Americans trust Dems more than Pubs on all major issues but terrorism

[firespin]

IOW, this election cycle is not the beginning of any RW revolution. It is, if anything, the last loud melancholy withdrawing roar of the Reagan Revolution.

Right. Because the most relevant comparison for a political event is something thirty years ago. Moron.

Are you not the least bit embarrassed that the steady stream of partisan "analytical" drivel you've burdened us with has been woefully off the mark in terms of being relevant to what's actually happening in the country today?

Or do your steady stream of personal life failures just acclimate you to the notion of being wrong as the new normal?

 

[Wok]

Well, hell, I tried to tell you and others much the same thing two years ago when everybody was proclaiming the ascension of Obama as the death knell of conservatives in general and the Republican party in particular.

That makes me laugh. Somehow a party victory means the permanent end to the opposition party.

As Orfeo argued in another thread (religious right is going away as a political force), I seriously doubt conservative activists, the religious right (whatever the fuck that means, because there is the religious left too), and Reaganites are going away.

 

[firespin]

That makes me laugh. Somehow a party victory means the permanent end to the opposition party.

It's like these people have no ability to pull up memories or read history.

Frisco the village idiot even posted something about how, in each of the four times in the last thirty years that liberals had large congressional majorities, the conservatives managed to recover.

He seemed to miss the point that the opposite situation must be true if the liberals were in fact in the majority four times.

 

[Wok]

It's like these people have no ability to pull up memories or read history.

Frisco the village idiot even posted something about how, in each of the four times in the last thirty years that liberals had large congressional majorities, the conservatives managed to recover.

He seemed to miss the point that the opposite situation must be true if the liberals were in fact in the majority four times.

Frisco, like Orfeo, are steadfast in their views and opinions. That I do not mind. What I do mind is the kicking and screaming suggesting if one disagrees, that person is not only wrong, but somehow evil.

Whatever. People do what they do.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Right. Because the most relevant comparison for a political event is something thirty years ago.

Pretty much, because, as I said here and here, we are talking about a field where things change on a generational time-scale. Any cyclic patterns happen on that scale. Reagan was the beginning of a period of GOP dominance that ended in 2008; there is not likely to be another such in the next two decades, even if the Pubs win a few, even if they win the presidency.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That makes me laugh. Somehow a party victory means the permanent end to the opposition party.

As Orfeo argued in another thread (religious right is going away as a political force), I seriously doubt conservative activists, the religious right (whatever the fuck that means, because there is the religious left too), and Reaganites are going away.

No, of course they're not going away.

But they are dying off. And they won't be replaced.

 

[firespin]

Pretty much, because, as I said here and here, we are talking about a field where things change on a generational time-scale. Any cyclic patterns happen on that scale. Reagan was the beginning of a period of GOP dominance that ended in 2008; there is not likely to be another such in the next two decades, even if the Pubs win a few, even if they win the presidency.

So eight years of Clinton didn't make a difference, but two years of Obama did? Sorry, that's just stupid.

No, of course they're not going away.

But they are dying off. And they won't be replaced.

Because people never change their voting patterns as they age, or their personal situation changes, right?

Moron.

 

[Wok]

No, of course they're not going away.

But they are dying off. And they won't be replaced.

Yes, they will be replaced, and they are not dying off.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So eight years of Clinton didn't make a difference, but two years of Obama did? Sorry, that's just stupid.

No. Obama's election demarcked a difference, which Clinton's did not.

Because people never change their voting patterns as they age, or their personal situation changes, right?

People actually tend to grow more liberal as they age. But I don't think it's a big effect -- generally speaking, a person's personality and worldview, including politics, are pretty much set by the age of 25 or 30. Dramatic midlife political conversions are rare. If people change their party affiliation, it is because they perceive the partisan landscape as having moved around them -- like the migration of Southern white conservative Democrats to the GOP in the 1970s; they did not grow more conservative, they (with some justice) perceived the Democratic Party as having become more liberal since the 1950s.

And, those converts will all be dead 20 years from now.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes, they will be replaced, and they are not dying off.

By "dying off" I mean only that they already are older than the general population.

There are at least two schools of thought on the demographic composition of the Tea Party Movement:

Several polls have been conducted on the demographics of the movement. Though the various polls sometimes turn up slightly different results, they tend to show that the self-described Tea Party supporters are overwhelmingly white and slightly more likely to be male, married, older than 45, more conservative than the general population, and likely to be more wealthy and have more education than the general population.[107][108][109][110][111]

One notable exception to that finding is the Gallup poll, which found that other than gender, income and politics, self-described Tea Partiers were demographically similar to the population as a whole.[112]

I think the key differentiating factor is age -- other polls find the Tea Partiers are mostly over 45, Gallup does not. If the former is true, then the movement might be born to die in our lifetimes, just by generational attrition -- that is, it represents a world-view which its members' children do not necessarily acquire, and as Tea Partiers die off, they will not be replaced by commensurate numbers of those now young.

On that note, looking at the Pew Political Typology, I would say the groups most likely to make up the Tea Party's base are the Enterprisers and the Social Conservatives -- certainly not the Pro-Government Conservatives, nor the Conservative Democrats -- and the Social Conservatives are "the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older)." And, I don't think it's a matter of people growing more conservative as they grow older. While you could find many counterexamples, I don't think most people change their basic political views or values much after the age of 25. No, this is a case of a generation that sees things in a way no later generation will. And of the Enterprisers, "Only 10% are under age 30."

"Tiiiiiiime is on my side . . . Yes, it is!"

The youngest group, BTW, is the Bystanders; the next-youngest is Liberals (a group which doubled as a proportion of the whole, between the 1999 and 2005 studies); then Pro-Government Conservatives and Upbeats.

In the 1890s, a new religion called the "Ghost Dance" swept through the Plains Indians nations. They seem to have had the idea that if enough of them danced the Ghost Dance, the palefaces would just go away and everything would be as it was before they came.

The Tea Party is the Ghost Dance of the American right, and, in the long run, will be about as effective in turning back the clock.

BTW and FYI, I was wondering when the next Political Typology update would be done, so I emailed the Pew Center and was advised it will be done late this year, results published probably January 2011. It will be interesting to see how (if at all) Obama's election and the rise of the Tea Party movement -- really, the only two potentially game-changing political events in the U.S. since 2005 -- will, well, change the game.

But, do you really think the average ages of the Social Conservative or the Enterpriser groups will prove to have come down in the past five years? Or even failed to go up a bit? No, I don't think you do.

As for "won't be replaced" . . . the Libertarian faction of today's right might have success in recruiting a younger generation; it can make a claim to some non-culture-bound principled appeal. The religious right will not, not in numbers sufficient to keep its proportion of the total population from declining. This is why.

 

[Wok]

By "dying off" I mean only that they already are older than the general population.

There are at least two schools of thought on the demographic composition of the Tea Party Movement:



I think the key differentiating factor is age -- other polls find the Tea Partiers are mostly over 45, Gallup does not. If the former is true, then the movement might be born to die in our lifetimes, just by generational attrition -- that is, it represents a world-view which its members' children do not necessarily acquire, and as Tea Partiers die off, they will not be replaced by commensurate numbers of those now young.

On that note, looking at the Pew Political Typology, I would say the groups most likely to make up the Tea Party's base are the Enterprisers and the Social Conservatives -- certainly not the Pro-Government Conservatives, nor the Conservative Democrats -- and the Social Conservatives are "the oldest of all groups (average age is 52; 47% are 50 or older)." And, I don't think it's a matter of people growing more conservative as they grow older. While you could find many counterexamples, I don't think most people change their basic political views or values much after the age of 25. No, this is a case of a generation that sees things in a way no later generation will. And of the Enterprisers, "Only 10% are under age 30."

"Tiiiiiiime is on my side . . . Yes, it is!"

The youngest group, BTW, is the Bystanders; the next-youngest is Liberals (a group which doubled as a proportion of the whole, between the 1999 and 2005 studies); then Pro-Government Conservatives and Upbeats.

In the 1890s, a new religion called the "Ghost Dance" swept through the Plains Indians nations. They seem to have had the idea that if enough of them danced the Ghost Dance, the palefaces would just go away and everything would be as it was before they came.

The Tea Party is the Ghost Dance of the American right, and, in the long run, will be about as effective in turning back the clock.

BTW and FYI, I was wondering when the next Political Typology update would be done, so I emailed the Pew Center and was advised it will be done late this year, results published probably January 2011. It will be interesting to see how (if at all) Obama's election and the rise of the Tea Party movement -- really, the only two potentially game-changing political events in the U.S. since 2005 -- will, well, change the game.

But, do you really think the average ages of the Social Conservative or the Enterpriser groups will prove to have come down in the past five years? Or even failed to go up a bit? No, I don't think you do.

As for "won't be replaced" . . . the Libertarian faction of today's right might have success in recruiting a younger generation; it can make a claim to some non-culture-bound principled appeal. The religious right will not, not in numbers sufficient to keep its proportion of the total population from declining. This is why.

I actually read all all the links you posted.

Sorry, it is still based on conjecture and opinion. At least I admit my views are simply opinions.

 

[firespin]

No. Obama's election demarcked a difference, which Clinton's did not.



People actually tend to grow more liberal as they age. But I don't think it's a big effect -- generally speaking, a person's personality and worldview, including politics, are pretty much set by the age of 25 or 30. Dramatic midlife political conversions are rare. If people change their party affiliation, it is because they perceive the partisan landscape as having moved around them -- like the migration of Southern white conservative Democrats to the GOP in the 1970s; they did not grow more conservative, they (with some justice) perceived the Democratic Party as having become more liberal since the 1950s.

And, those converts will all be dead 20 years from now.

One survey from a sociologist from the University of Vermont is not going to be particularly compelling, you know?

Here's another example for you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Fig._196_-_Party_affiliation_of_different_age_groups.JPG

What is shows is two things of interest:

a) The Republican party was able to enhance its appeal across all age groups, except the very old, between the first sample set and the second, with pronounced improved image among the young.

b) As with the study you cited, the young people in the first set of surveys became the old people in the second set of surveys, and the Republican affiliation increased as they aged.

While this doesn't guarantee anything with respect to now, it shows that your assumption that Republicans cannot gain any new converts either from young voters or as voters age is disproven historically.

 

[KingOrfeo]

While this doesn't guarantee anything with respect to now, it shows that your assumption that Republicans cannot gain any new converts either from young voters or as voters age is disproven historically.

I'm not talking about the Republican Party, I'm talking about conservative ideology. Remember what I said about the Southern Dems who went Pub in the 1970s. The two major parties we shall always have with us, but they can be very different things in different decades, and I am confident post-Goldwater movement conservatism will die with those in it who are now middle-aged.

 

[firespin]

I'm not talking about the Republican Party, I'm talking about conservative ideology. Remember what I said about the Southern Dems who went Pub in the 1970s. The two major parties we shall always have with us, but they can be very different things in different decades, and I am confident post-Goldwater movement conservatism will die with those in it who are now middle-aged.

We're happy for you.

Your track record of figuring out what's happening now is suspect enough.

I'd think you'd be too ashamed to try to predict the future, but apparently not.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Pretty much, because, as I said here and here, we are talking about a field where things change on a generational time-scale. Any cyclic patterns happen on that scale. Reagan was the beginning of a period of GOP dominance that ended in 2008; there is not likely to be another such in the next two decades, even if the Pubs win a few, even if they win the presidency.

It's really hard not to dismiss you as an idiot, but I'm going to try to be kinder and gentler.

You're overthinking this shit. All those historic periods you point to were labeled by historians after the fact. That's why it's called "history." Please direct me to any early 19th century commentary that precisely predicted when the Whigs were going to disappear as a political force. You act as if the body politic was steering the ship of state from one port to the next as if we actually knew where we were going. The truth is that, politically speaking, we largely lurch and stagger around like the town drunk stopping at whatever light post gives us a moment of stability. It's an illusion to assume it offers anything more.

The generational transformations that you put so much faith in tend to evolve our character while leaving our politics (at least the labels) surprisingly in tact. The fact that we as a nation will not be returning to the institution of slavery or state-sponsored segregation anytime soon did not inhibit from me from becoming a conservative Republican. It simply prevents me from being either the specific type of conservative or Republican characterized by my grandfather or great grandfather. I suspect the same will be true for those conservatives and Republicans in the decades to come.

Issues like wasteful government spending and whether the pejorative crown of wastefulness fits better over the brow of defense programs or social entitlement programs is a subject that has no apparent generational contingency.

Do you really think the religious right is going to wake up one day and decide they've been wrong about abortion all these years?

Do you really believe the Reagan Revolution was about anything more substantive than the abject failure of Jimmy Carter? Was the size of the Republican presidential victory in 2004 compared with the cliff-hanger in 2000 indicative of an endorsement of George Bush's policies or merely a commentary on the public appeal of a John Kerry vis-a-vis Al Gore?

Exactly what metrics do you use to distinguish between swinging pendulums and forks in the social landscape that marks the road not taken? What's on your resume that would lead me to believe you're that smart?

The fact is there are more than ample substantive issues and quirky political personalities to sustain an enduring political divide. There is little reason to doubt the birth of even more with the passage of time.

The very poll that you say belies the foolishly optimistic expectations of conservative Republicans ought to dissuade you from any comparable hyperbole.

Assuming you have a lick of sense God gave a fence post.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Here's an example of where your bias shows.

fivethirtyeight.com rates Rasmussen as more accurate. Why do you beg to differ? Because of your inherent expertise or something?

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/pollster-ratings-v40-results.html

More accurate than whom? On that chart, 538 ranks Rasmussen about 15 below the Field Poll.

And, given a chance to address the question more fully, 538 damns Rasmussen with faint praise:

Criticism

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[17] The Center For Public Integrity has pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[18] According to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com, while there are no apparent records of Scott Rasmussen or Rasmussen Reports making contributions to political candidates in recent years and its public election polls are generally regarded as reliable, "some observers have questioned its issue-based polling, which frequently tends to elicit responses that are more conservative than those found on other national surveys."[19]

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo commented on their reliability in a February 2009 article:[20][21]

The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around – because they're based on robocalls – gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[22][unreliable source?] Examples of Rasmussen's questions with wording issues include:

* Agree or Disagree: "Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party. He says jump, and they say how high."[23]
* Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?[24]
* Suppose that Democrats agreed on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress. Should the Democrats pass that bill or should they change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans?[25]
* Do you agree or disagree with the following statement... it’s always better to cut taxes than to increase government spending because taxpayers, not bureaucrats, are the best judges of how to spend their money?[25][unreliable source?]

Some of Rasmussen polls have contained two different weights for questions, depending on the party of the statesman in the question.[26][unreliable source?] In one example, the first question asks for a job rating for Tim Pawlenty, a Republican governor, using an approve/disapprove scale. The next question asks for the way that Al Franken, a Democratic senator, is performing his role, but uses a Excellent/Good/Fair/Poor scale. Nick Panagakis of Pollster.com has pointed out that, when using the latter scale, "approval is often reported by combining the top two and bottom two scores", including the "fair" score as a "disapproval" vote.[27]

According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[28] “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”[29]

 

[Wrong Element]

Pretty much, because, as I said here and here, we are talking about a field where things change on a generational time-scale. Any cyclic patterns happen on that scale. Reagan was the beginning of a period of GOP dominance that ended in 2008; there is not likely to be another such in the next two decades, even if the Pubs win a few, even if they win the presidency.

This is sort of off the topic of the rest of the thread, but if you're just talking presidential politics, I think 1968 rather than 1980 was the clear start of the Republican era, and 1992 rather than 2008 was the start of the new Democratic era.

A new era usually becomes apparent when a party comes up with a new way of winning presidential elections. 1968 showed where the Republican future was going to be, in the South. Reagan just built on that.

Conversely, Clinton was the first Democrat to get elected without winning very much of the South, proving that as long as a Dem swept the larger non-Southern states, he could win the presidency. The Clinton 1992 map and the Obama 2008 map are too similar to believe that Obama began a new era.

In the last five national election years, the Democrat has won the popular vote four times and lost the fifth election by a narrow margin in wartime, and with a weak candidate (similar to Wilson getting re-elected in 1916 in the midst of a huge Republican era). That's a trend. But the trend will likely reverse itself in another 3-5 election cycles, probably when the GOP decides to start nominating folks like Nixon and Reagan again who can win the non-snake handler states.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This is sort of off the topic of the rest of the thread, but if you're just talking presidential politics, I think 1968 rather than 1980 was the clear start of the Republican era, and 1992 rather than 2008 was the start of the new Democratic era.

A new era usually becomes apparent when a party comes up with a new way of winning presidential elections. 1968 showed where the Republican future was going to be, in the South. Reagan just built on that.

Conversely, Clinton was the first Democrat to get elected without winning very much of the South, proving that as long as a Dem swept the larger non-Southern states, he could win the presidency. The Clinton 1992 map and the Obama 2008 map are too similar to believe that Obama began a new era.

In the last five national election years, the Democrat has won the popular vote four times and lost the fifth election by a narrow margin in wartime, and with a weak candidate (similar to Wilson getting re-elected in 1916 in the midst of a huge Republican era). That's a trend. But the trend will likely reverse itself in another 3-5 election cycles, probably when the GOP decides to start nominating folks like Nixon and Reagan again who can win the non-snake handler states.

The largest popular vote landslide in American history was Lyndon Johnson's 61.6% win over Barry Goldwater in 1964. Four years later Johnson didn't even seek re-election.

The third largest popular vote landslide in American history was Richard Nixon's 60.7% win over George McGovern in 1972. Four years later, Nixon had resigned in disgrace, and President Ford fell to Jimmy Carter.

The fifth largest popular vote landslide in American history was Ronald Reagan's 58.8% win over Walter Mondale in 1984.

Three top five landslides in 20 years, all rewarding the incumbent party but in two of the three instances, the opposition party came to power four years later.

To me, nothing offers a better example that politics are personality and circumstantially driven than that.

 

[firespin]

More accurate than whom? On that chart, 538 ranks Rasmussen about 15 below the Field Poll.

And, given a chance to address the question more fully, 538 damns Rasmussen with faint praise:

And 28 places ABOVE the NEWSWEEK poll you cited.

Dummy.

 

[toubab]

Newsweek and their polls are a joke. Boehner will be Speaker of the House and McConnell will be Majority Leader of the Senate in January. Bank on it.

 

[Wok]

The largest popular vote landslide in American history was Lyndon Johnson's 61.6% win over Barry Goldwater in 1964. Four years later Johnson didn't even seek re-election.

The third largest popular vote landslide in American history was Richard Nixon's 60.7% win over George McGovern in 1972. Four years later, Nixon had resigned in disgrace, and President Ford fell to Jimmy Carter.

The fifth largest popular vote landslide in American history was Ronald Reagan's 58.8% win over Walter Mondale in 1984.

Three top five landslides in 20 years, all rewarding the incumbent party but in two of the three instances, the opposition party came to power four years later.

To me, nothing offers a better example that politics are personality and circumstantially driven than that.

And in my opinion, it also goes to show what campaign rhetoric, what is done, and how history sees Presidents have stark differences. I think it was firespin that posted all the negative comments about Abraham Lincoln, regarded as one of the best Presidents ever.

Will Obama be one of the worst Presidents in history? I am not sure, because there were some very shitty Presidents like Buchanan and Harding. Oh well. My reply is off topic anyhow.

 

[miles]

Well, whatever else you might say about Newsweek, it certainly beats Rasmussen for credibility.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTIYZkZwValvr15sle3J6t1AYoWi8BJvxVCDZ0yXH_NempOUzw&t=1&usg=__0c9HMkoinFwORpP29l8NtI6PB44=

 

[toubab]

Well, whatever else you might say about Newsweek, it certainly beats Rasmussen for credibility.

You are misinformed. Newsweek's track record is terrible; Rasmussen's is exceptionally good.