Gallup: Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group-so you know it is higher

[NYcarbineer]

Gallup: Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group- so you know it is higher

GALLUP:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label. Over the same period, there was only a slight increase in professed conservatism among Republicans (from 70% to 71%) and no change among Democrats (at 21%).

does this mean that the rest of the cons came out of the closet after Bush was out and a dem was in?

The chart shows 40% conservatives in 2004. How'd that pan out for the Republicans?

 

[Neotrotsky]

No, instead of that, why don't you tell me what exactly has Obama done that is socialist?

Everyone loves to throw the term "socialist" around, but I've yet to see someone actually tell me HOW Obama is a socialist.

Lets compare

Would you say he is more, less or equal in his "appreciation" of gov't involvement in the individual's life than say
Thomas Jefferson?

Government involvement in individual's lives is NOT a tenet of socialism.

Perhaps, if you one wants to limit themselves to some simplistic definition from "Websters"

so socialism has no effect on an individual's life?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Lets compare

Would you say he is more, less or equal in his "appreciation" of gov't involvement in the individual's life than say
Thomas Jefferson?

Government involvement in individual's lives is NOT a tenet of socialism.

Perhaps, if you one wants to limit themselves to some simplistic definition from "Websters"

so socialism has no effect on an individual's life?

What better definition do you have? Give me what your definition of Socialism is, and how Obama fits into it.

Or just admit this is another McCarthy red scare - and you're just using the word "Socialism" as a frightening word.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Government involvement in individual's lives is NOT a tenet of socialism.

Perhaps, if you one wants to limit themselves to some simplistic definition from "Websters"

so socialism has no effect on an individual's life?

What better definition do you have? Give me what your definition of Socialism is, and how Obama fits into it.

Or just admit this is another McCarthy red scare - and you're just using the word "Socialism" as a frightening word.

Obama fits into it by wanting to take us more in that direction (left).

As a matter of degree, do you not agree that his desired policies are more socialist than say most Americans want (as the polls seem to be showing)

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Perhaps, if you one wants to limit themselves to some simplistic definition from "Websters"

so socialism has no effect on an individual's life?

What better definition do you have? Give me what your definition of Socialism is, and how Obama fits into it.

Or just admit this is another McCarthy red scare - and you're just using the word "Socialism" as a frightening word.

Obama fits into it by wanting to take us more in that direction.

What direction? Explain what Obama has done to take us in the "direction" of socialism?

As a matter of degree, do you not agree that his desired policies are more socialist than say most Americans want (as the polls seem to be showing)

I do NOT agree, because it's pretty clear that most Americans don't know what socialism is. I'm definitely not a socialist - I'm a Keynesian Capitalist - but I haven't seen Obama advocate for worker-ownership, or a managed economy, and the rhetorical claims of "Socialism!" are just a further example of the dumbing down of political discourse.

 

[Neotrotsky]

What better definition do you have? Give me what your definition of Socialism is, and how Obama fits into it.

Or just admit this is another McCarthy red scare - and you're just using the word "Socialism" as a frightening word.

Obama fits into it by wanting to take us more in that direction.

What direction? Explain what Obama has done to take us in the "direction" of socialism?

As a matter of degree, do you not agree that his desired policies are more socialist than say most Americans want (as the polls seem to be showing)

I do NOT agree, because it's pretty clear that most Americans don't know what socialism is. I'm definitely not a socialist - I'm a Keynesian Capitalist - but I haven't seen Obama advocate for worker-ownership, or a managed economy, and the rhetorical claims of "Socialism!" are just a further example of the dumbing down of political discourse.

The gov't does not have to "own" the means of production
Socialism can exist with enough gov't fiat
Indeed, enough regulation and gov't involvement, the gov't can, de facto "own" the means of production

Again, Papa Obama is taking us more in that direction

 

[code1211]

What better definition do you have? Give me what your definition of Socialism is, and how Obama fits into it.

Or just admit this is another McCarthy red scare - and you're just using the word "Socialism" as a frightening word.

Obama fits into it by wanting to take us more in that direction.

What direction? Explain what Obama has done to take us in the "direction" of socialism?

As a matter of degree, do you not agree that his desired policies are more socialist than say most Americans want (as the polls seem to be showing)

I do NOT agree, because it's pretty clear that most Americans don't know what socialism is. I'm definitely not a socialist - I'm a Keynesian Capitalist - but I haven't seen Obama advocate for worker-ownership, or a managed economy, and the rhetorical claims of "Socialism!" are just a further example of the dumbing down of political discourse.

Not to split hairs here, but he did fire the head of GM, is regulating the incomes of business executives, is regulating the decisions of the institutions in hock to the bail outs, has engineereed a bailout of the UAW, is trying mightily to nationalize the insurance industry and is engaged in promoting the passage of Cap and Trade.

With what he has done and what he wants to do there absolutely nothing done for profit in the USA that the government would not have direct oversight of or intersection with.

In short, everything he has done since he moved from the podium that said ofice of the president elect to the podium that says office of the president has been aimed creating a managed economy.

What have you noticed him doing that does NOT contribute to that goal?

 

[Neotrotsky]

The chart shows 40% conservatives in 2004. How'd that pan out for the Republicans?

Pretty good- they still controlled congress

 

[drsmith1072]

Obama fits into it by wanting to take us more in that direction.

What direction? Explain what Obama has done to take us in the "direction" of socialism?

As a matter of degree, do you not agree that his desired policies are more socialist than say most Americans want (as the polls seem to be showing)

I do NOT agree, because it's pretty clear that most Americans don't know what socialism is. I'm definitely not a socialist - I'm a Keynesian Capitalist - but I haven't seen Obama advocate for worker-ownership, or a managed economy, and the rhetorical claims of "Socialism!" are just a further example of the dumbing down of political discourse.

Not to split hairs here, but he did fire the head of GM, is regulating the incomes of business executives, is regulating the decisions of the institutions in hock to the bail outs, has engineereed a bailout of the UAW, is trying mightily to nationalize the insurance industry and is engaged in promoting the passage of Cap and Trade.

With what he has done and what he wants to do there absolutely nothing done for profit in the USA that the government would not have direct oversight of or intersection with.

In short, everything he has done since he moved from the podium that said ofice of the president elect to the podium that says office of the president has been aimed creating a managed economy.

What have you noticed him doing that does NOT contribute to that goal?

So he is regulating the businesses that got bailed out in an attempt to ensure that they don't need another bailout as executives walk away with huge undeserved compensation. I don't see the problem nor how that translates into control over the entirety of all compaines as you seem to imply.

Then in the second half of your rant you create a fictitious "goal", assign that to obama without offering proof that is what he has done and then ask others to disprove your argument when you offer nothing of substance to support it?? But I thought the burden of proof was on the one making the claim?? So do you have any proof or not?

 

[Neotrotsky]

What direction? Explain what Obama has done to take us in the "direction" of socialism?



I do NOT agree, because it's pretty clear that most Americans don't know what socialism is. I'm definitely not a socialist - I'm a Keynesian Capitalist - but I haven't seen Obama advocate for worker-ownership, or a managed economy, and the rhetorical claims of "Socialism!" are just a further example of the dumbing down of political discourse.

Not to split hairs here, but he did fire the head of GM, is regulating the incomes of business executives, is regulating the decisions of the institutions in hock to the bail outs, has engineereed a bailout of the UAW, is trying mightily to nationalize the insurance industry and is engaged in promoting the passage of Cap and Trade.

With what he has done and what he wants to do there absolutely nothing done for profit in the USA that the government would not have direct oversight of or intersection with.

In short, everything he has done since he moved from the podium that said ofice of the president elect to the podium that says office of the president has been aimed creating a managed economy.

What have you noticed him doing that does NOT contribute to that goal?

So he is regulating the businesses that got bailed out ion an attempt to ensure that they don't need another bailout as executives walk away with huge undeserved compensation. I don't see the problem nor how that translates into control over the entirety of all compaines as you seem to imply.

Then in the second half of your rant you create a fictitious "goal", assign that to obama without offering proof that is what he has done and then ask others to disprove your argument when you offer nothing of substance to support it?? But I thought the burden of proof was on the one making the claim?? So do you have any proof or not?

Rant? too funny

Papa Obama did have did not have to bail out. They claimed at first for GM it was to stop bankruptcy- they filed for it anyway



His actions and legislative agenda are pushing us more left- what more "proof" do you want

Now your turn Good Dr, show us how Papa Obama is not taking us into a more left socialist world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gallup: Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group- so you know it is higher

GALLUP:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label. Over the same period, there was only a slight increase in professed conservatism among Republicans (from 70% to 71%) and no change among Democrats (at 21%).

This is good for America. It means (1) that more Americans will join the GOP, and (2) the influence of the teabaggers will decrease in the GOP.

What is bad for the Party is that these folks and the moderates are the ones who elected BHO, and our leaders have given no reason why the electorate should trust the GOP again any time soon.

Post polls showing how BHO rates in favorability to the GOP: I bet he kicks the party's butt.

That is the important poll, folks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The chart shows 40% conservatives in 2004. How'd that pan out for the Republicans?

Pretty good- they still controlled congress

No they lost Congress and the Senate in the next election, and the presidency in the next election.

Btw, if according to this nonsense only 21% of Americans think they're liberal, and Obama got 52% of the vote, that means that 60% of the voters who chose a liberal Democrat for president aren't themselves liberal??

These self-indentifications are nonsense. If 37%, or 40%, of the country were really conservative, in the purist/litmus test sense of that word (or by the definition of the so-called 'real' conservatives) we wouldn't have Democrats in control of the government at every level from the federal on down.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Gallup: Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group- so you know it is higher

GALLUP:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label. Over the same period, there was only a slight increase in professed conservatism among Republicans (from 70% to 71%) and no change among Democrats (at 21%).

This is good for America. It means (1) that more Americans will join the GOP, and (2) the influence of the teabaggers will decrease in the GOP.

What is bad for the Party is that these folks and the moderates are the ones who elected BHO, and our leaders have given no reason why the electorate should trust the GOP again any time soon.

Post polls showing how BHO rates in favorability to the GOP: I bet he kicks the party's butt.

That is the important poll, folks.

I agree it is good; it is showing how Democrats and Papa Obama have helped Americans to reject the radical and risky philosophies of leftwing fisters

 

[Neotrotsky]

Pretty good- they still controlled congress

No they lost Congress and the Senate in the next election, and the presidency in the next election.

Btw, if according to this nonsense only 21% of Americans think they're liberal, and Obama got 52% of the vote, that means that 60% of the voters who chose a liberal Democrat for president aren't themselves liberal??

These self-indentifications are nonsense. If 37%, or 40%, of the country were really conservative, in the purist/litmus test sense of that word (or by the definition of the so-called 'real' conservatives) we wouldn't have Democrats in control of the government at every level from the federal on down.

In hindsight

your right, Papa Obama and the Democrats have nothing to worry about.
They should not change a thing

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gallup: Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group- so you know it is higher

GALLUP:

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.

The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label. Over the same period, there was only a slight increase in professed conservatism among Republicans (from 70% to 71%) and no change among Democrats (at 21%).

This is good for America. It means (1) that more Americans will join the GOP, and (2) the influence of the teabaggers will decrease in the GOP.

What is bad for the Party is that these folks and the moderates are the ones who elected BHO, and our leaders have given no reason why the electorate should trust the GOP again any time soon.

Post polls showing how BHO rates in favorability to the GOP: I bet he kicks the party's butt.

That is the important poll, folks.

I agree it is good; it is showing how Democrats and Papa Obama have helped Americans to reject the radical and risky philosophies of leftwing fisters

No, it doesn't. It means the the right of center is going to regulate the far right influence in the party. It means that it is going to water down reactionary nonsense, such as the teabaggers. The McConnells et al will be gone in the next election cycles.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No they lost Congress and the Senate in the next election, and the presidency in the next election.

Btw, if according to this nonsense only 21% of Americans think they're liberal, and Obama got 52% of the vote, that means that 60% of the voters who chose a liberal Democrat for president aren't themselves liberal??

These self-indentifications are nonsense. If 37%, or 40%, of the country were really conservative, in the purist/litmus test sense of that word (or by the definition of the so-called 'real' conservatives) we wouldn't have Democrats in control of the government at every level from the federal on down.

In hindsight your right, Papa Obama and the Democrats have nothing to worry about.
They should not change a thing eusa_whistle:

In hindsight, it means the GOP has to change, or we will keep losing.

 

[drsmith1072]

Not to split hairs here, but he did fire the head of GM, is regulating the incomes of business executives, is regulating the decisions of the institutions in hock to the bail outs, has engineereed a bailout of the UAW, is trying mightily to nationalize the insurance industry and is engaged in promoting the passage of Cap and Trade.

With what he has done and what he wants to do there absolutely nothing done for profit in the USA that the government would not have direct oversight of or intersection with.

In short, everything he has done since he moved from the podium that said ofice of the president elect to the podium that says office of the president has been aimed creating a managed economy.

What have you noticed him doing that does NOT contribute to that goal?

So he is regulating the businesses that got bailed out ion an attempt to ensure that they don't need another bailout as executives walk away with huge undeserved compensation. I don't see the problem nor how that translates into control over the entirety of all compaines as you seem to imply.

Then in the second half of your rant you create a fictitious "goal", assign that to obama without offering proof that is what he has done and then ask others to disprove your argument when you offer nothing of substance to support it?? But I thought the burden of proof was on the one making the claim?? So do you have any proof or not?

Rant? too funny

Papa Obama did have did not have to bail out. They claimed at first for GM it was to stop bankruptcy- they filed for it anyway



His actions and legislative agenda are pushing us more left- what more "proof" do you want

Now your turn Good Dr, show us how Papa Obama is not taking us into a more left socialist world.

LOL How typical, you are asked for proof, you offer NONE and then demand that I prove your unproven claim wrong. Burden is on you and ball is still in your court.

 

[logical4u]

Government involvement in individual's lives is NOT a tenet of socialism.

Perhaps, if you one wants to limit themselves to some simplistic definition from "Websters"

so socialism has no effect on an individual's life?

What better definition do you have? Give me what your definition of Socialism is, and how Obama fits into it.

Or just admit this is another McCarthy red scare - and you're just using the word "Socialism" as a frightening word.

The redistribution of wealth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So there are twice as many conservatives than liberals in America, and conservatives supposedly turn out in bigger numbers at the polls, and yet, conservatives can't win elections, conservatives can't even get a Republican they're happy with nominated for president, let alone win.

Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[logical4u]

Yes, we are more conservative.
Those of us that voted for republicans thinking they would go to DC and act conservatively were: deceived. Those of us that voted for 'blue dog' democrats and thought they would act conservatively were: deceived.
Maybe we just need to clean out that rats' nest in DC and put in some citizens that love the country and would take an "oath" upholding the Constitution seriously, instead of passing laws to void it.