May 16, 200917 yr It worked on the Local level but not the National level. It translated into gains in Congress but did not play well to a National level. If not for the Lewinsky affair (just like Nixon and Watergate), I'm not sure Bush would have won in 2000. You are right about the Middle tuning out. I think they are tuning out from disgust. So when they see the rantings of anger, they tend to vote the other way. Which is exactly why it will turn the other way at some point in the near future. It used to take longer but people are adhd these days.
May 16, 200917 yr This may be the most accurate point you make. Plenty of people lean toward the Republican side but have a hard time getting energized about candidates who rail against "Democrat spending" and do it themselves. :thumb::thumb: Candidates being the key word for the GOP. I hope one comes out of the woodwork soon. I think if people from both sides would listen, Newt could be great. Just the fact that he's Newt though, tells me the left will refuse to listen.:cry:
May 17, 200917 yr :thumb::thumb: Candidates being the key word for the GOP. I hope one comes out of the woodwork soon. I think if people from both sides would listen, Newt could be great. Just the fact that he's Newt though, tells me the left will refuse to listen.:cry: While Newt may articulate conservative principles as well as anyone, I think he has too much baggage. However, the public does seem to have a very short collective memory.
May 17, 200917 yr What I meant to take issue with was Habib's sociological posit that "a President frames a generation." Now, I know that that is what is being studied in coursework and also being studied by some of the thinktanks, because I studied the same thing in 1990 about the Vietnam Era Presidents. However, the sociological coursework has not (like many things in school) bore witness in practice. I am very vested in numerous political circles both in and out of the state, and the crowds I run with (generally Republican supporters) claim to have been hard-core, Democrat-supporting, bra-burning, tie-die wearing hippies when they were younger, who were violently angry at conservative, stuffy, coat-and-tie wearing Republicans who went to church. What changed these people, and we talked about it, was a combination of 1) life, as in having kids, paying a mortgage, dealing with schools, and thinking about church, etc. and 2) general disgustedness with being dependent upon the party, and with politics in general. Therefore, I give no weight to the "President frames the generation" refrain. Life frames each generation, not politics or Presidents. Who you were inspired by (or disgusted by) in your youth loses its luster when you have a child and are paying a mortgage, its as simple as that. It may TAKE longer, depending upon the President or the political program, but in the end, one of things that sustains Republicans, no matter how much they foul it up, is that the coat-and-tie types generally look a little better by perception on family and money issues. Rightly or wrongly. I don't disagree that life influences an individual's voting behavior. Obviously, I don’t share Hearsay’s disdain for statistical analysis. I believe there to be a number of factors that influence a person’s politics, from their parents’ politics, to their religious background, to their socio-economic status, etc. Even the President they begin to entertain politics under may influence their voting behavior. Certainly these beliefs are susceptible to change over time, but I believe there to be a path dependency to them that once they are chosen they are changed only through coercive evidence. Looking at the Gallup data I linked, those who turned of age during Carter support the Republican party, while those who came of age during Reagan also support the Republican party and those who came of age during Nixon and GW Bush support Democrats. I believe this supports the idea that a bad President, or at least one viewed negatively, influences quite a few voters through time. In this case, Republicans will be playing from behind because of GW Bush for many elections. Edited May 17, 200917 yr by Habib
May 17, 200917 yr I don't disagree that life influences an individual's voting behavior. Obviously, I don’t share Hearsay’s disdain for statistical analysis. I believe there to be a number of factors that influence a person’s politics, from their parents’ politics, to their religious background, to their socio-economic status, etc. Even the President they begin to entertain politics under may influence their voting behavior. Certainly these beliefs are susceptible to change over time, but I believe there to be a path dependency to them that once they are chosen they are changed only through coercive evidence. Looking at the Gallup data I linked, those who turned of age during Carter support the Republican party, while those who came of age during Reagan also support the Republican party and those who came of age during Nixon and GW Bush support Democrats. I believe this supports the idea that a bad President, or at least one viewed negatively, influences quite a few voters through time. In this case, Republicans will be playing from behind because of GW Bush for many elections. What about me? I came into politics (in the summer of 2008) with a hypocrite in Bush and our current President with whom I literally couldn't agree with on one issue mentioned during the campaign. I've been influenced more by an aging Congressman/physician from Texas. :lol:
May 17, 200917 yr I don't disagree that life influences an individual's voting behavior. Obviously, I don’t share Hearsay’s disdain for statistical analysis. I believe there to be a number of factors that influence a person’s politics, from their parents’ politics, to their religious background, to their socio-economic status, etc. Even the President they begin to entertain politics under may influence their voting behavior. Certainly these beliefs are susceptible to change over time, but I believe there to be a path dependency to them that once they are chosen they are changed only through coercive evidence. Looking at the Gallup data I linked, those who turned of age during Carter support the Republican party, while those who came of age during Reagan also support the Republican party and those who came of age during Nixon and GW Bush support Democrats. I believe this supports the idea that a bad President, or at least one viewed negatively, influences quite a few voters through time. In this case, Republicans will be playing from behind because of GW Bush for many elections. I don't think so. The Nixon debacle was quickly swept aside for the fact of Carter. Obama will be this generations Carter, and the next Rep pres. will be this generations Reagan. In the last 50 years what has been the longest running tenure in office for the Dems, compared to the Reps.?
May 17, 200917 yr FYI- at a quick glance, I found that Democrats in DC are getting older. Of the 9 oldest U.S. Senators, 7 are Democrats. Of the 12 oldest U.S. Representatives, 8 are Democrats.
May 17, 200917 yr [/b] I don't think so. The Nixon debacle was quickly swept aside for the fact of Carter. Obama will be this generations Carter, and the next Rep pres. will be this generations Reagan. In the last 50 years what has been the longest running tenure in office for the Dems, compared to the Reps.? Not sure I get the time frame or inference. 1960 to today. 1960 Dem 1964 Dem 1968 Rep 1972 Rep 1976 Dem 1980 Rep 1984 Rep 1988 Rep 1992 Dem 1996 Dem 2000 Rep 2004 Rep 2008 Dem Looks pretty even on both sides, about down the middle.
May 17, 200917 yr Not sure I get the time frame or inference. 1960 to today. 1960 Dem 1964 Dem 1968 Rep 1972 Rep 1976 Dem 1980 Rep 1984 Rep 1988 Rep 1992 Dem 1996 Dem 2000 Rep 2004 Rep 2008 Dem Looks pretty even on both sides, about down the middle. I'm not sure if that is more embarrassing for the two parties or for the American voting public. Clearly, neither party can effectively run the country, or else parties would sustain more than 2 terms of the Presidency (besides the only one who I think did a good job since the 1960's and maybe longer, Reagan). Then again, it is quite embarrassing for us, the voters, that we keep returning for these inept parties. (P.S. this is NOT formerkywrestler hacking into my account and typing his own words)
May 18, 200917 yr New Gallup poll says the Rs have some work to do. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx
May 19, 200917 yr New Gallup poll says the Rs have some work to do. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx And that surprises anyone? Seriously? Moderate American voters are extremely fickle. They'll support a party for a while and then switch to the other party. Has been the case for quite some time. Heck, just check the post in another thread that tracked the party affiliation of the Presidents going back decades. I think a lot of it has to do with the extreme elements of both parties campaigning as moderates to get elected into office and back into control. After a period of time, their more extreme policies are exposed, so the big moderate middle then votes for the other side, which as been campaigning as moderate or as the "answer" to the extreme policies being enacted by those in office. So the voters switch to the other party and the cycle begins all over again. For all the "sky is falling" rhetoric about the Republicans being in danger of totally falling apart, it's not going to happen. Perhaps in 2012, perhaps sooner or later, the middle of the road Americans will switch away from the Democrats as President Obama and the Democratic Congress gradually implement liberal leaning policies that irritate moderate Americans. And then the power will swing back to the Republicans. It wasn't too long ago that folks were claiming that the Democrats were finished. The Democrats didn't come back into power because they had some type of epiphany and the party moved to a more moderate platform (exhibits in support: Pelosi and Reid). The fickle American middle just, for about the billionth time, switched from the Bush lead Republicans back to the Democrats. Maybe some of these "the Republicans are toast" threads can be archived so that in several years, I can pull them back and say "I told you so".
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.