Democratic Advantage in Party Affiliation Shrinks

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Strongbow

Refugee
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
1,943
September 2, 2009

Democratic Advantage in Party Affiliation Shrinks
Gap now 5 points, down from 17 in January

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- In August, an average of 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned to the Democratic Party, while 40% identified as Republicans or leaned to the Republican Party. This 5-point advantage represents a decided narrowing of the gap between the parties from the 17-point Democratic advantage in January.

These results are based on aggregated data from Gallup Daily tracking, consisting of roughly 30,000 interviews with U.S. adults each month. Gallup has observed a similar trend of a declining Democratic advantage in party identification in its 2009 cross-sectional surveys.

The total of 45% current Democratic support derives from 34% of Americans who identify as Democrats and 11% who identify as independents but say they lean to the Democratic Party. The Republican Party's 40% support total includes 28% Republican identifiers and 12% Republican-leaning independents.

Democratic Advantage in Party Affiliation Shrinks
 
In August, an average of 45% of Americans identified as Democrats

Which begs the question -- what % of Democrats identify themselves as Americans?

(I kid my wealth-sharin', jihad-denyin', socialized medicine-envyin', Hubby Hubby eatin', MSNBC-watchin', torture-confused, Euro-wannabe friends on the Left)
 
Tree-car-crash.jpg
 
I think it shows the effect of George W. Bush causing people to stop identifying with the conservatives is wearing off
as was to be expected
 
I think it shows the effect of George W. Bush causing people to stop identifying with the conservatives is wearing off
as was to be expected

Highly unlikely considering that Bush was President for 8 years and popularly re-elected by the first majority since 1988, and only left office 7 months ago.

The change in the percentage's of party affiliation is similar to the downward trend that Obama's approval has taken since coming to office.

There is a new kid in town who likes to take credit for things started under Bush that are going well, while blaming anything that is not going well on the "previous administration".
 
torture-confused



i agree with all of your pejoratives except for this one.

it is *you* people who have obfuscated, on paper and in your minds, what torture actually is.

perhaps it could be like A Time To Kill. we'll ask you to close your eyes and instead of thinking of a smelly, hairy, middle eastern man getting waterboarded, think of a pretty white lady.
 
Well it should shrink since almost all the Democrats are behaving like Republicans and pursuing Republican-like policies.

I feel sorry for the progressives in the US, they never have any real options.
 
I feel sorry for the progressives in the US, they never have any real options.

well in 2012 they can teach everyone a big lesson and vote for Ralph Nader :up: (worked like charm in 2000)

and then we will get 8 years with Dick Cheney as President.

don't laugh, - he is considering it, and if Obama loses Afghanistan and there is an attack on the U S because Obama is soft on terror - Cheney could slide in.
I don't think it is really likely,

but disgruntled progressives (not voting) and swayed independents easily could put the GOP in the 2012 win column.
 
Dick Cheney as President.

don't laugh, - he is considering it, and if Obama loses Afghanistan and there is an attack on the U S because Obama is soft on terror - Cheney could slide in.
I don't think it is really likely,

but disgruntled progressives (not voting) and swayed independents easily could put the GOP in the 2012 win column.

A lot could happen between now and then.

But I think it would take raging inflation and a prolonged stock market downturn, along with major foreign policy failures...before Obama could lose to Cheney or any Republican out there today.
 
I will go on the record now with:

1. prolonged bad economy - with rising - out of control national debt, there is a 30-40% chance we may be bouncing along the bottom but no quick fix, a 50% chance of more pain with our current national unemployment in the 9-11 % range.

2. Afghanistan is as good as it is going to get right now.
Things will continue to deteriorate. Karzai will remain in office but his legitimacy will be challenged, much like the guy in Iran. More troops will die. The movement to get out will grow, to where more people want us out than want us in.
 
I will go on the record now with:

2. Afghanistan is as good as it is going to get right now.
Things will continue to deteriorate. Karzai will remain in office but his legitimacy will be challenged, much like the guy in Iran. More troops will die. The movement to get out will grow, to where more people want us out than want us in.

I agree. But I think in a presidential race Obama could pretty easily do an 'about face' on his 04 campaign rhetoric about Afghanistan being the 'right' war...and blame Bush for 8 years of underfunding and undermanning the fight there. Which is probably true.

What also is probably true is the country doesn't have the culture, the infrastructure, educated population, or natural resources to make it a viable place for nation-building or pacification. Under Bush or Obama.

Or the British. Or the Soviets. (from years gone by)
 
Any example?

Iraq policy, much of the policy in Afganstan as well as Pakistan, and general defense policy. Lets not forget that after all the criticism of the Bush administration and Republicans on these issues, Barack Obama kept Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, on the job. When was the last time a new President from the opposing party kept the previous administrations Secretary Of Defense on the job?
 
I will go on the record now with:

The movement to get out will grow, to where more people want us out than want us in.

The vast majority of those registered as Democrats already feel this way. Looks like Barack Obama is starting to have more in common with the people who voted against him rather than the people who voted him into office. :wink:



According to Gallup, 56% of Democrats think that US military intervention in Afghanistan was a mistake.

One wonders if they have considered the consequences of not intervening as well as pulling out pre-maturely.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121727/Americans-Upbeat-Progress-Iraq-Afghanistan.aspx
 
Most of the people I talk to on a daily basis are GOP.

and when they go on about Obama,
their only real gripe right now is that he might do with health care.

when I talk to them about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, North Korea, torture pictures, Business interests, DOMA they pretty much agree that Obama has not done anything radical yet
and that his policies have been on par with what Bush was doing when he left office.

So yes, it is correct to say since he took office he has steered a very safe, status-quo course.
 
well in 2012 they can teach everyone a big lesson and vote for Ralph Nader :up: (worked like charm in 2000)

and then we will get 8 years with Dick Cheney as President.

Ralph Nader is not a good choice because he is a poor politician. I think he has done some great policy work over the years, but he is not fit to govern, and especially not on a national level.

It isn't about teaching people a lesson; it is about voting for somebody who will fight for the progressive ideals that you believe in. There is no such person in US politics at the moment (nationally speaking), and hasn't been in a long, long time. Nothing new, really.
 
It isn't about teaching people a lesson; it is about voting for somebody who will fight for the progressive ideals that you believe in. There is no such person in US politics at the moment (nationally speaking), and hasn't been in a long, long time. Nothing new, really.

If Obama isn't that person, one of our most liberal former senators...

do you think America would elect someone even more progressive as president? I don't.
 
If Obama isn't that person, one of our most liberal former senators...

do you think America would elect someone even more progressive as president? I don't.

The money only got behind Obama when he promised he would maintain the status quo.
 
September 2, 2009

Democratic Advantage in Party Affiliation Shrinks
Gap now 5 points, down from 17 in January

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- In August, an average of 45% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned to the Democratic Party, while 40% identified as Republicans or leaned to the Republican Party. This 5-point advantage represents a decided narrowing of the gap between the parties from the 17-point Democratic advantage in January.

These results are based on aggregated data from Gallup Daily tracking, consisting of roughly 30,000 interviews with U.S. adults each month. Gallup has observed a similar trend of a declining Democratic advantage in party identification in its 2009 cross-sectional surveys.

The total of 45% current Democratic support derives from 34% of Americans who identify as Democrats and 11% who identify as independents but say they lean to the Democratic Party. The Republican Party's 40% support total includes 28% Republican identifiers and 12% Republican-leaning independents.

Democratic Advantage in Party Affiliation Shrinks

From 2005-2008, whenever polls negative towards Bush were mentioned, you told us the result of the 2004 Presidential election was the only result that mattered.
 
the money ends up behind the lead horse. nevertheless, has obama done anything to fundamentally alter the status quo? no, i don't think so.

Um, he is indoctrinating the chirrun with socialism and tried to have his death panel kill Sarah Palin's grandmother, plus he tore up the Constitution when he became a Kenyan-born preznit.

That's a LOT.
 
Um, he is indoctrinating the chirrun with socialism and tried to have his death panel kill Sarah Palin's grandmother, plus he tore up the Constitution when he became a Kenyan-born preznit.

That's a LOT.

Ownership by the federal government of two car companies and nine national banks isn't status quo. Not in this country anyway.
 
Ownership by the federal government of two car companies and nine national banks isn't status quo. Not in this country anyway.

This ownership of the two car companies rant seems a bit pointless

what was he supposed to do?


One would think he nationalized perfectly healthy private companies for no reason at all, like dictators do in communist or socialist countries
 
This ownership of the two car companies rant seems a bit pointless

what was he supposed to do?

Let the companies fail, and then watch as all the offshoot companies (their suppliers, etc) failed too, and then unemployment numbers would have reached even more frighteningly higher than they already have, and the economy would have tanked even further, and taken even longer to dig out from.

Obviously. Those companies needed to be taught a lesson! Duh. :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom