Can someone please explain to me why the Republican Party still enjoys

[KingCharlemagne]

support in the 35-50% range, year in and year out?

Logic says the Republicans deserve no more than 5-10% of the electorate's support and that the real battles should be between centrist Dems and progressive Dems (Socialists and other points left).

I'm sure there's some reason for this surprising resilience to Americans' support for Republicans, but I just don't get it. I really don't.

What explains Republicans' continuing appeal to large swaths of the American electorate?

[99Forever]

1. Because a fair number of Democratic "leaders"...

... lack the guts to stand up to them and the spine to fight them or their corporate owners.

[KingCharlemagne]

2. I was on another thread here just a few minutes ago and said Republicans had

passed their expiration date in 1980 if not 1932.

It's really distressing to me to see a party ideology founded predominantly on fear and hate (and non-essential peripheral issues) continue to enjoy near-majority support. I am at a loss to explain its persistence.

Thanks for responding, btw.

[kelliekat44]

128. They mostly racist, bigoted and don't like minorities and they especially don't like those who try

to help minorities and the poor (Clinton, Carter, JFK, even LBJ and certainly they hate FDR).

[MineralMan]

3. That's an interesting question.

Since we have a de facto two-party system in the US, it tends to be balanced in support of the two parties. If it weren't, one of those parties would probably be replaced with something else. The two parties are not separated by any sort of bright line, either. Instead, voters' thinking lies along a continuum of political opinion.

A more or less equal division of political leanings along party lines is almost inevitable in a two-party system, and that's the main reason we have such a close division, nationwide.

Add to that the general lack of understanding that most voters have of both our system and the issues that are exposed in every election means that they choose how to vote based on something other than facts and their own best interests. Issues faced are complex and not binary. So, things like traditional party loyalty and self-interest with regard to some particular issues often have undue weight when people make decisions in elections.

Add our traditional freedom of speech to the equation and politicians routinely lie about their positions and the positions of their opponents. The low-information level most voters have on the full range of issues means that they tend to vote based on almost anything but the actual issues. A candidate's apparent friendliness, age, gender, race or some other superficial thing can swing an election one way or another.

Two-party systems are inherently divided almost equally among voters. It's almost a given. If the division isn't close to equal, the parties will shift their rhetoric to return things to that balance. It's just how a two-party democratic system works. Inertia is always a powerful factor.

Third parties sometimes enter the picture, but rarely gain more than about 10% of the vote. That 10%, though, is often enough to skew the election to one side or another.

The bottom line, though, is that most national political opinion polls are usually divided pretty equally. We are, and probably will be, fairly equally divided politically. I don't see that changing anytime soon. So, every couple of years, we wobble back and forth between the two parties to decide who has control.

[KingCharlemagne]

6. Well, as you know, I really despise Republicans and have my entire adult voting life, going

back to 1980.

But they so unabashedly advance the interests of the wealthy and hyper-wealthy that logic says only 5-10% of the country's population should support them. IOW, they should be that 'third party' of which you speak.

I actually think family tradition may have something to do with it. Case in point: my Dad was brought up among a bunch of conservative Kansas and Missouri farmers, such that he voted for Eisenhower in 1952. Took 4 years of Ike's recession and Dad's going to school on the GI Bill to wake him up such that, in 1956, he voted Stevenson and hasn't looked back since. (He now says his vote for Eisenhower in '52 was the worst vote he ever cast

In my case I was brought up in a Democratic (Socialist) household and have never once considered voting for any of these Republican whackjobs. But, knowing I'm no genius even if of slightly above-average intelligence, I have to wonder why so many of my peers support a party that DOES NOT AND NEVER WILL represent their interests.

Thanks for responding in such detail. Much appreciated.

[elias49]

74. I didn't know you despise Republicans. How would I

we barely met...

Thanks for your interest!

[GummyBearz]

77. Well,

I'm pretty sure you answered your question yourself... family tradition. You were brought a democrat and would never vote republican. Somewhere else in this country is your doppleganger who was brought up republican and will never vote democrat. Its too bad we cant be brought up to think for ourselves and make the best choice

[KingCharlemagne]

78. Yeah, I hadn't considered the 'doppelganger' effect. Here's the thing though. The

first election I voted in was 1980 when Jimmy Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan. So I think I can fairly say that I have never seen a decent Republican candidate in all the years since. They've all been as bad as Reagan or worse (Bush II). Whereas, someone brought up in a Republican household might have fallen for Reagan's demagogic shtick but easily could have had a come-to-Jesus moment in the years after Reagan. I think a few highly-placed Republicans indeed have had that epiphany. But I can't think of a single prominent Democrat who has announced that, whoops, I had it wrong and the Republicans were right all along.

Still, thanks for weighing in. Family tradition is a powerful thing and may be a significant factor in political change in this country.

[Gloria]

125. I liken they way they talk to

the "work is freedom" gate at the concentration camp.

I mean, they twist meanings around expertly...the say things that sound great, but their actual
actions belie their true intent.
Most people either don't have or don't use any critical thinking skills at all. They want to be
spoonfed info from talkers.

[KingCharlemagne]

136. Good points. I try to shy away from comparisons to Nazi stuff, just because

the Nazi phenomenon to me seems singular in history and, while I will say that many in today's Republican Party are crypto- or neo-fascist, and that their language is eerily reminiscent of Orwell, I'm not willing to go quite as far as you (at least not yet).

That phrase "Guns, God and Gays" to explain their appeal goes to what I'm talking about. Each of the 'killer-Gs' allows people to vote for what they think are their values (and\or against the values of heathen secular humanist atheists like me) and, in so doing, vote for a party that works directly counter to their economic self-interest.

[YoungDemCA]

148. Frank Luntz is the master at this

His job is to invent talking points that help the Republican Party.

[Peacetrain]

4. Fairly simple.. they started a strategy in the 60's by taking local school board elections

, board of supervisors etc..getting themselves entrenched, names becoming known without particularly acknowledging who they were and what they stood for.. slipping under the door like slimy slugs.. getting equal access tossed and then taking over old style media that they could lie outright from without any push back.. the willingness to lie to your face, even when confronted with the lie.. to hang on to that lie.. try this it might explain a lot

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

[KingCharlemagne]

9. That is a very interesting article (about, among other things, confirmation bias

and cognitive dissonance), so thank you for posting it.

Actually, it's more like cognitive dissonance on steroids, as the study participants given corrections adhered more strongly to the original incorrect belief after being shown the correction! That's really startling. And does not bode well for sanity in our political process.

[Freddie]

14. Excellent point

There's a lot of local elections around here this year--state rep, township supervisor, etc.--and NOT ONE of the candidates puts their political party in their advertising! So people vote for the familiar name which is of course the Repug incumbent. I just throw the straight D every general election.

[Peacetrain]

17. Exactly... it is a well used ploy..

I live in a very red area where they are pretty entrenched.. most people do not pay attention to politics like party members do.. so they go to the polls on vote for the familiar name.. the ploy is to get into office, and not cause too great a stir at the beginning, to become incumbents.. that is the basically the point.. incumbency .. it is a very long term plan.. and it goes step by step... till they have taken over the territory they want by incumbency.. and all hell break loose .. add to that the 2010 district realignment.. and you have pretty much a perfect storm of sneaky underhanded power grabs.. I do not know if you are in a red or blue area..but if you are in a blue area.. heads up on this one.. do some digging before you vote on those small elections..

[tabbycat31]

70. It depends on the location

IN my jurisdiction, the local (school board, council, mayor) races are 'nonpartisan.' (They used to be held in April/May but were moved to November to save on election costs). Even though the candidates might be affiliated with a political party, they can't run under their party's banner (or column on the ballot). We had a Democratic mayor for awhile (and a very liberal one) and she stepped down after her term ended in January 2013 (she decided not to run again and lost her battle with cancer in May of this year). She was the last Democratic elected official in this town as the current mayor and council are all GOP.

These nonpartisan races are a good opportunity for Democrats everywhere to build their bench (I'm personally considering running for council in 2016). Because if you run for a higher (partisan) office and already have a title and track record, you're a lot more credible as a candidate. Podunk mayor Joe Smith running for state assembly sounds better than Joe Smith running for state assembly. Especially if the citizens of Podunk love their mayor.

[RobinA]

133. That's Happening

around me big time, but I never realized it was a Thing. I see yard sign after yard sign with no party affiliation attached. I say to myself, OK f***s, for that I go to the poll and vote a straight party ticket. Which I never do. I haven't split a ticket since the '70's, but I don't vote straight party, I vote for who I know and if I never heard of you I don't vote for you no matter what party you are from. This in part because I don't, DO NOT, vote for pro-lifers of any stripe, not even accidently. This time around I am likely to vote Dem all the way down. Although I do have to check out the abortion status. I DO NOT vote for pro-lifers, even for dog catcher.

[Peacetrain]

149. It is so blasted confusing.. and they hide their true

political leanings.. they are patient and willing to keep it to themselves through more than one election cycle till they are entrenched..

[YoungDemCA]

146. Good points, and fascinating article!

[Peacetrain]

150. When I first read that in 2010 it was on DU

It really does explain the dynamics of people voting against their own best interests..and very scary .. it proves a point that took me a long time to come to grips with.. most people are not reasonable.. they are mired to their point of view..

[walkingman]

5. I think I know the answer...

just read that "white folks" (the base of the GOP) DNA samples have proven to have bred with Neanderthals 45,000 years ago. That explains a lot.

Peace

[KingCharlemagne]

7. Hey, stop insulting Neanderthals! :)

[KingCharlemagne]

107. "Childishly dismissing the issues white people face" - and what 'issues' would those

be, pray tell?

[KingCharlemagne]

109. With what attitude, pray tell?

[KingCharlemagne]

112. Well, you never did explain exactly what 'issues' white people face. I'm

still waiting for an explanation of that peculiar language.

[KingCharlemagne]

119. Sigh. I think we're done.

[The Magistrate]

121. What A Soecial Little Snowflake You Are, Fella....

"I've got to stop asking people if they're really that stupid. They take it as a challenge."

[Just Read It]

75. East Asians and Native Americans have more Neanderthal DNA than Whites

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2012/03/american-indians-neanderthals-and-denisovans-pca-views/

http://www.genetics.org/content/early/2013/02/04/genetics.112.148213

But I guess racism isn't acceptable against those Neanderthals.

Having Neanderthal genes has been highly advantageous, by the way! We are benefiting from natural selection thanks to Neanderthal DNA.

[walkingman]

79. GOP (White Party) Tears

[link:|

[Just Read It]

81. Neanderthals Vote Democrat

Whether they're White or Yellow! The GOP doesn't have a monopoly on us.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

8. Large swaths of the electorate can't even tell you who the vice president is.

The corporate media no longer functions as the fourth estate. Their job is now to keep you as uninformed as possible. A perfect example is during the Viet Nam war, the war was on the T.V. every night. It helped shape public opinion. Now, with the exception of the shock and awe day, you wouldn't even know we are at war at all if you depend on corporate media for your information.

[KingCharlemagne]

10. Interesting. Suggests that the media now serve only to confirm folks' pre-existing

biases, not to 'inform' them about matters upon which they are ignorant.

I wish I could explain to myself why so many are so easily seduced by the Republicans' brand of charlatanism and demagoguery. Maybe the media is to blame but the charlatans and demagogues couldn't thrive wihtout a receptive population to begin with.

Thanks for responding, btw.

[Scuba]

105. Close. The media confirms folk's pre-existing bias if that bias is right wing. Leftist positions...

... are given far, far less airtime/ink than right-wing positions. This may help you understand the problem ...

[hifiguy]

154. This cannot be repeated often enough.

It is one of the biggest problems in this country.

[butterfly77]

11. Because some new voters...

and new Americans are uninformed or brainwashed..

[KingCharlemagne]

13. I don't think continued support for Republicans can be laid exclusively at the

feet of new voters or new Americans. Although I hadn't stopped to consider the possibility until just now. Do you have any data to support that assertion?

Thanks for responding, btw.

[butterfly77]

16. Not exclusively but..

is part of the problem. I could give multiple reasons those were just a few...

[KingCharlemagne]

18. Yeah, as regards your point about 'new voters,' I think family traditions

may explain some of this. Your Mom and Dad voted Republican (back when there might have been a few decent Rs), so you will vote for a monstrous Republican Party until Newton's third law of political motion kicks in and you are countered by an equal but opposite force (like simple human decency asserting itself, for example).

I had not stopped to consider the role of 'new voters' and newly naturalized American citizens until you mentioned it. I'm not a demographer or political scientist and have no idea where one would go to look for data on the role those groups play. But it's definitely a piece of the puzzle!

[butterfly77]

21. In the case of newly naturalized voters..

Some (may) not get the lay of the land yet or how the games are being played or they are just happy to be here so they are easy pickings for politicians.

Some (may) changed after they see through the bull. It all depends on who benefits from what?

[Populist_Prole]

12. Despite today's polarization, politics is quite nebulous when it comes to which side some will pick

As you say: "Logic says the Republicans deserve no more than 5-10% of the electorate's support" and I think you're right. Right "on paper" anyway; I'd say that 5-10% ( or even 11 percent if we factor in the apolitical super-rich just padding their nests ) are the hard-right base/nucleus. Hard hard right; as in siding with hardest right stance on every issue.

The trouble is that another 30-35% vote on wedge social issues or inertia. They may not, and in fact don't support every stance of the crazy base, but much like the cable/satellite TV packaging racket; forces them to choose a "package" ( party ) to get the one or two "channels" ( issues ) they really want. They're not particularly given to critical thought and so all too many will not think the issue through and realize the ultimately corrosive net effect on their being that casting their lot with the GOP has. So it's god, guns whatever.

It makes no logical sense, but they run with it.

[KingCharlemagne]

15. That is a damned fine and thoughtful response. Do your ideas lend themselves to any

practical steps Dems might have to start eroding that 30-35% of fringe voters?

Thanks for responding, btw.

[Populist_Prole]

23. Well yes. Practical steps but seemingly maddeningly just out of reach

My wish would be for an all-consuming focus on economic issues via economic populism rather than social issues. Not to the disdain of social issues, but rather the knowledge of their distracting effect to a working class treading water. Not of the technocratic wonk-ish type, but in real-world terms. It's an absolutely winning strategy and it does work on a local or regional level.

The trouble is that economic populism seems to be regarded as a wedge issue of it's own with the Democratic party on a national level. The DLC / Third-Way setting the national agenda is not at all bashful in treating economic populism as an electrified political "third-rail".....and for obvious reasons.

My hope is that the Dems will be successful enough in the midterms to gain some breathing room and critical mass in the house and senate to the point they're not desperate to win at any cost: Allowing them to run with less deference to corporate money and more on progressive issues. In the long run progressive interests both socially and economically will be better served.

Quite the pipe dream, isn't it?

[KingCharlemagne]

28. I like the way you think and approach issues, instead of simply throwing up your hands

and running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Not a pipe dream at all. I've said elsewhere that 2014 mid-terms are a win-win for Dems. If they win, so much the better. If they lose, they're merely giving the Republicans more rope with which to hang themselves come 2016. Neither scenario need produce a mindset where Dems feel they must 'win at any cost.'

Just so I don't seem like a cold, heartless bastard, a Republican win in the 2014 mid-terms will represent near-term ongoing hardship for working-class Americans. If I weren't myself so close to being under the bus myself, I'd not want to throw workers under the bus. And I really don't want to. But I think the stage is getting set for a massive Democratic landslide in 2016 (when a lot of Republican Senators are up for re-election and themselves vulnerable the way sitting Dem Senatorrs are in 2014).

[Fumesucker]

19. The rock bottom support for Republicans is 27% or so..

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html

John: Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is --

Tyrone: 27%.

John: ... you said that immmediately, and with some authority.

Tyrone: Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That's crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population.

If you start watching for it that 27% number pops up time after time in voting patterns..

[KingCharlemagne]

22. The last sentence of your excerpt is the keeper! The 'Crazification Factor'. Gawd, I

just want to go right about now.

[DemocraticWing]

20. The Republicans run as the party of straight, white, economically secure Christians.

That makes up a large proportion of the electorate. Poor people and minorities vote in lower numbers (partially due to Republicans suppressing the vote) and the GOP all but says the elections are "us vs. them" to the group of people who keep voting for them. This is why changing demographics are such a threat to the Republicans as they currently exist, but rest assured that a different America will result in both parties adjusting their message to fit the new electorate. That's how it's always been and always will be in our voting system.

[KingCharlemagne]

24. Excellent analysis. I would add though that 'straight, white, economically secure

Christians' are, for the most part, reasonably sane. I call the Republicans 'whack jobs' for a reason -- they are literally delusional, batshit crazy, insane. Oh, sure, they're functional and some are clever or crafty. But I can't stand to talk to any for more than about 30 seconds because they're 'crazy makers,' the kind of people one associates with perpetrators of domestic abuse and its ilk.

Does that mean that the 'large proportion of the electorate' are also certifiably nuts? That really depresses the hell out of me.

Thanks for responding, btw.

[DemocraticWing]

26. A certain amount are nuts, but not all of them.

The GOP has them convinced that electing Democrats will lead to the end of their somewhat only-in-their-minds "White Christian America." Republican voters are doing OK in that America, or at least think they are, and are afraid to give it up even if it helps others.

I wouldn't say a lot of people are nuts, but most people are selfish. It's why Jesus decried selfishness at every turn, even if the Republicans try to twist his words into fitting something entirely different.

[cali]

25. Voting is hardly just about logic. I don't understand why this is such a mystery to you

but here's the explanation: Many Americans agree with the republicans and its emotion based more than anything else.

[KingCharlemagne]

30. Yeah, my wife constantly gives me shit for indulging my Spock-like tendencies to the

detriment of the emotional. Maybe I could rephrase the question: why do you think the Republicans have such an emotional appeal? From where I sit, they try to use fear, anger and hate. I know those are powerful emotions, but why should they be equally as strong as hope, empathy and love?

Thanks for responding, btw.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. How often do you really see Dems pushing hope, empathy and love?

Obama did in 2008, and got massive support, massive numbers of brand new voters turning out.

Then the hope turned to 'Well, you're at least still surviving, we didn't toally fall off the cliff, we're 'recovering'! Oh, and yeah, 93% of that 'recovery' is going to the few people at the top who weren't really even hurt by the crash'.

The problem with hope, empathy, and love is that you've got to actually follow up. There can't always be 'jam tomorrow'. Sometimes, it's got to be 'jam today'.

[KingCharlemagne]

48. Not often enough, I suppose. I think some of that massive support for President Obama in 2008 was

due to widespread revulsion at what Bush and his Junta had wrought. But you make some good points. The sense of a squandered opportunity is what I take from 2009-10. I really hoped to see President Obama go for the (political) jugular and put Republicans into the dustbin of history. But based on what I've read here, that was hoping for something unrealistic.

[lpbk2713]

27. A lot of people are apolitical.

But their employer/manager preaches GOP/good Dem/bad and
so they go with the flow to stay in the boss' good graces.

[KingCharlemagne]

31. The truth of what you write is really sad. - nt

[rock]

29. It has taken several decades

for the repiggy politicians using the press and other means to ignorantize the voting population. This is the part of the US population that believes in woo, Creationism, non-science, non-climate-change, etc. What would you expect from such a mentality?

[KingCharlemagne]

32. It's frankly terrifying, isn't it? - nt

[rock]

36. Indeed, it's like having a large gathering of zombies

from "The Walking Dead" going to the polls. Personally I feel the zombies would make better choices!

[BlueCaliDem]

156. Yep. Goes to show that well-tested propaganda works effortlessly on the masses.

They hear the sound of the bell, but don't know where the clapper hangs (rough translation from the Dutch idiom, "Ze horen de klok luiden maar weet niet waar de klepel hangt&quot which means, they think they know the subject, but the essence eludes them. Well-tested and well-funded propaganda pieces can change the essence of any thought. The billionaire-backed, anti-American members of the GOP have perfected this psy-ops against the American people, not using the press but aided and abetted by them.

Religion is gratuitously used to refine and strengthen this psy-ops strategy against people, as well, because a thinking electorate is a dangerous electorate and people like the Koch Bros know it as no other.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. Because half the population is of below average intelligence?

(That's always been amusing to me, even if it should be below 'median' intelligence.

But seriously, there are a lot of people who don't think critically, in part because Republicans have spent decades working to dumb down the country. The rich ones want peasants who won't challenge anything they do, and the less rich want to become rich through grifting. That's why they always talk about 'opportunity', treating life as a lottery - 'Hey, vote for us, and there's some incredibly minute chance you might be able to stay afloat while we're doing things to try and sink you!'

[KingCharlemagne]

35. I think you may have a point (or two). It's not for nothing that Melville's

final novel (a modest little tour de force) is titled The Confidence Man. Melville could see far into his country's future and what he saw -- "the less rich want to become rich through grifting" -- ain't pretty.

I try not to let myself think too much or too often about why the Republicans enjoy such support, because it tends to make me crazy and depressed.

[Populist_Prole]

40. +1

Upthread, I was loath to oversimplify those that vote against their own interests as simply stupid, but really: They are what they are. Trying to discuss politics/policy/issues with them personally one-on-one has made that brutally clear to me.

Whether the lack of critical thinking is just laziness or stupidity, I'll never know.

[emulatorloo]

37. News media protects Republicans and reports their talking points uncritically

Republican views presented as fact and never questioned.

Republican obstructionism never reported on

That's a huge part of it.

[KingCharlemagne]

49. It's maddening, isn't it? The contant false equivocation and tu quoque tropes

the media seems attached to at the hip means that Republcians seldom get depicted as the mean, greedy bastards they are. Every once in awhile the mask starts to slip -- remembering the aftermath of Katrina or, more recently, the government shutdown -- and then it seems like the media rush to defend the R's sociopathic crackpottery.

I wish I knew what the answer to this was or is.

[Dont call me Shirley]

38. The polls are not a true representation of the American electorate.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. because 30% of the population are bigots and vote Republican because they believe Republicans

will keep those they hate in an inferior position to them......so they get to keep feeling superior to "someone" at least!

[KingCharlemagne]

45. And isn't that a sad commentary on our electorate (or at least 30% of it)? I think

you may be right. Sure wish I knew what to do about the 30% who are bigots. It really makes one despair of the human race (or at least the American portion therof).

Thanks for responding, btw.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. can't get shit done because the 30% on the fringe refuse to compromise....

hmmmm sounds familiar!

[Thinkingabout]

53. Yes, you are very correct, there are a lot of rock bottom people who vote

Against themselves and the best answer they come up with is Democrats are for woman's choice. Pretty depressing reason, GOP claims to force births but don't give a damn if the baby lives, has food, shelter and education. I say they are not for life just forced births.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― John Steinbeck

[KingCharlemagne]

46. That is a great quote! I wonder what Steinbeck would say were he alive today. He'd probably

have a few choice words for the WalMarts and Republicans of contempoary America, methinks.

Thanks for responding, btw.

[former9thward]

42. Your post only makes sense if you think DU is representative of the American public.

On DU there are disputes between center Democrats and Socialist oriented Democrats. But DU does not politically represent the voters.

[KingCharlemagne]

65. Sigh. If only it were so. I suppose I feel that Republicans represent the (economic) interests of

the top 5-10% of the population, so only 5-10% of the population should support Republicans. Well, I've already read many great responses here why that isn't necessarily so, such that I've gotten much to think about and ponder.

I really hate and despise those Republican shitbirds so I don't always make sense when discussing them But I do think understanding one's enemy and what he or she appeals to is key to defeating him or her and this post was intended to generate a discussion around that aim.

Thanks for responding, btw.

[wandy]

43. By use of operatives such as Limbaugh, Hannity and others.............

and tools like self-righteousness, herd instinct and racism, the GOP appeals to and attracts some of the darker elements of human nature. Their product is hate, fear and greed and as long as some are primarily attracted by those emotions the GOP will continue to exist if not prosper in difficult times.
Having power, wealth and media in their favor the GOP has gone full press to sell their 'product'.
What else, in known memory have they offered.

Look closely at the teapublicans around you. As they continue to work against their own best interests they will continue to more resemble their Icons. A self for-filling proficiency where hate, fear and greed is all that is left.

[customerserviceguy]

44. Because the Democratic Party has been demonized

in the rural areas that used to identify with Democratic candidates that were seen as being on the side of the working people. People out in the country want to keep their guns, they go to churches that make them uncomfortable about abortion and gay people, and they feel that support for the military makes them patriotic.

In the South, the D's managed to hold on to voters for a long time, because those in the defeated South resented the excesses of Reconstruction. After the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, then subsequent urban rioting in American cities in 1965-68, Nixon was ready to pry them away with his "Law and Order" campaign tagline. And he did it with George Wallace peeling away the votes of the most severe of the racists.

Add in the well-off folks in the suburbs who want low taxes, and you've got 35 percent right there, add in scared mushy-middlers every once in awhile, and you can jack that up to 50 percent.

[KingCharlemagne]

51. Excellent survey and analysis. "Scared mushy-middlers" - that's a new demographic. Not

sure I understand exactly who belongs in it, so perhaps you could elaborate a bit, if you get a chance.

Thanks for responding, btw.

[customerserviceguy]

61. Most people in this country are pretty much in the base

of one political party or the other. Yeah, there are some people who switch, like when there's a major life change. Those would include: Becoming progressive when medical bills have driven you bankrupt, or becoming conservative if you win the lottery and start discovering life in the top tax brackets, or if you want to be Governor of Florida again (OK, that last part was kinda snarky). But we know that at any given time, there will be some 30-40% of the electorate in the base of the two major parties, solid and immovable for the most part.

Who's left? Well, there are people who are so uninformed that they cannot possibly identify with one party or the other as having their back more often than the other party. They're the swing voters, and many of them decide just weeks, days, or even hours before going into a voting booth. Attack ads are aimed at them, and the party that scares them the least usually gets their vote at the last minute.

That's why GOTV is important to both sides, and that's why millionaires spend megabucks in last minute ad campaigns. Right now, I'd bet that the mushy middle is crapping its pants over the Ebola scare, ironically, one of the symptoms of the disease. That's why I'm pretty pessimistic this time around.

[KingCharlemagne]

63. As I could have expected, awesome analysis. I think it somewhat begs the question, though, which

is why that Republican base is 30-40%, instead of the 5-10% my rational mind tells me it should be. No worries, though. There have already been some great forays at that question in this thread and they have given me much to think about. But if you'd care to take a whack at it, I'd be honored to hear your opinion.

[customerserviceguy]

66. Where do you live?

What I mean is, urban, suburban, or rural?

We tend to suppose that most people in the country are like the people who are around us. My bet is that you live in either a progressive city, or perhaps an enlightened suburb. Most people who are conservative, and know they're out of the mainstream are not going to trumpet it, because it just brings about arguments and hurt feelings. If you lived in a small town far away from an Interstate, would you perhaps feel some reluctance to say something good about what the President's done?

But, we're all alone in the voting booth, and we expect our ballot to be secret, so while we may not have bumper stickers and yard signs proclaiming our political preferences to the world, we still get to excercise our choices silently but sometimes effectively.

I've lived in big cities, and way out in the sticks, and right now, I'm in a suburb that generally always votes Democratic. But we swapped House Representatives last year, and the GOP candidate is the son of a Republican candidate who managed to win an election as county executive, and his are the only signs I've seen up around town for the last few weeks or so. He's exploiting the Jewish vote, especially dragging in the whole Obama vs. Netanyahu thing, and I think he's got a shot at taking the seat.

[KingCharlemagne]

69. West side of Los Angeles. (Maxine Waters' district - Yay!) If I lived in a small rural town, I

would most definitely keep my Democratic Socialist leanings to myself! Where I grew up (rural southwest Missouri) I have no doubt the 'N*' word flies around with some regularity with regard to President Obama, although I haven't been back in 30 years and have no desire to go back now.

Sounds like your district needs some real GOTV effort. Good luck and hope you hold the seat in Dem hands!

[customerserviceguy]

71. There you have it

Again, we all tend to think that everybody is like the people who surround us, because the people who are around us who are different don't speak up about it. It's why some fundamentalist Christians think they don't know any gay people.

Yeah, I'm working it as much as I can, but my job is across the state line in NJ, so that's about nine hours a day that I can't really do that.

[scarystuffyo]

47. guns

[elias49]

76. "Clean up on aisle 47"

..."Aisle 47"

[DCBob]

50. RW media bias.

[nakocal]

52. They own the media and have locked up the racist vote

Why republicans are still supported is simple. They own the majority of the media. Add to that the fact they they own the votes of the millions of racists who believe that the only reason that they are not wealthy is because minorities are taking their job.

[Skittles]

55. there are a lot of stupid, easily-led people

heck, there are plenty of them on DU

[maced666]

56. MSM

and money.

[CanonRay]

57. Because 25% of the population are complete idiots

and another 15% are religious crazies (note: these groups may overlap). There you have it. No charge.

[KingCharlemagne]

68. All other things being equal, Dems should equally appeal to half of that

25% who are complete idiots. I think we'll have to concede the 15% of religious crazies to the Repubs. But the 'complete idiots' demographic should be contested ground and not conceded.

But your post is both forthright and depressing.

Thanks for responding, btw.

[pansypoo53219]

58. TEEVEE GNEWZ. subliminal memes.

and hate radio. + the lame SNL opening full of MEME.

[spanone]

59. media ownership.

[AngryAmish]

60. Logic is just a nice sounding word that confirms our prejudices.

Very rarely humans use logic.

This is not a joke. It is a fundamental error in determining why people think the way they do.

It is neither good nor bad, but we make up our mibds and d after the fact come up with reasons.

[KingCharlemagne]

62. Well, logicians might disagree with your characterization of

their discipline! But yeah, I take your point. What I meant is that Republicans represent the (economic) interests of the upper 5-110% of our society but not those of the bottom 90%. So, logically, one would expect only 5-10% of the American electorate to support Republicans.

I sometimes suspect that 90% of internet activity on these boards is people coming here seeking to find and read opinions and facts that accord with what they already believe. Lord knows, I myself am often guilty of coming to progressive boards to seek validation, to seek that feeling that "I am not alone."

Thanks for responding, btw.

[AngryAmish]

64. You pick a side and you fight on that side

Basic in group v out group thinking.

And we all believe our own lies, as well as like the smell of our own farts.

The only progress that has been made past the most basic tribal warfare has been through diffusion of scientific thought. And the only way that works is through the full monty of exposure of all experimental data to falsification and changing theoretical models to data. Simple Popper stuff.

But our brains are not built that way. For a decade or more the global warming scientist fought disclosing their raw data and code of their models. Of course you can't convince people when you hide the ball like that, esoecially when people on the other side have a good reason not to believe you.

[demwing]

67. Taxes

Last edited Sun Oct 26, 2014, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Dems do a poor job controlling the conversation

Two points we should hammer over and over:

1. Taxes are lower under Dems
2. Paying taxes is patriotic, those who avoid their taxes are not patriots.

Finesse my language as needed, but those two talking points will drive a stick through the heart of the Republican party

[KingCharlemagne]

73. That shithead Romney never did release all or even most of his tax returns, did he? This

is a really good point you're making, even if some people's eyes tend to roll backwards in their heads when the subject of taxes come up.

[Harmony Blue]

80. People don't want the government intruding

into every tiny detail of their lives. That is the appeal of the Republican party.

[KingCharlemagne]

82. And yet, the U.S. government under Bush was wiretapping the phone conversations of U.S.

citizens without even the figleaf of a FISA warrant from 2002-04. So that 'appeal' seems like something of a chimera, a cruel hoax played upon their base, more honored in the breach than in the observance.

[CakeGrrl]

90. That's a programmed cliche to lure gullible voters.

The GOP has amped up the 'scare' level of the big bad bogeyman perception of the government.

What the one-issue voters who think the government has cameras peeping into their bedroom windows seem to not understand is that this GOP will gut aspects of the government that are protecting them.

To those voters, I'd say go ahead, then…trust private corporations to protect the air and water, preserve the safety of food and transportation, provide access to education, and promise that they won't defraud their customers.

…but don't complain if you or yours fall victim to their failure to do so.

[KingCharlemagne]

98. The tragedy is that we know that there will be other entirely preventable

tragedies, thanks to gross Republican malfeasance. I mean, the MSM is allowing that scumbag Cruz to insinuate that Obama is responsible for Ebola to land here when the reality is that it was the government shutdown supported by Cruz earlier that may have caused the NIH to fail to develop a vaccine for Ebola in a timely manner. Just like the scientists warned Bush's administration about what a direct hit from a Category 4 hurricane to New Orleans would do to the city. And the warnings were for the most part ignored.

Still, I will mourn when those one-issue, low-information voters fall victim to Republican demagoguery and malfeasance. And I suspect you will too. (That's why we are Democrats, goddamnit, because we actually care about the well-being of our fellow citizens.)

[JI7]

83. many people agree with republicans on many things, take forced Ebola Quarantine

for example . in this case some dems including on DU agree with it also.

[kiva]

84. In 1932, after more than three years

of the worst depression that the U.S. had ever known, 39.7% of Americans voted for Herbert Hoover, the man who had spent the entire time denying, prevaricating, insisting recovery was 'just around the corner'.

[KingCharlemagne]

91. I guess it goes to show there's truly nothing new under the sun. That is one hell of a

telling statistic, and I thank you sincerely for digging it up for us.

[kiva]

95. You're welcome.

First time I saw it I was amazed, really brings into focus the fact that only 10-20% of the electorate is up for grabs in any given election.

[Cha]

85. That's such an easy damn answer..

The US CorporateMediaWhore$$=The GOPropaganda Machine.

[CakeGrrl]

86. Exactly. The GOP now literally owns the media.

Positive news about the Obama administration or other Dems is ignored, and they are demonized whenever there's an opportunity.

Meanwhile, the GOP's mendacity, extremism and obstructionism? Never hear of it.

And a gullible, lazy public eats it up.

Anyone who whines about the 'Liberal media' hasn't really listened to a word that comes from the MSM. They're just programmed by Fox News and RW talking heads.

[Cha]

89. And, now the M$M have their little mediawhore Chucky Todd feeding the public Bull$hite on Sunday

Mornings, too.

The "Liberal Media" thing.. pisses me off.. it's way past its due date but the gopropaganda machine keeps spewing it out 'cause it works on the brainwashed masses. They're so confused. "knowing" this and they can't possibly think it's the GOP BIG LIE Machine. Innocent little swarmy gop? Never!

[KingCharlemagne]

97. A little historical perspective: I think the resentment at the so-called 'liberal media' dates back

to America's inability to exert its will in Vietnam over many years and the search for whom to blame that failure on. The "Hippies" and the "liberal media" each played the role of useful scapegoat in this search, Few ever stopped to consider that we lost the war because the Vietnamese had a highly committed population and a brilliant military cadre headed by General Giap. So the "liberal media" got the blame because, supposedly, their negative portrayals of our efforts there (culminating in Cronkite's verdict after Tet '68 that the most we could hope for was statemate) caused Americans to turn against the war effort.

It was all bullshit, as you rightly point out, made more so by the fact that scholarly studies of the media after the war showed that the media largely remained firmly pro-war long after a majority of Americans had turned against the war effort.

If the 'liberal media' didn't exist (and it really doesn't save in the delusional minds of Faux News viewers), it would be necessary to invent it.

It's weird because after the end of Operation Desert Storm in 1990, then-President George H.W. Bush proclaimed that we had finally kicked the 'Vietnam Syndrome.' The fact that a tired, worn out old trope like the "liberal media" still gets brought out and dusted off whenever a convenient scapegoat is required is proof, if any were needed, that we really haven't kicked the 'Vietnam Syndrome.'

[Rex]

87. They have the M$M on their side 24/7

[KingCharlemagne]

93. You know, I've been thinking about this and I remember, during the aftermath of

Hurricane Katrina as the days dragged on and there was no aid for the people stranded in the SuperDome, that ABC's Charlie Gibson expressed annoyance with Bush. And I remember that, at the time, I was struck with how foreign to the ears, how out of character, that sounded. And yet, even after that, I'll wager there were still a large number of Americans who had absolutely no problem with Bush's lack of action and his administration's seeming lack of care. So I think it goes deeper than the MSM's demonstrable bias and slant.

[Rex]

100. The M$M made sure protesters of the Iraqi war were minimized. Same with OWS.

Once they realized we wouldn't get pissed off enough to grab the torches, that became the M$M standard. The M$M made sure Dan Rather retired for telling the truth. Don't underestimate the power of the M$M, they shape a lot of peoples ideals. Millions and millions.

There are some good journalists, but the standard today is Chuck Todd...a man that doesn't even hide the fact that he believes we are stupid and deserve his level of punditry.

[Prophet 451]

88. Many reasons

Firstly, remember that 19% of the US population thinks the sun orbits the earth. A fifth of the electorate are dumb as dirt, in other words.

Then you have to allow for a media that is, on the whole, right-wing. Contrary to the mantra that the public have been brainwashed into believing, all US media (outside of three hours on MSNBC in the evenings) tilts right to a greater or lesser degree. And that's a direct result of the fact that almost all broadcast media is owned by a small number of corporations and corporations tend to be conservative.

That's important for two reasons. Firstly, the human mind is incredibly susceptible to repetition. Hear it often enough and you will believe virtually anything (and I do mean anything). The RW media acts as an echo chamber that constantly reinforces the Republican message and doesn't call out Republican's outright lies. Secondly is the phonomenon known as "incestuous amplification". What that means is that, when you keep people getting their information from sources which agree with them, their beliefs tend to get more extreme. Take a few guys who think W was an ok president, lock them in a room for a while and they'll come out thinking that W was the best president ever, the sun shone again on his watch and he should be on Mount Rushmore (and yes, this has already happened with Reagan).

Media is also what shapes your ingroup and outgroup. Put simply, your ingroup are people like you or who you aspire to be and your outgroup is everyone else. All of you automatically and unconsciously discriminate in favour of our ingroup and against our outgroup. That's automatic, happens even in the very young and has been shown to operate even when the assignments to groups is explicitly random. Through teh corporate media have trained people to always kick downward when they are dissatisfied. Trained them to resent the poor shmuck on welfare, not teh corporate suit making millions (and that's in addition to the fact that I have never known a country that hates it's poor like the USA).

The rural population also identifies Democrats with cities, with hated elites, with minorities, with the modernity they hate and fear. Obama caught hell for saying that the rural people, scared of a changing world, cling to their flag, guns and religion but he was entirely right. They also identify Democrats with abortion. In the western world, abortion is only an issue in the US and Ireland and Ireland is virtually a theocracy. Consider also that the USA is one of the few countries where being intellectual is widely considered something to be hated and resented. Egg-headed elites who think they're better than us shitkickers. Education and intellectual achievement are not only not admired but actively resented.

People used to tell me that the USA was a classless society. That was bollocks. The USA is even more classist than my own UK, it's just that your classes are trained to only hate those on teh rung below them. So the people on welfare are despised most of all. The average citizen has been trained to regard every cent spent on welfare as a dollar stolen from him personally. And the USA venerates greed. Only in the USA is libertarianism, a philosophy which boils down to "people should starve rather than taxes supporting them", still a thing. Only in the USA and UK do people still think of poverty as a moral issue, that the poor are poor not through teh vagaries of the employment market or incresing company consolidation or even just because the capitalist system requires winners and losers and requires a certain level of unemployment to keep wages down. In the US and UK, teh unemployed are blamed for their own poverty. The PtB still think in Dickensian terms of the "undeserving poor", that the poor are poor because they drink or do drugs or "don't have the habit of work" (our demonically evil DWP minister).

Consider also the cognitive bias that means if we hold a wrong belief, not only will we resist correction, we will hold the belief even more strongly and resent those who tried correcting us.

Consider that fundamentalism, a theology that, in Weird Al's words "I'll be laughing my head off, as you're burning in hell", a theology that essentially exists simply as a revenge fantasy that promises everyone the believer dislikes will burn, is a powerful political force and Republicanity is now the dominant Republican faith. Republianity is a mixture of lip service to Jesus (while jettisoning virtually everything he actually taught), Nieztchian will-to-power, Randian beliefs to justify psychotic anti-tax beliefs, Nazi-level nationalism and worship of the military and Rapture beliefs that were invented wholesale out of a few twisted-from-context Bible verses about a century ago. It has it's own high priests (Pat Robertson, Limbaugh, Beck), it's own messiah figure (Reagan), it's own devil figure (Obama although really, it's whoever the most high-profile liberal of the time is), it's own designated scapegoats (liberals) and it's own versions of history, economics, psychology, theology and jurisprudence. And a lot of your countrymen have been brainwashed to believe that fictional view of the world.

In addition, the US still have a race problem. A big one. African-Americans are arrested and imprisoned at vastly disproportionate rates. And teh response in much of teh USA to that is not to suggest that there is something deeply wrong with the way law enforcement is doing things but to think that African-Americans are disproportionately likely to be criminals and that criminality is not attributable to their environment (such as poverty, the single most reliable indicator of criminality) but to something about black people in themselves. This is an example of what's called the "fundamental attribution error", a psychological bias that says, when we do something wrong, we will attribute it to outside factors but when someone else does something wrong, we will attribute it to them as a person.

Finally, the Southern US still votes Republican almost as a block. And in much of the Southern US, the education is almost laughable, includes much "USA, best country in the history of ever!" triumphalism and teh Civil War is still viewed as the "war of Northern Aggression" and it totally wasn't about slavery, dammit!

It is not difficult to manipulate humans. Humans are instinctively obedient, Milgram proved that. Humans are instinctively conformist. Asche proved that. Keep the lie simple enough, repeat it often enough and people will believe it. Hitler proved that.

[KingCharlemagne]

101. This is a mini-masterpiece. It really deserves to be a thread of its own and I hope

you will consider fashioning it into one.

I would merely add to your catalogue the following: 1% of the U.S. population controls 40% of its wealth and 10% of the U.S. population controls 80% of its wealth. It should go without saying that such an excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a few will lead, nay must lead, to massive distortions, just like a black hole tends to suck in everything within its event horizon.

Many thanks for adding the perspective from the other side of the pond. Hope to read more of your work.

[Prophet 451]

103. At your suggestion, I've done so

Here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025720674

I'm doing about fifteen things right now and I don't want to take credit/blame for your ideas so I didn't add your observation but you're welcome to add it to the thread.

And thanks for the kind words.

[KingCharlemagne]

122. Thanks. Looks like your new thread is receiving the response I expected. Just out

of idle curiosity, why do you think the UK retains its mostly-ceremonial monarchy and House of Lords? Is it simply that tradition dies hard? It seems like an expensive habit to maintain.

[Prophet 451]

124. Eep, sorry. I missed this

Hoom, there's a few different reasons.
Firstly, tradition. Yes, we are a country that clings tight to it's traditions.

Secondly, the monarchy is written into our Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, the UK does have a constitution, it's just not codified (i.e. it's scattered across several documents in several languages, rather than one document. I'm part of a pressure group that seeks to codify it). Our Constitution assumes the monarch as head of state and fount of law an changing that would be an incredibly laborious, time-consuming and expensive process.

Thirdly, tourism. While we spend several billion a year on the Royal Family, they're actually net profit generators for the country. We'd be spending the money to upkeep the palaces even without the monarchy (as part of our cultural heritage) and what we spend to upkeep the Queen and her close family (the more extended family all have jobs) is much less than the family and the pageantry that surrounds them bring in tourism money.

[KingCharlemagne]

138. Ah, no worries. I had completely failed to take into account the 'tourism' component. The

net revenue generator concept makes a lot of sense, just as long as there remains room for iconoclasts like me to celebrate the likes of Cromwell and Milton

The way I learned my British history, the UK has an 'unwritten constitution' but no less valid than our written one.

Finally, after NJ Governor Chris Christie ordered one of his constituents recently to 'sit down and shut up,' I nominated him as new leader of your Monster Raving Loony Party. Hope that does not unduly offend your sensibilities!

Congrats on that thread of yours. I knew it had potential to generate a great debate and I most definitely hope to read more of your work in the future.

[Black Bug]

92. Do not get upset over things like this, it is like asking why is the sky blue?

There will always be political fighting going on and the sides will always appear to be 50/50 most of the time.

Worrying about huge things like that will only make you miserable in life.

Be a good example in order to persuade others. That way you will actually be doing something about it instead of just complaining.

[KingCharlemagne]

94. Wow. That's a great first post (and great advice). I've been an activist since about 1977-8, but

I doubt I've persuaded many people to change their minds.

[Black Bug]

96. Ha I was born in 77

Life is too short to be angry about the world.

Look at the good things you have and reflect it in your day to day life. Others are more likely to be interested in what you have to say when they see someone positive.

Plus it makes your own life much more enjoyable!

[madokie]

99. I believe if the truth was known

that the support is no where where they try to tell us it is. Take away God, Guns, Gays and Abortion and you wouldn't have very many republiCONs between here and Washington DC.
No fixing the stupid. The stupid I speak of is the ones who vote based on those 4 issues.

[lonestarnot]

114. 4 issues. Don't they just go with one? I mean 4. Good gawd that's too many for them to ponder.

[treestar]

118. Yep.

I have family for whom abortion is the only issue. That's all. They voted for McCain for that reason alone. They worried about Palin being that close since they knew she would be a disaster otherwise but still chose McCain because if abortion.

And even though they know a republican president cannot overturn roe v wade alone. They know it won't change. It is just that for them a person has good character only if they oppose abortion.

[madokie]

123. Any one of the four is all it takes

and yes you are correct that four at once would be a bit much for them.

[ZombieHorde]

102. I'm not a sociologist, so I don't really know.

I haven't read any studies on this, but doing so may be interesting for me.

Logic says the Republicans deserve no more than 5-10%

Human behavior is outside of logic because both human behavior and logic are subjective.

[DonCoquixote]

104. Simple

Republicans play to the lower side of ourselves. Fear, Greed, Anger, all of these are what the republicans offer.

[KingCharlemagne]

115. Isn't that the sad truth? I would add they 'play' to people's ignorance and use

fear, greed and anger (and copious amounts of hatred masked as other things).

[lonestarnot]

113. I think it may have something to do with team inculcation. We have been inculcated with team

mentality since ned and the first reader. Rah rah rah sis boom bah. Fuck it.

[KingCharlemagne]

140. Thanks for responding. Yeah, the atavistic urge runs deep, that's for sure. I've seen

someone on this thread or a different one refer to 'in-group' and 'out-group' psychology to explain group allegiances and why they can be so resistant to breakage.

[treestar]

116. They support their candidates

They are positive in their approach

They have Fox to help with their cheer leading.

[steve2470]

126. 1- the party of Big Business, very much so, and 2- the "establishment party", moreso than Dems

You'll notice that 100% of the Republicans support Big Business and their causes, and there is precious very little criticism of "the establishment" by Republicans. Yes, the Democrats are involved in Big Business and "the Establishment", but when I think of those two "entities", I think of the Republican Party.

"The Establishment" = the ruling oligarchs in business.

My 2 cents in addition to the good posts by others.

[KingCharlemagne]

141. Much as I like, admire and even venerate Abe Lincoln, the Republican Party has

pretty much been the party of 'Big Business' ever since 1860, come to think of it. So thanks for weighing in with your $0.02!

I guess the question is why a party so unabashedly in support of Big Business attracts so much support from working class voters.

[Scootaloo]

127. Because their base votes reflexively against Democrats

You can have two identical positions. These people could support this position. You tell them it's from a Republican and they'll love it. Tell them it's from a Democrat, and they'll hate it. Every single time. Unfailingly. Even if you put these identical positions, side by side, word-for-word the same, they will still support the "Republican" one and oppose the "Democrat" one.

This is why there are those of us on the left who express frequent disgust with the Party Loyalists of the Democrats. The sort that admonish everyone to just vote for terrible candidates "because democrats!" No. no, don't do that! Demand better candidates! Badger the shit out of them, demand better positions and policies! "Because Democrat" is a SHITTY way to think, and demonstrates the same sort of reflexive, brainless mentality enjoyed by the Republicans. Brainless loyalism has turned the Republican party into a mountain of dangerous crazy, this is the LAST thing we want to happen to the Democrats.

[KingCharlemagne]

143. This is so insightful that it almost deserves a thread of its own (hint, hint :). It is a very

weird psychological phenomenon you draw attention to here.

I guess my real question is why a party that so unabashedly supports the interests of the 1% has a base of between 35-40%. There have been some excellent responses in this thread and yours certainly contributes, so thanks for taking the time to respond.

I'm still chewing on the ideas expressed in your first paragraph and will probably do so for quite awhile longer

[JustAnotherGen]

129. In the NJ 7th

Its because Lance always has a TEA challenger - so he comes out hard with his fiscal conservative bullshit in the GE. And people fall for it. In 7 years he has become a foaming at the mouth anti choice idiot. But women will vote for him because they will believe the 11th hour hail Mary.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

130. Because America is a very conservative country.

I know DUers hate to be told this, but it's true, and all the wishful thinking in the world will not undo that fact.

[B Calm]

131. Not true. Way more voters vote democratic. Get your facts straight!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

132. "Marginally", not "way".

And by the standards of most other Western countries the right wing of the Democratic party is moderately conservative.

[KingCharlemagne]

139. Hey, thanks for responding. The words 'conservative' and its siblings seem

to have lost much of their meanings lately. By which I mean to say, when Americans are polled on ideas and platform planks, they support overwhelmingly a liberal-left agenda. (Maybe not Socialist per se but certainly 'Social Democrat'.) By the same token, though, the 'traditional family values' seem to carry an outsized influence in the electorate.

I don't have links to my assertion above, but I know I've read it in many different places.

[RobinA]

134. This Is My Question

I'm not in a state where the Senate is up for grabs, but plenty of people I know vote Repub and will probably vote to reelect Corbett. And we're not talking 1% here. I want to ask them, and all Senate race states, "What is it you are voting for?" OK, you are not an Obama fan. But Obama is not on the ballot. WHAT ARE YOU HOPING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH YOUR VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN SENATOR? And your answer my not include the word "Obama."

Part B of this question - What is you understanding of what is now happenening in Washington in terms of Congress?

[rurallib]

135. media - the infamous Lewis Powell memo in 1970

said own the media and they do.
And the media (TV in particular) is the biggest shaper of opinion in this country.

[KingCharlemagne]

144. I'm lazy so, if you get a chance, can you please expound a bit on

the "Lewis Powell memo"? I'm drawing a blank, although I was but knee-high to a grasshopper back then.

[rurallib]

168. Sorry this took so long to reply

been making calls

Here is one of the best analyses I have seen is this one:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

The very short of the memo is: We own the businesses and we don't use our clout to get political favors. We need to buy the media and control the message, especially the anti-business message that the media carries (in 1971).

This became the map for right wing takeover of media and control of the message. Control of the message quickly extended beyond the pro-business stance and evolved to what it is today. Control also went beyond owning individual stations to passing laws and FCC rules that allowed one corporation to own multiple outlets.

Hhere is Thom Hartmann's blog on the Powell Memo:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/ren/blog/2010/04/powell-memo

BTW - the Powell memo was not a major public document. It was a very private internal memo that few know about even today.

[KingCharlemagne]

169. Thanks for the detailed backgrounder. I knew Powell's name sounded familiar - big suprise, he was

considered a moderate (!) on SCOTUS. Such has discourse decayed in this society that someone advocating essentially a fascist position -- ownership of media = political control -- can be considered a 'moderate'.

[rurallib]

170. This to me is also an example of

the fact that while elections are very important, the work of undermining democracy goes on 24 hours a day every day of the year for Republicans, win or lose.

Many democrats will relax for a while following this election. Republicans will be going to ALEC meetings, getting their marching orders on how to privatize everything from schools to public pools to cemeteries to fire departments and prisons.

And corporations will once more create the media environment daily that allows the insanity of the current Republican Party to flourish. The daily bashing and denigration of Obama, the utter disrespect for the man AND the office, the omission of real issues and the elevation of trivia whipped into divisive national issues, and the constant lies, lies, lies. In short their work goes on apace. And it includes almost every media outlet in this country including the so-called liberal NPR. The so-called liberal media in this country consists of FreeSpeech TV, LinkTV and a few radio stations like WCPT in Chicago.

They will also be working on taking over city councils and school boards next year. The Kochs will be digging up candidates, and scaring office holders with threats of being primaried. Their work is never done

[Tom_Foolery]

137. Fear! n/t

[Orsino]

142. They successfully repackage weak, mean and stupid oligarchy...

...as strong, pragmatic freedom. That's how lies work, when backed by enough money.

[KingCharlemagne]

145. Hey, thanks for responding. Yeah, money certainly has an insidious effect

on almost all aspects of our nominally 'free press'. Do you see any potential remedies to this sorry state of affairs?

[Orsino]

147. Public financing of elections, and a media fairness doctrine.

These things are probably impossible since the current Supremes were seated. If so, the Republic is essentially over.

[unblock]

151. because brainwashing works, especially when you put a ton of money into it.

[KingCharlemagne]

153. Few could dispute the overall validity of your general observation. Are you by

extension implying that the vast majority of Republican voters have been 'brainwashed'? If so, do you have or know of any remedies for countering the effects?

[unblock]

158. well it's certainly true that human views can be manipulated;

and it's certainly true that some ridiculously rich people are thrilled to be able to us manipulating messages.

over and over and over and over and over again.


it works, and not just on republicans, but also on independents, democrats and even the apathetic. at a minimum, we all end up debating the issues they want us to be debating (al gore's sighs, flag-burning, whatever) instead of real issues like concentration of wealth, political corruption, etc.



as for remedies, ideally we would have enough money to get counter-messages out, but we don't, and that's inherent in the nature of the power of concentrated wealth. the best that i've been able to come up with is simply laughing in their faces. you really have to shake someone out of their worldview, and the only way to do that is to shatter the illusion that their views are socially acceptable.

so, laugh in their faces when they say something idiotic, like rich people need a tax cut as an incentive to work hard, but poor people shouldn't get a wage hike because they'd get lazy and work less.

[KingCharlemagne]

160. I like the way you think and the cut of your jib. I find myself unable to laugh at their

absurdities and inanities, mainly because I've been poor at various points in my life and I know how much suffering their sociopathy masks. But your way sounds as good as any other advocated here as a way to undercut the undue influence of their money and power.

Thanks. You have managed to buck up my spirits at a most propitious time (eve of the election). Much appreciated.

[upaloopa]

152. Ignorance

Like my cousin's husband who posted a thing about voter ID in Mexico to face book

[KingCharlemagne]

155. I like your one-word answer about as much as I like any response on this thread, i guess. It's

really very sad and maddening at the same time. I've reached the point where I can no longer conduct myself civilly in discussions with Republicans and Libertarians. I can acknowledge that they have grievances but that's about as far as I can get before my civility breaks down. I frankly don't know how President Obama and the elected Dem leadership are able to remain civil to them.

[hifiguy]

157. I'd expand slightly on your answer, which is basically correct.

"Ignorance reinforced, exploited and fueled by greedheads at the top."

[area51]

159. This article may help.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/08/04/the-threat-from-the-right/

excerpt:

"The Far Right (about 10 percent of the population): Overwrought, hyper-vigilant, paranoid ultra-right wing authoritarians, the 'True Believers.'

"Conservative by temperament (about 20 to 30 percent): This group hews closer to the political center-right, keeping some distance from the wild-eyed ultra-right, but will embrace hard-right conservatism under extreme social or economic stress."

[KingCharlemagne]

161. Great article with lots of quotable quotes. My fav was the last one (by Chip Berlet, of

whom I'm pretty unfamiliar):

The only way to stop the antidemocratic right is to contest every inch of terrain. Politics is not a pendulum that automatically swings back and forth, left and right. The ‘center’ is determined by various vectors of forces in an endless multidimensional tug of war involving ropes leading out in many directions. Whether or not our country moves toward democracy, equality, social justice, and freedom depends on how many hands grab those ropes and pull together.

Bookmarked for more-ready reference. Thanks for turning me on to it!

[Notafraidtoo]

162. The human animal is gullible.

Conservatives the world over use base instinct to win elections or seize power, it takes self education, self reflection, logic and reason to be progressive. It also takes bravery and questioning of authority with fact checking, all these things are more difficult then simply being a sheep for land owners.

Fear, short term thinking, fantasy and stereotypes, conservatives of any strip will always have a easier time because in the end we are just monkeys, easily tempted with the promise of short term gains at the cost of huge long term losses.

When I was younger I thought we were the better party because we didn't stoop to their level by using base instinct, but now I don't think a human majority will ever toss aside their anti intellectualism and that for the future of the human race we should not just use logic to win but base human stupidity as well.

[KingCharlemagne]

163. Hey, stop insulting monkeys! :) Your post brought to mind this oldie-but-goodie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eEep67akIn4

[kentuck]

164. The real battle is between "centrist Dems and progressive Dems (Socialists and other points left)."

That is where the real battle is and it divides the Democratic Party, in my opinion. We would be a much stronger Party if were to differentiate between the two for voting purposes. The traditional Democrats would support labor issues, such as increase in minimum wage and organizing unions, defending Social Security and Medicare, and equal rights for all workers, support for the 2nd Amendment, and protecting the privacy of Americans.

On the other hand, we would have the Progressive Democrats, which must always be a branch of the Democratic Party, because neither of them could exist on their own as a viable Party. They allow the traditional Democratic Party to always have room for growth. We grow in areas like civil rights, gay rights and gay marriage, equal pay for women, questioning the voracious appetite of the defense industry, at the expense of others, that may be more needy, in our society.

The Progressives would also call for more strict gun laws. We have to find a way to keep these guns out of the hands of mentally-deranged people. It is to the benefit of us all.

Progressives would be the part of the Democratic Party that would fight for progress, in order to keep growing as a people and as a Party. In doing so, they would not separate from the Democratic Party but would be the second arm, next to the traditional Democrats.

Why? What purpose would it serve? Because it represents the reality of the present Democratic Party. There are Democrats that support the 2nd Amendment and do not always agree with the Progressive branch of the Party on some social issues. We may not like that. We might say they do not belong in the Democratic Party? But that is exactly the point. That is the reality - not what we would dream it to be.

But your question being why does Republican Party enjoy such high support, year in and year out? And I would argue that many Democrats leave our Party because they don't feel comfortable, either about the 2nd Amendment or something else entirely. They will not fit in the Progressive branch of our Party. We should still permit them to be part of the traditional Democratic Party. The reality being what it is.

Just thinking out loud..

[KingCharlemagne]

165. Thanks for responding. Your lengthy post brought Will Rogers famous quip

immediately to mind: "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Joking aside, there is much to be gained from reading all the posts in this thread. I know I have profited from members' contributions (including yours) immensely as to understanding why the Republican Party continues to enjoy such support. It's not a question I particularly like to think about but I think it is one we must think about if we are to move the country forward.

[kentuck]

167. I actually think that it might be advantageous...

for voting purposes only, to have two branches of the Democratic Party.

After all, it works quite well for the Republican Party, when we think about it. The Tea Party is only a place where the crazy Republicans go, whose ideas are too extreme for the Republican establishment, but the Republican Party gets to keep them in their Party for electoral purposes. What's the difference?

[True Blue Door]

166. It's not a mystery.

1. They control the media.
2. We passively echo their media control by reacting to their agenda rather than setting our own.
3. They gerrymander to a far more extreme degree than we do.
4. There are five fascist revolutionaries on the Supreme Court who regularly rewrite the Constitution to enhance GOP electoral chances every chance they get.
5. One of those decisions was annihilating campaign finance laws, so the rich - who overwhelmingly support the GOP - can buy elections and shout down their opponents with lies and propaganda.
6. They stop minorities from voting every chance they get, also with the help with court decisions.
7. They locate prisons in rural Red districts to inflate the population numbers, even though that population is neither voluntary nor voting.
8. From time to time they just straight up rig the vote count.

Since it's a power-interested party, if all of this was dealt with they would simply moderate in order to remain in the 30%-50% range. But along the way there would be massive defeats while they try to gain back credibility destroyed by their right-wing.

Radicals like they are can only win through force and fraud, and they deploy both of them constantly.

[YoungDemCA]

171. +1

nt

[kentuck]

172. kick

one time