CSpan question: Are Republicans the dominant party?

They asked this due to this Weekly Standard article by Fred Barnes -
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/259yvdec.asp
<snip>
The (Finally) Emerging Republican Majority
From the October 27, 2003 issue: GOP officials don't like to talk about it, but they have become the dominant party.
by Fred Barnes

AFTER THE 1972 AND 1980 ELECTIONS, Republicans said political realignment across the country would soon make them the dominant party. It didn't happen. Now, despite highly favorable signs in the 2002 midterm elections and the California recall, Republicans fear a jinx. Realignment? they ask. What realignment?

</snip>

I think it is obvious they are in the majority for now, but I think the American people will punish the GOP for their work or lack of it since 2002.

Some callers mentioned the optimism of the GOP and the pessimism of the left. True, untrue?

We, the majority have been shoved away sonehow.
Kist look at the demographics of this CBS/NYT poll:

http://tinyurl.com/rega (see pdf on the right)

they asled 27% Gore voters and 38% Bush voters!!! (And Clark still is on top, and W numbers still stink on ice). We don't count - but still do somehow.

why the recalls, redistricting, and election theft?

Brought on by the fact that our Democratic brothers and sisters don't VOTE.

There are many more Democrats than there are republicans, we just need to get out the vote.

:dem:

With the kind of work I do ,I come in contact with many differant people in many differant income levels .I would say ,that most are very unhappy with this pResident, and many others are fed up with politics, disinterested,and do not vote ! This is whay the repugs appear to be dominant, they have members that vote ! Of course many Dems are very busy working ,trying to keep up with the cost of living, and dont believe their one vote will make much differance. These are the people we need to convince to get out and vote. I believe the Dems are actually the dominant party, our leaders just act like we are not. If you dont vote ,you dont have any right to complain. Every vote counts,if you need to be motivated, remember the 2000 election ,that always gets my blood pressure up !

was that a high ranking Liberal Democrat from California voted for Schwing boy. His reasons were very well expressed. To paraphrase: Because in his job, he knows who is working, and who isn't; because he was tired of the cynical patronage that goes on; and because Schwin boy was optimistic in his message.

Of the three points, the last one bothers me the most because it means that Americans still haven't suffered enough to avoid falling for a flim-flam campaign speech.

They just own the mechanics of the machine-- corporate dominance. Democrats own the issues IF IF IF they would speak up loudly and own them. A PR blitz from the Democrats would be effective but they cower, fearing they would lose their corporate funding.

is the parties are at rough parity with the Republicans having a slight edge.....

I think this point is beyond debate among serious students of the American political scene....

I do think we are a couple of "bad" elections away from the Republicans being a true majority party....

- This has to be one of the most blatantly partisan questions ever asked by CSPAN. The way the question is phrased provoked the usual RWing 'liberal haters' to come out in droves.

- The host allowed callers to smear Ted Kennedy and Clinton without restraint...right after he repeatedly interrupted a caller on the 'left' when he attempted to talk about Bush's record, saying it was 'irrelevant' to the topic.

- It was bad enough when CSPAN changed their call-in format to: "agree with Bush" and "disagree with Bush". Now it seems CSPAN is joining with the Faux propagandists in promoting the DOMINANCE of the New Republican party.

- I think I'll go back to watching Free Speech Television's "Democracy Now" in the mornings. CSPAN has lost another viewer with their new RWing slant.

which also brought out the gays bashers as well as the Dem bashers but they are part of the same species...

That being said, Republican ascendancy is a real problem that needs to be addressed...

Who Supports the Republicans?

Corporations with lots of money.

Who Distorts truth for the Republicans?

The media that are owned by the corporations.

Who controls the lives of ordinary Americans?

The New Feudal Lords, the corporations.

Who writes laws to enhance the power of the New Feudal Lords?

The Republicans acting through the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government.

For those that have not figured it out yet, we have had a silent coup d'etat.

when repubes started taking over local school boards, county commissiona, and city councils en masse. from there, mayoral elections, state legislatures, and governorships were targeted.
consider this coordinated effort 50-fold, add your astute analysis of corporate controlled media and business, and you see the situation we are in today. there may be more dems than repubes, but the control 'by the few of the many' reeks of feudalism, imho.

their way to almost total dominance, despite being outnumbered by Democrats, and the closeness of individual elections. The failure of the Bush administration is massive, but, given the chokehold the Republicans have on our country, they move on -- in California, in Texas -- even as they are knee-deep in scandal and a tragic, unpopular war, and exposed as incompetent. And we are criticized for being pessimistic? It's hard being optimistic, beating your head against a wall --

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

over the din of Republican talking points and blast faxes that masquerade as mainstream news.

Yes, there are more Republican elected officials than Democratic officials but I have yet to see one poll that there are more folks that identify themselves as Republicans and there are more registered Democrats than Republicans.

I am hitting the Alert Button!

Do me a favor and hold off on the alert. I want to see what this one has to say.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I just want you to provide a link to the statistic you posted.

Can you provide that link or are you just blowing hot air?

a link. I heard Chris Matthews say it on his show.

He says alot of things....

Do a google search....

to do a search. I heard it myself. If you choose not to believe me, then don't, or do the search yourself.

NT

It is YOUR responsibility to support your anti-Democratic assertions about facts, if you want to post here.

percieve what I said to be anti democrat. All I did was pass on something I heard on a tv show.

Since your comments have run counter to the conventional wisdom, and they work to exaggerate a benefit to the Democrats that almost no one believes is true, it inspires a particular kind of skepticism.

You can put that to rest with solid documentation.

Cheers.

but there are more self identified Democrats than Republicans and more registered Democrats than Republicans...

I was under the impression that there was a controversial claim about funding.

See my other post where I assert that Republicans will never be a party of the majority of the people.

You just do a google search for Chris Matthews+37% Democrats...then you come up with this transcript...

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/chrismatthews/081603.asp

All I found was...

MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the--the haunting he must feel from his
father and what happened to him. President Bush senior, who was elected
in 1988 was elected with 54 percent of the American people behind him.

TEXT:
(Photo of George H.W. Bush) 1988 Election
54% of the vote

MATTHEWS: Four years later, after winning a war, he was defeated with 37
percent of the country. That's all he had for his forth--for his reelection
campaign.

TEXT:
(Photo of George H.W. Bush) 1992 Election
37% of the vote

MATTHEWS: Does the kid worry about the old man, Paul?

By the Way...you're welcome. I'd especially expect some serious ass kissing considering I had to read through that whore Peggy Nooner to find it.:puke:

EDIT: OOOPS!!! I saw the 32% there. So I did a search on it. Found nothing buy Matthews talking about 32% wishing to limit abortions.

I did find this from the Jewish World Review though. It had this paragraph...

"We still have no exit-poll data from the 2002
election, thanks to the Election Day meltdown of
the media-supported Voter News Service. The best data we have
on how the parties currently stack up are in a just-released Gallup
Poll analysis of all 45,000 interviews Gallup conducted with voters
during 2002. If Gallup is right that "a person's party identification is
generally the most powerful predictor of his or her political behavior,"
then the country is still very evenly split in partisan terms. Gallup
found that 34% of respondents called themselves Republicans, 32%
Democrats and 34% independents. But then Gallup "pushed" the
independents to identify which party they leaned toward. Previous
surveys found that "leaners" vote for their party of choice almost as
often as self-described partisans."

Gallup has been known to skew Republican in the past. They are the ones who poll almost exclusively in the plains states.

EDIT...One more time...

Here's the link to the second.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/fund013103.asp

To the bullsh*t statistic you posted.

maybe you should consider the possibilty that people have heard the message and are rejecting it.

Maybe you can enlighten us all and tell us exactly what message you are talking about.

Instead of chalking it up to some huge conspiricy of big business and the media,

Conspiracy????

Do you deny that "big business" supports the republican party more than the Democratic party? Are you saying the heads of the media giants are not republican?

A good debate is welcome. Please elaborate on the points I have mentioned.

deny business supports Rep. more than Dems. Corporate giving is roughly equal to each party. Business buys access to both power bases.

to a survey that demonstrates there are more registered Republicans than Democrats

or a poll that demonstrates there are more self identified Republicans than Democrats.

This is from abc news talking about soft money donations:

<snip>

There were familiar patterns, showing clearly the ideological divisions that mark American politics. Most Democratic soft money came from organized labor, Hollywood entrepreneurs and trial lawyers. Businesses and wealthy entrepreneurs were the most reliable contributors to the Republicans.

And, as usual, Republicans outraised Democrats, scoring a much larger number of individual donors as well as a larger number of corporate checks.

The National Republican Congressional Committee's non-federal accounts took in more than $11 million from April to June, according to its latest filing.

Much of the money came from corporations, including SBC Communications, itself among the nation's biggest campaign donors. The GOP House campaign committee received $100,000 checks from several airlines, from the Farmers' Insurance Group, and a $250,000 check from banker Morgan Stanley. As its members took up accounting reform, Ernst and Young and Deloite and Touche, two of the Big 4 accounting firms, contributed $25,000 and $50,000 respectively. The U.S. Telecom Association, which represents telecommunications companies, gave $50,000. And the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, PhRMA, has given almost $500,000 this cycle.

<snip>

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/softmoney_020801.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is contrary to data I have seen.

If you throw out numbers that are contrary to what we believe to be true, and you can't provide a link, people will correctly be suspicious of your motives.

We welcome a good honest CIVIL debate and it looks like that is what you are looking for. However, if you want to debate, you MUST post FACTS to support your assertions.

That's the way we do it here.

I don't deny your beliefs, I just want you to see the truth and not fall for the propaganda that is being bandied about. The best way to do that is for YOU to search for facts supporting your statements.

Hey, you might learn something you didn't know.

Hell, I might learn something I didn't know.

I am going to say Welcome to DU and hope you will start searching for the truth.

Now....go get some facts and let the debate begin.

The false statement is this.

"Corporate giving is roughly equal to each party."

You either made a mistake, or you have been misinformed, or you are being mendacious.

edited for typo.

the latest figures I saw were than 38& of voters were registered as independent; 32% were registered Democrats; and 30% were registered Republicans.

It raises some good questions:
Question 1: How many self-identify as a Republican? The answer is 30% (ie., 30% self-identify as Republican; 32% as Democrat; 38% as Independent). Links at 'New Democrats on Line' http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251944&kaid=131&subid=192 to the original poll http://www.ndol.org/documents/PennPoll_0703.pdf.

The poll is 14 pages and IMO it was designed to produce the answers that the Democratic Leadership Council wanted to hear. I think the poll is worth a new thread and will start one on it.
And by the way, it supports Markscan's number.

Question 2: What message IS it that people heard from the Democrats and are they rejecting it?

Question 3: What message do people WANT to hear from the Democrats?


Welcome Markscan.

The Republican Party will probably never be the dominant party by way of majority support. However, they are the dominant party in the sense of being the one to set the political agenda.

Part of it is from shifting the political discourse (and, by extension, the location of the "center") to the right. Part of it is by media consolidation. More recently, part of it is the successful subversion of democracy.

Here on supposedly far left DU, too often the right-wing agenda is accepted or else opposed only on technical terms (examples: economic globalization, Iraq invasion). Active or principled opposition is often (though not always) denigrated as "unelectable" or extreme. What, then, should we expect from the rest of the country?

I think we know that they set the agenda, and that is exactly why we need DU - and other things too - to exist and thrive.

One of our problems is that they do set the agenda and we are then on the defensive and fighting back. Dems need to set forth agendas, rephrase the terminology of issues and make the pugs fight back.

That said, I thought a number of callers got thru on Peter's right wing love-fest today and made a number of excellent remarks basically supporting what DU has to say.

It is the result of a far reaching strategy developed and implemented over a long period of time.

The first element of this strategy was to recruit and train, with nationally solicited funds, republican candidates for local elections with the idea that these candidates would later run for the state legislature and then Congress. This was the original purpose of GOPAC.

But GOPAC evolved from just a recruitment and training organization to a propaganda machine. The purpose of the propaganda was to make sure that the republican party defined the democratic party in the minds of as many voters as possible. That became a second element of the republican strategy. In the last 10 years or so democratic candidates and the democratic party have allowed that to occur.

Since Newt Gingrich took over GOPAC, the republican strategy has included trying to marginalize the democratic party by painting it as extremist in its liberalism. This is why a republican candidate for any office higher than dogcatcher is trained to use the famous GOPAC words when referring to a democratic opponent or the democratic party. It is also why the republican party spends millions of dollars every year and employs hundreds of people solely to make the democratic party appear too liberal for most independent voters.

Another element to the republican strategy was to focus on redistricting. The RNC spent tens of millions of dollars on state legislature elections in the late 1990's and especially the 2000 election. According to the RNC, the reason this was done was so that republicans would control more of the redistricting done after the 2000 census. Although the obvious goal of redistricting was to create more republican districts, another element of this strategy came to light just after the recent Texas redistricting.

The Texas redistricting continued implementing the republican strategy of defining the democratic party as too liberal. In effect it combined the redistricting strategy with the definition strategy. The redistricting did not seek to eliminate the most liberal democrats in the Texas Congressional delegation. Rather it sought to eliminate the more conservative to moderate democrats and guarantee the re-election of the most liberal. This is part of a strategy described by Tom DeLay to make the democratic party the party of blacks, feminists, homosexuals, and extremist liberal groups like ELF. This redistricting strategy will be followed in other states whenever the republicans get the opportunity, even if that does not occur until after the 2010 census.

The republican strategy to become the dominant party has been well thought out and developed, and well implemented on a national scale. It has been depressingly effective in my opinion. It irritates me that the democratic party apparently has no strategy to counter it.

Excellent background analysis, snippy --

your remarks, but you sound like the Repukes having and working a strategy is wrong. Itis not. That's the way the game is played. One thing that distresses me on DU is that so many people seem to think that because the R*s have out-played us they are evil. but the Democratic Party does the same thing. What needs to be attacked is not the methods, which are legal, i.e., recall, or their motives: of course they want the positions of power. So do we. What needs to be worked and presented to the American people is the rotteness and ineffective of their ideas. As ideas. Only when we get the truth about their ideas and policies out there, only when we can show the American people the complete ineptitude of their governing, will we get the support that we need. We need a 40-year plan, too.

I deplore the lies and bigotry the republican party uses to implement it though.

Nothing in my post was intended to imply that developing and implementing a national strategy was "wrong." I tried to describe the fact that the republican party had such a strategy while the democratic party did not, and that I did not like that fact. If I failed to convey that meaning then my post was poorly written.

Here is a link to the famous demonizing words Newt urged Republicans to use at every opportunity (found appropriately at a website analyzing propaganda, http://www.propagandacritic.com ).

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/examples.newtnamecall.html

Any one who watched our spinless leadership bend over for Bush* once again on the 87 billion vote should understand why. We need to bust the big money control of our party and hire new leadership. How can we do this, vote for Howard Dean, and make Clark the VP. This is the ticket the Rethugs fear the most. It is a winner!

as well as of the military industrial complex.

Dean/Clark would be a winner but I don't know if the 2 egoes could contain themselves.