Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Popularity of war=Democratic party affiliation
By ekevlar11 Posted in Republicans — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The balance of power has shifted precipitously toward the Democratic party in this year’s election. Self-identified Republicans have been dropping since 2004 and even newly created Independents appear to be more aligned with Democrats than with Republicans.
From Pew research center.
Republicans unpopular since 2003? Democrats gaining in popularity?
Republicans have wrapped the nomination up and we are just waiting for the convention with John McCain as our standard bearer. From a Presidential election standpoint all may be fine with McCain easily beating Obama or Clinton in head to head matchups. This is likely due to current voter anger at the opposing Democratic nominee. And that dynamic will likely change. (hat tip to Brandozilla)
What is clear is that we are less popular now than in 2000 and 2004. Even donations are somewhat down this year. The Democratic nominees for President have collected in total around 472 million. The Republican contenders? Around 319 million. That is a 160 million dollar difference. In general, RNC coffers are doing better than DNC coffers. However, once the Democratic nominee has this wrapped up, even more significant fund raising will certainly be seen in the future. Even in the Senate and the House, Democrats are outraising Republicans 3:1.
If Republican popularity and donations are down overall, the link appears to be the war. The graph appears to directly mimic the popularity of the war. In 2003, Bush had a 71% approval rating for his decisions on the war. He has now dropped 40 points and is at a 31% approval rating. And, this makes sense as the GWOT is one of the defining stands of President Bush. He is indelibly linked with the war...and so are we.
These two graphs display the rise and fall of the popularity of the Republican party and appear directly linked just to the popularity of the war. The uptick in the right decision to use military force appeared during the Presidential election. Certainly there may be other reasons for disaffection from the party including poor non-Conservative stands in Congress and by the President in various areas on earmarks, social security reform, economy, ethics or campaign reform. But, ever since the war turned south in popularity starting in 2003/2004, Republican popularity has turned south as well.
If the popularity of all three items are indeed linked, then John McCain was certainly the right pick of the nominees for POTUS. He is a strong war leader who will lead the U.S. to victory in Iraq. And of course, the Democrats certainly do want us to fail in this war. Their popularity and dollars appear to depend greatly upon it.
Erik
P.S. And I'm not normally the bearer of bad news.
So, donate here for your local picks: Big Red Tent or www.johnmcain.com
Update: wrong reference to Brandozilla. Some edits.
Thanks!
by ekevlar11
And thanks for the rec. It was interesting writing this...twice. On one of the preview checks after I was almost finished I got a page cannot be displayed error. Boy did I rant. And then went, well, it was worth saying, so it is worth saying again. Went to Word and re-created it...in better form.
Erik
Good insights.
by St. Louis Conservative
The war has no doubt soured the public on GOP party ID. Generally, generic ballots show Dems with a huge advantage. Despite this, McCain still is neck-and-neck and often leads both Democrats in head-to-head matchups.
The GOP has traditionally lagged in party ID. Even in GOP landslide years like 1972, 1984, and 1994, Democrats still maintained an edge in party ID.
The GOP has been given three unbelievable gifts this election: the success of the surge has tempered somewhat a lot of the anti-war rage, the nomination of John McCain makes the GOP far more palatable to the public, and the vicious, knock-down drag out Democrat primary.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
True
by ekevlar11
And I know our low-water mark was 25% in your link. Traditionally we have hovered around 35%. We are now at 27%. We have been given great gifts this year for the Presidential campaign. But, local races appear to result in some significant losses.
And...I'm new to this game. So, in stat comparisons, polls, etc., etc., etc. the inter-relationships are not at all clear.
Erik
Any help here- links not working - darn
by ekevlar11
And I followed Neil's write-up to the tee. Hmmm. Redirects to redstate. Erik
true and sad
by dingo
This is very sad, but also very true - the war in Iraq has heavilly damaged the GOP. Nothing else really mattered in 2006.
I think the worst part, however, has always been how the White House is unable to counteract the Democrat/anti-war spin with their own arguments, as President Bush is unable to articulate the pro-war argument, and VP Cheney is unwilling to do so. The White House also has been unable or unwilling to even address the issue of why America is better off with Hussein gone in a realistic fashion. (Blabbing about Iraqi democracy gets us nowhere. The American people don't care.) These things have damaged Republicans (and our nation) in a way I would have never forseen in 2000, when George Bush's inarticulateness seemed a huge positive compared to the slick used car salesman President, Bill Clinton.
Luckily, the 2008 election will favor a more level playing field. John McCain is a head and shoulders above Bush as a spokesman for our Party on the war, and he is also very willing to be a spokesman for it (unlike Cheney). He is better at public speaking and debating than Hillary, and when it comes to debating (but not speechmaking) he is better than Obama. Imagine if we had him in this role from the beginning; it is quite possible that the GOP brands fall would have been quite less dramatic and less sustained.
PS: While I agree that our fundraising looks horrible now, based on what we know, I would caution that we cannot know the full picture here. Although, McCain is getting creamed by both Dems, and the NRCC and the NRSC are consistently behind the respective Dem committees, the RNC and the RGA (Republican Governors Association) are substantially ahead in their own respective fundraising races. (Thank you, Hailey Barbor!) Plus, no one really knows how much these 501 or 527 groups, on either side, will raise and spend.
Fundraising NOW
by ekevlar11
1. With most of the MSM in bed with the 3.1 million MoveOn and the Democratic party, it is tough to counteract the spin.
2. Bush has articulated the pro-war argument. Problem is, too many aren't buying what he's selling. Or they simply don't care "looks like it costs a lot of money - probably should get out now." We may be seeing a turnaround in this issue as Americans do want to win.
3. I'm not sure if Bush or McCain are better at public speaking or debating...I'm hoping.
4. Fundraising should be going on NOW, NOW, NOW. Monetary donations tell a vital story of the success or lack of success of a message or group.
Erik
Good info
by Tom Bombadil
This is good information, and the data is certainly reflected in the large turnouts at the various Democratic primaries and caucuses. The war issue is probably driving a lot of this, but there has been an inability on our side to captivate the electorate with a clear, consistent, and engaging vision of what true conservativism really is.
And, while the Dems current troubles are entertaining, we cannot simply sit back and rely upon them to melt down so that we can win in November ... we've got to do a much better job of articulating our cause.
_____________
A merry fellow, quick with a song, captain of the table.
War issue
by ekevlar11
Dems seem engaged...and here we stand. Voting against someone will not win the popularity contest.
I agree that although the difficulties are hilarious to watch...we can't simply sit back.
Erik
oh no, not the turnout argument :)
by dingo
Actually, the large Dem turnout means less than the media would have us believe. The Dems always have much greater turnout; since 1972, only twice has the GOP had greater turnout - in 1996 and 2000. And none of the other years were even close. Contrary to fundraising totals, and party id shifts, respective party turnout is a meaningless statistic.
PS: I am going to have to take a strong stand here - there is no question that McCain is a more articulate proponent of our cause than George Bush. I just don't see how you can argue otherwise; we have seen plenty of McCain in the debates and on the stump. And we have seen plenty of Bush over eight years. I like Bush, but the guy can't string two sentences together.
Agree Dingo
by ekevlar11
Turnout at primaries and caucuses are not a legitimate bellweather for these issues...and the numbers have been more skewed as time has gone on and Rush has proposed the cross-voting to keep the Dem contest even.
Erik
Correlation Is Not Causality
by IJB
While tying GOP unpopularity to the war looks good on the surface, I'm not sure that's nearly a full enough explanation.
For example, a lot of base votes (like myself) are pretty down on the GOP currently, and it has nothing to do with Iraq (which is one of maybe only two areas right now where I think the GOP is actually doing good stuff).
So "the war" may explain why wishy-washy independents want to be more seen as "Dem-leaning". But I don't think it fully explains the downturn in the numbers. And neither does "Bush fatigue".
There are real problems with the GOP right now, and it's not due to Iraq. And, unfortunately, John McCain and the current GOP leadership don't seem to be the guys to fix them either.
Something's going to have to come from the grassroots. Until then, I expect the GOP label will continue to be down, regardless of what the Dems do.
(Though it's wouldn't surprise me if Dem-identification is down, and independent identification is up even more, in a couple more years...)
Correlation is not causality
by ekevlar11
Thanks IJB. I agree that this is likely a surface argument. As I stated, other things may certainly be going on - business, ethics, nanny-statism, earmarks, etc. But the polls above show that the Republican party is being significantly effected both by voters who identify themselves with the party as well as donations to the party (in all forms).
And I agree that there are real problems with the GOP. And the "wishy-washy" Independents are leaning Dem...both correct. But if the war turns south for real or via the MSM, more "wishy-washy" Independents will lean. And the leaning will cause us problems.
How about we win this war and show that America cannot be defeated through wrong-headed political machinations (D - we must run away now). That would turn the R label around much more quickly than pandering and compromising with the left.
Efforts by the grassroots...writing blogs won't get us there except as it effects others to act and donate. How about donating to state level campaigns that act like conservative Republicans and not Republican-lite? Others have made this call and I repeat it.
Erik
Many Republicans oppose the war too
by nomorenannystate
I have opposed the war from the very beginning and continue to oppose it. One of the many reasons the GOP is losing support is because conservatives like me feel alienated from the party. Those of us who speak out against the war are lumped in with the liberal, anti-American left. That doesn't help the GOP inspire many conservatives like me to fight for the future of our party. When anti-war conservatives post to redstate and other blogs we are often branded as traitors, spineless, and worse. If the Republican party wants to win in the next election, it will have to not only reach out to independents but heal wounds with those of us who feel abandoned by the GOP.
"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
-- Leonardo Da Vinci
what does "oppose the war" mean at this point?
by Doc Holliday
How can it be separated from "clamoring for defeat"? And also add how defeat will not be a horrible wound to this country and cause more treachery in the Middle East.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
No one who favors the war can ever explain to me when...
by nomorenannystate
we know we've won. I don't think the war in Iraq can be won because we can't even define what "victory" means. It is not defeatist to admit that the situation in Iraq has only gotten worse and that in the long run we can not "win" in any true sense.
"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
-- Leonardo Da Vinci
well it is stupid to say it has become worse
by Doc Holliday
when all news has said the opposite. I will give you a clue about war. When we leave a fairly stable state with free elections, that does not support terrorism as a policy, then we have won. If we cut and run while Iran laughs and our troops are getting fired at when they get in the planes, we have lost.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Calling someone stupid because he disagrees with you...
by nomorenannystate
doesn't create an atmosphere of courteous dialogue. All barometers indicate the situation in Iraq has worsened. According to a number of reports just this week, there has been a spike in violence. Iraq is no closer to bringing various factions together today than it was when we helped them establish a government. And that government is still bogged down in infighting. The infrastructure in Iraq has deteriorated, foreign investment is minimal at best, and millions have been displaced. All at a cost to US taxpayers at now $12 billion a month. Am I missing something here? How has the situation in Iraq improved. Sure the surge provided some results but if the Iraqi government doesn't gets it act together and the people of that war torn country don't come together, Iraq will further descend into chaos.
"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
-- Leonardo Da Vinci
I don't think that
by ekevlar11
I don't think that Jeff Emmanuel or I would agree with you on your points. The problem now is whether it will cost more in troops, dollars and face to the U.S. to simply leave or to continue building the country.
Petraeus strategy appears to be working, but this may be linked directly with Muqtada Al Sadr's cease fire. The strikes going on right now in Iraq are lifting the level of violence in Baghdad again.
And boy, have we made some mistakes. Bremmer disbanding the Baath party and the military have just led us into a situation where there was no experienced leaders or followers for our military or civilian leaders to use.
Imagine if all government departments - all of them - federal, state and local were disbanded. No schools, no DHS, no police force, no judges, no military...all gone. And then it had to be re-built. I believe that decision has led us to the point we are at now. If the disbanding had not occurred, but key leaders were replaced over time, the downward spiral that required a surge would not have occurred. Most of these personnel in the positions were not necessarily bad...but they became bad quickly. Let's see, disband 300,000 military members...no job...what do they do then?
So, mistakes have been made and should be understood. What to do now? Petraeus, rebuild government, rebuild infrastructure. It's going to take a while. Look how long it took to rebuild Japan, Germany and Korea. And we are still there.
Erik
There will be no "final" victory against terrorism,
by CroakerNorge
but I suspect you really know that. And things have not gotten worse in Iraq by any measure: level of violence, improvements in the infrastructure, expanding business environment, and a central government that has made real progress during difficult times. Look at their current push to clean up Basra.
Doc has been way too nice to you. It appears that you are either a Paulistinian or a troll. I mean, really, what up with thing about the murder of animals? Murder? Animals? That implies an equality with humans that is untoward.
Sure, you're a conservative. A pro-animal rights, anti-war conservative. It's a big tent, but I'm not sure it's that big.
Well, we have an AGW conservative
by ekevlar11
Hmmm, politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Erik
One can oppose the war and be conservative
by nomorenannystate
I am a deeply devote Christian conservative. My faith guides me daily and I have prayed for insight about the war. So have many at my church and we have discussed it at bible studies and church forums. Most of my congregation opposes the war for a number of reasons.
Pointing out that the war is going badly -- look at the recent news that the militia's are taking to the streets again and the Green Zone has taken hits for four days -- does not make me a Paulistinian or troll. I have read Redstate's posting rules carefully and nowhere does it say one can not voice opposition to the war. So I do not understand calls for me to be banned. Why can't good people with good Christian values voice their opposition to the war on this site without getting branded with pejoratives?
Since you asked, as for my concerns about animals, my evangelical faith guides me there too. Former Bush speech writer, Matthew Scully, wrote an entire book on the subject: "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals,
and the Call to Mercy." And the scripture, as well as statements from religious leaders and scholars, is filled with references to our responsibility to care for creation:
"But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall teach they: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee; and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind." -- Job 12:7-10
"And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground." -- Hosea 2:18
"The Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein." -- Psalm 24:1
"The righteous man has regard for the life of his beast." -- Proverbs 12:10
"He [God] then who at the first was displeased with the slaughtering of animals, not wishing them to be slain, did not ordain sacrifices as desiring them; nor from the beginning did He require them." -- St. Peter the Apostle, 1st Bishop of Rome: Clementine Homilies
"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
-- Leonardo Da Vinci
McCain will well in reclaiming fiscal cons.
by St. Louis Conservative
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The democrat party put themselves in favor of a war pull out when it became clear that they had a following and could lay the failure at Bush’s feet. When the surge started, (and maybe before) Bush put the fate of the battle in the hands of the soldiers. This gave them the opportunity to decide the fate of the war and write the history. We will end up with a war that defended our interest in the area and blocked Iran on their march to Israel. But the cost in political power will be with us a long time. We may yet fail to provide a democratic Iraq, since the politics of the region understand strong arm techniques much better. But the GOP made mistakes in the handling of the authority they had. A better planned peace scenario would have kept the democratic critics at bay – Why was the enemy allowed to disappear into the crowd? Why was Osama allowed to vanish into the night? Why wasn’t a council of leadership called when the fighting stopped and the country divided up by those in power? Why were weapons allowed to disappear under our satellites noses? We had nothing to hide with the contracts and country building spending, how did the democrats get to make an issue of this? Why did the GOP not cut spending here at home? Why were weak spokesmen chosen to handle the media (exception Snow)? Why was the border allowed to disappear? How did we fail to make tax cuts permanent?
I agree that the war remains a big issue even though more people are dying on city streets at home than in Iraq. It remains to be seen whether McCain will turn out to be the ideal candidate for the GOP. In the future the party power brokers (conservatives of all stripes) need to get together and sponsor a candidate early that we can agree on. Where is the party candidate with cross the board appeal being groomed for 2012? I fear we are into some hard times, and even with the Dems working each other over, if they end up with Obama we will have a tough time.
Democracy in Iraq
by ekevlar11
Is it possible? I'm not so sure. Strong arm leaders appear to function better in that portion of the world.
1. Why was the enemy allowed to disappear? See my comment above on the disbanding of the Baath party and the Iraq army.
2. Why was Osama allowed to vanish into the night? Ask Clinton. Under Bush, I think our military forces did their best to find and get him.
3. Why wasn't a council of leadership called? It was, but ran into problems while General Sanchez was in charge...
4. Why were weapons allowed to disappear under our satellites noses? I'm not sure what weapons you're talking about. If chemical weapons...lots of agricultural supplies, immediate precursors to chemical weapons were found.
5. Why did the GOP not cut spending here at home? The fallacy of a big government social conservative.
6. Why were weak spokesmen chosen to handle the media? I'm sorry, but I think Rumsfeld did a great job in handling the media.
7. Why was the border allowed to disappear? Which one, ours or Iraqs?
8. How did we fail to make tax cuts permanent? Democratic intransigence and weak will by Republicans
Erik
I agree that the militia ceasefire has had an important effect on the level of violence and now it appears to be Moqtada’s time to show what a trouble maker he can be for whatever goal he is pursuing. (Strong arm politics again.) How we handle this may well decide the fate of Bush’s pursuit of this war. (I still think the next election will be a toss up between three weak candidates (my view).)
Three weak candidates???
by ekevlar11
Moqtada's activities...should we check Rev. Wright's travel activities the last two weeks?
You may feel our candidate is weak...he did however, successfully face off against Rudy, Huckabee, Thompson, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter, (I'm missing one). His campaign was at rock bottom - worse off then Richardson. He somehow made his way back up to the top. Why? Heck if I know.
But weak he is not. I'm hoping you only mean weak in a political sense because anyone that survives a North Vietnamese prison camp should have a different definition applied...hero.
Erik
You are right of course, by the rules in place and the primary order McCain was the winner, but I still believe him to be a compromise candidate from my point of view. ( I Preferred Rudy or someone even more conservative, but electable; I liked Fred too but something was lacking.)
And yes to the second point, as well, I admit to McCain being one tough guy but again something is lacking politically and I hope very much that his VP selection is someone much younger)
I don’t want to start another McCain complaint thread, I admit he is our candidate, but his weakness will give him trouble against Obama (and here I hope that Hillary does not even get close to running against McCain.)
Not to say that all is sweetness and light
by CroakerNorge
But maybe the situation is not as dire for Republicans as all that.
True, the Republicans have their problems. At the top of the list is Iraq, both the pre-surge conduct of the war and the Bush administration’s defense of the war. A lot of folks pointed out that Bush should have been campaigning for the effort in Iraq. When he gave a good speech, approval went up. Between speeches, support for the war went down. This may be the biggest mistake of the Bush administration.
Public support for the war is based on the impression that we are winning or losing. Pre-surge, the impression was that it was a wasted effort. America seemed to think that, if we were going to lose, why waste the time and effort. A constant barrage of bad news by the media and the Democrats didn’t help. See above paragraph on defending the war. Since the only news was bad, support for the war, and Republicans, waned. Such is life.
Add to that mix the crop of Republican candidates for POTUS. It would be foolhardy of me to suggest that, of the original leading candidates (pre-Thompson), McCain was the most conservative. There were those who suggested that (gasp) both Romney and Huckabee were not conservatives, and actually pointed at their records as governors to support those statements, for goodness sake. I mean, get current. Look at their campaigns. Thompson gave us a brief spasm of hope that died.
So which candidate inspired enough enthusiasm to generate donations and turnout? It wasn’t that long ago that Republicans were savaging each other, as well. I mean, not like Hillary and Obama, but conservatives just aren’t capable of hate like liberals. Plus, liberals have honed their diatribes and viciousness on us, and now that’s the only weapon they have, so they use it on each other. But I digress.
The point is that we were attacking our candidates, as well. McCain was a closet Democrat and wanted to destroy the Constitution as well as our border security. Romney was a very, very (not just very) convenient recent convert to conservatism, and he came across as used car salesman. Huckabee was not so much different than a former governor of Arkansas, save in sexual morality and pro-life. Not to mention he was a Baptist preacher. Thompson was too late, too old, too philosophical, too…man, how did that guy ever get in the race? And he had cancer and a good looking wife! Rudy never really had a chance in the Republican Party: cross dresser, pro-abortion, interesting personal life, and so on.
The result: little support. No crowds. No money.
There are small things that indicate that, in spite of us, the nation has not completely fallen off the cliff.
- The Surge is working, and man, is it working!
- Approval for Congress and the leadership of Pelosi and Reid is at an all time low.
Apparently, Dem opposition to the war and Bush is not sufficient to attract those vast crowds who so “strongly” oppose the war. Not to mention that the Dems, even with a majority in both Houses of Congress, can significantly change the course of the war. The Dems know, even if Pew doesn’t, that Americans are not defeatists and anti-military, so their efforts to stop the war have been half-hearted. Pelosi and Reid are reduced to making appropriate noises and nothing else. And lately, they haven’t even been making much noise. Pelosi has been advised to shut up about the campaign! Can you imagine? The Speaker of the House has been threatened? WT….heck is that all about?
Bush may be unpopular, but his initiatives have been more popular than the Dems. The war, S-CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid. 2007 has been a good year for Bush initiatives, and the people have supported basic Republican governance.
And now, McCain leads both Dems in the national polls. Maybe McCain was the right person at that right time for the Republicans. It certainly looks that way. It’s not clear what the coattails effect for his campaign will be. But all in all, it’s not as bad as Pew makes it seem. People may not want to identify themselves as Republicans. Perhaps they feel less threatened to be independents, but that does not automatically translate into a Dem victory. In 1968, Richard Nixon was not considered the sexy candidate, either, but like today, America was not so defeatist, socialist, or libertine as the Democrats portray us to be.
Great writeup Croaker
by ekevlar11
Americans are not defeatists. But if someone feels after trying that they can never win at a game, they'll stop playing.
Erik
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
You are absolutely right
by DrJaysonFosterI'll bet pilgrim agrees with me - nt
by gamecockA Good Point
by KCDoes this mean we can talk
by jeffmacguyIf the liberals rejected Lieberman due to his support
by DrJaysonFosterI won't apologize for either.
by shooflyguy68Well FedEX has that awesome hidden arrow.
by ThreeNineNineAccording to the article
by kowalskiThe TransAlaska Pipeline and
by AchanceI will accept the challenge
by FlagstaffIf we search long and hard enough
by redneck hippieActually, I just had a nice chat with an official moderator
by Neil StevensNot to inject fact or anything, but...
by wesmorgan1The issue is not
by dglennNo, *your opinion* of it doesn't matter (nt)
by Neil StevensI haven't read his actual comments yet...
by wesmorgan1
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard