ugly name call is what happens in the 'trons at WAPO whereas Rush's not so subtle innuendo (fema-Nazis, the New Castrateti, etc) is sightly more like political satire then say chrisfox8's "Alan Keyes, one word: joke" but that's just my point of view. (Sorry chrisfox8 but you are a troll and not a nice one).

I know pali2600 have realized that Jake D is our local troll (Jake D I say that with the greatest affection as many times your posts are what cause me to stay and read the rest). And besides there were 8 of you piling on and it just seemed like you needed a voice that wasn't quite as--well wasn't Jake D. (although great job, Jake D no one is talking about that poll!)

And so pali2600 I do try to be nice and reasonable; now a question to you on shrill and nasty--watch Keith Olbermann (sp?) much?

Posted by: mil1 | May 19, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

"If anyone would like to chase their tail in circles while I recite Limbaugh talking points and insult your intelligence with trash logic, let me know"

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Looks like your audience is abandoning you, Jake, better come up with a real whopper pretty soon.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

That's about 0.03%, Jake. Think they'll surpass the Democratic Party anytime soon?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

So Jake if they can only get about 40,000 votes out of an electorate of over 130 million, what exactly is the point of your "fastest growing" claim?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Awww the little bedwetter won't answer my questions. My feelings are hurt.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Observer44:

Are you still around?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Come on, Jake is Keyes our next president?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if jaked comes off as a cowardly, vain, preening, ineffective, prevaricating little would-be napoleon in person, too, or if it's just his online persona?

Posted by: nodebris | May 19, 2009 4:04 PM | Report abuse

So, Jake, since the AIP is the "fastest growing party," are you ready to stick your neck out and claim that Alan Keyes will be elected president in 2012?

(pause)

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 4:03 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

Did you see my answer to you (posted at 3:38 PM), and do you have any more questions for me, Counselor?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD

==

Enjoying all the attention, Jake?

One can only speculate how empty your life must be that you thrive on the attention you get by showing yourself to be a fool.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, I think you're a cry baby too, jaked.

Posted by: nodebris | May 19, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

"...when the President authorizes it, it is not illegal (regardless of whether it is "torture" or not). Admittedly, only Cheney and I believe this last point, but I'd still stick it into the Supreme Court brief." ~ Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:38 PM

_____________________________________


How interesting that the self-proclaimed lawyer (and witless proponent of the American Independent Party) has no objection to being ruled, not by laws, but by Presidential fiat and whim.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

For the record, "chrisfox8" has refused to answer my questions on other threads, which is why I won't answer his questions anymore.

==

crybaby

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Let's see how they do now that they can't blame Bush for everything that goes wrong...

Posted by: sovine08

==

Americans may have terribly brief memories but it will be a long time before they start to blame Obama for the messes that Bush left him.

On the other hand, Reagan *reflexively* blamed Carter for the Beirut bombing, years into his own presidency. I don't recall the goopers baring their teeth at his weasel excuses.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:45 PM | Report abuse

For the record, "chrisfox8" has refused to answer my questions on other threads, which is why I won't answer his questions anymore.

As long as you answer my questions, in a civil manner, I will ALWAYS return the same courtesy.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

the lowest it has been since the fall of 1983.
____
I find this stat interesting.. Reagan won the election in 1980.. so how bad was Carter? He crushed Mondale in 1984 and his VP Bush won in 1988.. Republicans took control of Congress in 1992.. So not sure if being as bad as 1983 really means that much. Look Republicans have to get their act together but remember people like Democrats now because they haven't been in power to screw up... Let's see how they do now that they can't blame Bush for everything that goes wrong...

Posted by: sovine08 | May 19, 2009 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Alternatively, when the President authorizes it, it is not illegal (regardless of whether it is "torture" or not).

==

Nobody of any reputable legal scholarship would agree with this.

So an American executive can sodomize a deaf-mute boy and with a stroke of the pen make it a legal act? ARE YOU AS DEMENTED AS YOU SOUND?!?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:40 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

No, they are not liars. First, I could stick with the Clinton "depends on what 'is' is" line (you asked the first question in the present tense) and that means you have to buy it, hook/line/sinker. Obama supposedly will not authorize "torture" even if it would save 300 million American lives. But, it looks like you've changed that to the past tense now. Either way, a LIE means you have to prove they knew it was untrue.

Second, the Office of Legal Counsel set forth exactly what conduct was acceptable and NOT legally "torture" and that's all the President authorized. That was the state of the law, until and unless it was overruled (then it would be up to the President to decide whether to submit to said ruling). I would therefore argue that Bush's statement is not a "lie" unless he KNEW there were unauthorized acts. Abu Gharib, for instance, was NOT authorized and subsequently those enlisted personnel were tried and convicted, and the person in charge of the facility was demoted for failing to properly supervise.

Alternatively, when the President authorizes it, it is not illegal (regardless of whether it is "torture" or not). Admittedly, only Cheney and I believe this last point, but I'd still stick it into the Supreme Court brief.

Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:38 PM | Report abuse

we've had no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001.

Posted by: JakeD

==

We've had exactly as many terrorist attacks in the eight years since 9/11 as we had in the eight years before, and not one fewer.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"American Independent: 370,405 (2.14%)"

Most of the people who have registered as AIP did so mistakenly, thinking they were registering independent, i.e., non-affiliated.

That's why only 40,000 people voted for their candidate, Keyes. So 40,000, a minute amount of the population, is probably a number close to what their actual, intentional, knowing membership equals.

Meanwhile, real independents voted for McCain or Obama. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates had *more* votes than registered voters, unlike AIP.

Heck, you need about 89,000 registered voters to be a party in California. If it weren't for the whole confusion about AIP's short name, the [ahem] Independent Party, AIP couldn't even qualify as a party.

AIP is essentially the last refuge of unstable megalomaniacs so psychotic they can't even fit into the Republican Party. Keyes himself being a perfect example. Oh, and of course our two vocal members in these comments. Perfect examples. Naturally, they all hate each other.

Posted by: nodebris | May 19, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

If there's another 9/11-type attack, you will see plenty of people go back to the GOP since we've had no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001.

Posted by: JakeD

____________________________________

Martians haven't invaded, either.

There has been no outbreak of cholera, diptheria or smallpox.

The sun still rises and sets.

The Great Lakes did not dry up and become deserts.

Roosters still crow at the break of day.

All hail, BushCo -- protectors of all that is good and holy.

What a pity that Bushco could not run for a few more terms.

Of course, along the way, Bush and Cheney did do something that no enemy of America has ever succeeded in doing:

They brought the country to its knees.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

MontaraCA:

I ask you a question, and you posted about Rush instead -- I didn't say you were posting about me -- all I did was ask the question again.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Yes. It is easy to answer questions. Now, why wasn't Bush's "we don't torture" statement not a lie, because the wingnuts that want to go after Pelosi say she's lying about knowing about torture. Bush, Cheney, Boehner, Rumsfeld, etc., are all liars, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

What's interesting, Jake, is that you assumed I was talking about you in the first place.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

"See how easy it is to answer questions?"

Posted by: Jake

==

Your infantile need for attention inspires my pity

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

blarsen:

"See how easy it is to answer questions?"

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure I did answer your question, Jake, but I'll make it a little clearer. The article above is about the Republican party. If the Democratic party were shrinking proportionately, I suppose it would be worth noting, since it would be misleading to imply that the Republican party was losing out overall. So is it "just a bit relevant"? Well I suppose it might be in THAT context.

But in fact, the Democrats got their presidential candidate elected by a clear margin; they also control the House and Senate. Voters across many demographic groups are dis-identifying with the Republican party. The Democrats may not be expanding as a party, but voters are turning to their candidates in favor of Republican candidates.

My assertion is that one of the reasons the Republican party is declining and losing elections is that it is in virtual denial of the fact that there is anything seriously wrong. It focuses on a narrow range of issues and narrow demographics. Limbaugh's response to a group of GOP leaders going on a listening tour was: "We do not need a listening tour. We need a teaching tour. That is what the Republican Party, or, slash, the conservative movement needs to focus on. Listening tour ain't it.""

So when you insist on demanding a YES or NO answer to whether or not the Democratic party is experiencing any shrinkage, I think you have illustrated my point in dodging the central question of what the Republican party might do to improve it's image and viability.

What I'm saying is: Dodging the question IS the problem.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

I'm going out now to enjoy a sunny day.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Rush has a regular audience of a few million people, mostly aging, mostly powerless and disgruntled people who get their rage fix on the radio.

His audience is not growing, and his influence on the GOP is strong, and is very bad for them. Limbaugh is a gift to the Democratic Party.

Someone said the audience is "imploding"; this is inaccurate, but the claim was worth making because it's gotten JackeD to waste hours if not days of his life gibbering frantically trying to refute it and alternately crowing victory and screaming in outrage.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

JakeD--

Refresh my memory...what are your questions?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

If we all keep JackeD busy answering post after post maybe we can give him a coronary.

Think how peaceful it would be around here without him doing close to half the posts.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

blarsen:

I would be more than happy to answer your two questions, just as soon as you answer mine already pending to you.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Fact check on the article:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

2009 May 7-10

32% - Republicans
34% - Independents
32% - Democrats

45% - Republicans & Republican-leaners
45% - Democrats & Democrat-leaners

Posted by: simcallos | May 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I was not home-schooled -- and I actually graduated at the top of my class from Stanford Law School -- how about you?

Posted by: Jake

==

Oh my ribs ache from laughing.

Jake, I think I can say with complete confidence that NOBODY in this section believes this claim.

You can't even read a simple pair of integers and determine which is larger.

I doubt you graduated from high school.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

JakeD-

Why isn't it a lie? Did we torture detainees or was it all just a fraternity prank like Rush says?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 3:09 PM | Report abuse

check out the American Independent Party.

http://www.aipca.org/

Posted by: JakeD

==

By all means, do "check them out."

They make the Palin/Jeeeendal/Hucklebee crowd sound sane, logical, and centered.

Two words: Alan Keyes

One word: joke

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove ("Bush's brain") developed the strategy of appeasing the Republican base at every turn. You reap what you sow.

Posted by: SilverSpring8 | May 19, 2009 3:07 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

No, that is not a "lie" and I never said we should investigate Pelosi. Will you, finally, admit that it is easy to answer questions?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD-

If were going to investigate Pelosi about what she knew and when she knew it, why wouldn't we do the same with Boehner, Cheney, Bush and every other republican who was briefed?

"The United States doesn't torture people"
said W. Is this a lie--yes or no, please?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I should have simply agreed with "pdxgeek" that this limited forum does not allow for complex scenarios to be discussed in-depth and left it at that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:59 PM | Report abuse

For the last time, I brought up how much Rush makes (and, more importantly, his INCREASING audience) because someone claimed Rush was "imploding". If you people don't know how debate points are scored, please learn.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"GOP= GRAND OBSOLETE PARTY"

==

Nope.

GROTESQUE Obsolete Party

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

"Rush Limbaugh is a minor sideshow."

==

True, but never deny a drowning man his straw.

Look how desperately the gooper trolls like JackeD cling to little bits of flotsam like Rush's popularity.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 19, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I believe that JakeD graduated at top of his class at Stanford Law (I was there and saw it with my own two eyes ; )

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

I do not blame Bush for 9/11. Zero Iraqis attacked us on 9/11, mostly Saudis, and I think one from Jordon and one from Egypt. The Bush family was indeed friends with the bin Laden family, who had previously disowned Osama.

See how easy it is to answer questions?

pali2600 (and MontaraCA):

If you don't want to answer my questions, even though I answered EVERY one of your questions, that's fine with me.

mcafla:

First, I will never resort to ad hominem personal attacks against anyone here. Second, your latest post only lists the "costs" but none of the benefits of the Iraq war. What would the "damage to the country" have been by another 9/11 attack or worse?

I'm glad we agree on Reid and Pelosi at least : )

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Is there anyone -- anyone at all -- who believes that JakeD graduated top of his class at Stanford Law?

Is there anyone -- anyone at all -- who believes that JakeD went to Stanford Law?

Is there anyone -- anyone at all -- who believes that JakeD demonstrates enough intelligence to have graduated even from places like Regent, Liberty or Madonna Law schools?

No?

I can't believe it, either.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I don't blame FDR, but that is not my era and there are facts to support both sides that argue, the same as there are facts like:

"Bin Laden determined to strike within U.S."

Bush got the memo from Condi and ignored it. Do you blame Bush for 9/11? How many Iraqi's attacked us on 9/11? How many Saudi's? Was the Bush family friends with the bin Laden family? These are the questions you need to answer.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I think I am ever more convinced that the remaining Republican apologists are focused more on YES or NO answers to questions that are essentially distractions from the undeniable problem their party is facing.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

pali2600:

I was not home-schooled -- and I actually graduated at the top of my class from Stanford Law School -- how about you?

YOU provided the October 20, 2008 number. The actual number "7,650,243" is not in my link but that is, in fact, 44.6% of the total registrations. It's called simple math. Learn it.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:16 PM

______________________________________

Of course you graduated top of your class at Stanford Law.

That's why you waste your days making a fool of yourself by posting arrant nonsense on newspaper comment board.

BTW, your simple math proves that you are a simpleton.

You were asked to supply a source for your specific claims about the Democratic, Republican and American Independent Party votes in California. You failed to do so.

Additionally, you confused voter registration for a national Presidential election with voter registration for State Special Election.

The so-called decline that you have manufactured could easily be explained by, for example, a number of people who have moved and failed to re-register. It is also so small that could also be a statistical anomaly.

As a supposed lawyer who claims to have graduated at the top of his class at Stanford Law, you have demonstrated absolutely no aptitude for argument, facts or statistics.

The only bar you are likely to have encountered would have had more to do with your current mental condition than with any legal standing.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 2:36 PM | Report abuse

How about it? You think that the Iraq war is "serious damage" to the U.S.? Then why did THE ONE say that the surge worked better than anyone could have imagined? Also, you didn't answer my first question:
***********************

Jake exemplifies the inability of righties to understand complexity. The Iraq war certainly damaged the US, costing thousands of American soldiers their lives and limbs, or don't they count. It weakened our overstretched military and sent unaccounted billions into the Iraq black hole of corruption. It also empowered Iran. Most thinking Americans would consider that damage to the US. Particularly as Iraq was not an imminent threat or even a distant threat.

At the same time, the surge worked to mitigate some of the damage. The reason the surge "worked" is the same reason so many of our soldiers were killed in the first place. The Bush administration mismanaged the war by not sending in a large enough force to keep the peace, ergo t he need for a "surge".

As to whether or not Obama/Reid/Pelosi are incompetent, I would have no problem with replacing both Reid and Pelosi. They are not the best spokespeople the Dems could have. There is a long bench the Dems could draw on. I would like those two retired.

Posted by: mcafla | May 19, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1

I disagree, because I think that Bush finally realized the terrorists are AT WAR with us. Now (the last time I will ask you, I promise) do you also blame FDR for failing to prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:28 PM | Report abuse

MontaraCA (last time I will ask):

YES or NO, do you think it is relevant to the thread topic if DEMOCRATS are experiencing shrinkage as well?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Considering the "shrill" nature of the discussion (hard to think that this is where the Nation's Capital's finest commentors hang out), it's no wonder no one admits they are Republican.

Posted by: mil1 | May 19, 2009 1:47 PM |

_________________________________________

1. Do you think that the millions of Republicans who have abandoned the GOP over the last eight-and-a-half years either a) read the comments on the Washington Post comment boards, or b) are so weak-minded as to be affected by them?

2. Speaking of the "shrill nature of the discussions," do the names Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity have any meaning for you?

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 2:22 PM | Report abuse

JakeD--

Well, at the rate the republicans are going, they will be repeating the results of the 2008 election in the next several election cycles.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

WillSeattle:

Make that TWO of us who refuse to believe this poll!

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I for one refuse to believe this poll.

If it were true, it would mean that up to 21 percent of Americans were not only Traitors, but actively working for al-Qaeda by being aligned with their front group the GOP.

Americans are patriots - there can't be that many quislings who hate America like the GOP does.

Posted by: WillSeattle | May 19, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

pali2600:

I was not home-schooled -- and I actually graduated at the top of my class from Stanford Law School -- how about you?

YOU provided the October 20, 2008 number. The actual number "7,650,243" is not in my link but that is, in fact, 44.6% of the total registrations. It's called simple math. Learn it.

Observer44:

Maybe I am missing something here, but do you at least understand what I am saying?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

pali2600:

Who is "ROFL" now?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 12:54 PM

___________________________________________

It's still me.

1. You say, "As of May 4, 2009 -- that is more current than October 20, 2008 FYI -- there were 7,650,243 registered Dems in California, which is less than 7,683,495."
The numbers you quote are not stated in your link. Naughty, naughty. However...

2. From the link you provided: "The percentage of voters registered with the Democratic Party increased from 42.7% to 44.6%."

Were you home-schooled?


Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

We are talking about those who will not learn from history being doomed to repeat it. But, look, if you don't want to answer my simple questions, that's O.K. with me.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

pali2600:

Who is "ROFL" now?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 12:54 PM

___________________________________________

It's still me.

1. You say, "As of May 4, 2009 -- that is more current than October 20, 2008 FYI -- there were 7,650,243 registered Dems in California, which is less than 7,683,495."
The numbers you quote are not stated in your link. Naughty, naughty. However...

2. From the link you provided: "The percentage of voters registered with the Democratic Party increased from 42.7% to 44.6%."

Were you home-schooled?


Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 2:10 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

Someone else provided the SecState link for the October 20, 2008 numbers. Again, let me know if you think that 7,650,243 is more than 7,683,495.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD--

We aren't talking about FDR. We're talking about the massive failures of the Bush administration and how he failed to keep us safe on 9/11.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

mil1:

You are more than welcome to check out the American Independent Party.

http://www.aipca.org/

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse


REPUBLICAN'Ts

Posted by: lunetrick | May 19, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

JakeD-

I find nothing in your link to support your claim.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Well, this might be a bit philosophical, but I think the crux of the problem with the GOP is that is makes a calculated effort to convince people that the problems of the world boil down to a few simple ideological questions and answers. In other words, almost every issue is oversimplified and there is no room for discussion.

Even the most complex issues are framed roughly in purely ideological terms. Ambiguous points of concern are drowned out by the drumbeat of proscribed talking points, no matter how tenuously related to the issue at hand. If a problem arises that the GOP has no answer for, such as climate change, it is simply deemed fiction.

This is how the Bush administration wound up making so many mistakes. It not only refused to consider any strategic alternatives, it branded the very notion of raising alternatives, even from within its own party, as suspect. Naturally, a president that actually attempts to build consensus is viewed with disdain, when in fact it is their golden opportunity to participate in effective government.

The world is not a static collection of issues. The world is ever changing and evolving, and the world of ideas has to expand to keep up. But many conservatives have been misled into thinking that "values" are the same as absolute positions. This leaves no room for expansion. The party is becoming obsolete and ineffectual in dealing with the world's current issues.

The fact that the party is shrinking dramatically shows, reassuringly, that a growing majority of people are not willing to be constrained by a such a limited set of ideas. Moderates and even conservatives of a more traditional ilk are realizing the Republican party no longer represents their values. They are tired of having their intelligence insulted.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Zilla only posts the polls that fit his appearances on MSNBC. A may 7-10 Gallup Poll shows repubs and dems tied and 32% and including leaners tied at 45%. I wonder why Zilla didn't mention that?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

Posted by: robtr | May 19, 2009 1:54 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

FDR didn't prevent Pearl Harbor -- in fact, some historians argue that he PROVOKED the Japanese to attack -- fo you blame him as well?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

mcafla (I will only post this once):

How about it? You think that the Iraq war is "serious damage" to the U.S.? Then why did THE ONE say that the surge worked better than anyone could have imagined? Also, you didn't answer my first question:

DO YOU THINK OBAMA/REID/PELOSI ARE INCOMPETENT AND ABUSING THEIR POWER?

Pelosi now claims that the CIA lied to her, but she STILL took impeachment off the table?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:51 PM | Report abuse

What you forget is that when we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11, it was on Bush's watch. He didn't keep us safe, if he had we never would have been attacked. End of story.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

All the Republicans need to do is to slowly rebuild their bona fides as regards principle. The chief damage done by #43 to the party was to demolish the cornerstone of spending restraint.

Other than that, they must wait for things to get worse as it will because stuff happens.

Posted by: edbyronadams | May 19, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Democrats: your arguments about the Republican party sound good to a Democratic ear but in fact, Palin, Limbaugh and Huntsman are not the topics dejure (sp?) of those who have voted Republican in the past and who may now be thinking of become independent.

Topics for these people (I count myself as one) are: how can I keep my family at the same or greater financial level as before the turndown? Who in govt currently understands that I lend my money to the govt for their use, not they return "govt" money for my use?

In politics we look for less govt, in international relations we look for a strong US working from a position of strength; diplomacy that has proven futile in the previous administration doesn't improve with age and should not be a choice simply because no one liked our last president. (I lived 15 years on and off outside the US, no one likes us no matter who is president; our security isn't a popularity contest).

I do not want to see my children and grandchildren paying for issues that are, quite frankly scientifically questionable (yes, there is global warming,however, CO2 levels aren't the issue) and which are financially unsound--how many trillion is it now that we are busy printing without real worth?

These questions are about wanting less govt versus more--why? Public education--a product of govt. EPA--a product of govt. IRS--a product of govt. Social programs with bottomless pockets that dehumanize the recipients--a product of govt. A Defense Dept that can't defend (and that spooky agency called Homeland Security--love the name; very authoritarian of us to use it and so much better than Motherland or Fatherland)--products of a govt that can't figure out we have a Constitution and for what reason a Bill of Rights was written.

Any way--these are what "former" Republicans talk about. We don't discuss getting closer to the left (who we see as spendthrifts and/or worse) or even the middle (who are people who just can't decide on what they want so they vote for Republicans one time and Democrats the next).

So all the discussion here is just conversations among Democrats--and its all name calling and bad guessing on your part. Considering the "shrill" nature of the discussion (hard to think that this is where the Nation's Capital's finest commentors hang out), it's no wonder no one admits they are Republican.

Posted by: mil1 | May 19, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

I did read the link. The overall percentage of Democrats increased since 2005 -- mainly because Republicans lost even more -- but they've peaked and the number is NOW shrinking (i.e. October 20, 2008 there were 7,683,495 registered Dems and May 4, 2009 there were 7,650,243). As I said, BOTH parties are losing numbers.

Let me know if you think that 7,650,243 is more than 7,683,495.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake

How about misleading the country into an the unnecessary, unwise, poorly managed Iraq war that got thousands of Americans killed, thousands more brutally injured and billions sent down the blackhole of Iraqi corruption.

That really should be more than enough for anyone who is not a Limbaugh junkie.

Posted by: mcafla | May 19, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Jake

How about misleading the country into an the unnecessary, unwise, poorly managed Iraq war that got thousands of Americans killed, thousands more brutally injured and billions sent down the blackhole of Iraqi corruption.

That really should be more than enough for anyone who is not a Limbaugh junkie.

Posted by: mcafla | May 19, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

JakeD-

I pulled that info directly from your link.

Perhaps you should have read your link before you posted it.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

mcafla:

I presume you are not referring to Americans catching on to the incompetence and abuse of power by Obama/Reid/Pelosi? As for the alleged "serious damage" you claim the GOP did to this country, could you be a little more specific?

At least there has been no terrorist attack(s) on U.S. soil since 2001. If you would have asked me if that was even a remote possibility back then, I wouldn't have put money on it.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

So, I assume that means "yes" you did see my link -- why is it like pulling teeth around here to get simple answers to simple questions -- the number for BOTH parties are declining (regardless of whether the Dems have not lost as much as the GOP yet).

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

It took too many Americans too long to catch on, but the incompetence and abuse of power was impossible to ignore.

Ufortunately, the GOP has done serious damage to this country as they mismanaged the government, which they disdain, over the last 8 years.

Posted by: mcafla | May 19, 2009 1:28 PM | Report abuse

JakeD--

From your link.

The percentage of voters registered with the Democratic Party increased from 42.7% to 44.6%.

The percentage of voters registered with the Republican Party decreased from 34.8% to 31.1%.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

armpeg:

Did you also notice that Gallup "push[ed]" Independents who lean in one direction or the other into "the party toward which they lean" (as if that is even possible). Wanna bet that more Independents were counted as Democrats?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:22 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

The GOP was "out of favor" during Jimmy Carter's term because of Watergate and the national shame of a resigned President -- I'm not a Republican, but at least they got the partial-birth abortion ban to stick -- those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Now, "yes" or "no" did you see my link to the California Secretary of State PROVING the Dems are losing members?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Like it or not, Limbaugh one of the reasons your party is shrinking. The other reason is George W. Bush.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The GOP "shrinkage problem" is just Chris Cillizza's and the Democrap Socialist Party supporters wishful-thinking.
A lot of Americans don't want to hook themselves up to one particular political party, so they'll claim and register to be Independents or whatever. When the GOP or Democrap Socialist train leaves the station though, and it's time to vote, they'll be on it. Bill O'Reilly for instance, has mentioned it on his show that he's registered as an Independent. And I doubt that he voted for that empty-suit and Marxist Obama over McCain.

Posted by: armpeg | May 19, 2009 1:16 PM | Report abuse

JakeD--

We're talking about today, not 26 years ago. The republicans are out of favor because the Bush/Cheney regime cooked the books on the war, the economy, 9/11 and anything else you can think of. They didn't do one thing that had any positive effect at all. They let the polluters pollute more, they let the banks run wild with our retirement, they gave their corporate buddy's no-bid contracts and tax havens. The only good they did was to increase funding for aids in Africa. If you're really a republican, the party left you for the like of Palin, Jindal and Huckabee who don't represent the party evidenced by the fact that the democrats won big last November.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 1:13 PM | Report abuse

MontaraCA:

This thread topic is NOT about Rush Limbaugh -- it's about the Gallup Poll: Republican Shrinkage Widespread -- so, once again, do you think it is relevant to the thread topic if DEMOCRATS are experiencing shrinkage as well?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Rush Limbaugh is huge problem, no pun intended. But if he disappeared, someone else would just pop up in his place. The party keeps looking for someone "charismatic" enough to be their spokesperson. Instead, they ought to quit relying on celebrity personalities (ironic, given how they derided Obama's popularity) and start building some credibility as a party that get on board with contributing to some actual solutions to the nation's problems. They have shown themselves to be more interested in self-preservation than the good of the country as a whole. As time goes on, they offend more and more people through their disregard of serious issues in favor of enflaming wedge issues of dubious importance.

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

I was not out of the country last November. Did you see my link to the California Secretary of State PROVING the Dems are losing members since then?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 12:55 PM | Report abuse

pali2600:

Who is "ROFL" now?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are only growing in numbers. Were you out of the country last November?

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Would the term "fair weather friends" apply here?
Down and out republicans aren't even succumbing to the expression
"misery loves company". Bailing out, jumping ship what else could happen, the end of the Republican Party all together?
God save the Republicans, what would we non Republicans do for fun?

Sincerely,
dePaul Consiglio

Posted by: depaulconsiglio | May 19, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Would the term "fair weather friends" apply here?
Down and out republicans aren't even succumbing to the expression
"misery loves company". Bailing out, jumping ship what else could happen, the end of the Republican Party all together?
God save the Republicans, what would we non Republicans do for fun?

Sincerely,
dePaul Consiglio

Posted by: depaulconsiglio | May 19, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

blarsen1:

The GOP had a lower number of self-identifying party members in the fall of 1983 -- the reports of their death are greatly exaggerated -- please look up the 1984 Electoral Map when you get a chance.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Would the term "fair weather friends" apply here?
Down and out republicans aren't even succumbing to the expression
"misery loves company". Bailing out, jumping ship what else could happen, the end of the Republican Party all together?
God save the Republicans, what would we non Republicans do for fun?

Sincerely,
dePaul Consiglio

Posted by: depaulconsiglio | May 19, 2009 12:51 PM | Report abuse

P.S. to MontaraCA: you don't think it's just a bit relevant to the thread if DEMOCRATS are experiencing shrinkage as well?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm not advocating this, but if Rush Limbaugh were to die of a massive coronary or stroke, the republican's would be much better off. It may be the GOP's only hope of surviving. Sometimes you have to cut off the head to save the patient.

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

An obvious mistake the Republicans made was in shaping a base out of far-right religious fundamentalists. In the face of this willfully ignorant, loudmouthed, intransigent mob, anyone with common sense, decency, and actual integrity has fled.

As someone has pointed out already, it's astonishing how both the party leadership and this base are in such denial of their predicament. Michael Steele wants to move beyond an "era of apologizing." What era? In the six months since the election, I haven't heard so much genuine soul-searching as bitter grousing.

As for all this off-topic back and forth between commenters: Can you guys blog it out on PerezHilton.com or something?

Posted by: MontaraCA | May 19, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I was listening to Rush ; )

pali2600 (and Observer44):

As of May 4, 2009 -- that is more current than October 20, 2008 FYI -- there were 7,650,243 registered Dems in California, which is less than 7,683,495. As I said, BOTH parties are losing numbers.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-stwdsp-09/hist-reg-stats.pdf

No need to apologize; I forgive you.

Henry_of_BrowardCounty:

All that Hawaiiexpat had to do was answer "yes" or "no" if he / she was a registered Republican. That's not a lot to expect, is it?

katem1:

The "viable" reasons I already gave that Obama will RESIGN or be impeached (if I remember the discussion earlier) was another 9/11-type attack and/or economy. I can think of several more, if you want to actually answer my questions too. For instance, there's still an outside chance that someone finally proves Obama is not a "natural-born" citizen (Art. II, Sec. 1). Why isn't that "specific" enough for you?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Welcome to the Democratic Party, mascmen7. It's a good thing we don't have anything like the madman you describe.

Posted by: novamatt | May 19, 2009 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Rush Limbaugh and the rest of extreme rightwing talk radio have destroyed the party. Rush, Fox News and all the other rightwing vampires have sucked the life out of the party all with the republican's approval. They remade the party as a bunch of warmongers, tax evaders, corporate welfare queens and liars and now they're wondering where they went wrong. What a sorry bunch of losers!

Posted by: blarsen1 | May 19, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Rush told his listeners to switch to the Democrat Party to vote for Hillary. I switched to Dem party to vote for a local friend for Town Council. Now I do not see anything in Republican Party to switch back.
I am not for persecuting Mexicans or smaller government. I am not against National Health Insurance. I am not against PBS, Amtrak or the Education Dept.I am concerned greatly about having a communist President born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia who will destroy US dollar by his wild spending.

Posted by: mascmen7 | May 19, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Let's be blunt: the Rs are having increasing trouble with college-educated suburban whites, especially women.

They'd be in trouble even with solid support from that demographic, but without it, they're chasing after demos that vote less frequently, volunteer less frequently, and contribute much, much less. And if it becomes conventional wisdom that the Rs are now the white trash party, that could feed on itself until the GOP is goners.

Posted by: novamatt | May 19, 2009 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Lost Momentum:
A GOP street parade today has to stop at 'red' traffic lights.(not to mention the required full stop before turning right)

Posted by: yamamah | May 19, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I hesitate to weigh in on the debate between jakeD and pali (Jake asserts that in California, currently, neither the Democrats nor Republicans are increasing their portion of the electorate, but Independents are; pali counters that the number of registered Democrats increased from a bit over 7.4 million in 2004 to nearly 7.7 million in 2008)...but I'd make one point: the increase in registered Democrats may not represent an increase in their proportion of the total voter roll, because there have been substantial increases in population during the same period.

To know whether pali's numbers really refute Jake's assertion, we'd have to also have the numbers of Independents over the same period. And Jake's reply that he meant "currently" is valid... but in the end, its Jake's assertion, so, just as a matter of standard debate practice, its up to Jake to provide the evidence to back it up (pali is quite right about that).

Posted by: Observer44 | May 19, 2009 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat; You need to understand that this JakeD character is a crazy nut. he comes here and talk out of where the sun does not shine all the time. I hope the stupid rethug just keep going the way they have been going. Very soon, my state of Florida will be Deep Blue for ever! Thank you for dissin hispanics for generations! And you know what, rethugs know they are becoming a party of the ignorant rabble. It is so sweet to watch what is happening to them. But when you champion hatred and ignorance, you are bound to reap what you sow.

Posted by: Henry_of_BrowardCounty | May 19, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Way to go Jake D!!! You are one amazing poster; I know of noone else who can dream and type at the same time as in your "Obama will be impeached", cause you never came close to stating a viable reason why. And please, no "trashing of the Constitution" charges, he was a teacher of Constitutional Law, and has alot better idea of it then you or I. C'mon, give us one valid reason, not hopes and dreams of why Prez will be impeached, or could be. No generalizations like "he'll over reach" etc... something specific. Saying he's taking the country too far left won't fly either, he has some on the left pissed off, I know it's hard to realize that yes, some Presidents can govern and not worry about their base. Palin was chosen by the base, and since McCain let them, how was he going to be able to govern and not kowtow to the base? The country had enough of government by the Base, for "the Base" . Interesting coincidence, The Base, translated into Arabic, is Al Qaeda.

Posted by: katem1 | May 19, 2009 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Way to go Jake D!!! You are one amazing poster; I know of noone else who can dream and type at the same time as in your "Obama will be impeached", cause you never came close to stating a viable reason why. And please, no "trashing of the Constitution" charges, he was a teacher of Constitutional Law, and has alot better idea of it then you or I. C'mon, give us one valid reason, not hopes and dreams of why Prez will be impeached, or could be. No generalizations like "he'll over reach" etc... something specific. Saying he's taking the country too far left won't fly either, he has some on the left pissed off, I know it's hard to realize that yes, some Presidents can govern and not worry about their base. Palin was chosen by the base, and since McCain let them, how was he going to be able to govern and not kowtow to the base? The country had enough of government by the Base, for "the Base" . Interesting coincidence, The Base, translated into Arabic, is Al Qaeda.

Posted by: katem1 | May 19, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"BRB"

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 11:40 AM

___________________________________


ROFL

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 11:44 AM | Report abuse

BRB

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"I'm taking SINCE October 20, 2008. Present tense. Deal with it."

Posted by: JakeD |

___________________________________

Quote the source for your "present tense" claim.

Waiting...

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

I'm taking SINCE October 20, 2008. Present tense. Deal with it.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Michael Steele "Marriage is bad for small businesses" Like sarah palin in 2008, steele is the gop's 2009 gift to the democrats, every time he opens his yap it proves how rediculiously pathetic he and the party he leads are. Keep talking mike, america loves ya!!

Posted by: dem4life1 | May 19, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"Here in California BOTH major parties are losing numbers. The fastest-growing party is American INDEPENDENT."

Posted by: JakeD |

_______________________________________

Registered voters, California, as of October 20, 2008:

Democratic: 7,683,495 (44.4%)

Republican: 5,428,052 (31.37%)

American Independent: 370,405 (2.14%)

Registered Democratic voters, California, as of November 2, 2004: 7,420,125

So...

Even you can see that

a) In spite of your claim, the Democratic Party has increased its number of registered voters.

b) The American Independent Party is as popular in California as Rush Limbaugh is in America.

Source: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/sov_complete.pdf

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

While it is good to see that the people who make up the modern republican party no longer have any power, and have no hope of regaining power, it is still troubling to think that we will have only the democrats in power now.

Sure, there are the taliban evangelicals and the ridiculous neocons at the core of the republican party. And we did throw these people out as far as we could.

But where is the intelligence in the GOP? That's what troubles me the most. I think of Boehner declaring that cow farts are CO2 in his effort to deny the global warming alarmists.

Huh? This is the best the republicans have? They don't even know how stupid, how truly ignorant they are.

Posted by: katavo | May 19, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

bsimon1:

I know exactly what the American Independent Party stands for. Others may try to change that, but the party platform has to be amended before that.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I never said I was an avid fan.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

If 21% of people identified themselves as Republicans in 1983, I hope 11% identifies themselves as Republicans in 2011. After all, Reagan won every state except Mass. in 1984! If we drop to 11%, maybe we will win them all in 2012.

Posted by: reason5 | May 19, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Look. Regarding Rush Limbaugh's status on radio, I think this is probably one of the more successful scams in history. A decade ago, one could tune in to Limbaugh's radio program and hear him boast about "growing by leaps and bounds", "20 million listeners a week", "the most successful talk radio program in history". If you tune into today, 10 years later, you will hear precisely the same sell job because that is precisely what Limbaugh is selling--himself.

So, what is Limbaugh's real audience? The same as it was 10 years ago. About 4 million a day, assuming you buy his own boasts, less than that if you believe TALKERS magazine which says 13 million per week, which is less than 3 million per day. Against a voting electorate of 132 million strong as of the last Presidential election, isn't that pretty measly?

I guess it depends on how you define success. If success means Limbaugh gets to keep his multimillion dollar contract for a few more years, then his show is a success. If success means that he has any significan influence on the outcome of American elections, then it is a pretty dramatic failure given the deep problems the GOP and the conservatives are having convincing the American people that they are fit to run the country.

Posted by: jaxas | May 19, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

pali2600 writes
"In 2008, in California, the miniscule American Independent Party (originally formed to promote George Wallace to the Presidency) split into two. Its handful of members could not even agree among each other who and what they were."


That would be JakeD and dottydo.

.

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 19, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

JakeD is that most curious of creatures: someone who claims to be an Independent while simultaneously being someone who is an avid fan and supporter of Rush Limbaugh.

All becomes clear, however, when the joke reveals that it is the American Independent Party to which he belongs.

The lunatic fringe is still with us.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 10:41 AM | Report abuse

SHRINKAGE! Haa Haa!

LoL

Posted by: free-donny | May 19, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Yes, I know. Using your definitions, both major parties losing numbers and American Independent gaining numbers = implosion. I got it.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"Here in California BOTH major parties are losing numbers. The fastest-growing party is American INDEPENDENT."

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 10:15 AM

_______________________________________

1. If you have a membership of one and you add another member that gives you a 100% increase -- something that the major parties cannot equal. But you are still a meaningless minority. You can claim to be "the fastest-growing party" -- but you are still a meaningless minority.

2. In 2008, in California, the miniscule American Independent Party (originally formed to promote George Wallace to the Presidency) split into two. Its handful of members could not even agree among each other who and what they were. To quote Wikipedia: "The issue of who are the true officers of the AIP has not been decided in the ballot access court case. The future of the party after the November election is not clear."

3. The most recent iteration of the American Independent Party was "put together by perennial candidate Alan Keyes as a vehicle for his own presidential campaign." Alan Keyes? You have got to be joking! Real Independents wouldn't spit on Alan Keyes if the dope were on fire.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I never said there were national Arbitron ratings. If Rush is growing in every local market, and making more and more money, that hardly qualifies as IMPLODING.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Pali2600:

Check with the California Secretary of State if you don't believe it is the fastest-growing party in the state. BOTH major parties have racist pasts too. America has a racist past. The American Independent Party's candidate for President was AFRICAN-American though. Are we still "lunatics" because of our religious beliefs?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"Isn't Arbitron the "Neilson" ratings of radio? The question, however, is whether Rush is IMPLODING?"

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 9:59 AM


_________________________________

1. There are no national Arbitron numbers.

2. Except for the faithful (a tiny, tiny group of fanatics and failures), Limbaugh imploded years ago. America is now waiting for his explosion -- as the fat fool is still, very apparently, unable to make the connection between fat and food.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Chris - What about the incredibly shrinking demographic… white males?

Posted by: bradcpa | May 19, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

BethesdaDog:

Here in California BOTH major parties are losing numbers. The fastest-growing party is American INDEPENDENT.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps Dottydo could do all of us a favor and tell us what this Independent Party she extols stands for; who are its candidates for national office; how and with whom it would form a government?

Perhaps she could also tell us the difference between Independents (who vote either Democrat or Republican) and the Independents of her Independent Party.

Or is she really posting about the fractious lunatics who now constitute George Wallace's Independent America Party?

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

GOP= GRAND OBSOLETE PARTY

America's future is with the Democratic party, the party of FDR,JFK,Hubert Horatio Humphrey,RFK,Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John Kerry,Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama. I am damn proud to be a Democrat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: yog2541 | May 19, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

what do you expect when the party is run by Rush 'Oxycontin' Limbaugh and his minions.

Posted by: August30 | May 19, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Cheney, Rummy, Rove & Crew (CRRC) used Bush and all of those Republican Congressional Footsoldiers to openly thumb their noses at the Constitution and to get whatever they wanted. They knew that they could say and do anything and that no one could stop them. Bush was gullible and Republicans in Congress were powerless to stop them even if they wanted to.

Some Americans were "on to" this cabal early on, but most Americans took a lot longer to see what was happening. CRRC thought they were practicing the ultimate in power, but instead they've damaged the name of their own party. They lived high on the hog and it looks like they're going to get away with it while their fellow Republicans pay the price.

Maybe Cheney, Rove, Rummy & Crew will die happy, surrounded by money, luxury and friends. For what it's worth, though, History will tell future generations what they did.

Posted by: dognabbit | May 19, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Jeez....when I first saw the title, I thought somebody was going around doing widespread pants checks.

Why not the Democrats, too?

Posted by: BethesdaDog | May 19, 2009 10:00 AM | Report abuse

repulsedmonkey quotes and responds:
""As we have written about before, the number of self-identifying Republicans stood at 21 percent last month -- the lowest it has been since the fall of 1983."

You mean one year before Reagan's landslide victory? Politics is ever-changing and fickle. These poll numbers mean nothing."

Keep in mind it was another 10 years before the GOP gained a majority in the House - Newt's 1994 'Contract with America'. President Reagan enjoyed the support, obviously, of many non-Republicans. People voted for the man, not the party - hence the term 'Reagan Democrats'. I don't think you can yet point to a comparable personality on the GOP side of the aisle. Instead, we see President Obama enjoying support from people who do not identify with his party. Of course it is too soon to predict whether that support will last until the 2012 elections. But if I were a Republican strategist, I would hesitate to look at the dismal support of the GOP and conclude "hey, after similarly low support in 1983 our President won reelection in a landslide in 1984, so things must be looking up!"

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 19, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Pali2600:

Isn't Arbitron the "Neilson" ratings of radio? The question, however, is whether Rush is IMPLODING?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Thanks to Republican (Tom DeLay inspired) redistricting and gerrymandering, the only Republicans left in Congress are those of the far right wing.

These unattractive loudmouths and extremists (mostly from America's poorest and most backward region) will make certain that reasonable people do not return to the Republican fold.

Even if the GOP finds a moderate Republican to present to the country, the fanatical Congressional base will undercut him/her. (Look how they supported Limbaugh over Steele -- forcing Steele to apologize to Limbaugh.)

Add to that the fact that new, young voters tend to stay with their party of first choice for decades and the Republicans are due to circle the drain for a very, very long time.

And rightly so.

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

pdxgeek | May 18, 2009 6:22 PM: Correct: the longer we go without a domestic terrorist strike, the more likely that there will be one. Always assuming that Bush's campaign to defeat AlQaeeda and capture Bin Laden has failed. Last time I checked Republicans were threatening us with AlQaeeda and Bin Laden, so my assumption must be correct.

But I also find interesting that the 4500 or so killed in Bush's 'wars' do not count as victims of terrorism. I know that we have a volunteer military, but it seems to me that those who make the claim that we have been 'safe' regard the military as mere mercenaries whose casulaties are irrelevant.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 19, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

"As we have written about before, the number of self-identifying Republicans stood at 21 percent last month -- the lowest it has been since the fall of 1983."

You mean one year before Reagan's landslide victory? Politics is ever-changing and fickle. These poll numbers mean nothing.

Posted by: repulsedmonkey | May 19, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

"I brought up how much Rush makes (and, more importantly, his INCREASING audience) because someone claimed Rush was "imploding". I note that no where in your post did you address that claim. I rest my case." ~ Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:50 AM

_________________________________________

Rush Limbaugh is a minor sideshow.

Radio audience research is notoriously unreliable as to total audience numbers. Limbaugh himself claims a unduplicated daily audience of four million people. (America's population is currently more than 303 million.)

In addition to being ignored by 98+% of America, 62% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh, according to a Rasmussen poll.

You may also remember that not even Roger Ailes could make a success of Limbaugh's short-lived and unwatched late-night television show.

And Limbuagh's racial comments quickly put an end to his stint as a football analyst on ESPN.

Like Jerry Springer, Limbaugh appeals to the uneducated and/or the mean-spirited and/or the simple-minded; those who delight who wallowing in the worst of human behavior.

Now, explain (if you can) your claim that Limbaugh's audience is increasing. Do you have a credible source?

Posted by: pali2600 | May 19, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness @ May 18, 2009 5:34 PM: It's good to know what "REAL REPUBLICANS SAY". What confuses me is what they do:

'No to Bailouts' - Bush spent $700B with no strings attached; and no requirement for accounting for it;

'No to the UAW and SEIU' - But the states of AL, TN, KY gave billions in tax breaks to foreign auto companies. Being feeble-minded I'd rather have the $$ spent on us.

'Worked within reasonable guidelines for the economic survival of this country with an energy policy that is workable' - Can you please reconcile this with the collapse of the economy under Bush? Oh, by the way, Cheney still has not disclosed whom his 'energy task force' met with.

'No to illegal immigration' - Reagan, Bush (Clinton too), and Bush ignored it.

'No to blood-sucking unions that do-nothing but seek to drive prices up, jobs out and productivity to nil' - Interesting comment. I gather that you do not like paid holidays, vacations, etc. See my comment on the UAW & SEIU

As I said in the beginning, what confuses me about Republicans is that they hardly DO as they SAY. Unfortunately we have to pay for what they DO, not for what they say.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 19, 2009 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I keep saying that the Democrats should do everything possible to preserve the GOP, just as it stands today. They'll never find a more compliant dancing partner..

Posted by: newbeeboy | May 19, 2009 9:40 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"This Gallup analysis ... seems to suggest that the problems are so widespread that no one candidate or even one election will solve them."


Ding, ding, ding! The Fix gets one right. Your assignment for Friday: apply this observation to The Line and apply the shift in GOP demographic makeup to the races you're analyzing. Are those seats that have recently changed party really such 'rich targets' for the GOP to pick up again? Or will they have to work a little harder than the historical record indicates?

Posted by: bsimon1 | May 19, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Whigs are poised for a comeback as Republicans continue to experience Costanza-like shrinkage.

Posted by: spidey103 | May 19, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

David Vitter and Larry Craig shows there's no Republican shrinkage. The GOP still has what it takes to shaft the USA.

Posted by: Garak | May 19, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

As for the claim that I am defending the Republican Party, no one who reads my posts about the American Independent Party could reasonably conclude that. I trash BOTH major parties. Here in California (as I said) the tax revolt is focused on the turncoat "no-tax pledge" GOP even though they provided fewer votes and our Governor is a RINO. If anyone else has any questions about that, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:58 AM | Report abuse

swatkins1:

I brought up how much Rush makes (and, more importantly, his INCREASING audience) because someone claimed Rush was "imploding". I note that no where in your post did you address that claim. I rest my case.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"republican shrinkage". That is hilarious! I give these clowns a couple more years on life-support and then there will be no more GOP...they'll be forgotten like a Bush/Cheney nightmare.

Posted by: free-donny | May 19, 2009 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Although the incredible shrinking party is a problem, the biggest problem is the denial shown by remaining true believers. They Republican Party is quickly becoming members of the flat earth society. I email with a lady in KY who is a true believer. The first thing she will do is attack the poll because no one called her. She is convinced that Gallup selected liberals and that the poll is bias. She still contends that vast majority of people who sat out this election where conservatives who sat out the election because McCain was too liberal. Of course the answer is to double down and move to the right.
This does not speak well for the Republicans in the next few elections cycles and goes a long way to explain why Huntsman is heading for China (a good place to sit out a couple more bloody election cycles). While this Limbaugh wing is big time minority in the general electorate they are a majority of party activist so they will dictate who gets nominated by the Republican Party.
As for polls, they are maps for the lost. You are never going to where you want to go unless you know where you are. If you think the map is wrong and refuse to follow it you will remain lost. I would like to remind them that these polls are loss leaders by commercial organizations who want convince commercial clients to use them for market research. If they put out a bias product they will produce bad market research and no one will buy it. I got news for the true believers, no one is buying your product so either go the way of the Wigs or adapt to the market.

Posted by: bradcpa | May 19, 2009 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I loved the comment someone wrote about how much money Rush Limbaugh makes, as though that were the quintissential proof of success. The conservative yardstick of success measures the quantity of dollar bills one has acquired, and not the value the person brings to the community. Rush Limbaugh speaks to an amazing number of ditto-heads, and the radio stations love him for it because of all the commodities the listeners buy due to the advertising. That is why Rush is paid so handsomely. But Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a colonialist white male whose demographic consists basically of skin heads, white southern rednecks, and self-centered white males trying to get over on their neighbor to make a buck. What is the value in these creatures who live among us? All I can say is that since we are forced to live with them in our midst, all we can do is be good people and edge them out of relevance one by one with sound policy, true social involvement, and education. It terrifies the troglodyte. They will scatter and run to their gun laden caves.

Posted by: swatkins1 | May 19, 2009 6:10 AM | Report abuse

"Actual proof is the most important proof..." As a philosopher says actual proof is most important. The current state of the economy, and the state of the average middle-class American suggests a shift in wealth. The middle-class; mostly prior GOP; are now losing their homes, jobs, lifestyles, everything; have also lost faith in GOP politics for the RICH. The rest of the GOP supported the previous Administration for eight years, with an eight year prior commitment, and yet only the Rich are unhurt by the current economic situation.

The current economic crisis is due largely to GOP politics and policies alone. The middle class has lost ground supporting GOP policies that did not support them in return, but instead left them underwater in their homes and lifestyles, and a Democratic President had to come along and fix the inequity of society ills, along with a few rich GOP like Cheney, Bush, Gingrich, and others.

Perhaps this is why the GOP is shrinking, membership is for the rich and none others.

Patrick

Posted by: patmatthews | May 19, 2009 5:53 AM | Report abuse

P L E A S E
E V E R Y O N E

DNFTT

Do
Not
Feed
The
Trolls

Y'all know who they are.

Posted by: critter69 | May 19, 2009 5:04 AM | Report abuse

"To return this slanging match to the subject under discussion: does this identification issue, or the party registration issue, actually matter?"

No data to back it up, but I bet its one of many factors. With the case of Reagan vs Mondale there was a huge charisma gap. I don't see the Republicans making that up against Obama anytime soon. Furthermore, Reagan improved the economy a lot under his watch. Most likely, Obama will be doing that.

And what are the Republicans really doing to win any hearts and minds? The only cogent argument they seem to be putting out there is concern over the deficit. However, as history has shown and Dick Cheney has said explicitly, deficits don't matter.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2009 4:22 AM | Report abuse

To return this slanging match to the subject under discussion: does this identification issue, or the party registration issue, actually matter?

Note Chris's point - the lowest since 1983, the year before Ronald Reagan came within 4,000 votes of a 50-state sweep. Simultaneously to this decline Republicans have taken the lead on the generic Congressional polls for the first time in some years. This strikes me as something that has happened surprisingly early in the President's term

Posted by: qlangley | May 19, 2009 3:16 AM | Report abuse

"I owe JakeD a public apology. In reading pdxgeek 6:10 p.m. post, in which he blasts me for my original post that I thought was OBVIOUSLY clearly mocking of the GOP, it occurs to me that I was (at a minimum with Jake and pdxgeek) dead wrong."

It was obvious. Both of those people are idiots. Just because someone shares your political views doesn't preclude him from being an imbecile.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2009 1:59 AM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: "I'm important! Yip! People care what I say. Yap! I'm a paragon of dogly virtues. Watch me chase my tail! Yip yip yip!"

Posted by: nodebris | May 19, 2009 1:24 AM | Report abuse

nodebris:

How many was it then? I'm trying to get accurate information out there and you are "yapping" like a dog.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:21 AM | Report abuse

jaked wrote; "Yap! Yap! Look at me! I'm important! Yip! Bow wow wow!"

Posted by: nodebris | May 19, 2009 1:15 AM | Report abuse

opp88:

Look into the documentary "The Falling Man". At least 200 fell from the WTC.

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 1:13 AM | Report abuse

jaked wrote: "Maybe you have forgotten the screams of 9/11."

Please, you sanctimonious little prig in your little San Diego rambler.

I live next door to the Pentagon. I walked home from downtown DC on 9/11 right past its smoking ruins. My neighbors work there. Some of them died there. My toddler was in day care near there.

But I'm not a craven chicken who is willing to forsake American values out of fear, like some egotistical, self-righteous frightened little ancient pampered snot. In the face of tragedy, real Americans don't throw away the Constitution and compromise laws out of fear. You torture-loving, terrorist-frightened, pacifier-sucking baby egotist, you disgust me with your self-righteous flag-waving from your gravely endangered golf course in San Diego.

You don't belong in the home of the free or the land of the brave. Spare us your yapping sanctimony, you cringing, plaid-wearing cowering little lap dog.

Posted by: nodebris | May 19, 2009 12:58 AM | Report abuse

opp88:

How many were there then?

Posted by: JakeD | May 19, 2009 12:12 AM | Report abuse

you have forgotten the screams of 9/11. watch hundreds of Americans jump out of skyscrapers.
__________________________________

it wasn't hundreds...

Posted by: opp88 | May 18, 2009 11:43 PM | Report abuse

"Ha! History HAS judged. Worst president in recorded history. Now if we could only get the judicial system to follow up..."

I doubt any historian considers Bush the worst president in history. Probably no better than bottom ten, though.

Honestly, I think his standing will improve. If Obama can make anything out of Iraq, it will look at least a little good for Bush. A lot of this historical analysis is results oriented. Sure those of us who lived through it will remember how Bush lied to get us into Iraq and his botched prosecution of the war, but those details tend to get lost in historical analysis. It will mainly be how it turned out.

The economy? Bush is stuck with that the way that Hoover is stuck with the Wall Street crash in 1929.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 18, 2009 11:31 PM | Report abuse

The GOP will always have their media base. Halperin is still biased, Liz Sidoti is still wanking, the Washington Pose still has four conservative columnists for every one (not really) liberal and of course Fox News is still fake news.

Posted by: havok26 | May 18, 2009 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat, the lesson here is never address JakeD. One might just as well speak to a stone and expect a cogent answer.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | May 18, 2009 9:52 PM | Report abuse

What lies would those be, kouk?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 9:11 PM | Report abuse

the complete idiocy and utter moronic ineptitude of the worst speaker in history has been revealed, despite her obvious lies. Even libs ate running in the other direction.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | May 18, 2009 9:09 PM | Report abuse

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Is a review of the sociopath's symptoms

==

I know it's your intention to apply this to Obama, but he fails most of the prescriptions. On the other hand they describe Dick Cheney perfectly, most particularly the lying.

Cheney doesn't even seem to be aware that he's lying.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Bales of Snail mail was voters saying "No" on the bailouts that was ignored by Congress.

==

As it should have been. There will always be protests by "small government" types at any use of "their money" that doesn't go directly into their own pockets. That's why we call our elected officials "leaders" instead of "letter counters."

Getting out of the deep recession caused by GOP deregulatory mistakes will take serious sacrifices, which many people are too short-sighted to understand.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 8:32 PM | Report abuse

I will go even one better -- regardless of his approval ratings, I think he will either resign or be impeached / thrown out of office -- Obama will not complete his full term(s).

Posted by: JakeD

It is possible that Congress will have to place Barry Soreto on medical furlough indefinitely .

Europeans apparently were not impressed with Obama on his trip, and began to discuss his dual profile and it's dangers with power leaving only victims in the wake.

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Is a review of the sociopath's symptoms


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=symptoms

Is a review of NPD dysfunction's sypmtoms.


Hitler had a similar diagnosis, but fortunately, throwing used up people "under the bus" now has a serious medical name.

Posted by: dottydo | May 18, 2009 8:25 PM | Report abuse


Both Parys have become terrible representatives on "The Hill".
Bales of Snail mail was voters saying "No" on the bailouts that was ignored by Congress.

The people were right, and Congress was wrong as we see the results of a refusal to empower the porkulous plans.

People enmasee demand that this Country run by the power of the people, and not the greed of those elevating themselves over the people without permission.

There is a push to change voter registration from these two corrupt parties who fling us back and forth between two bad answers.

Voter registration moved to the Independent Party, shows that the people control the electoral college and their futures.

Posted by: dottydo | May 18, 2009 8:14 PM | Report abuse

I think Chris should write a column about the rise of the Democratic Socialists. I think the number of people identifying themselves as such is growing rapidly... maybe even as big as Bush's approval rating... except moving upward.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 18, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Remember November 2004, Bush won re-election, and boasted how he had some political capital and intended to spend it?

Heh heh heh.

Where'd it go?>

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 7:59 PM | Report abuse

I linked the original headline "GOP Boat Springs Leak" better.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 7:56 PM | Report abuse

The ever dwindling pro-torture party is so clearly outside of the mainstream of American politics that, in all honesty, they should be referred to as a minority fringe party.

Of course I'll always fondly remember them as right-wing, religious extremist whackjobs who nearly destroyed the world in a frenzy of messianic dementia.

Posted by: thebobbob | May 18, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

gclark4750 and "concerned"citizen111:

Are you still here, or simply drive-by posters?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 7:34 PM | Report abuse

History is STILL judging the first George's Presidency. Don't worry about it, you will be long gone before history renders the final verdict.

==

Ah, no, it's already as good as it's going to get. The more we learn, the more the truth is unexpurgated, the worse the verdict will get.

If you think something is going to come along to vindicate the guy who let Osama get away and let New Orleans drown, you're even more demented than your posts would indicate.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like unfortunate news for the Republicans. Maybe if they hadn't destroyed our nation and then proceed to stonewall any real attempts to fix it they might still have support from people.


Hopefully we can turn this economy around, with or without their help, and actually focus on solving the deeper, systemic issues for why we're in this situation. Obviously bad banking's a good place to start, but there are other issues, like global poverty, that have huge economic and geopolitical ramifications.

The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) has some interesting insight into addressing the issues of global poverty, something we can remedy easily and sustainably.

Some interesting figures to ponder:
$30 billion USD: The annual shortfall to end global poverty.
$550 billion USD: The annual US defense budget.

Posted by: concernedcitizen111 | May 18, 2009 7:29 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

Are you still around? Shall we make it our standard amount for the wager?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 7:28 PM | Report abuse

Ha! History HAS judged. Worst president in recorded history.

==

but but but Obama's middle name is Hussein!!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

History is STILL judging the first George's Presidency. Don't worry about it, you will be long gone before history renders the final verdict.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 7:27 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:

What we should do to protect Americans should stop when it means abandoning the values that make us American.

"History will judge"

Ha! History HAS judged. Worst president in recorded history. Now if we could only get the judicial system to follow up...

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 18, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Is that what you meant to say? That Rush is causing the GOP to implode?

==

Do you think they need any help? Rush IS helping, but as long as the GOP keeps using subhumans like Sarah Palin and ogres like Dick Cheney, Limbaugh is just an afterthought.

What does the GOP have to offer America? A vision of intolerance, illogic, falsehood, corruption, incompetence .. nope, nothing that can bring them back to power.

They'll win maybe FIVE STATES nationally.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

For the record, here's what gclark4750 actually said:

"It is not a coincidence that the implosion of Rush Limbaugh corresponds to the implosion of the GOP. The GOP chose to hold Limbaugh's hand, and now they are infected with his virus. ..............."

And, then, gclark4750 linked to a silly blog post:

http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/05/14/rush-limbaugh-is-imploding/

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Veteran Republican strategist John Weaver, wingman for Mac as well as Gov. Huntsman, is saying if the GOP continues to have Phalin, Cheney, and Limbaugh lead the party, the GOP is set for an electoral "blow-out" in 2012.

Weaver feels that BHO's choice of Gov. Huntsman to be Ambassador to China was a brilliantly researched strategic move (although not recognized as such by the MSM who is still focused on BHO's Dijon mustard and the three (maybe three and a half) Notre Dame "protestors"):

Excerpt from Washington Examiner--

"Now, Huntsman's decision to accept the president's invitation to serve as ambassador to China effectively means he is out of the 2012 contest. "President Obama is smart to try to get him out of play, because he's the real thing," says Quinn. Weaver says Obama came up with pretty much the only job that Huntsman would have accepted. "Had it been a cabinet post or any kind of political situation, he would have flatly turned it down," Weaver says. "But this China post -- he's uniquely qualified to serve." As a young man, Huntsman went to Taiwan as a Mormon missionary, where he learned the language and developed a lifelong interest in China."

Full story:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Huntsman-strategist-If-Palin-Limbaugh-Cheney-dominate-GOP-is-headed-for-a-blowout-in-2012-45270397.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | May 18, 2009 7:16 PM | Report abuse

gclark4750:

Is that what you meant to say? That Rush is causing the GOP to implode?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Are you kidding, gclark4750?! Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than ever. He is hardly "imploding" from that. You are aware how much he makes a year, right?

==

He's doing more than any man alive to keep the GOP out of power.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the lack of credible political opposition will cause (or induce) Democrats to become more corrupt? Obama knows that he has no serious opposition and we do not see him moving Left as many feared - even as Bush/Cheney moved far to the right during their period of war/fear driven popularity.

But he has settled deeper into the laps of Wall Street fat cats and one wonders, what is the difference between the state/crony partnerships which characterize so many African, Central and South American and practically all Asian economies and where we are headed?

Corrupt deals by an unopposed political party (the PRI) and Mexican business barons made the drug (war) lord industry possible.

I am afraid of what could happen if no one can get any traction calling out people like Pelosi and Dingell.

Don't get me wrong, I have never voted for a Republican in my life, my first vote was for, gulp, Eugene McCarthy.

Just sayin' about absolute power in the hands of a few.


Posted by: shrink2 | May 18, 2009 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Are you kidding, gclark4750?! Rush Limbaugh has more listeners than ever. He is hardly "imploding" from that. You are aware how much he makes a year, right?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

It is not a coincidence that the implosion of Rush Limbaugh corresponds to the implosion of the GOP. The GOP chose to hold Limbaugh's hand, and now they are infected with his virus. ...............


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/05/14/rush-limbaugh-is-imploding/

Posted by: glclark4750 | May 18, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

David Brooks wrote that it will take the GOP three presidential elections to twig that they need to change if they ever want to win again.

Judging from their circling of wagons around their failures, this first loss doesn't count. They're still demanding that their members recite the qualifying lies with a straight face .. that cutting taxes increases revenue, that the Iraq invasion has made us safer, that regulation is what causes excesses, that free markets work .. they're not learning.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Hey, mark_in_austin, good to see you back -- very insightful comments -- thanks.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 7:01 PM | Report abuse

I will go even one better -- regardless of his approval ratings, I think he will either resign or be impeached / thrown out of office -- Obama will not complete his full term(s).

Posted by: JackeD

==

And why would that be, tyke? Because he refused to torture the bad guy who knew where the bomb was ticking?

What a bloody idiot you are.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse

IF you can assume, arguendo, that many of us do think that illegal immigration is a problem, and that Big Labor's political agenda is not shared by a large number of Americans, and that many of us are very uncomfortable with trillion dollar deficits stretching to the horizon; but that at the same time we are not interested in the suspension of logic demanded by either literal adherence to the Bible or any scripture, nor are we believers that tax cuts reduce deficits, THEN you can assume arguendo that the alienation by Rs of the middle probably will not be seized as a victory by the Ds in the medium term.

But some sort of realignment is likely. I cannot predict what it will look like.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | May 18, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

For the record, there was not just "one exception" to planes flying on 9/11. Air Force One flew. NATO planes flew. Some people think that steel doesn't melt either.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

JackeD speculates hopefully:
Imagine 3 million dead Americans this time around.

==

If they were in the Bay Area you would be leaping for joy.

You HOPE this happens, don't you, sicko

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

FairlingtonBlade:

I will go even one better -- regardless of his approval ratings, I think he will either resign or be impeached / thrown out of office -- Obama will not complete his full term(s).

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

We should do MORE, not less, to protect American. At least Bush tried.

==

No, he didn't, and that's the whole point.

Clinton wanted to go after Osama; the GOP was too fascinated with Monica Lewinsky.

Bush wasn't interested in going after Osama at all, not before 9/11, nor after.

Matter of fact he made one (1) exception to the grounded planes nationwide .. to get Osama's family members safely out of the country.

Instead of doing anything about 9/11, he immediately started ginning up an invasion of Iraq, and trying on his flight suit for "Mission Accomplished."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

I agree that this limited forum does not allow for complex scenarios to be discussed in-depth. We should do MORE, not less, to protect American. At least Bush tried. History will judge him on that. I will simply point out that Bush's failings re: that PDB will pale in comparison if the CIA / FBI catch a terrorist who knows about the next attack but Obama refuses to authorize what it takes to prevent the attack. Imagine 3 million dead Americans this time around.

Hawaiiexpat:

It's not my fault you wasted so much time, and you STILL refuse to answer a simple question. You could be a false flag operative, for all we know. All it took was a simple "yes" or "no".

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Being a Republican-leaning organization, it is interesting that Gallup is using benchmark of last eight years rather than last four years, especially since Bush had no problem winning reelection in 2004 and even US Congress also remained under Republican control after 2004 elections. Real downfall of Republican party started beginning in 2005, not in 2001. Actually Bush’s approval ratings were sky-high during first two years of his presidency.

Posted by: simplesimon33 | May 18, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

No wonder JackeD isn't in the Notre Dame thread .. the guy who protests hourly that he's not a Republican is over here defending the Republican Party again.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:48 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe you are willing to sit by and do nothing but watch hundreds of Americans jump out of skyscrapers to their deaths. I for one am not."

Ah the the logical fallacy of the false dilemma! No I am not willing to do nothing. I believe standard interrogation techniques work fine. I believe in funding the CIA, NSA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security. I believe in treaties where we secure plutonium away from those that would use it wrongly and other Nuclear material. Most of all I believe in a foreign policy that does not create an environment where terrorist groups can easily recruit. There will never be enough security to protect borders as big as ours in the age of the suitcase bomb.

AND...

"The "context" surrounding my comment about another 9/11-type attack (God forbid that ever happens) will be that Obama has allowed the terrorists to gain the advantage, and he will be personally responsible for said attack and the lost American lives."

Interesting... what do you think of the August 8th 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Osama Bin Laden Determined to Attack within United States" ... because since he did nothing in response to that, technically Bush allowed the terrorists to hit us. We actually had a member of the FBI who was screaming to anyone who would listen about an airplane attack from the captured terrorist who had no interest in landing planes....

bah...

I am quickly becoming reminded that a well reasoned response does not fit into short blog comments. JakeD, please respond with your usual 1-2 sentence illogical drivel.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 18, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Barack HUSSEIN Obama will never get as high approval ratings as GWB did (it remains to be seen whether he will ever get as low). Live with it.

==

Move over Ann Coulter, someone else noticed that Obama has a Muslim middle name.

I bet it keeps JackeD awake nights.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:41 PM | Report abuse

All I asked, Hawaiiexpat, was whether you are registered GOP. A simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

---------------------------------


Jake, it appears that one Chrisfox harbors some personal animus toward you.

Given the fact that I've spent the last 30 minutes trying to savage the stupidity of the Republican party, the ignorant republican party talking points, etc...and you still ask if I'm registered GOP;

well, perhaps I get why chrisfox may be kinda irritated with you.

Get. A. Clue.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:39 PM | Report abuse

hahahh Jake and his "fastest growing" Independent Party, running that self-hating loser Keyes for (*guffaw*) president.

Oh my aching ribs.

Yeah, fastest-growing .. from a dozen members to fifteen.

hahahnhahhaha gun nuts, Jesus freaks, and woman-haters

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

@Jake - Given that both Bushes had high ratings at the start of a war, the peaks you cite are anomalous. I'll pose a different bet. I'll bet that Obama never falls as far in approval rating as Bush did. To be fair, we'll make it proportionate. Biush 43 dropped from 90% to 26% by the end. That's a 70% drop. With Obama's peak being around 70% (depending on the poll), he'd have to drop to 21 by the end to blow it as big as W.

Fairlington NOMIDDLENAME Blade

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | May 18, 2009 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I can assure you that I will NOT rally around Obama for any reason.

==

hahahahahahahah

sore loser

go lick your wounds somewhere else

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

All I asked, Hawaiiexpat, was whether you are registered GOP. A simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

At least we aren't discussing the new Gallup analysis that shows that the precipitous decline in the number of people who identify themselves as Republicans is widespread across nearly every demographic group -- a development that suggests that there is no simple solution to solving the party's current problems -- my work here is done.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

---------

Congratulations. Good job....an effort for which you should feel justifiably proud.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I was showing you how ignorant you sounded. As I said right before that, I would be happy to answer all of your questions, just as soon as you answer my already-pending questions to you. You look up my questions, answer them, and I will answer yours.

==

So you pull this infantile BS in every thread, I guess.

People don't respond to you JackeD because you are an effing moron.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

At least we aren't discussing the new Gallup analysis that shows that the precipitous decline in the number of people who identify themselves as Republicans is widespread across nearly every demographic group -- a development that suggests that there is no simple solution to solving the party's current problems -- my work here is done.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"If there's another 9/11-type attack, I doubt that any national-level Democrat will bring up the fact that we've had no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001."

==

So JackeD is this your hope? That America is attacked? Note I didn't say "again."

If we had another "terrorist attack" there would be instant speculation that it was home-grown, thanks in large part to wistful hopes like yours that it happens.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

Yes, I was showing you how ignorant you sounded. As I said right before that, I would be happy to answer all of your questions, just as soon as you answer my already-pending questions to you. You look up my questions, answer them, and I will answer yours.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

---------------------------

Ahhh, I sounded "ignorant" so you posted a non-answer to my question, then decried how I didn't answer your question.

We all get it now.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you have forgotten the screams of 9/11. Maybe you are willing to sit by and do nothing but watch hundreds of Americans jump out of skyscrapers to their deaths. I for one am not.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

-------------------

Yup - everyone here but YOU is "willing to sit by and do nothing...."

As I scan the posts on this blog, that's EXACTLY what I read.

(That's being sarcastic - for you and pdx)

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

Yes, I was showing you how ignorant you sounded. As I said right before that, I would be happy to answer all of your questions, just as soon as you answer my already-pending questions to you. You look up my questions, answer them, and I will answer yours.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you have forgotten the screams of 9/11. Maybe you are willing to sit by and do nothing but watch hundreds of Americans jump out of skyscrapers to their deaths. I for one am not.

==

Which has about as much to do with the decline in Republican fortunes as the price of wheat.

Stupid gooper troll.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | May 18, 2009 6:29 PM | Report abuse

LOL Hawaiiexpat...

Too realistic!

You sounded too much like one of them in your post.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 18, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you have forgotten the screams of 9/11. Maybe you are willing to sit by and do nothing but watch hundreds of Americans jump out of skyscrapers to their deaths. I for one am not.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"See what happens when you don't simply answer the questions when asked, but keep trying to play cute?"

Jeez, someone's got a little ego problem going on, don't they?

Posted by: nodebris | May 18, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

See what happens when you don't simply answer the questions when asked, but keep trying to play cute?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse


-----------

You mean like this?


[begin quote]

Fine then:

"What is more important in the abortion fight? 1. People call themselves "pro-life"? 2. People reject the PUBLIC POLICY of restricting access to abortion?"

If you can't answer that yourself, you are a moron. See how easy that was (oops, there's another one of those pesky "QUESTIONS")?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse


[end quote]

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

Especially if ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES were requested to stop the terrorist attack and Obama said "no". I think you will, indeed, be speaking for yourself only. Do not include me in your "we".

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

The "context" surrounding my comment about another 9/11-type attack (God forbid that ever happens) will be that Obama has allowed the terrorists to gain the advantage, and he will be personally responsible for said attack and the lost American lives.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

--------------

But don't forget that Bush was not responsible for 9/11. Just 9/12 and beyond.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

See what happens when you don't simply answer the questions when asked, but keep trying to play cute?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

If you mean to say that Republicans will attempt to seize opportunity in a great tragedy to spew forth the politics of fear and win over weak minded individuals, I believe you are sadly correct.

I know we will get hit again by terrorists. The question we have to ask ourselves is are we willing to forfeit our freedom and American beliefs and live in a police state? I for one am not.

Where were all those law and order Republicans who demanded Clinton's impeachment for perjury when George Bush admitted ... yes publicly confessed... to breaking federal FISA laws? Where are all those constitution supporting Republicans when American Citizens are arrested in the U.S. and held for 3 years before charges are even brought against them?

Republicans have not even begun to answer for the egregious acts of the Bush administration, and it is outright cowardly the way they are running now from the administration and the policies they supported for 8 years.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 18, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

The "context" surrounding my comment about another 9/11-type attack (God forbid that ever happens) will be that Obama has allowed the terrorists to gain the advantage, and he will be personally responsible for said attack and the lost American lives.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I accept your apology. Care to answer my pending questions to you now?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

-----------

I don't know what questions those are.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

What an unfortunate headline.

I wonder if Chris is a Seinfeld fan?

Posted by: nodebris | May 18, 2009 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

I can assure you that I will NOT rally around Obama for any reason.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

I accept your apology. Care to answer my pending questions to you now?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama will never get as high approval ratings as GWB did (it remains to be seen whether he will ever get as low). Live with it.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

--------------

And in no way could this be explained by the "rally around the leader" effect following the terrorist attack on our soil (during the Bush presidency).

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

LOL - Okay, fair is fair.

I owe JakeD a public apology. In reading pdxgeek 6:10 p.m. post, in which he blasts me for my original post that I thought was OBVIOUSLY clearly mocking of the GOP, it occurs to me that I was (at a minimum with Jake and pdxgeek) dead wrong.

I was wrong.

I thought my post was going to be clearly seen for the sarcasm it was.

JakeD. I was wrong on that and want to acknowledge it publicly.

pdxgeek, I was *MOCKING* the repub party.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

I think you missed the "context".

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

Barack HUSSEIN Obama will never get as high approval ratings as GWB did (it remains to be seen whether he will ever get as low). Live with it.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Dear Hawaiiexpat,

We the left will gladly take General Colin Powell off your hands. He's suffered too much injustice already shilling for that lobotomy patient you called a president.

Also please do call us Democratic Socialists. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but we have a socialist police department, fire department, military and educational system. I think that its time we accepted that we are not barbarians and as a country decided that everyone's health care should be paid for.

Furthermore, the idea that decisions about life and death go to an insurance adjuster whose interests are not with the patient, but with making a profit for shareholders is downright immoral

I think you will find that Americans want to be able to choose what doctor they go to, but don't really care about what plan they are on... with the associated piles of fine print that nobody reads. People simply want to be treated and have insurance cover it.

You may notice that I have spent a bunch of time talking about health care. That's because as a liberal I am smart enough to understand that solving this problem will go a long way to solving other problems. Taking the responsibility of healthcare off the auto makers and other companies which issue pensions would be a vital boost to the economy. Removing the profit from the industry (yes... health care should all be not-for-profit except for elective procedures). will lower health care costs for everyone.

The truth of the matter is you are too dumb to see past a label. You listen to someone as stupid as Joe the Plumber. I am glad that in the coming years your opinion and those like you will become less and less meaningful. You represent the period of greatest shame this country has had since segregation ended.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 18, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Fine then:

"What is more important in the abortion fight? 1. People call themselves "pro-life"? 2. People reject the PUBLIC POLICY of restricting access to abortion?"

If you can't answer that yourself, you are a moron. See how easy that was (oops, there's another one of those pesky "QUESTIONS")?

As for which direction the citizenry will run, I think that GWB had the highest Gallup Poll approval ratings ever recorded, right AFTER 9/11, but I'd better check that poll in case there's something in it I'm not saying. LOL!


----------------------

1. According to the a Gallup Poll, a majority of Americans consider themselves to be music fans.

1a. According to a Gallup Poll, a majority of Americans do NOT want government restrictions on abortion rights.

What's more important? What people call themselves? (Music fans?) Or what they want in PUBLIC POLICY regarding the abortion debate -- e.g., no government restrictions.

You side with what they call themselves. and that's fine...music fan.

But with regard to the abortion debate, what people WANT seems to be more important to me. But that's just me.

And George W. Bush had the lowest poll numbers in recent recorded history as he left office after supposedly "keeping us safe". Yup - HE'S the guy you want to cite.


Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Back to the Gallup Poll being cited by Mr. Cillizza:

"These numbers push independents who lean in one direction or the other into the party toward which they lean." So that is REGARDLESS of whether said independents are affirmatively disgusted with both parties or not? This is akin to polling more Democrats than Republicans just to get the answer you are looking for.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Lack of irony: "You are being purposefully obtuse when I just about spelled out everything ..."

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Fine then:

"What is more important in the abortion fight? 1. People call themselves "pro-life"? 2. People reject the PUBLIC POLICY of restricting access to abortion?"

If you can't answer that yourself, you are a moron. See how easy that was (oops, there's another one of those pesky "QUESTIONS")?

As for which direction the citizenry will run, I think that GWB had the highest Gallup Poll approval ratings ever recorded, right AFTER 9/11, but I'd better check that poll in case there's something in it I'm not saying. LOL!

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

I would be happy to answer all of your questions, just as soon as you answer the pending questions to you ("If you can't ..." is NOT an answer BTW).

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

-----------------

You are being purposefully obtuse when I just about spelled out for you that anyone with a sense of context would understand that my original post was mocking of repubs.

Oh...you have no sense of context.

My bad.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

If there's another 9/11-type attack, you will see plenty of people go back to the GOP since we've had no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse

---------------------

Didn't the terrorist attack on our soil in 2001 happen DURING a Republican Presidency (and Republican Congress?)

Yup - those are the guys the citizenry will come running to with open arms.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

I would be happy to answer all of your questions, just as soon as you answer the pending questions to you ("If you can't ..." is NOT an answer BTW).

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

pdxgeek:

If there's another 9/11-type attack, you will see plenty of people go back to the GOP since we've had no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:53 PM | Report abuse


Hawaiiexpat:

All I said was that a different Gallup Poll shows that a MAJORITY of Americans now consider themselves "pro-life". That's exactly from the poll. Now, are you registered GOP? Or, are you just one of those "concern trolls" I've so much about?


---------------

...and you neglected to mention that the SAME poll showed that the majority of Americans do NOT want government restrictions on abortion access.

What is more important in the abortion fight?

1. People call themselves "pro-life"?

2. People reject the PUBLIC POLICY of restricting access to abortion?

You can call everyone in America a cheese sandwich or say everyone identifies themselves as ____ (French, NASCAR fans, Obama's dog). But nothing in the self-identification labels has anything to do with Americans' attitudes regarding the public policy debate going on regarding abortion rights.

Regarding am I registered GOP? If you cannot discern from my original post - which dissed Colin Powell in favor of Sarah Palin, Joe-the-Plumber, etc - that I was mocking the GOP. If there was some inkling in your head that my post had a modicum of sense, conservatives are really in deep trouble.

I would imagine that anyone with a grasp of context would see my original post as mocking the current state of the repub party.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Who let that nasty fly in? It's constant buzzing is so annoying.

Posted by: nodebris | May 18, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

My only surprise is that there are still so many people supporting the Republicans after what a mess they made of the government and the world.

It's too bad Obama feels the need to appease these people, because no matter how centrist or magnanimous he is, they will still demonize him.

Posted by: pdxgeek | May 18, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Another FACT: here in California, at least, Republicans AND Democrats are both losing numbers -- there's a tax revolt going on which will hit the airwaves tomorrow -- the fastest growing party in California is the American Independent Party:

http://www.aipca.org/

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

All I said was that a different Gallup Poll shows that a MAJORITY of Americans now consider themselves "pro-life". That's exactly from the poll. Now, are you registered GOP? Or, are you just one of those "concern trolls" I've so much about?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Note also: These numbers push independents who lean in one direction or the other into the party toward which they lean -- whether they are affirmatively disgusted with both parties or not -- this is akin to polling more Democrats than Republicans just to get the answer you are looking for.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

Did I say that the abortion fight was over?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

------------------


Nope. You tried to cite a poll and imply something about the abortion fight without even reading the results about what the public desires regarding government intervention in the personal decisions regarding abortion.

Or if you read it, you purposefully didn't mention it to try and assert that the Gallup poll said something which was not in the factual record.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

Did I say that the abortion fight was over?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

So then why does The Fix talk about Republicans as if they matter?

As I've said too many times, the only interesting political struggles nowadays are between Democrats. Will the corrupt ones win, or will the (generally feckless) leftists win?

But please Chris leave off discussing the hopes and dreams of various Republicans. No one cares.

Posted by: shrink2 | May 18, 2009 5:39 PM | Report abuse

The current clown class of GOP darlings is only going to make it worse. Who's going to save the party of Reagan? Jeb Bush?? The Palins?? Bobby the Token Jindahl??? And that's before you even begin to deal with the Voldemort of politics, Dick Cheney.
America's recession will be over soon...the GOP's is here for a good long while.

Posted by: htimothyjones | May 18, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse


Another Gallup Poll, of course, shows that a MAJORITY of Americans now consider themselves "pro-life". We are, at least, going in the right direction.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

-----------------------------

This is what happens when you post without actually -- you know -- READING the source material.

The issue in the polling shows that an overwhelming number of people (in the exact poll you cite) want to keep access to abortion LEGAL.

We are *all* pro-life; that's just a feel good label. Hey, I love my life.

The issue is the public policy about whether abortions should be outlawed (which you prefer) or not (which the pro-choice guys prefer). AND ON THE MATTER OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY, the poll you cite states that the public is NOT in favor of restricting abortion rights.

You FAIL for not even bother reading the actual poll results you try to cite.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Hawaiiexpat:

Are you registered GOP? Or, just one of those "concern trolls" I've so much about?

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The reason why more people are not identifying with the Republican Party is obvious. John McLame does not represent The Party.

Because of New Hampshire's open-primary system and the boost from the press, Republicans were just plain ticked.

REAL REPUBLICANS SAY-

1. No to Bailouts.
2. No to the UAW and SEIU.
3. Worked within reasonable guidelines for the economic survival of this country with an energy policy that is workable.
4. No to illegal immigration.
5. No to blood-sucking unions that do-nothing but seek to drive prices up, jobs out and productivity to nil.

Michael Steele nearly lost to Katon Dawson, of South Carolina as the head of the Republican Committee. Michael's a good man, but he needs to remember that we are here for the benefit of those who choose to succeed, not those who choose to sit on their honkers, waiting for help from DC.

Posted by: Computer_Forensics_Expert_Computer_Expert_Witness | May 18, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Roofelstoon:

If there's another 9/11-type attack, I doubt that any national-level Democrat will bring up the fact that we've had no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 2001.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

The solution is simple:

Repubs need to do two things:

1. Focus on ideological purity. The confusing messaging that comes from RINOs like General Colin Powell (USA, Ret) and the like need to be scrubbed from all things repub. We need more Sarah Palins, Michele Bachmanns, Joe-the-Plumbers, Rush Limbaughs, etc.

2. Invest our scarce time and attention to matters which are critical to the lives of everyday Americans. For instance, spending our convention to rename the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party". Now THAT will teach them. And also put us in the good graces of the Joe Lunchbucket crowd, who are not really caring about the ancillary things like health care, economy, and world affairs -- but things like what to call the other party.

Posted by: Hawaiiexpat | May 18, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Another Gallup Poll, of course, shows that a MAJORITY of Americans now consider themselves "pro-life". We are, at least, going in the right direction.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I must disagree. You stated, "[w]hile former president George W. Bush is not on the ballot in 2010 (or even 2012)..." The Democrats will put GWB, AND possibly more importantly RBC, on the ballot for quite some time to come, if only metaphorically. Funny, GWB was a plague on the Democratic Party for 6 of his 8 years in office, now he's the gift that keeps on giving.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | May 18, 2009 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I mean, if you guys are going to argue WHICH major party is shrinking faster, I've got no dog in that particular hunt.

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Winning back the white house will mean losing the crazies (Fundamentalists, Limbaugh, Palin, et. al) and broadening their appeal to those who are not white, southern or rich.

Until the RNC swallows that jagged little pill and it takes full unadulterated effect, they have no hope of regaining power, and will become a marginalized joke.

Not that it matters. A third party is long overdue. Ron Paul, though a simpleton on some matters, is sounding better as the economy gets worse.

Posted by: ian807 | May 18, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse


Disband the GOP.

Posted by: georgewbentley1 | May 18, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Here in California, Republicans AND Democrats are losing numbers -- there's a tax revolt going on out here against BOTH -- the fastest growing party in the American Independent Party:

http://www.aipca.org/

Posted by: JakeD | May 18, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

A recent poll shows a majority of Americans would support the gang rape and murder of Chris Cillizza's wife if it would be used to justify an invasion of a foreign country unrelated to US national security.

TORTURE IS A CRIME YOU LAZY MONSTER.

The failure of the he-said-she-said media to educate the American populace is not a rationale for crimes against humanity.

Say Hello to Goebbels when you see him.

Did Rove pull a Harman on you too? Or is it just easier to cut and paste from Drudge?

You will be remembered as a torture apologist.

Posted by: feckless | May 18, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Yep, but none of this really matters as long as Republicans continue their de facto control of Congress.

Posted by: S1VA | May 18, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

" the party must find a way to re-define itself away from the past eight years if they want to recruit swing demographic groups back to their side."

And they can't, because they're trapped in an Andy Griffith Show timewarp, so they're toast.

They're in a hole and digging deeper every day.

Posted by: drindl | May 18, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company