53% of Americans Think Republicans are Too Extreme

[Two Thumbs]

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/12/20/rel18c-1.pdf

Wide sampling error though.

Republicans are extreme?

Were all the samples taken from people that live in or near coastal cities?

reps are as mild as milktoast.

see my post above

oh, the religious right

yeah, buncha quacks

But ya gotta admit the love of life is more endearing that mass murder.

just sayin

 

[Two Thumbs]

oh and, fyi; a person here or there makes headlines when he's a rep that goes off kilter.

When obama or biden or any liberal goes off; they misspoke.

So spare me the hypocrassy

 

[dblack]

Denying that there is a problem was not the issue….it was the failure to recognize a shift/change in our culture. We have shifted from a land of opportunity to the land of entitlements. The question now is will the Republican Party change their principles just for votes…that scares the living shit out of me.

meh... they did that long ago. Both "sides" see government as a tool for rewarding their friends and punishing their enemies. Universal principles like individual rights and equal protection are all but lost in the new world order.

 

[Dragonlady]

Denying that there is a problem was not the issue….it was the failure to recognize a shift/change in our culture. We have shifted from a land of opportunity to the land of entitlements. The question now is will the Republican Party change their principles just for votes…that scares the living shit out of me.

As long as Republicans continue to believe that people vote for the Democrats because they want free stuff, the Republican Party will continue to flounder. Such an attitiude completely dismisses the working poor and elderly, nearly half of whom voted Republican.

The attitude that people vote Democrat because they want free stuff ignores the role of Republican policies which has lead to a flattening of wages for lower income folk and an actually loss of 29% of their buying power since the Republicans took over in 1980.

This attitude ignores the increases in number of Americans living in poverty under Republican administrations, increasing numbers of people without medical insurance and the explosive increasing in the number of people reliant on food stamps to feed their families.

You complain about these people selfish entitled takers with no consideration for how they arrived in their current situation: Republican policies which favour the rich and large corporations; no meaningful increase in the minimum wage; turning a blind eye to illegal immigration which further reduces wages for the lowest income workers.

All the while you pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (large corporations and wealthy individuals) who pay little or no taxes, use wage suppression measures, and rely upon lobby groups to get their way.

 

[Samson]

I don't understand this logic. Why would the majority of voters support a highly conservative candidate when only a minority of Americans describe themselves as conservatives? The Republican party is already losing the majority of voters who aren't conservative, particularly moderates, whom they've lost in 5 of the past 6 Presidential elections. Republicans have lost four of the last six Presidential elections and 5 of the last 6 Presidential popular votes. Conservatives like to point to Reagan but conveniently forget that Goldwater was crushed.

To me, conservatives saying we need a more conservative candidate sounds an awful lot like a football team running the ball 40 times a game but getting 3.0 yards per carry saying the team needs to run the ball 60 times because "running the ball is how you win football games" in a pass-happy league. The Republican party doesn't need more conservative candidates. They need better candidates, period. The Republican party has all sorts of conservatives throwing themselves at the nomination but the party keeps refusing them. It's hard to believe that all these conservatives trying to take up the mantle of Reagan who can't get nominated by the Republican party would win the general election if they can't convince a group of like-minded people to vote for them in the first place.

I'm trying to piece this together and I can't make sense of it.

First, they're saying that they need to get rid of anyone who isn't conservative enough. Of course, those people will have to go elsewhere. Evidently, their votes aren't needed, so it won't matter if these people vote Democrat.

Next, they're saying that they're not going to budge one inch on any of the issues. Okay, that's their call, but all I see them doing is appealing to an ever-dwindling amount of voters, even after they just lost to an incredibly vulnerable President.

My best guess is that they really don't have a plan here. They listen to the radio and are told that the party must be as pure as possible, that they cannot waiver on their issues, yet they can't describe how they're going to win elections.

If they're willing to be a permanent minority party to remain pure on the issues, that's their call of course, but I don't like the idea of one party (doesn't matter which) having so much control, as the Democrats may.

So, is there a plan here?

.

It appears that the national Republican party's strategy is to emulate the strategy of the California Republican party.

And that's not good for the nation.

I'm not familiar with California Politics, but find your comparison intreguing. I can only guess that somehow, only Republicans in California can held responsible for the perpetuously disasterous financial position that state seems to find itself?

 

[Samson]

I knew you meant The HoR: but my point is that although they are the majority party Americans do not find Obama or the DNC-controlled Senate for being "Too extreme." By definition, the majority party will never be more extreme than the minority party. Being "extreme" is the very nature of the minority (anagolous to how far from the center of a "bell-curve average" the deviation is). CNN seems to imply that this is "bad" when Republicans are considered too extreme; however I cannot find evidence that the term is used to describe Democrats OR Republicans when Democrats were in the minority (Bush was President).

CNN wasn't implying anything from what I saw. They just asked the question.

I don't think being extreme is the nature of the minority. 53% is the highest reading since that poll started. Since 2000, both parties have registered between 25% and 40% no matter which party was in power. Until this poll, there had been no reading above 40%. So either the poll is way off or the GOP has moved too far to the right. I think its the latter.

Perhaps a picture will help:

 

[Toro]

I'm not familiar with California Politics, but find your comparison intreguing. I can only guess that somehow, only Republicans in California can held responsible for the perpetuously disasterous financial position that state seems to find itself?

Nope. The opposite. It's mostly on the Democrats. However, the Republican party has moved too far right and has a hard time getting elected. This has allowed the Democrats to gun spending and are now raising taxes on the wealthiest as a solution. Perhaps if the CA Republican party was more moderate, they would have a better chance of being elected and stop CA from going over the cliff.

Perhaps a picture will help:

The kurtosis of the Republican party is negative.

 

[Samson]

I'm not familiar with California Politics, but find your comparison intreguing. I can only guess that somehow, only Republicans in California can held responsible for the perpetuously disasterous financial position that state seems to find itself?

Nope. The opposite. It's mostly on the Democrats. However, the Republican party has moved too far right and has a hard time getting elected. This has allowed the Democrats to gun spending and are now raising taxes on the wealthiest as a solution. Perhaps if the CA Republican party was more moderate, they would have a better chance of being elected and stop CA from going over the cliff.

Perhaps a picture will help:

The kurtosis of the Republican party is negative.

So you think the Republicans should be more like Democrats.

....to stop California from going over a cliff.





Yet Texas, where the House, the Senate, and the Governor, are all Republican.....and

Texas Is America's Top State for Business 2012





Maybe Republicans in Texas are really Democrats!

 

[Dragonlady]

Yet Texas, where the House, the Senate, and the Governor, are all Republican.....and

Texas Is America's Top State for Business 2012

Just because it's a great place for business, doesn't mean it's a great place to live:

Texas comes in 26th in Education and 35th in Quality of Life. And while the state held the line on income taxes, the overall tax burden — including property and sales taxes — is high. That hurts Texas in the all-important Cost of Doing Business category, where it comes in 28th.

As a parent and a grandparent, quality of eduction is critical, as is quality of life.

I also note that Texas has some of the most onerous restrictions on abortion in the USA and women are now turning up in Texas hospitals injured due to botched back alley abortions and attempts to self-abort. Yeah that's what an all-Republican government will do for you.

 

[Samson]

Yet Texas, where the House, the Senate, and the Governor, are all Republican.....and

Texas Is America's Top State for Business 2012

Just because it's a great place for business, doesn't mean it's a great place to live:

Texas comes in 26th in Education and 35th in Quality of Life. And while the state held the line on income taxes, the overall tax burden — including property and sales taxes — is high. That hurts Texas in the all-important Cost of Doing Business category, where it comes in 28th.

As a parent and a grandparent, quality of eduction is critical, as is quality of life.

I also note that Texas has some of the most onerous restrictions on abortion in the USA and women are now turning up in Texas hospitals injured due to botched back alley abortions and attempts to self-abort. Yeah that's what an all-Republican government will do for you.

Although I doubt your simple mind will be able to grasp the thread you've tried to interject yourself into, we were discussing a "fiscal cliff" and the fact that Republicans should be considered "Too Extreme" because it is approaching. This is not hapening in Texas, where the majority government is Republican.

You're blithering idiocy has nothing to do with this.

If you'd like to discuss why women cannot choose competent doctors, or why one state is higher ranked in education, then start thread: Frankly I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to accomplish this.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yup.

We've been clobbered twice in a row now running moderates. GOP will not take another chance on a moderate.

someone who supports 'personhood laws' and doesn't support equal pay for women; and doesn't withdraw his support from a senate candidate who says absurd and stupid things about rape victims, ISN'T a moderate. Someone who thinks if you vote democratic, that you're a moocher, isn't a moderate.

Your problem this time was your candidate... but not his moderation. it's that the 'base' forces your people so far to the right they can't move center during the general election. contrary to romney's campaign strategy, we have memories and you can't be an etch-a-sketch. And while McCain may have been a moderate in 2000, he wasn't in 2004. And both men picked far right VP candidates.

So i think you might want to reconsider.

Where did Romney say he was not in support of equal pay for women?
All you libs are convinced that the only way the GOP can win the White House is to become liberals.
Hey cupcake, when everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane.

 

[Toro]

So you think the Republicans should be more like Democrats.

....to stop California from going over a cliff.

Why is the only option ever to be "more like Democrats?" I keep hearing this over and over again. It represents a dearth of thinking in the Republican party.

I've posted this elsewhere but it applies here.

Republicans are now in the habit of editing their views, and they've been in it for 10 years. The Bush White House suppressed dissent; talk-radio stars functioned as enforcers; the angrier parts of the base, on the Internet, attempted to silence critical thinkers. Orthodoxy was everything, or orthodoxy as some defined it. This isn't loyalty, it's lockstep. It has harmed the party's creativity, its ability to think, when now more than ever it has to.

That's from Peggy Noonan.

 

[elvis]

Yup.

We've been clobbered twice in a row now running moderates. GOP will not take another chance on a moderate.

I don't understand this logic. Why would the majority of voters support a highly conservative candidate when only a minority of Americans describe themselves as conservatives? The Republican party is already losing the majority of voters who aren't conservative, particularly moderates, whom they've lost in 5 of the past 6 Presidential elections. Republicans have lost four of the last six Presidential elections and 5 of the last 6 Presidential popular votes. Conservatives like to point to Reagan but conveniently forget that Goldwater was crushed.

To me, conservatives saying we need a more conservative candidate sounds an awful lot like a football team running the ball 40 times a game but getting 3.0 yards per carry saying the team needs to run the ball 60 times because "running the ball is how you win football games" in a pass-happy league. The Republican party doesn't need more conservative candidates. They need better candidates, period. The Republican party has all sorts of conservatives throwing themselves at the nomination but the party keeps refusing them. It's hard to believe that all these conservatives trying to take up the mantle of Reagan who can't get nominated by the Republican party would win the general election if they can't convince a group of like-minded people to vote for them in the first place.

As opposed to a radically liberal candidate? He's won twice In a row now. And you make my point. The party hasn't accepted the fringe conservative but they will next time. Besides, Santorum is next in line. I noticed a frightening pattern the other day about second place finishers in the republican nomination process.

 

[elvis]

Yup.

We've been clobbered twice in a row now running moderates. GOP will not take another chance on a moderate.

someone who supports 'personhood laws' and doesn't support equal pay for women; and doesn't withdraw his support from a senate candidate who says absurd and stupid things about rape victims, ISN'T a moderate. Someone who thinks if you vote democratic, that you're a moocher, isn't a moderate.

Your problem this time was your candidate... but not his moderation. it's that the 'base' forces your people so far to the right they can't move center during the general election. contrary to romney's campaign strategy, we have memories and you can't be an etch-a-sketch. And while McCain may have been a moderate in 2000, he wasn't in 2004. And both men picked far right VP candidates.

So i think you might want to reconsider.

Romney did what he could to get elected. It's a balancing act. And it's not like Obama isn't radical.

 

[Mac1958]

Besides, Santorum is next in line...

Yes, a nice, strong, absolutely committed social conservative.

That sound you hear is the Democrats salivating...

.

 

[elvis]

Besides, Santorum is next in line...

Yes, a nice, strong, absolutely committed social conservative.

That sound you hear is the Democrats salivating...

.

Didn't say I agreed with it. If Obama can get elected anyone can.

 

[Dragonlady]

Although I doubt your simple mind will be able to grasp the thread you've tried to interject yourself into, we were discussing a "fiscal cliff" and the fact that Republicans should be considered "Too Extreme" because it is approaching. This is not hapening in Texas, where the majority government is Republican.

When you can't attack the ideas, you attack the poster. That this is HUGE mistake on your part will eventually become self-evident, but suffice it to say at this point your comment has: (a) no basis in fact; and (b) is irrelevant to the discussion.

Actually the OP said the topic of discussion is whether or not the Republican party is too extreme. The poll mentions the fiscal cliff, the OP did not.

You're blithering idiocy has nothing to do with this.

I am neither blithering nor am I an idiot and it's beyond rude of you to say that. If your goal was to piss me off, that won't work either. As a poker player, I'm too smart to fall for someone trying to put me on tilt. That fact that you would choose as your first line of defence, to insult me says a lot more about you than it does me, and let me be clear, it's not saying ANYTHING good about you.

If you'd like to discuss why women cannot choose competent doctors, or why one state is higher ranked in education, then start thread: Frankly I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to accomplish this.

I was responding to the prior post.

Again with the insults. I guess if you have nothing to refute anything I posted you could resort to your default response: insult the poster. To me it denoted complete intellectually bankruptcy. I'd give you an "atta boy, nice effort", but it was lame and weak.

 

[Samson]

So you think the Republicans should be more like Democrats.

....to stop California from going over a cliff.

Why is the only option ever to be "more like Democrats?" I keep hearing this over and over again. It represents a dearth of thinking in the Republican party.

I've posted this elsewhere but it applies here.

Republicans are now in the habit of editing their views, and they've been in it for 10 years. The Bush White House suppressed dissent; talk-radio stars functioned as enforcers; the angrier parts of the base, on the Internet, attempted to silence critical thinkers. Orthodoxy was everything, or orthodoxy as some defined it. This isn't loyalty, it's lockstep. It has harmed the party's creativity, its ability to think, when now more than ever it has to.

That's from Peggy Noonan.

My point was not to advocate that Republicans be more like Democrats: I was responding to YOUR comments regarding the need for Republicans to be "less extreme." Apparently your point, and Peggy's point, is that they can be BOTH "less extreme" and Not be Democrats.

Interestingly, neither of you have an example, while I have given at least one: the proposed "Plan B" offered by Republican leadership (actually conceived by Democrats to raise taxes on the wealthy) combined with decreases in budgetary spending. How is this either "too extreme" or uncreative?

 

[Samson]

You're blithering idiocy has nothing to do with this.

I am neither blithering nor am I an idiot and it's beyond rude of you to say that. ..

Then attempt to reply topically and refrain from the obvious straw-men.

 

[Toro]

So you think the Republicans should be more like Democrats.

....to stop California from going over a cliff.

Why is the only option ever to be "more like Democrats?" I keep hearing this over and over again. It represents a dearth of thinking in the Republican party.

I've posted this elsewhere but it applies here.

Republicans are now in the habit of editing their views, and they've been in it for 10 years. The Bush White House suppressed dissent; talk-radio stars functioned as enforcers; the angrier parts of the base, on the Internet, attempted to silence critical thinkers. Orthodoxy was everything, or orthodoxy as some defined it. This isn't loyalty, it's lockstep. It has harmed the party's creativity, its ability to think, when now more than ever it has to.

That's from Peggy Noonan.

My point was not to advocate that Republicans be more like Democrats: I was responding to YOUR comments regarding the need for Republicans to be "less extreme." Apparently your point, and Peggy's point, is that they can be BOTH "less extreme" and Not be Democrats.

Interestingly, neither of you have an example, while I have given at least one: the proposed "Plan B" offered by Republican leadership (actually conceived by Democrats to raise taxes on the wealthy) combined with decreases in budgetary spending. How is this either "too extreme" or uncreative?

It's not too extreme, but it's merely horse trading and hardly innovative.

Parties have to adapt. The norms of today are not the norms of 100, 50 or even 20 years ago. Gay marriage is a great example. It is absolutely, positively going to be the law one day. The more the party fights it, the more it turns off younger moderates, the type of voter the GOP has to win in the future.

Moderates generally describe themselves as conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues. Moderates may agree with the Republicans on taxes and spending but not vote for them because they see the party as retrogressive. That's what I mean about the CA GOP becoming more of a Small Tent and allowing the Democrats to run rampant over the state because Republicans have become impotent. The top tax rate in CA is going to be a stunning 57%. That is awful, and will hurt the state. But the Republicans can't stop it because they aren't competitive. The Democrats are doing the best they can to wreck CA but that Republicans aren't competitive is their own fault.

Same as immigration. Read the reactions here from most conservatives. Immigration reform does not always mean amnesty, yet many conservatives immediately default to howling amnesty whenever the issue is brought up. There is no reason why Republicans can't be at least competitive amongst Hispanics and Asians, but they sound mean.

Not allowing the highest tax bracket to rise by a whopping 4% sounds bizarre to many people. That guys like Romney and Buffett pay a lower tax rate than average working people strikes most Americans as patently unfair and absurd. Yet there is no one in the Republican party that I know of - not one - who is arguing that this should be rectified.

And Republicans whining that they lost because 47% are moochers is beyond stupid. That it is respectable opinion within wide swaths of the party shows how out of touch the GOP are.

As Noonan said, the party is no longer a party of new ideas. It's a party about deference and adherence to orthodoxy. Areas such as immigration and fiscal matters are all areas ripe for innovative thinking, but there is little. Paul Ryan's budget is a start, but it has to be viewed as being fair to everyone and not hurting the most vulnerable.