How does the GOP maintain the level of support they do?

[TaQud]

Also the fact a lot of people agree with their political views?

they are just messed up. (and they get their statistics wrong)

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Also the fact a lot of people agree with their political views?

they are just messed up. (and they get their statistics wrong)

George W Bush
George H W Bush
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Dwight D Eisenhower

Those are the past Republican presidents since 1950. Almost all of which were tremendously popular. Nixon got over 60% of the vote!

[Mavorpen]

they are just messed up. (and they get their statistics wrong)

George W Bush
George H W Bush
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Dwight D Eisenhower

Those are the past Republican presidents since 1950. Almost all of which were tremendously popular. Nixon got over 60% of the vote!

This has nothing to do with his post. He said their views are wrong, why are you listing past presidents? He never said they weren't popular.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

George W Bush
George H W Bush
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Dwight D Eisenhower

Those are the past Republican presidents since 1950. Almost all of which were tremendously popular. Nixon got over 60% of the vote!

This has nothing to do with his post. He said their views are wrong, why are you listing past presidents? He never said they weren't popular.

I thought he meant they're economic views werent popular.

[TaQud]

This has nothing to do with his post. He said their views are wrong, why are you listing past presidents? He never said they weren't popular.

I thought he meant they're economic views werent popular.

This is what I was getting at...

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

I thought he meant they're economic views werent popular.

This is what I was getting at...

Didnt FOX make some stupid claim that John Kerry was French in 2004 to help Bush?

[Khadgar]

This is what I was getting at...

Didnt FOX make some stupid claim that John Kerry was French in 2004 to help Bush?

Mark Foley - A Republican member of the House of Representatives from Florida, Foley was alleged to have sent sexually inappropriate messages via email and text messages to teenage male pages. Ironically, he also introduced the "Child Modeling Exploitation prevention Act of 2002". In several interviews, Fox News tagged him as a (D), or Democrat, on their subtitles.[50]
John McCain - Seen by many as a more moderate Republican during and following the 2004 Republican primaries, Fox News also labeled him a (D).
Whitehouse / Chafee - During the pivotal 2006 Senate election in Rhode Island, eventual victor Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse was polling 10+ percentage points over the incumbent Lincoln Chafee. Fox News reported that Whitehouse (R) was leading Chafee (D) by 11 points (see above link for screen capture).
Ted Stevens - Prior to the 2008 Senate elections, this Senator from Alaska was facing charges of failing to disclose benefits received. Fox News labeled him a (D).
Mark Sanford - The Republican Governor of South Carolina in 2009 was dramatically found to be having an affair with an Argentinian woman after a week in which his whereabouts were unknown. During his press conference in which he admitted his affair, Fox News identified him as a (D).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... id=5914819

[Socialist EU]

George W Bush
George H W Bush
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Dwight D Eisenhower

Those are the past Republican presidents since 1950. Almost all of which were tremendously popular. Nixon got over 60% of the vote!

This has nothing to do with his post. He said their views are wrong, why are you listing past presidents? He never said they weren't popular.

They are not so popular when you factor in voter turnouts!!!

[Gauthier]

they are just messed up. (and they get their statistics wrong)

George W Bush
George H W Bush
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Dwight D Eisenhower

Those are the past Republican presidents since 1950. Almost all of which were tremendously popular. Nixon got over 60% of the vote!

All of whom would have been drummed out of today's GOP as SOCIALISTS.

[TaQud]

Mark Foley - A Republican member of the House of Representatives from Florida, Foley was alleged to have sent sexually inappropriate messages via email and text messages to teenage male pages. Ironically, he also introduced the "Child Modeling Exploitation prevention Act of 2002". In several interviews, Fox News tagged him as a (D), or Democrat, on their subtitles.[50]
John McCain - Seen by many as a more moderate Republican during and following the 2004 Republican primaries, Fox News also labeled him a (D).
Whitehouse / Chafee - During the pivotal 2006 Senate election in Rhode Island, eventual victor Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse was polling 10+ percentage points over the incumbent Lincoln Chafee. Fox News reported that Whitehouse (R) was leading Chafee (D) by 11 points (see above link for screen capture).
Ted Stevens - Prior to the 2008 Senate elections, this Senator from Alaska was facing charges of failing to disclose benefits received. Fox News labeled him a (D).
Mark Sanford - The Republican Governor of South Carolina in 2009 was dramatically found to be having an affair with an Argentinian woman after a week in which his whereabouts were unknown. During his press conference in which he admitted his affair, Fox News identified him as a (D).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... id=5914819[/quote]
fox news is such...

[Hittanryan]

they are just messed up. (and they get their statistics wrong)

George W Bush
George H W Bush
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Dwight D Eisenhower

Those are the past Republican presidents since 1950. Almost all of which were tremendously popular. Nixon got over 60% of the vote!

You forgot Ford. Also, no, Dubya, Reagan, and Nixon certainly were not universally popular, and H.W. Bush didn't even get re-elected. Eisenhower was all right except for that whole Red Scare bullshit.

[TaQud]

George W Bush
George H W Bush
Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Dwight D Eisenhower

Those are the past Republican presidents since 1950. Almost all of which were tremendously popular. Nixon got over 60% of the vote!

Eisenhower was all right except for that whole Red Scare bullshit.

he was a general, a great general

[Indira]

1) You have a two party system
2) Americans seem to be inherently right wing
3) Money
4) A very sizable and powerful extremist christian vote

Basically this.

[Liriena]

How does the GOP maintain the level of support they do?

PEOPLE
ARE
STUPID

Individuals might be smart, and from time to time smart people, when together, won't suddenly become a stupid mass...But when stupid individuals gather, and there's a person who knows stupid people and knows how to manipulate them, then you have gullible, uninformed and emotional supporters that you will be able to manipulate to do anything for you.

It's because of stuff like this (the GOP, Kirchnerism, Peronism, etc.) that sometimes I've felt fascist urges.

[TaQud]

How does the GOP maintain the level of support they do?

PEOPLE
ARE
STUPID

Individuals might be smart, and from time to time smart people, when together, won't suddenly become a stupid mass...But when stupid individuals gather, and there's a person who knows stupid people and knows how to manipulate them, then you have gullible, uninformed and emotional supporters that you will be able to manipulate to do anything for you.

It's because of stuff like this (the GOP, Kirchnerism, Peronism, etc.) that sometimes I've felt fascist urges.

is that flaming?

[Liriena]

PEOPLE
ARE
STUPID

Individuals might be smart, and from time to time smart people, when together, won't suddenly become a stupid mass...But when stupid individuals gather, and there's a person who knows stupid people and knows how to manipulate them, then you have gullible, uninformed and emotional supporters that you will be able to manipulate to do anything for you.

It's because of stuff like this (the GOP, Kirchnerism, Peronism, etc.) that sometimes I've felt fascist urges.

is that flaming?

I'm not trying to flame at all, to be honest. But if you feel that way...

[Inter de Milano]

Maybe because it actually once was a decent party (in the eyes of the casual on-looker)? Sure, right now it has been hijacked by Sarah Palin and the Tea-Party, Ron Paul and his crazy libertarianism, and Mitt's hypocrisy on every level, but at least it was a good party. Of course, the same could be said for the Democrats, but perhaps they have been more subtle of their leftward turn. Lastly, anti-incumbent sentiment. The economy is nowhere where it should be and people blame the President, thus putting them in the GOP fold. Same thing happened to McCain in 08 (though he had to bear the consequences of Bush's actions).

[Muckistania]

Im trying to grasp my head around how the GOP manages to maintain the level of support they do in America? The GOP has been undermining the US citizens in every way over the past 4 years, and yet somehow they still garner a large amount of public favor. Below Im going to list off how the GOP "supports" Americans.

Spring 2010 Every GOP house member votes against health care reform law that extends coverage to 32 million Americans and forces employers to OFFER health care to employees. Employer offered health care is up to 30% cheaper than individually purchased health care and saves billions on all sides of the service

June, 2010 GOP filibusters bill that would extend unemployment benefits for nearly 1.2 million people. http://voices.yahoo.com/republicans-stop-2010-unemployment-benefits-extension-6243712.html

Late 2010 All GOP representatives sign promise to hold up voting on ALL legislation until Bush tax cut extension includes cuts for those making over $250,000 per year. Such a cut costs the country billions every year. Not passing cuts before they lapsed would cost the average american thousands.

Dec, 2010 GOP Holds up bill that would give 9/11 rescue workers and survivors access to funding to assist in medical care.http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027005.php

Dec, 2011 GOP holds up legislation until the last possible moment that extends a payroll tax cut http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-republicans-cave-payroll-tax-cuts-extension-obama/story?id=15212988#.T-_r0rXeCSo

The GOP doesnt care about you. They dont care about your taxes. They came days away from doubling your taxes TWICE! They dont care about 9/11 rescue workers, they used their healthcare as a hostage. They dont care that you cant find a job, all they care about is winning, or rather, forcing the democrats to lose. No matter what the cost to citizens. Id really like to hear from some conservatives, particularly GOP supporters as to why they still favor the Republican party?

Below are Barack Obamas words pertaining to what I pointed out above. "I'm not willing to let working families across this country become collateral damage for political warfare here in Washington. And I'm not willing to let our economy slip backwards just as we're pulling ourselves out of this devastating recession..."


Im glad to see the discussion going on here. This question has spurred 18 pages of responses in 15 hours

Policies by the GOP as with all political parties are designed to get them into power. You do not get into power in a big country like the USA by appealing to everyone, that is a sure route to disaster. That sort of tactic is for smaller nations like in Europe. Within European nations, particularly the small ones the people see themselves as part of one whole, so universal appeals to the people work to a point. The USA is a geographically huge nation with an enormous population spread over it. This universalism, with the exception of when dealing with foreign nations, does appeal to them.

The numbers you have quoted "health care reform law that extends coverage to 32 million Americans" sounds like a lot but it is only slightly over ten percent of Americas population "extend unemployment benefits for nearly 1.2 million people" this is only a third of a percent of Americas population. There is probably overlap between these two groups which reduces the significance of this figure again.

Many Americans not in this group are mostly not concerned with those in this group. Some of them might wish to keep the people occupying this group where they are. Many people everywhere are concerned with their relative standards of living to those around them. A person who might be lower class will see their relative standards of living fall if someone below them; a member of the underclass is given some money or service from the government. So this lower class person will have reason to reject the government’s provision of said money or service for others.

This lower class person will also see a relative decline in their standard of living if a person in the middle or upper class is also provided with government service or money but as lower class people tend not to rub shoulders with members of these classes they will not notice their decline.

[Ashmoria]

Your "anticontracepton furor" was an example of antistatism: objection to government-funded birth control. The fact that you can't see that is sadly ironic and makes me doubt your perspective.

The US is headed down Greece's road, with entitlements being the number one source of spending. The Federal Government is the country's largest employer, by far, and it just took over the medical industry. And you counter with "But, abortion."

There is only one party even talking about shrinking the size of government, and it isn't the Democrats. If it were, I'd support them. But it's not. My support goes to whomever is.

Except here's the problem, bucko: government funding of birth control helps ensure considerable savings in healthcare. Most notably, it reduces the amount of public funds (local, state and federal) have to be spent on prenatal care, birth and post-natal care for people. It is a very small expenditure in the grand scheme of things, and it tends to yield considerable long term savings.

So, by your own logic of shrinking government measured by the very narrow metric of public expenditure, you would have to support total public funding of contraception.

No, the US is not heading down Greece's road. Greece is in the position it is in because the ruling right-wing party lied about the health of the economy, espescially about the level of corruption, tax evasion, balance of payments, and other measures of fiscal health, to secure European Union membership. And as a European Union member, Greece lacks unilateral control of its money supply, and cannot regulate finance and capital within it's borders effectively.

The European Union's responses to the crisis, in terms of monetary policy espescially, served to shift the geographic locus of the crisis to states like Greece, preserving the health of the economies of the more affluent, powerful states at the expense of states like Greece. So when the full brunt of the crisis hit the already frail Greek system, the lies could no longer be sustained, and Greece found itself facing an economic collapse denied the tools to fight it. Which is why they are in the midst of a sovereign debt crisis.

None of these factors in anyway apply to the US, which has been quite successfully managing the worst of the recession through deficit spending and quantitative easing. "Shrinking" the size of the government through austerity measures at this point would only provoke a double-dip recession, shrinking tax revenues and ultimately leaving the economy contracted and us still having to run deficits.

There is literally no amount of federal spending that could be cut right now that would balance the budget in the near term. Any attempt to do so would provoke long-term deprecation of vital infrastructure and of private asset value, severely harming the economy in the long-term.

When the economic recovery begins in earnest, and tax receipts start increasing steadily, austerity can be implemented gradually. But not a moment before.

Also, the government hasn't taken over the medical industry, even though that's been consistently proven to be a net boon for an economy in terms of controlling costs and improving access to care.

and really, once the feds have decided to cover preventative care it is in no way "anti-statist" to try to keep out contraception due to bogus claims of religious freedom.

[Choronzon]

Lying and keeping people ignorant so they vote against their interests, mostly. Stealing the occasional election helps too. Throw in that 20% or so of their supporters who are just absolutely batshit crazy and there you go.

[Death Metal]

......But I agree, though, that as many people should vote for Ron Paul as possible.

The only time anyone should ever vote for Ron Paul is if the vote is for Biggest Douche In The Universe.

[Parti Ouvrier]

......But I agree, though, that as many people should vote for Ron Paul as possible.

The only time anyone should ever vote for Ron Paul is if the vote is for Biggest Douche In The Universe.

I actually TG'd Simon Cowell of the rr about that, and he said that as an Obama supporter, persuading people to vote for him will hurt the chances of Romney getting elected. The words 'political novice' come to mind, As if that would make a difference.

[Death Metal]

The only time anyone should ever vote for Ron Paul is if the vote is for Biggest Douche In The Universe.

I actually TG'd Simon Cowell of the rr about that, and he said that as an Obama supporter, persuading people to vote for him will hurt the chances of Romney getting elected. The words 'political novice' come to mind, As if that would make a difference.

To be fair, third party votes tend to favor the incumbent. Look at the 2004 election.

But yeah, Ron Paul will not likely be on any ballot, he should be going for Gary Johnson. After all Johnson is a slightly saner, non-assassination-approving, not-a-proven-racist version of Paul.

Of course arguing that someone is saner than Ron Paul is like saying someone is more violent than Ghandi.

[Saluterre]

Exit Polls for Elections of the U.S. House of Representatives (Level of Education)

Not a high school graduate

1984: 60% Democrat
1986: 57% Democrat
1988: 63% Democrat
1990: 60% Democrat
1992: 67% Democrat
1994: 58% Democrat
1996: 65% Democrat
1998: 58% Democrat
2000: 58% Democrat
2002: 63% Democrat
2004: Tie between parties
2006: 64% Democrat
2008: 69% Democrat
2010: 61% Democrat

TOTAL: 13 Democrats, 1 tie

College graduate

1984: Tie between parties
1986: 54% Republican
1988: 53% Republican
1990: Tie between parties
1992: 54% Republican
1994: 55% Republican
1996: 57% Republican
1998: 55% Republican
2000: 54% Republican
2002: 58% Republican
2004: 53% Republican
2006: Tie between parties
2008: 51% Democrat
2010: 58% Republican

TOTAL: 10 Republicans, 1 Democrat, 3 ties

Source: The New York Times

why didnt you use postgraduate vote? there are far more of them than the non highschool graduates and they vote consistently democratic. the only time they voted more often republican was 1992

Quite. Also, I was referring to three specific groups (religious/uneducated/rural), not trying to stereotype all Republicans. And I was specifically referring to their social policies, which are outdated, and in some cases barbaric.

[Saluterre]

Maybe because it actually once was a decent party (in the eyes of the casual on-looker)? Sure, right now it has been hijacked by Sarah Palin and the Tea-Party, Ron Paul and his crazy libertarianism, and Mitt's hypocrisy on every level, but at least it was a good party.

Very true, but the "good" Republican Party died in the 80s. Ike's party was a dignified organization; almost pragmatic.

Of course, the same could be said for the Democrats, but perhaps they have been more subtle of their leftward turn.

Here's where I disagree with you. There has been no "left-wing turn." Before World War I, both parties had left-wingers and right-wingers. The Democrats had been, since the 1850s, the "right-wing" party and the Republicans had been the more "left", but there hadn't been a defined left/right since the right-wing, Democratic Cleveland administration. The left-wingers were the "Populists" in this period, and later the "Progressives." The conservative strain of the Republicans was lead by McKinley, and later Taft. The conservative Democrats were mostly southerners. During FDR's term, it was the New Deal coalition to the left, and the Anti-New Dealists and America First-ers to the right. After WWII, the Republicans were center to center-right, and the Democrats were center-left. This was the party of Eisenhower and Nixon. This lasted until the rise of neoliberalism, when the Republicans were pushed to the right and the Democrats lost ground. The Democrats were centrist in the Clinton years, and after further pushes to the right by Republicans, are now center to center right, in the same position the Republicans were in the fifties. Economically, at least.

Lastly, anti-incumbent sentiment. The economy is nowhere where it should be and people blame the President, thus putting them in the GOP fold. Same thing happened to McCain in 08 (though he had to bear the consequences of Bush's actions).

This has a lot of truth to it, but the difference is that Bush's policies were a cause of the severity of the collapse. Obama just hasn't done as much to fix the economy as people want him to (although he is doing all he can). It was McCain's fault as well, because he ruined his moderate and respectable reputation be moving to the right with the rest of the party. He changed his rational ideas on immigration, he bowed to the party line, as well as changing his rhetoric.