Gallup: Country leans Republican after election

[Joe]

link

NEW YORK Even as a new Gallup poll shows that the public values “values” less than November exit polls suggested, another survey from the same outfit released today showed a historic surge in Republican party affiliation.

In Gallup's latest poll this month, those identifying themselves as Republicans jumped to 37% of the public, with Democrats now clearly trailing with 32%.

Democrats have long held more party members than Republicans. During the Clinton years, the bulge was about 5% to 6%. As recently as late-October of this year the Democratic edge was 37% to 34%.

Gallup noted today: “Post-election shifts in partisanship after presidential elections or midterm congressional elections are not routine, but are also not uncommon.”

Another Gallup poll also released today showed that, contrary to many press reports, “values” ranked well behind the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy as a prime concern of Americans.

If this data holds up, this is the first time there's been more Republicans than Democrats in the U.S. since probably before the New Deal.

[CaptainChewbacca]

In other news, scientists report water is wet.

[Master of Ossus]

In other news, scientists report water is wet.

Actually, this is pretty significant. Republicans have been gaining raw numbers for some time, but this is the biggest difference in favor of Republicans that I can remember (assuming that the poll is repeatable, of course). Republicans have traditionally had to rely on the fact that they were more likely to vote than Democrats, but if they've ALSO picked up a numerical advantage (and continue to hold it through future elections), then it could spell SERIOUS trouble for Dems.

[Edi]

In other news, scientists report water is wet.

Actually, this is pretty significant. Republicans have been gaining raw numbers for some time, but this is the biggest difference in favor of Republicans that I can remember (assuming that the poll is repeatable, of course). Republicans have traditionally had to rely on the fact that they were more likely to vote than Democrats, but if they've ALSO picked up a numerical advantage (and continue to hold it through future elections), then it could spell SERIOUS trouble for Dems.

And if they get a permanent stranglehold on power, it's going to spell major trouble for the US as a whole, because a political monoculture (and even with the Dems you practically have one, so it'd be even more skewed) is not healthy in the long term.

Edi

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And if they get a permanent stranglehold on power, it's going to spell major trouble for the US as a whole, because a political monoculture (and even with the Dems you practically have one, so it'd be even more skewed) is not healthy in the long term.

Edi

In some ways it can be considered that the Republicans are running virtually a classic Maoist insurgency here. Ever since the late-60s, when urban violence exploded out of control late in the Johnson administration, they have been able to make problems the Urban areas look like a result of democratic policies. Though the urban areas themselves do not buy this the rest of the country most assuredly does, and Republican efforts have been steadily choking off the cities until they're surrounded islands of blue in a sea of red. Republicans are therefore able to create the image of the vast majority of the country being on their side, even though demographics disproves it; the image itself is worthy of gold, however.

The next stage, therefore, is to assault the cities. In this sense that means breaking the stranglehold democrats have on the urban poor. Moral values is the way that the Republicans--I think out of a cynical desire to do just this, rather than any real conviction--are going about it. I am quite convinced that the next target of the GOP is to bring the urban poor over and we can already see their broad strategy for doing so. The democrats do not quite comprehend how severely their base is in danger of collapsing, and it is entirely possible that unless swift measures are taken to counteract the GOP efforts in the cities that America will become an effective one-party state after the 2008 elections. In fact, it may already be to late to stop.

[wautd]

If I've learned anything from the Simpsons is that republicans are evil.

[Falkenhayn]

Actually, this is pretty significant. Republicans have been gaining raw numbers for some time, but this is the biggest difference in favor of Republicans that I can remember (assuming that the poll is repeatable, of course). Republicans have traditionally had to rely on the fact that they were more likely to vote than Democrats, but if they've ALSO picked up a numerical advantage (and continue to hold it through future elections), then it could spell SERIOUS trouble for Dems.

What do you mean "could"?

[Darth Wong]

This is not a problem for the Democrats; it's a problem for the American People, who are demonstrating incredible susceptibility to the Right-Wing Bullshit Machine.

There are so many Big Lies in circulation right now it simply isn't funny; I've lost count of the number of times I've had to whip out the FBI's UCR stats to prove to somebody that violent crime is not many times worse today than it was 30 years ago, and I've noticed that even when they concede this point in the face of evidence, they will say it again a week later, as if this conversation never happened!

[Gil Hamilton]

And I'm sure they'll get exactly what they ask for. That that as you will.

[Stormbringer]

The democrats do not quite comprehend how severely their base is in danger of collapsing, and it is entirely possible that unless swift measures are taken to counteract the GOP efforts in the cities that America will become an effective one-party state after the 2008 elections

I doubt that's going to really happen. As the neo-cons move more and more towards a religious, pork barrel laden state a lot of the old line Republicans are going to desert. In a very real way it's already happening with Republicans like Gulianni, McCain, and Arnold all refusing rather publically to toe the neo-con line. The Bush administration's flailing in Iraq is likely to be a party splitting issue. As the blood letting continues there, and the Bush Administration continues to drag it's heels doing what needs to be done, it stands to push a lot of old-guard conservatives out of the fold.

The Republicans are likely to trash the Democrats seriously in the next few years if things go as they do. The simple ineptitude of the Democrats have shown that; they haven't provided a decent alternative to those that do not want a the Bush plan. Kerry was by the end a poor substitute for real canidate and only the fact he was running against Bush got him anywhere. The Democrats need to break away conservative-leaning voters as well as disaffected Republicans at this point.

We need a moderate, competent Democrat to run in 08 if there's any hope for the Democrats. Much as I hate to say it, they need another appealing moderate like Clinton (preferably with a bit more integrity and less blundering about in foriegn policy) or a Dean (who stuck to his roots, fiscal responsibility and social liberalism). Appealing to the far left isn't going to work and will only hasten their collapse. The results of the struggle for DNC chairmanship are going to be vital.

[Darth Wong]

What America ideally needs over the long run is cheaper university tuition (presuming that this will lead to increased university enrollment, which seems like a reasonable conjecture).

It's no secret that while you don't have to be stupid and ignorant to fall for neo-con thinking or religious fanaticism, it certainly helps. Of course, this is not likely in a society where "intellectual" is often viewed as an insult.

[Superman]

I give up. Let the fucking Republicans destroy the environment and spend the USA into oblivion. I'm going to go move under the sea.

[Master of Ossus]

What America ideally needs over the long run is cheaper university tuition (presuming that this will lead to increased university enrollment, which seems like a reasonable conjecture).

Actually, the studies have shown that changing the price of university education has almost no effect on the number of students who attend. Recently, the UC and Cal State systems were forced to raise tuition by nearly 15% and saw less than a 1/10 of one percent drop-off in students as a result. Similar findings have been made at the dramatically more expensive private school systems.

It's no secret that while you don't have to be stupid and ignorant to fall for neo-con thinking or religious fanaticism, it certainly helps. Of course, this is not likely in a society where "intellectual" is often viewed as an insult.

No argument there.

[Col. Crackpot]

one of the most critical trends that i have seen is the Hispanic vote trending republican. GWB carried over 40% (up from about 30% in' 00) of the Hispanic vote, and there are millions more predominantly religious, culturally conservative Hispanics entering the country every year.

[Patrick Degan]

Country leans Republican after election

A mistake the country will learn to regret. The hard way.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What America ideally needs over the long run is cheaper university tuition (presuming that this will lead to increased university enrollment, which seems like a reasonable conjecture).

The GI bill put enormous numbers of average Americans through college, and doesn't seem to have accomplished much. Not to mention this all made the colleges worse.

It's no secret that while you don't have to be stupid and ignorant to fall for neo-con thinking or religious fanaticism, it certainly helps. Of course, this is not likely in a society where "intellectual" is often viewed as an insult.

Religion is still a sacred cow on colleges, most people are too stupid to pass anything but humanities, and anyone who's heard of Alan Sokal knows about the condition of the humanities.

And besides, the vast majority of people simply do not need the education college provides. There's untold numbers of people already sucking up government dollars to get useless wall-hangers that don't have dick to do with their job later, and don't make them more critical thinkers.

Its the High School education system which needs the extreme overhauling.

[CaptainChewbacca]

one of the most critical trends that i have seen is the Hispanic vote trending republican. GWB carried over 40% (up from about 30% in' 00) of the Hispanic vote, and there are millions more predominantly religious, culturally conservative Hispanics entering the country every year.

Yeah, but most of them can't vote

[kheegster]

one of the most critical trends that i have seen is the Hispanic vote trending republican. GWB carried over 40% (up from about 30% in' 00) of the Hispanic vote, and there are millions more predominantly religious, culturally conservative Hispanics entering the country every year.

Yeah, but most of them can't vote

Yes, but triple the number of initial immigrants will be able to in 20 years.

[Darth Wong]

one of the most critical trends that i have seen is the Hispanic vote trending republican. GWB carried over 40% (up from about 30% in' 00) of the Hispanic vote, and there are millions more predominantly religious, culturally conservative Hispanics entering the country every year.

True, South America is ridiculously conservative; almost medieval in social outlook. And people coming from that region tend to carry that kind of mentality with them. Maybe that's why Canada has less of a problem; those warm-weather pansies can't handle our winters, so they don't come here

[Patrick Degan]

What America ideally needs over the long run is cheaper university tuition (presuming that this will lead to increased university enrollment, which seems like a reasonable conjecture).

The GI bill put enormous numbers of average Americans through college, and doesn't seem to have accomplished much. Not to mention this all made the colleges worse.

False Cause Fallacy —as well as a horribly inaccurate reading of extant fact. The college graduates who came out the GI Bill programme in the late 40s, 50s, and 60s were the very people who pushed forward the industrial and technological advancements which were the basis for the post-WWII boom. The problems with American education are a relatively recent phenomenon and are not traceable to the GI Bill or its effects.

It's no secret that while you don't have to be stupid and ignorant to fall for neo-con thinking or religious fanaticism, it certainly helps. Of course, this is not likely in a society where "intellectual" is often viewed as an insult.

Religion is still a sacred cow on colleges, most people are too stupid to pass anything but humanities, and anyone who's heard of Alan Sokal knows about the condition of the humanities.

Humanities curricula are not heavily religious in makeup, at least none that I've ever seen in a semester syllabus.

And besides, the vast majority of people simply do not need the education college provides. There's untold numbers of people already sucking up government dollars to get useless wall-hangers that don't have dick to do with their job later, and don't make them more critical thinkers.

Nevermind the studies which show a far greater earning potential for college graduates as opposed to those sporting nothing but a high-school diploma or GED —or not even that. As for the other part of the issue, this is a problem with curriculum structuring.

Its the High School education system which needs the extreme overhauling.

Right now, it needs more than anything to be insulated from efforts to dumb it down any further than it already has been —particularly in science— and a better plan than rote-drilling to arbitrary tests.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I doubt that's going to really happen. As the neo-cons move more and more towards a religious, pork barrel laden state a lot of the old line Republicans are going to desert. In a very real way it's already happening with Republicans like Gulianni, McCain, and Arnold all refusing rather publically to toe the neo-con line. The Bush administration's flailing in Iraq is likely to be a party splitting issue. As the blood letting continues there, and the Bush Administration continues to drag it's heels doing what needs to be done, it stands to push a lot of old-guard conservatives out of the fold.

The Republicans are likely to trash the Democrats seriously in the next few years if things go as they do. The simple ineptitude of the Democrats have shown that; they haven't provided a decent alternative to those that do not want a the Bush plan. Kerry was by the end a poor substitute for real canidate and only the fact he was running against Bush got him anywhere. The Democrats need to break away conservative-leaning voters as well as disaffected Republicans at this point.

We need a moderate, competent Democrat to run in 08 if there's any hope for the Democrats. Much as I hate to say it, they need another appealing moderate like Clinton (preferably with a bit more integrity and less blundering about in foriegn policy) or a Dean (who stuck to his roots, fiscal responsibility and social liberalism). Appealing to the far left isn't going to work and will only hasten their collapse. The results of the struggle for DNC chairmanship are going to be vital.

If your analysis is correct, it is not the democrats which will continue to maintain a viable opposition, but rather after the Republicans have successfully discredited them, the Republican party will split in two. I note that this has happened before; for some time this country was effectively a single party state but then the Democratic-Republicans split in two and produced our modern two party system. Perhaps a realignment like that is going to happen again. The Democrats will collapse and the Republican Party will split in two after their victory over their traditional opponents allows the cracks in the party to turn into fissures.

[Pablo Sanchez]

The Democrats will collapse and the Republican Party will split in two after their victory over their traditional opponents allows the cracks in the party to turn into fissures.

I agree, and it's really only a matter of time. A lot of the policies that are becoming core to the GOP leadership (adventurist foreign policy, fiscal anti-conservatism, open government support for religious groups) are gross perversions of the platform that the Republican party had previously stood for.

[Gil Hamilton]

Actually, the studies have shown that changing the price of university education has almost no effect on the number of students who attend. Recently, the UC and Cal State systems were forced to raise tuition by nearly 15% and saw less than a 1/10 of one percent drop-off in students as a result. Similar findings have been made at the dramatically more expensive private school systems.

The reason is because university education has an extremely low price elasticity of demand, due to the fact that if you want a decent career nowadays, you have to have a degree. That means universities can force students to take it in the ass and students will still come, because there isn't much of an alternative. After all, people would rather be up to their eyeballs in loans for the next 20 years and attend uni than not attend uni at all.

However, universities have been getting more expensive compared to income and it's only becoming more expensive. This was an example that our teacher gave us in macroeconomics when discussing real value of money; he compared a ratio of tuition to average household income at Harvard from the year he was born (in the fifties) to today and in real terms, tuition to universities have skyrocketed. Just like textbook sellers, universities and colleges know they have students over a barrel so they can continually raise tuition and not worry about students ceasing attendance. This is a major problem, since going to university is increasingly approaching the point where it's unaffordable to the average student even with major student loans.

[Joe]

Many private schools are ludicrously expensive. I mean $40,000 a year, and then probably at least a year or two of grad school...I can't imagine taking on that kind of debt at my age. Paying that kind of money out of pocket would have flat bankrupted my parents.

[RedImperator]

If your analysis is correct, it is not the democrats which will continue to maintain a viable opposition, but rather after the Republicans have successfully discredited them, the Republican party will split in two. I note that this has happened before; for some time this country was effectively a single party state but then the Democratic-Republicans split in two and produced our modern two party system. Perhaps a realignment like that is going to happen again. The Democrats will collapse and the Republican Party will split in two after their victory over their traditional opponents allows the cracks in the party to turn into fissures.

I think the Republican party has a serious, fundamental weakness in that its formula for success requires its Christian base to largely vote against its own economic interests. As I said in another thread recently, there's absolutely no reason for the Christian wing to support the pro-business or neocon wings of the party save that the Christians need them to win elections. Take away the Democrats, and now suddenly you have millions of lower middle class, working class, and poor Christian voters who are going to wonder why their party is passing laws that favor the people who are fleecing them. I can actually see the party breaking along the old Progressive lines--the Christian wing becomes a party with conservative social values but liberal economic ones. You can, after all, make a much stronger Christian argument against tax breaks for the rich than you can against gay marriage.

All this assumes that W doesn't blunder so badly in the next four years that he throws away everything the Republicans have gained, which is not outside the realm of possibility.