Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

NC: Approval Ratings (Civitas 4/13-15, Elon 4/19-22)

Topics: North Carolina , poll

North Carolina

Civitas Institute (R)
4/13-15/10; 600 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Civitas President, Governor release)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 44 / 45 (chart)
Beverly Perdue: 34 / 44 (chart)


Elon University
4/19-22/10; 607 adults, 4.1% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Elon release)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 47 / 48 (chart)
Sen. Burr: 37 / 28 (chart)
Gov. Perdue: 37 / 47 (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Barack Obama: 45 / 46 (chart)
Beverly Perdue: 35 / 46 (chart)

Thinking about your current United States Senator, Richard Burr . . . do you think [he has performed his job well enough to deserve re-election, or do you think it's time to give a new person a chance?
26% Deserves re-election, 44% Time for new person

Update: Civitas' newly released favorables are now also included.

 

Comments
iVote:

That's surprisingly good numbers for Obama here. Much better than Rasmussen's.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

"Elon University". T. F.? Why do Tier 3 universities have such active polling?

____________________

rdw4potus:

I'm guessing that they poll in North Carolina because they're in freaking North Carolina...

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

Yeah isn't it kind of strange they have some undecideds (5%) regarding Obama's approval. Rasmussen has 0 or 1%. Once in a while he even has 101%. One of the reasons why I think his polls are suspect. Not to mention being a fixture on Fox News.

____________________

Speedo Bandit:

47% approval in an adult survey is not good. If this organization had polled likely voters
only he would probably be under 45% in North Carolina. When people start saying 47% approval in an adult survey is good for Obama, then you know the bar is very low. How 47% of North Carolinians approve of this clown is beyond me.

____________________

sjt22:

@ Wood

Do you complain about Quinnipiac and Marist polls too?

Just because a university is smaller or less well known shouldn't discount its polling research, especially if it has a proven track record. And rdw is correct, Elon mostly polls NC, and they seem to be pretty good at it.

____________________

sjt22:

@ Speedo

Well, over 49% liked him enough to come out and vote for him, so there must be some underlying attachment.

Maybe they like the job he's done trying to clean up the mess he was given.

____________________

iVote:

@Speedo Bandit

And now even a REPUBLICAN POLLSTER has it within 1 point. In a southern state where his numbers should be atrocious, just as many people approve of him as disapprove. Whether you want to believe it or not, these NC numbers are good news for Obama.

____________________

Speedo Bandit:

iVote,
47% is a bad approval rating for a first term president. That is also a poll of all adults, which is almost always higher than a poll of likely voters. Among likely voters he is probably around 44% or 45% at best. If you call those good numbers I guess you should be happy for Obama.

____________________

iVote:

@Speedo

Do you not realize what state we're talking about here?

Bush won North Carolina by 12 points in 2004. They've voted for a Republican eight times out of the last ten presidential elections.

How can you pretend like him basically pulling even here is a bad thing?

____________________

Speedo Bandit:

iVote,
Obama won North Carolina and now has an approval rating that is probably in the mid 40's among likely voters. It would almost be unheard of for a first term president to be much lower than the mid 40's. He has probably lost 5% of his support since he took office in North Carolina. He has plenty of time to drive down his support into the low 40's and maybe even the 30's by the time this fiasco is over.

____________________

Speedo Bandit:

iVote,
Why didn't you point out the fact that only 26% of the people polled think Obama deserves to be re-elected?

____________________

Speedo Bandit:

Nevermind, that part was for Burr being re-elected. Okay, I made a mistake reading through the poll. That did seem unbelievably low.

____________________

tjampel:

Elon 4/19-22/10 47/48
Rasmussen 4/19/10 41/57
Rasmussen 3/22/10 42/57

Yes, I know that Ras polls likely voters but that should move the numbers to maybe 44/51 or 45/50. So it's borderline being within MOE with Ras, and it may turn out to be an outlier, but, at this moment in time, by no means a bad result.

____________________

iVote:

The point is, if Obama is even near being competitive in North Carolina heading into 2012, that's a good sign for him.

And no worries about the mis-read. Happens to the best of us.

____________________

lat:

I would like to personally thank National GOP and the AZ GOP over the past 2 weeks for being as stupid as they possibly could be and handing huge gifts to The Democrats. Let's oppose and blatantly obstruct a bill to reform an
industry (Wall ST) that ranks one step above child molester in the minds of the public, in addition let's pass and cheer about a bill in AZ that forces people to carry papers similar to what they did in Nazi Germany (now there's a fine way to win over Hispanic voters!)! Brilliant strategy GOP! I ask that you please keep this up.

____________________

11thGenerationAmerican:

lat:

You're right. The Wall Street debacle will be the Republican's "Waterloo." I hope the GOP filibusters right through the summer and into the fall.

What most of these "likely voter" samples fail to take into account is that the OFA infrastructure is still in place from 2008 and will be truly mobilized in a national election in 2010. Young people and minorities are still being under-sampled, especially in NC. I live here and know from personal experience that the President is in pretty good shape.

Burr is not that popular and is definitely vulnerable, especially if he keeps defending the crooks who stole everyone's 401K money.

____________________

lat:

11th Gen,

Of course I am delighted to watch The Gop shoot themselves in the foot (or in the head in these cases), but on a serious note this is what happens when you have a party gone awry. You have The Tea Baggers in one direction, Religious Nut Jobs in the other, and I wonder if econmomic conservatives (conservatives not lunatics) even have a voice anymore? What is truly awful about this (and I am saying this seriously) is that moderate republicans (Gerald Ford, Lowell Weicker, Tom Kean, etc.) basically don't exist anymore (Olympia Snowe I guess would come the closest). So welcome to The GOP/George McGovern era of disarray (the Dems have given them plenty of lessons over the years on how to be good at this. Lol!).

____________________

Field Marshal:

The GOP will not stonewall the financial reform bill through the summer. If they do, it will be because of the Dems doing al they can to put stuff into the bill SO THAT the GOP has to filibuster.

Its equivalent to if the GOP were the majority inserting stuff like the restriction of abortion and then complaining that the Dems are filibustering. Its all politics and power all the time for the Dems at the expense of the middle class. They know they were destroyed by the HCR bill so they need a way to deflect. This is it.

Too bad as more info comes out on the HCR bill, the bigger disaster it is becoming. I think the financial reform bill will be past by memorial day.

Here is a great article on the HCR.
------------------------------------------
Report says health care will cover more, cost more

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance - adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_LAW_COSTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-04-22-20-24-10

____________________

Field Marshal:

In addition, the AZ law may be harsh, but harsh times call for harsh measures. It seems that over 70% of ALL Arizonians support the bill. Including over 40% of naturalized hispanics. Flies in the face of the GOP shooting themselves in the foot garbage. As for the rest of the post, well i'd just say its typical.

How many moderate Dems are left? Bayh was forced out. Lincoln is getting primaried. Nelson will be gone in two years. LIeberman is the pariah of the party. Landrieu will be gone in '12. All the bluedog Dems showed themselves for what they truly are and are going to suffer bigtime this fall. So, who will be left of the moderate dem party?

Truth is that the Dem party has been hijacked by the far-left nutjobs like Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Frank, Boxer and that will be there downfall. They support the enviroloons on one side, the atheist nutjobs on another, and the moocher losers on the other.

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

Please keep saying what you are saying. Please keep encouraging your party to do these idiotic things! I applaud it and will help you.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I will. And you keep supporting the far-left nutjobs currently in charge. It will surely help you.

Oh, and by the way, how many people are predicting the dems to gain a single seat, let alone the GOP picking up 30 or more? That seems like the best indicator to me of whom the people support. Don't you?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

AZ police will be able to demand proof of citizenship if you LOOK like an illegal immigrant. If you are a legal immigrant but don't have your papers on you, you could be arrested.

This seems blatantly against the 4th amendment, but a court challenge will probably fail.

I'm sure the police will ask red-headed white people with freckles if they are here from Ireland illegally and demand paperwork.

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

The dems are in trouble because of unemployment nothing more. When that improves over time so will their chances. Your party is a failure and will continue to fail until they stop appealing to what works in Utah and Mississippi. It's no accident that the dems won the 10 most educated states in 08 and the GOP won the bottom 10, but you keep thinking that it's ok to do what the GOP does, for like I said I encourage it.

____________________

ndirish11:

The GOP should stick to their original principles. Small government, Low taxes, low spending, less wars of agression, and the gov. out of our personal lives.

But as soon as you say that, the liberals will race to be the first to say, "Look how that worked out the last 8 years!" That's where the misconception is. Bush was a big government/big spending guy, not a real small government conservative. He was a war-monger. And thats why his tax cuts failed, because anyone with a brain knows you can't increase spending while you decrease taxes. He was almost the opposite of a real conservative.

It seems that all of today's leading republicans are like Bush or neo-cons, not true conservatives. A true conservative, like one I described above, is deemed as a "radical" these days because they are so rare.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"A true conservative, like one I described above, is deemed as a "radical" these days because they are so rare."

Ron Paul is the only one I can think of.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Hey, check this out:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=8aa1293f-dc76-414f-832b-e9764de86b07

Murray down by 10% to Rossi and only up by 2% against the rest of the field.

And I thought she was still well liked personally. Not like she was involved in any scandals, as far I know. An ideological awakening, hopefully..

____________________

StatyPolly:

Based on the sentiment as of TODAY, 8-10 Senate seat pick up by GOP is likely.

Boxer's and Murray's seats are the 9 and 10 - the least likeliest, IMO.

But BOBO's old seat prospect's just got a little better with last night's news.

____________________

lat:

Ok... you all can keep deluding yourselves. You folks on the right keep thinking that because the GOP will win seats in 2010 that somehow changes everything? It changes nothing. I could have told you the day Obama was elected that the dems would lose seats in 2010. Nixon lost seats in 1970 and Reagan lost seats in 82 and it didn't stop either one of them from winning landslides 2 years later. If blacks and hispanics (who the GOP just seems to want to piss off every chance they get) vote in the same percentages in 2012 as they did in 2008 you are going get get your asses kicked in again on the presidential level. You heard it here first and I'll bet the farm on it.

____________________

lat:

Ok... you all can keep deluding yourselves. You folks on the right keep thinking that because the GOP will win seats in 2010 that somehow changes everything? It changes nothing. I could have told you the day Obama was elected that the dems would lose seats in 2010. Nixon lost seats in 1970 and Reagan lost seats in 82 and it didn't stop either one of them from winning landslides 2 years later. If blacks and hispanics (who the GOP just seems to want to piss off every chance they get) vote in the same percentages in 2012 as they did in 2008 you are going get get your asses kicked in again on the presidential level. You heard it here first and I'll bet the farm on it.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Don't think so, lat.

What's important to me is nation's long term sentiment. I've seen some long-term trends published by Gallup a few months ago, and overall, as well as issue-specific, the country has been trending steadily to the right for over two decades. Issues like abortion, gun rights, role of government, as well as the broader ideological ID (lib, mod, con).

Electorate got sick of Iraq war on 05-06, then it was BOBO's personal appeal in 08 that swept in a bunch more Dems into Congress by BO's voters, but the party is about over. There were 32 years between Jimmy and BOBO, and BOBO pretty much kill the progressive movement for another generation.

____________________

Publius:

Staty:

No, you are missing the point. That sound you heard in 2008 was the tide turning towards the left. It's too bad you missed it.

My view is that this cycle is more like 1982 than 1994. Reagan's numbers were worse than Obama's at the same point, but RR stuck to his agenda even after getting whipped in the 1982 midterms. Liberals were convinced then that he was a blip in the leftward motion of the country and they further sunk themselves by nominating the most liberal candidate they could find in 1984. As is usually the case, once the jobs came back, so did the votes. Reagan even worked with the Congress and Obama will do the same, forcing them to vote no on issues that are popular everywhere but the Tea Party.

You and your fellow conservatives think that a return to a country that hasn't existed since 1929 is the correct path to follow, and you are doing everything you can to lose the African-American and Latino votes that will be gold to the party that captures and keeps them. As lat said, keep up those policies. It will probably be a good year for you this year, but the long term trends are running against you.

The HCR bill will not be repealed, financial reform, immigration reform and a climate bill will be passed, social security will be reformed and gays will be allowed to marry. You can either be part of the solution or be flattened by the steamroller while wearing your tri-cornered hat.

The real problem conservatives have is that they haven't seen a real leader as president for a long time. Obama is doing a fine job, is an extremely smart man and is growing in stature with every bill that passes.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"That sound you heard in 2008 was the tide turning towards the left"

Other than your opinion, got anything to back that up?

Facts just don't bear it out. POLLING shows that the electorate has lurched to right on all major issues since the 08 election.

"The HCR bill will not be repealed, financial reform, immigration reform and a climate bill will be passed, social security will be reformed and gays will be allowed to marry."

You may be right on all of those, but my point is that as proposed now, the majority is overwhelmingly against them. And you can only ram policies down people's throats for so long. I hope.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"The real problem conservatives have is that they haven't seen a real leader as president for a long time. Obama is doing a fine job, is an extremely smart man and is growing in stature with every bill that passes."

Yeah, and it seems the Dems have no real leader either. His stature may be growing but his unpopularity is growing right along with it. Obama is proving that on the job training doesnt work.

The GOP and conservatives dont want to return to 1929. They want to return this country to the US. The dems are hell bent on returning this country towards something that it never was, namely a neo-socialist state.

We'll see how that works out.

____________________

Publius:

Staty:

When you add in 2006 to 2008, yes, there is evidence other than my opinion. Plus, most of the polling that we both see is decidedly against far-right politicians like Palin, Huckabee and even Romney. Even Christie in NJ is falling like a stone.

Change is tough for some people, especially when it goes against you. I understand why the wealthy would be against Obama's financial plan because it doesn't coddle them at the expense of the middle class. I can also understand the fear on Wall Street because the bankers' outrageous deals are in peril and they might have to settle for a $52 million payout instead of a $78 million payout.

The majority is not against Social Security reform or against reforming the financial sector, and Republicans know that they were in deep peril if they did not come back to the table on Finance reform. And if they really want to lose the Latino vote they'll say no to immigration reform. As for gay marriage, the majority of people were against integration too. At least I know that I'm on the right side of history.

The one word you used that is accurate is "lurch," and I agree that opinion has lurched to the right. Inherent in the word, though, is a sense of knee-jerk reaction and emotion. Lurching is a short-term phenomenon, and this too will smooth out.

Enjoy the 2010 elections and the discussions leading up to it. This country is not as conservative as you think it is.

____________________

Publius:

Field Marshal:

Sorry, the above post was meant for you, not Staty.

____________________

Field Marshal:

"If blacks and hispanics (who the GOP just seems to want to piss off every chance they get) vote in the same percentages in 2012 as they did in 2008 you are going get get your asses kicked in again on the presidential level. You heard it here first and I'll bet the farm on it."

What does the GOP do to piss of blacks and hispanics? Does it not keep them on the government dime making them indentured servants like the Dems do in order to keep them down and keep getting their vote? I would agree.

I think hispanics, and blacks to a lesser extent will slowly begin migrating towards the GOP as they gain in wealth and stature. These minorities are social conservatives and the hijacking of the Dem party by the far-left and their anti-religion, pro-drugs, and pro-gay marriage stance will push many of them away.

Lat, you are betting a lot thinking that minorities will turn out in the same numbers in 2012. They wont turn out at all in 2010 since Obama is not on the menu. Even in 2012, if the job picture isnt markedly improved, you can bet they will be the ones who stay home.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"I think hispanics, and blacks to a lesser extent will slowly begin migrating towards the GOP"

There's little evidence to suggest that they will. McCain's 31% was slightly lower than the 35-yr average of 32.5% among hispanics for republicans. And McCain was one of the leaders of immigration reform in 2006 and in general a very latino-friendly republican.

Blacks generally support dems by more than 85% and have for quite some time. Minorities seem to understand the republican message demonizes them. You just called them "indentured servants," a term that would not have ocurred to me to describe the supporters of a party. Now I know what you mean, that democrats are the ones that see them and use them that way, etc.. but characterizing them that way, even in jest, is condescending.

It's like when Rush Limbaugh played the "Barack the Magic Negro" song over and over again. Yeah, it's not racist, it's supposed to be a parody of a left wing op-ed. But when you play it over and over again it becomes unseemly.

They won't go toward the GOP in it's current iteration, that's for sure. They will support a 3rd party in decent numbers; Ross Perot did decently among hispanics, so the gap could be reduced that way.

____________________

Lt. Cmdr. Walrus:

@Field Marshal

"The GOP and conservatives dont want to return to 1929. They want to return this country to the US. The dems are hell bent on returning this country towards something that it never was, namely a neo-socialist state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

I Obama is a socialist he is not a very good one.

____________________

lat:

Field Marshall,

If Obama is a socialist he is not a very good one.

____________________

Publius:

Field Marshal:

"The GOP and conservatives don't want to return to 1929. They want to return this country to the US."

These kinds of statements plus the birthers plus the socialism lies plus the people who dredge up Nazism will ultimately marginalize the Republicans. People who say such things are not to be considered seriously in public policy discussions.

Obama is doing very well as President. It was Bush who showed that on the job training was a wreck waiting to happen. Other than tax cuts, which were rammed through using reconciliation, he achieved very little. Perhaps that's because his ideas were about 500,000 votes short of a majority in the 2000 election. Remember that Obama actually won a solid majority. Elections matter.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Cmdr Walrus and Lat,

I wrote "neo-socialist", not socialist. While the standard definition of socialist is the state control of business, that definition is out of date.

The new kind of socialism that the dems are espousing is a kind whereby the rich are punished severely for succeeding and fairness if the governing doctrine. This new kind of socialism brings the Dems back to the 1950's where they judge people based on the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual preferences. It punishes entrepreneurship. But most of all, IT FAVORS THE STATE OVER THE PRIVATE SECTOR. That is the crux of neo-socialism.


____________________

Field Marshal:

"These kinds of statements plus the birthers plus the socialism lies plus the people who dredge up Nazism will ultimately marginalize the Republicans. People who say such things are not to be considered seriously in public policy discussions."

And what do these kinds of statements do for public policy discussions? Who dredged up Nazism? I've seen references of Bush being compared to a nazi for the last 8 years. Who brought up the birther issue? What about Race? The only people i see bringing up these dumb things are the Dems in an effort to keep people from learning the truth about their policies and dealings. Its a classic diversion tactic.

"Obama is doing very well as President. It was Bush who showed that on the job training was a wreck waiting to happen. Other than tax cuts, which were rammed through using reconciliation, he achieved very little. Perhaps that's because his ideas were about 500,000 votes short of a majority in the 2000 election. Remember that Obama actually won a solid majority. Elections matter."

According to who? Half the country does not believe he is doing well as a president. Obama has been a bust and i think you really realize this. He had a supermajority and passed one significant piece of legislation in 15 months. That is the definition of on-the-job training.

Bush didn't need to win a solid majority, just a majority of electoral votes, which he did. He then won a RE-ELECTION by the people. To say he was learning on the job training is asinine.


____________________

Lt. Cmdr. Walrus:

@Field Marshal

So in other words neo-socialism is a nebulous term that can be ascribed to anything that may or may not be even remotely socialist?

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

The actual definition of socialism doesn't matter. It matters that other people think whatever is going on is socialism.

"Since "neosocialism" refers simply to the forms of socialism that have emerged most recently, its meaning changes as new kinds of socialism are developed....Some right-wing commentators use "neosocialism" as a pejorative against people or organizations which do not consider themselves socialist, but which are seen as socialistic by their opponents."

http://wikibin.org/articles/neosocialism.html

____________________

Publius:

Field Marshal:

The Tea Party brings up all of those things. People who carry signs with Obama with a Hitler mustache bring up all of those things. Other conservatives who call Obama a socialist bring up all of these things. Are you blind?

I realize that Republicans believe that they are the only legitimate political party in the country and that Democrats are unpatriotic crazies. The truth is that the real radicals are within the Republican party who can't stand the idea of a Democrat succeeding as President.

Apologizing for Bush will never work. He was terribly unprepared in knowledge and temperament to be President and he needed Cheney and Rumsfeld to tell him how to run the country. The real asinine idea is you thinking that Bush had a successful presidency. Let's not forget that when the economy tanked he turned very swiftly towards the left.

____________________

11thGenerationAmerican:

As I recall it was the PRIVATE SECTOR that went running to the STATE when the house of cards built by the PRIVATE SECTOR collapsed. And it was the PRIVATE SECTOR that couldn’t police itself after financial deregulation and needed money from the STATE to cover its own incompetence and fraud.

Apparently “neo-socialism” for the rich and powerful is okay, but “neo-socialism” for anyone else is the end of the world.

LOL!

____________________

Field Marshal:

Walrus,

Yes, like neo-con or right ring conservative apparently.

Pube,

I realize that a few rogue participants in the tea party carry those signs but its far fewer than the far-left radicals that were carrying much more appalling signs during their anti-war protests during Bush's presidency. To carry those minor few to all tea party attendees is ridiculous and simply a way to deflect.

I'm not apologizing for anyone. Bush was an average president in my opinion, especially domestically with a terrible new entitlement, bank bailouts, and too much government/spending. I would still rank him light-years ahead of Obama in terms of leadership and intelligence. But that's my opinion. I realize you think differently and that's fine.

For lat,

This article is in the NYTimes, hardly a bastian for conservative thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/politics/25campaign.html?hp

____________________

Publius:

Field Marshal Rommel:

Nice sixth grade reference. You must be very proud of yourself. Please be more respectful from now on.

I'll stop when you do.

____________________

Lt. Cmdr. Walrus:

@Field Marshal

So neo-socialism is a meaningless word that is used to tie whatever the speaker/writer doesn't like to socialism, even when they aren't even close to being related. Gotcha.

____________________

Westwoodnc Westwoodnc:

A sampling of the libtard sentiments here show how insane they are. They can't destroy this country fast enough. Here's what worse than socialism-Obama. He manages to be both stupid and destructive, but while most politicians are both, none can manage a great a feat as having millions of stupid scary cultists hellbent on praising his every vile move as "progress". So you have cultists like Publius and many millions of morons like him both simultaneously say that Obama fights insurance and drug companies, while turning a blind eye as he funnels endless billions to them by forcing Americans to buy insurance. Only progressives can say to us with a straight face that despite the stunning historic collapse of Demonrat vote in this country, that the libtard tide is going to swamp America with its state-owned stupidity. Only the Democrats can give a warmonger a freaking Peace Prize.

It's such obvious insanity to us (to anyone!) who see these raving left-wing lunatics tell us something so blatantly false. Worse yet, THESE PEOPLE RUN THE COUNTRY. Every. single. hellhole. in America. is run by Democrats. Most criminals, and most everyone on welfare are Democrats. Why do we keep giving these witless class of the blind-deaf-and-dumb the keys to government is just puzzling.

James Carville boasted that 2008 will usher in the progressive equivalent of the 1,000-year Reich by controlling the country for the next forty years. LMAO, it looks like it won't make it past two years.

____________________

11thGenerationAmerican:

"Only the Democrats can give a warmonger a freaking Peace Prize."

Did the DNC try to give Dick Cheney a peace prize?

What an idiot! ROFLMAO!


____________________

Publius:

@Westwoodnc Westwoodnc

Really. How do I get up in the morning and function? If it's any consolation to you, liberals didn't see the trend early enough in 1982 either. You'll have time to regroup for the election of 2016.

____________________

Steven Guffey:

In 2005 it was the coming conservative hegemony; in 2009 it was the coming liberal final victory. Both are classic cases of extrapolating from a small dataset when the larger dataset is nearly random. They see a upward surge as representing a new equilibrium, when it is more likely to be a blip. It is not only a blip, but a self-correcting blip due to the vagaries of fortune and the good old pendulum, which is brought to you by Over, Reach, and Pushback.

White liberals here eagerly anticipate the newly enfrancised immigrants and the continued block support of blacks to dominate American politics for the endless future. They are absolutely right that naturalization of illegal immigrants and the coming of age of their progeny will profoudly transform the demographics of voters.

I wonder if they are naive enough to think that that implies the triumph of their views. Sure, immigrants will start out as grateful democrats. Better yet, the number of permanent democrats will increase as their new rights as citizens make them eligible for ObamaCare, welfare, Medicare, Social Security.

On the other hand, both blacks and immigrants see white liberal obsessions about the environment, sex, feminism, suppression of Christians, and the rest of the academic and Puritanical bullshit as unmanly white metrosexual effetism that only hurts them economically.

Blacks and Hispanics now use those obsessions to leverage useful idiot white liberals. Once they no longer need the goo-goos to front for them, they will dispense with white liberals and their sometimes idiot policies and vote for their own.

How's that for an extrapolation? It is as good as any I read here.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"James Carville boasted that 2008 will usher in the progressive equivalent of the 1,000-year Reich by controlling the country for the next forty years."

That's not what he said. He said that favorable demographics will give democrats a handicap over the next couple decades.

It's no secret that republicans need to win ever stronger proportions of the white vote to remain viable, or suppress the minority vote.

"both blacks and immigrants see white liberal obsessions about the environment, sex, feminism, suppression of Christians, and the rest of the academic and Puritanical bullshit as unmanly white metrosexual effetism that only hurts them economically."

I really don't know what you're talking about here. Puritanical b.s.? Suppression of Christians?

I'm Christian and go to church every week. I'm kind of insulted.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

" but a self-correcting blip due to the vagaries of fortune and the good old pendulum, which is brought to you by Over, Reach, and Pushback."

It's sort of self correcting in the sense that people are never happy. But the fact remains that usually, we have to live with what the last administration and congresses did.

Liberals will have to live in a country with the Patriot Act in force and American troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Conservatives will have to live with a system that provides some health care to those they consider undeserving.

____________________

Steven Guffey:

Dear Aaron,
I assume a typo when you say that "Carville said favorable demographics will give democrats a handicap over the next couple decades."

I assume, also, that you are responding to someone else on that one.

By "Puritanical bullshit," I am referring to the actions of the Puritans of our time, liberal democrats. Like the original Puritans, they (as a group, not necessarily you, personally) are greatly concerned about regulating the private behavior and impure thoughts and speech by others. Unlike the original Puritans, who focused mostly on the sexuality of women, today's feminist Puritans are chronically alarmed or offended by the sexuality of men (or at least straight white men). Other liberal Puritans want to remove or strongly discourage choices in what other adults eat (e.g., fatty foods). Still others will attack if you are wearing furs. Not living sufficiently green is a sin that should be taxed or regulated into oblivion (e.g., making incandescent light bulbs essentially illegal).

Like the original Puritans who heard sexual innuendo and meanings when none was intended, with the beneficial result to them of discouraging all honest discussion of sex and love, liberals hear racism from everyone they oppose when none is intended, making honest discussions about the problems of race and racism in our society impossible. This is often to their benefit since they often have strongly denied racial biases themselves, and in my experience are often less at ease around blacks than conservatives and actual racists. Do you remember the black female politician who years ago said that Gore had a noticeable "black fright" (or something like that) problem?

White and black affluent liberals in cities fear poor blacks with guns, so they try to outlaw guns everywhere, including in rural areas with vastly lower crime rates.

Supposedly "high occupancy lanes" have the straight-forward intent to nudge drivers into riding buses or car-pooling, with the stated goal of reducing gas consumption and pollution. They increase both gas use and pollution because the actual result is to impede other traffic while priviledging scofflaws, moms who are driving with small children and others who happen to have a passenger, not to mention riders in mostly empty buses.

Thaler and Sunstein wrote a book on such "nudges" that is reportedly highly popular with elected democrats, including Obama. Nudges are intended to change your behavior without arousing you enough to protest. That's what we need, Puritans who think they are subtle.

The list of intrusive busybodiness is endless. In every case, liberals say that the intrusion is justified by the public interest. That, of course, is exactly what the original Puritans claimed. They were protecting society from the pernicious effects of sin while saving the sinners' souls. A two-fer. Liberals are protecting the environment, animals, women, minorities, etc. Wow! They must be really virtuous, what with their willingness to change the behavior of everyone else.

There is, of course, no limit to the intrusions one can justify on those bases. To preclude a trivializing response, I want to make it clear that I believe that there are legitimate societal interests and there is a strong need for social pressure. I am saying that society also has an interest in personal freedom (which should include homosexuality, driving while Black, freedom to wear a veil or burka, etc.) which the government should not sacrifice or even discourage without compelling cause.

Of course, there is also the leveling impulse, a form of the cardinal sin of envy. Obama announced himself in favor of higher taxes on investment income even, he said, if it actually reduced revenues. Of course, the reality is that he will gain neither higher revenues nor appreciable leveling when all his policies are effected. The rich are slippery devils, with the active connivance of liberal democrats. Just yesterday, Dodd and company jumped to change their finance law at Warren Buffet's request. He said some particular provisions would reduce his earnings, which, of course, would be unfair and detrimental to society.

As for "suppressing Christianity," I do not doubt that you are Christian and go to church every Sunday, if you say so. So, I ask you, do you not notice the increasing removal of signs of Christianity from public places? Do you not recognize that an aggressive atheism is an increasingly strong and outspoken part of the liberal choir? Do you not notice blatant differences in how Christian groups on campuses are treated from Muslim and other groups?

Please don't make this an argument about separation of church and state in the constitution. The founding fathers never intended to remove signs and practices of religion. Their intent to was make the practice of all sects and religions free from discouragement or control by government.

By the way, I suspect that if you consider your religion a crucial part of your life that you are a rarity among liberals. I know many liberals who are social church goers but none who would not be too embarrassed to say that Christ is their savior or who believe he is. That lack of religious need and commitment is why wrongly-called "mainline" churches are withering away at an accelerating rate. They focused on the social aspect of church-going and sold it as social outreach. I have been in those churches and was saddened by what I saw. Ironically, I have found that every evangelical church I have attended had extremely generous and vigorous efforts to help the poor here and abroad. That is perhaps partly explains why many surveys have found that church-going conservatives are by far the most personally generous group in this country, giving far more than liberals in each income group. Those who regularly attend church of any kind are highly disproportionately conservative, especially if you look at whites, only. Many blacks and Hispanics are socially conservaive but vote liberal democrat because they understandably believe they need the help of the government in one way or more.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Stephen, as for your purtianical conception...I won't argue about it since you've got such a powerful trope in place that there's no use in me trying to dispel it. One thing I would say is that you might want to find a different term to use than Puritans. The Puritans of the 17th century were quite open about sexuality, as long as it was marital. Even fornication before marriage, as long as it was among a couple engaged to be married, was punished by a slap on the wrist. What you describe would be more appropriately compared to Victorian culture. They were the ones that suppressed discussion of sexuality.

"I have found that every evangelical church I have attended had extremely generous and vigorous efforts to help the poor here and abroad. That is perhaps partly explains why many surveys have found that church-going conservatives are by far the most personally generous group in this country, giving far more than liberals in each income group."

I find myself arguing against this all the time. The evangelical churches I'm familiar with tend to have magnificent facilities and well-paid staff. I'm not sure how many donations are actually going to the poor after servicing all of that. Surely this is not all of them but many of these mega-churches tend to be very interested in improving their own lot. Yes, the people in these churches give a lot to their churches but there is tremendous social pressure to do so.

____________________

Steven Guffey:

Aaron,
I think you are confusing mega churches with evangelicals. Only a tiny minority of the latter attend the former.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Perhaps. But I've been to a lot of different types of churches over the years and it's rare when you don't find one where much of the money goes back into the church somehow, maybe 15-20% goes to charity, if that.

To me, it's sad that the religious left has been so decimated and that most people associate Christians with the right. It doesn't need to be that way, and in fact I believe turns many people away, particularly urban poor and other disaffected people who would really benefit from the message.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR