Media conservatives claim America is "center-right," but political scientists challenge reliance on voter self-identification
SUMMARY: Several conservative commentators claim America is ideologically a "center-right" country, citing as evidence general election exit polls showing that 22 percent of respondents identify themselves as "liberal," 44 percent as "moderate" and 34 percent as "conservative." But political scientists dispute the reliability of voters' identification with political ideologies, and other polling has found that a strong majority favored the more progressive position on a number of issues.
Notwithstanding sweeping Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008, several conservative commentators claim America is ideologically a "center-right" country, citing as evidence general election exit polls showing that 22 percent of respondents identify themselves as "liberal," 44 percent as "moderate" and 34 percent as "conservative." But political scientists dispute the reliability of voters' identification with political ideologies, saying that those who do not regularly follow political discourse often lack an understanding of what constitutes "conservative" and "liberal" principles and policies. Moreover, notwithstanding the findings in exit polling of voter self-identification, a postelection poll by Democracy Corps found that a strong majority favored the more progressive position on a number of issues.
In a November 10 column, New York Times columnist Bill Kristol wrote that "this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country":
What's more, this year's exit polls suggested a partisan shift but no ideological realignment. In 2008, self-described Democrats made up 39 percent of the electorate and Republicans 32 percent, in contrast with a 37-37 split in 2004.
But there was virtually no change in the voters' ideological self-identification: in 2008, 22 percent called themselves liberal, up only marginally from 21 percent in 2004; 34 percent were conservative, unchanged from the last election; and 44 percent called themselves moderate, compared with 45 percent in 2004.
In other words, this was a good Democratic year, but it is still a center-right country. Conservatives and the Republican Party will have a real chance for a comeback -- unless the skills of the new president turn what was primarily an anti-Bush vote into the basis for a new liberal governing era.
In a November 6 column in The Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove wrote:
It is a tribute to his skills that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, won in a country that remains center-right. Most pre-election polls and the wiggly exits indicate America remains ideologically stable, with 34% of voters saying they are conservative -- unchanged from 2004. Moderates went to 44% from 45% of the electorate, while liberals went to 22% from 21%.
In his November 5 Chicago Sun-Times column, Steve Huntley wrote that "the exit polls showing the Americans who voted Tuesday described themselves as 44 percent moderate, 34 percent conservative and only 22 percent liberal. That would seem to portray a center-right nation":
You hear conservatives saying the voters didn't reject conservative principles in this election, they rejected a Bush administration and its congressional allies who had rejected conservative principles.
I'd like to think that, too, but the verdict is still out and it will probably be some time before we know if the ground shifted under American politics with Barack Obama's resounding victory.
[...]
On the other side of the argument are the exit polls showing the Americans who voted Tuesday described themselves as 44 percent moderate, 34 percent conservative and only 22 percent liberal. That would seem to portray a center-right nation.
During the November 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said:
LIMBAUGH: This is not a liberal country; it's not a center-left country. Look at the exit polls. Look at the number of people who identified themselves as conservatives versus liberals. This is a center-right country. Barack Obama -- now, some of you are gonna just not believe me on this -- Obama, in the last three weeks of this campaign, was running as a conservative. Tell me the last liberal you ever heard promising a tax cut for 95 percent of the American people.
But in the 2005 edition of American Public Opinion*, Robert S. Erikson and Kent L. Tedin, political science professors at Columbia University and the University of Houston, respectively, questioned the reliability of poll questions that ask voters to self-identify with a political ideology. Noting that "a standard poll question is to ask respondents their ideological identification, usually with three choices of liberal, moderate, and conservative, " Erikson and Tedin wrote:
Ideally, ideological classification is a convenient way to measure individuals' core political values and to summarize their political views on a variety of issues. In practice, the result is mixed. The most politically sophisticated segment of the public approximates the ideal. For them, ideological identification goes a long way toward describing their political convictions. But when less sophisticated people respond to the ideological identification question with a response of liberal, moderate, or conservative, we can be less sure of what the response means. At worst, the response represents some idiosyncratic meaning known only to the respondent, or perhaps a doorstop opinion made up on the spot. [Page 67]
After listing traditionally conservative and liberal views, Erikson and Tedin continued: "These kinds of relative distinctions are familiar to people who follow politics closely. But the language of ideology holds less meaning for the public as a whole. One test is whether the individual can both identify the Republican as the more conservative party and offer a plausible definition of the term conservative. Roughly half the public passes this test of understanding of ideological labels" [Page 68].
Moreover, as Media Matters for America documented, Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling group, released a poll on November 7 that showed strong support for the progressive positions that President-elect Barack Obama advocated, including the repeal of tax cuts for the wealthy and near-universal health-care coverage. The poll also included questions that provided a direct choice between the position taken by Obama on a given issue and that taken by Sen. John McCain (without referring to Obama or McCain) -- with the more progressive choice echoing Obama's position and the more conservative echoing McCain's. For most questions that juxtaposed a clear progressive view with a clear conservative view, the progressive position was more popular.
* Erikson, Robert S., and Kent L. Tedin. American Public Opinion. 7th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005.
"Barack Obama -- now, some of you are gonna just not believe me on this -- Obama, in the last three weeks of this campaign, was running as a conservative. Tell me the last liberal you ever heard promising a tax cut for 95 percent of the American people."
"The people of this country love their Constitution, and the people of this country reject socialism, and they don't support an authoritarian judiciary. And this is the Obama agenda." - Rush Limbaugh, oct. 28, 2008
So he's running as a socialist by promising to tax the rich, and running as a conservative by promising to give everyone else a tax cut.
I wonder why anyone wouldn't believe him on that?
So, if Obama was running as a liberal until the last 3 weeks of the election, what does that say about the mindspan of the conservatives who made up their mind in the last 3 weeks of the election? Sounds to me like Rush just insulted them again.
Sounds to me like Rush just insulted them again.
Sound to me like Jeff Christie is back on the OxyContin.....
I just heard ( about an hour ago ) a commentator on KVI stating Obama's dictatorship starts in two months. The length to what these buffoons go to make a point is not laughhable anymore as in this world of instant communications, the whole world can hear examples of stupidity instantaneously. And ti think there are listeners whose critical thinking skills have been delegated to these radio personalities.
Never mind "conservative commentators." Newsweek two weeks before the election asked in it's cover story "How Will President Obama Govern a Center-Right Nation?"
It's clear that there were only two possible outcomes of the election, as far as the media were concerned: either an outright victory for Conservatism, or a call for Center-Right Bipartisanship. If Obama had won sixty percent of the vote and carried every state except Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, the talking points would have been the same. It's simply not possible for the American people to cast a vote for Liberalism, as far as these morons are concerned.
Bush "wins" a disputed election: Mandate for Conservatism
Bush wins a 3-point re-election victory: "I've got political capital and I intend to use it." Media does not argue.
Obama wins by six points and carries in a Democratic House and Senate: We're a Center-Right Nation. What the f--ever, Corporate Media and Talking Heads.
JJamele, I have to give Chris Matthews a little credit here. He called out his conservative guests on Hardball last night by pointing out this double standard of Reagan & Bush "mandates" vs. the insistence that Obama be especially sensitive to the center-right.
Matthews made a good case for Obama having some "political capital", that it would be smart for him to do some bold things right away, and not be timid about breaking away from the failed status quo we've been bogged down in for years.
The con guest replied with something like "Sure, if Obama wants to end up with a 27% approval rating like Bush."
Bush hasn't been a complete failure specifically for his right wing policies, he's been a failure for his constant failing. I'll be disappointed if our next president is cowed into not straying too far from the ideas that have put us where we are today.
Matthews was awesome. It was about time someone called out the Cons for their doublespeak. He was so disgusted that he wouldn't let the guy finish delivering his spin and said he spoke with a "forked-tongue".
The silliest thing of all is that America internationally is a far-right nation. There is nothing "center" about the death penalty, 3 strikes laws, the vast military spending, the limited health care, the expensive higher education, etc. The US is to the right of virtually any nation.
That's true. Our government is very far to the right even under Dem leadership compared to the rest of the world. I'm not sure the govt reflects the American people very well though.
The right has been very good at swaying public opinion with meaningless platitudes while people don't really look at the issues. The lastest is selling the gun nut, book banning, anti sex ed Palin as "a hockey mom just like you".
Considering the screwy idea that most people have of "liberals" -- promulgated by these same MSM types that always say we are not, never, no how-- I'm surprised that progressives have even this much self-esteem.
That occured to me, especially coming from Limbaugh himself. He says "liberal" like he was talking about child molesters. This word has been demonized for as long as I can remember and it's supposed to prove something when people don't want the label attached to themselves?
If conservatives want "liberal" to be a bad word, they shouldn't redefine it so that it applies to 75% of the country. Same for "socialist".
Of course, but they don't have a lot of choice when all their ideas are unpopular. I also think this is affected by the shift in the dialogue towards the right, where more and more things have to be discredited because their ideology is marginalizing itself and it doesn't want to admit it. It's sort of a "too-late-to-stop-now" type of thing.
That's really the problem with these "studies" and exit polls. The likes of Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Hannity and others, despite their collective idiocy have enjoyed incredible popularity over the years, and have managed, rather successfully to turn the owrd "liberal" from being merely a word that drescribes a poilitical persyuation that they happen to disagree with into a bad word, a criitiicism, an expletive. SO NOW, all these mindless sheep are terrified of the WORD, even when they hold liberal positions on issues. These RW radio hacks have actually mamnaged to skewed the discussion, and propegate ignorance to THAT EXTENT. All so they don't have to pay another 5% in taxes on the 8-figure contracts. And they've managed to thoroughly implcate both the press and higher eductation in their rants as well - so they are now free from any legitimate criticism; again - in the eyes of the millions of ignorant sheep who've listened to them over the years.
I truly believe that if their was ever a study done that was purely ISSUE BASED, with no political labels applied, and the descriptions of the positions in the study articulated by intelligent people who actulally believe in them (because there ARE intelligent conservatives out there, they just don't have radio shows!) we'd find that OVERALL this IS a center-left country. There will be SOME issues that we are right-leaning on (somopne above mentioned the Death Penalty and Military Spending - those are good example were we may not be 'limbaugh conservatives' on those, but I don't believe we could could be classified as 'liberal' on those, relative to the world.) But overall, on the majority of issues, I think you'd see a center-left leaning.
If we were truly a conter-right nation, then why do the republican need so much political marketing and dirty tricks to get elected? Why do the dem's always win on the issues, whenever the issues are at the forefront of an election? i.e.: In bad economic times, when people aren't so focused on personality and BS.
We wouldn't have had to read any of this if my new 50-strike rule were in effect.
If a pundit is wrong 50 times, for any reason, they should be demoted.
Imagine the gust of fresh air that would sweep journalism, starting with Fox News. Their viewership would go up, too. It's win-win.
Seeing as comments are closed for the other "center-right" thread, I would like to chime in here and offer this idea of mine.
This especially goes out to loonz, mary59, and OnceYouGoBarack.
I am currently looking into forming an addiction support group for people just like you, Factcheckaholics. I will call this program Factcheckaholics Anonymous (FA). It will be a twelve step program similar to AA or NA and it will focus on those whose minds have been twisted into thinking that Factcheck.org is a non-partisan, non-biased research group that is the sole source for "the truth" or "the facts".
Symptoms of Factcheckaholism include: Repeatedly posting links to factcheck.org articles in an attempt to "end the argument" knock-out punch style, constantly bringing up the point that factcheck.org is connected to the Annenburg Foundation, so it can't POSSIBLY have a leftist slant, habitual acceptance of their articles as logical, honest, straight-forward and thorough.
Look for your local chapter of Factcheckaholics Anonymous, forming soon.
To believe that Factcheck.org is non-biased is as absurd as believing that Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".
Well, that's better than what you did. You posted a link to an opinion piece written by a far right pundit to back up your claim and you linked to a census bureau page that states it doesn't distinguish between large and small businesses. This is what conservatives always do: they use sources who rely on assumptions, innuendo and their wild imagination to come to a conclusion or they cite sources which doesn't back up their claims.
Profanity filter seems to be imagining things.
right wingers and faucks news use fact checking like was done on PhenPhen, thalidomide andthe intelligence on Iraq before the invasion. It is slanted with erzats statistics based on speculation and incomplete data.
We have a group created just for you too. It's called "Denying Even the Narrative Selectively and Exclusively" (DENSE). Symptoms treated include belief that everything right wings spout without proof is immediately a fact while anything left wings post with supporting documentation to back it up is immediately suspect, never posting a fact to back a right wing talking point, and believing photographic proof was photoshopped.
You may as well admit that we never walked on the moon, that it was staged in the arizona desert or something along those lines.
Bingo. You nailed it snoopy style.
faucks news facts are based on the writings Genesis and the dead sea scrolls.
Most Americans want progress and progress and conservitism are juxtaposed by definition. So the Majority are not conservitives which believe in the status quo (by definition) which is again antithetical to progress. Conservitism is a failed ideology base on antiquated, impractical dogma. Conservitism is based on negative emotions, primarily, superstition and hate with a whole lot bearing false witness against reality.
Considering you claimed the "game was over" and there was "breaking news" concerning the judge granting Berg's motion in Berg v. Obama and then ran away, I suggest a new support group for you: "The Truth"
The truth is, Obama just received 52% of the votes and scored a decisive victory. Does that make him "Center-Right?" What is to be believed from conservatives these days? If Obama is a "socialist" and a "Marxist" why did a "Center-Right" country elect him? If he was "running as a conservative" and his actions match his words, especially when it comes to taxes, you should be thrilled if he governs as he ran, correct?
If people on the right like that Georgia Congressman who fears a dictatorship aren't blowing smoke, why do so many similar folks on the right favor a unitary executive? Do you all favor that only when your party is in power?
Be nice to FD. It must be frustrating to spend so much time & effort coming up with a "zinger" that the comments are closed.
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George is zinged at a meeting and has no comeback. Later, he thinks that he's come up with the ultimate comeback: "The jerk store called, they are running out of you!" He flys across the country to another meeting just so he can deliver what he thinks is a killer zinger to great comic effect.
And then he got zinged right back remember:
"That's OK because you're their best seller..."
And it all started off with, "The ocean called, and they're running out of shrimp" as George stuffs his face with large amounts of shrimp cocktail. Remember, it's all about context.
Oh yeah? Well, I'm having sex with your wife!
(One of my favorite episodes, because every one of us has experienced that; coming up with the most devastating comeback about 12 hours after the opportunity's gone.)
"Uh - George - his wife is in a coma".
Classic.
some women fake orgazms and some fake comas. Looking at limpybahaha and I don't have to fake hurling
And what, exactly, have you found on Factcheck.org to be not true? Specific examples please. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, they are probably the most trusted, and truthful organization out there, actually doing the fact checking. They're not partisan, but the FACT that the republican side of things is called out more often would indicate what exactly? Right, that they're the ones telling more lies.
Remember the 2004 Vice-Presidential Debate? Dick Cheney told the audience to look something up on factcheck.com, because they are a unbiased fact checker. The only problem for was that factcheck.com is a anti-Bush site. Cheney meant factcheck.org.
I think that if Cheney doesn't think the site is biased, then there's no way it can be.
I have found a couple factual errors on FactCheck.
(1) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/message/9486
Incorrect correction of Dennic Kucinich on military spending. (Kucinich apparently used a method of accounting that includes continuing costs of past wars; FactCheck did not.)
(2) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/message/11856
Referred to Ralph Nader as the 2008 Green Party candidate for President. In 2008 Nader ran as an independent; Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party candidate.
The latter mistake is just a flub; the former most probably indicates *right-wing* bias.
I'm going to form a support group for people like you and I'm going to call it FU.
Oh, and you can spare me the "so angry," "no sense of humor," "level of discourse" responses with which I'm sure you would love to retort. I thought it was funny, so I said it.
I'm addicted to something. It's called reality. You should check into it sometime. It's exhilarating.
By the way, this post of yours is the pentultimate example of a troll. It looks like you are angry that you couldn't get the last post in on the other thread before the comments were closed, so you are trying to drag it on here. Good luck with your trolling addition.
Are you on drugs?
I would hate to beleive the people, I mean college political scientist always know more then what comes out of a person's mouth.
When it comes to the 95% tax cut, time will tell. Just not sure how 5% of this country is going to carry the burden.
Because that 5% has ALL THE MONEY.
And they've had an 8 year tax vacation.
All the burden? It's not like the top 5% will be the only ones paying taxes.
Another idiot with a flawed argument.
If you follow your argument to it's logical conclusion, you're basically saying that 5% of the nation is going to carry the tax burden. Sorry, but giving a tax cut (not a tax reprieve) doesn't put the burden on the upper 5%. It means that the upper 5% will have to pay a bit more, while 95% of the population will see a tax cut, but continue to pay taxes - just a fairer, smaller share.
What people consider moderate positions are what the Republican Party consider 'hard left'.
Social security is 'leftist'. The United Nations is 'leftist'. Wihdrawing from Iraq is 'hard left', not to mention treasonous. Reproductive choice is hard leftist and Godless to boot. Single-payer health insurance is 'radical left.' Habeas Corpis is 'leftist.' Opposing torture is leftist. Suppoert for science is leftist.
People who consider themselves moderates will take all these positions. Because they ARE moderate positions.
The country, I think, has moved left, but not radically so.
But the DISCOURSE, that has been controlled by the Republicans for a while now, has shifted to the Right.
We may be, by some measure, center-right, but by that same measure, the Republican party is radically, ultra-hard, Mountain Dew Chugging ExTREEM hard right. They own none of that territory.
They were there right up until last tuesday evening, screaming socialism and Islamofascism at the top of their voices--and now they're Nelson Rockefeller.
It won't work.
This is a stupid discussion, I bet that 99% of the people that you ask don't know the definition of Liberal, Consevative, center right, or center left, social conservative etc...
I bet that 1% of the people that you ask will say that the truth, common sense and reason have no political labels.
I bet that anyone with a functional frontal cortex with at least 3 functioning neurons don't believe 100% of anything a conservitive says about anything political, scientific or religious.
I found the sources and info referenced by mmfa to be enlightning and interesting. They help to buttress the argument made by mmfa that the country is not center-right.
Yet, their rebuttal did not offer definitive proof...it did provide sound evidence to support their contention. For those that think mmfa has slammed the door on the center-right theory...remember this approach by mmfa the next time the topic is global warming:
mmfa did a nice job of balancing the reporting on this thread. But, based on past performances I won't be holding my breath that mmfa accepts the same reasoning when discussing global warming and the same tactic is used by those who do not support the idea that man is the controlling factor.
-- Media liberals claim man is responsible for global warming, but earth scientists challenge the reliance on flawed data. --
Media liberals don't make this claim about global warming. Scientists who did the work make the claim, backed by evidence, that global warming is being increased by mankind on the planet. Not one study suggests that mankind is to blame for global warming, period.
There are not reputable earth scientists, that I've seen, who argue that global warming is not being helped along by mankind, and that we're making it worse.
Actually, I think we should examine the motives of those "scientists" who deny Global Warming or humanity's role in it. How many are getting paychecks from Oil Companies, or other big corporations that will be negatively affected by alternative energy sources and climate-related regulations?
I don't think there's any question why Rush Limbaugh poo-poos global warming... his true religion is Corporate Profit, and he's paid very well to evangelize it. In his feeble mind, solving a global climate crisis runs a distant second to the profit margins of his Big Business Sugardaddies.
Global Warming is caused by fly farts in Ethiopia. This is a faucks fact.
I knew this would slide over the head of some...just didn't expect it to be you.
-- Not one study suggests that mankind is to blame for global warming, period. --magnolia
I guess that proves that you can't believe everything you read on the internet...yikes.
I'm not sure of your point, assuming you have one.
I said, not one study said that mankind was the express cause of global warming (why we're discussing this here, I'm not sure). Most, or the majority of studies that I've read about, or have read, concluded that yes, the Earth has a natural cooling and warming cycle, and that we're in a warming cycle, but that cycle is being exacerbated by our emissions of greenhouse gases. That's what I was trying to say. I think you might have missed it.
-- why we're discussing this here, I'm not sure -- magnolia
Beats me...you're the one arguing man-made GW. I raised the issue of reporting styles and tactics and you took off on GW...
But on your GW comments...I didn't miss anything. You said "Not one study suggests that mankind is to blame for global warming, period." It appears what you were trying to say and what you actually said are conflicted.
My comment had nothing to do with GW...but it does have everything to do with mmfa's reporting on this issue. They don't get to have it both ways...and only when it suits them and their legion of sycophants.
Man didn't cause the most recent warming cycle. Man has just amplified and accelerated the warming that was already occurring at the natural rate.
Unfortunatetly, basic reading comprehension seems to be an asset not possessed by many on the right.
Ice core samples from 50k years ago show much less co2 in the atmosphere then as apposed to now. Scientists that study ice core samples unanimously say an increase in co2 is a man made phenomena. 2+2=4
"I found the sources and info referenced by mmfa to be enlightning and interesting. They help to buttress the argument made by mmfa that the country is not center-right.
Yet, their rebuttal did not offer definitive proof...it did provide sound evidence to support their contention. For those that think mmfa has slammed the door on the center-right theory...remember this approach by mmfa the next time the topic is global warming:"
Keep on keepin' on, Wes. Just cling to your conservative ideology. I hope every Republican politician cleaves as tenaciously to their ideology as you. As McCain and Palin both articulated, and the media doggedly repeated, the people had a very clear choice between a big gubmint, tax and spend librul and a small gubmint, tax cutting Reaganite. Yet, more people gave their vote to Barack, the liberal. That liberal slur is loosing juice for you guys. Your think tank marketers are gonna have to develop another smear.
As for complaining about the methodology of this study, just save it. We both know the answers to polls are inextricably linked to the framing of the question. If you don't think the questions in the study were reflective of actual conservative positions then make that argument. There's a debate to be had on those grounds, but your vagaries are just ignorant. You pollute these pages with more ridiculous, slanted studies and polls than any poster here, save for AnotherAmerican.
Not surprisingly, red meat conservatives are wallowing in denial, now that the shock of Tuesday night has worn off, and media bloviators are denying what happened actually happened. Basically, the arguments run along one of two or three lines: Obama tricked people, Obama stole the election or that despite the size and scope of the win across counties and states, he must abandon the liberal or progressive wing of the Democratic party and govern from the center.
Besides Tom Brokaw's ill-advised comment, speaking on MSNBC’s Hardball, Michele Bernard intoned that “Obama will have to govern from the center because that’s where America is.”
Oh, no it isn’t, girl.
Then Neil Stevens, writing at Red State, insists, “Democrats are going to claim that Obama's margin of victory over John McCain was a large, overwhelming repudiation of the Republican party, and that it was possibly even a historical turning point of partisan political realignment. There's just one problem with that theory: It's not true.”
Sorry, Neil, but it is true.
Even David Brooks, appearing on the PBS NewsHour last night, stated firmly that “Obama will have to fight off the left-wing of his party to govern more from the center.”
Got it wrong, again, David.
Thursday morning, at his Conscience of a Liberal blog in The New York Times, Paul Krugman thoughtfully provided a county-by-county map of the United States showing which counties voted more heavily Democratic in 2008 than in 2004, and those counties voting more Republican this time around than in the last election. Much of the nation has a decidedly blue tint.
Sorry, Michelle; my condolences, Neil; heartfelt sympathies; David, look again. The fact is that the map clearly indicates a major leftward shift straight across the country, even in states McCain won. Only in eastern Oklahoma, a large swath of Arkansas, southern Louisiana (now heavily white in post-Katrina New Orleans) and Tennessee did more people cast Republican votes than in 2004.
And yet much of the media and the right persists.
Victor Davis Hanson of the National Review grandly announces, “Like the young emperor Augustus, Obama may well have sensed that a country eager for change was still a largely traditional and centrist society — as this election’s relatively close popular vote reflected.”
A close popular vote? The map aside, Obama received well over 63.2-million votes, more than any presidential candidate in American history, beating McCain by nearly eight million votes – or the equvilent of about 12.5 Alaska’s.
Nevertheless, right wing blogger Kevin Walker wants to remind people that, “I just hope those few correct-minded people in Congress (Note: He means the remaining Republicans) will fight tooth and nail to Chairman O and his cohorts' policies that will only hurt America.”
Walker doesn’t say which of Obama’s policies will hurt America: Perhaps universal health care, which the vast majority of the country says it supports – including big business? Maybe ending Wall St. shenanigans that sent the US and the world spinning into a deep recession? How about getting out of Iraq, another winner with 80% of Americans who see the war as a tragic error? Will a more equitable tax code hurt America, with the rich actually paying their fair share? Walker leaves out the specifics.
Meanwhile, a far right, moon batty blogger who goes by the name of Moonbattery, is quoted on Huffington Post as writing, “This is a day of celebration for everyone hostile to America and the principles of individual liberty for which it stands.”
Excuse me, Moonbeam, but George Bush and Dick Cheney tore individual liberties to absolute scraps of paper during their two terms so the Bill of Rights only barely resembles what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Even when it comes to the economy, conservatives remain in a state of denial. In describing what is happening now in the US, Manchester Union-Leader columnist Kathleen Parker writes today, “Granted, not everyone got to play Monopoly, but our hardships are relatively benign.”
Tell that to everyone who lost their job, their home, their health insurance and their hope for a better life.
The election made a number of things clear about 21st century America, prime among them that the Republican Party’s laisser-faire attitude about business and regulation, about social issues and the role of religion in public life, and what governing for all of the people means all need a massive re-think.
Barack Obama will be everybody’s president but, based on what happened in this election, the last thing he needs to do is worry about governing from the center. The American center has moved left.
The flaw in your logic is in making the assumption that every person who voted for Obama is a center left or left person. Not true.
I voted for Obama although I am a center right person. I thought he was the better candidate. He was also the only Democrat I voted for. There are many others that voted split tickets this time around.
The center shifts, and with this election it shifted to the left as people realized the bankruptcy of Bushes policies and the neo-con philosophies behind them.
The country socially always drifts leftward and will continue to do so. This a natural process as people becomre more tolerant and less judgemental. Where the balance sways back and forth is in the realm of economics. In economics, the public is very much "what have you done for me lately?" voters. In this election, they decided to give regulation and oversight a shot at preventing coporate corruption. If the government is perceived to become too intrusive and draconian, the public will likely swing back the other way. However, will that swing offset the inevitable leftward crawl socially, in the same period?
The Troglodytes are hedging their bets here. They will fight Obama tooth and nail on every proposal.... they will dig in their heels and obstruct his agenda wherever they can.
Given that, they still have to allow for the possibility that he may succeed, in which case they must claim him as one of their own. Then, they will pretend that they used their influence to force him back to their way of thinking.
It's all about avoiding the profound irrelevance they so richly deserve.
From viewing the various video clips, you would think the Republicans won in every category: Executive Senate and Congressional. They have not. Within every level of government, Americans "kicked the bums out."
Leave it up to the "Spin Doctors" to call it like Druge wrote it. Now, we can look at all that has been done to change the face of our political climate. So, the millions in dollars, the hours of strategical planing and the hundreds of man hours will now fall prey to a simple counter statement: "The Democrats really won by being Republicans." The Republicans may not of stole another election, but they have not trying to steal something that is not theirs.
On cue, the Republicans have made this year a monumental year of blunders and political bad moves. Everything they have did and said came out ass backwards and in most cases was used against them. This current claim will be no exception. You need only ask John McCain and Sarah Palin. They took the lead in blunders.
In this election, Americans said one thing loud and clear: "we our not stupid and we want our country back." Change is in and we have to make it work for us. It is truly an exciting time.
Joseph
Well, just compare this to the way Limbaugh behaved after 2000 and 2004. He basically told Democrats to get over it and "Shut the Hell Up". He bragged about the birth of the "Permanent Republican Majority", and how America had embraced Conservatism.
He's just as full of sh*t now as he was then.
It makes your head spin how quickly Obama turned from a socialist into a center-rightist.
By the Right's own logic, the election proves America is a socialist country.
So, in other words, according to Limbaugh America is a center-right country, but yet they still lost the election to a man they called the most liberal Senator. Boy, what a bunch of F-ups... ;>)
You have to love the video still on this article. It's obviously Limbaugh demonstrating the size of his penis, even after Viagra.
Rush will never do a subway commercial with that kinda depth perception.
You know what? Fine. Campaign on the issues like Obama did if you think he's so conservative.
Or.
Rush and Hannity and all the rest of you delusion Republicans, do it. Double down on conservatism if you think you have the winning hand. If you think you have the ideas that speak to the masses, do it. Go further right while the grassroots, netroots liberals and progressives keep pushing for a center-left agenda and a culture change (and we will change the culture, we will tell a better American story.)
We'll see the results in the ballot box.
I welcome the Cons to draw the wrong conclusions from this election. It will just guarantee another tone-deaf campaign in 2012.
The remains of Neoconderthals shows us evidence of their development and understanding of economics, foreign policy, the constitution, federalism, history, and science over nearly a decade. The opinion of any self-respecting archeologist who would NOT assume that these remarkable people would be destined for extinction is based solely on the theory that the rabbit-like procreational practices of limpaugh and hannity reproduces them at a pace which equals or surpasses the rate of natural eradication individually.
Personally, I think all these debates about whether or not the United States is a "left" nation or a "right" nation are stupid and a waste of time. What constitues "left" or "right" is, and always will be, a matter of one's own viewpoint. To Bill O'Reilly, anyone to the left of him is "far left."
Barack Obama was elected president on a very issue-oriented platform. He now has a clear mandate to enact the policies he described on the campaign trail. He'll be a successful president if he now pursues the policy agenda he described. If for some reason he starts going after a different sort of policy agenda, he'll lose his mandate. Whether that's "left" or "right" doesn't matter--what matters is whether or not he carries out his campaign promises, and whether he governs competently.
Buzz,
I agree totally with your first point. The country is what it is.
I think many factors went into the Obama win. The current economic crisis pinned to the Republicans had a lot to do with it as did Obama's personal charisma, his campaign's ability to sell their message by outspending McCain in advertising, the media bias, and McCain's rather unorthodox campaign all played into it.
Even so, Obama only garnered 52% of the vote. That means 48% of the country voted for someone else. I would argue that he won the election but not that it is a clear mandate. We'll have to see if he can govern competently. I sure do hope so. I pray that he isn't tested with a major international crisis right off the bat like Biden predicted.
"I would argue that he won the election but not that it is a clear mandate."
Yes, you could argue that. However, when Bush was re-elected by a much smaller margin than Obama was elected, he claimed a "clear mandate" to privatize social security. In those terms, Obama has a clearer mandate than Bush ever did.
So yes, you could argue that, but from a Republican frame of mind, it's pretty clear Obama has a mandate.
db,
Every candidate who wins says they have a clear mandate. Nothing new there. I doubt Reid or Pelosi felt that Bush had the mandate. I would argue that when landslides occur, then the President elect has a mandate. However this discussion about mandates is really meaningless. Obama will be the Prez and he'll pursue his agenda regardless of how anyone describes his election victory.
Sure, I'm not saying Obama has one, I'm just saying the last four years were governed like there was one, and yet there clearly wasn't.
Uh, excuse me? From the electoral vote pov it was a crushing defeat, and from a mandate pov it is more of a mandate than bush's -1% loss in the popular vote. He has a crushing mandate, get used to it.
Why hasn't Media Matters posted anything since Monday?
With the media and pollsters evolving into propaganda machines for the far left, we must knw the names and credentials of those thos did this study. There are liares, damn liars, and then statistics. Obama won on a voter "hissy fit" aginst George Bush who kept us safe for 8 years, full employment for 8 years, grew the economy for 8 years, made great strides in "No Child Left Behind", and AIDS on the Africian Contentant. His most stunning accomplishment was the decision on the "Surge" contrary to strong oposition, including "The One". Remember more Iraqi lives were lost before than after their liberation to freedom. What the far left did to this brave, and decent sitting President of the United States of America boarders on derangement of an entire nation.
...and then you woke up from your wet dream, sad and sticky.
You have keenly demonstrated that ignorant proclivity of the far right to believe their own bs. You and your dipstick movement buds with your static view of this historic repudiation of conservatism are the reason Republicans lost this election and you are the reason Republicans will continue to lose.
Arguments about the meaning of words is a clear indication that a)people don't know the real definitions, and/or b)There are no real agreed upon definitions.
The article mentions political scientists expressed their opinion... which contradicts the media who says the nation is "center-right." Media Matters with its survey says we are more progressive.
In any event, there isn't even a reference on the definition of the terms, or some method of classifying ideologies. So, all the chatter becomes meaningless, unless some consensus can be reach on what the terms mean, or some idea on the basis for the classifications.
Further, to lump a widely varying population in three major categories is non-sense. We might be better off using a scale between 1 and 100, where 50 is center, and so on. Then moderate right or extreme right couldn't use the word liberal or progressive as an insult for not being right of center.
The most annoying part of stories like this (to me) is not the distortion of the liberal-moderate-conservative axis, but the unstated presupposition that there are no other possible political positions.
So much for us anarchists--
Anarchist? You're a libertarian? ;)