Steele, Palin, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Cantor, Etc. Doing A Heck Of A Job

3:26 am EST May 19th, 2009 | Republicans | 13 Comments

Analysis from Gallup shows that support for the Republican party is down in nearly every demographic they measure. Keep it up folks, you’ve all done very well.

Any more of this and they’ll be looking to the Army for slogans: A Party Of One.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

13 Responses to “Steele, Palin, Limbaugh, Gingrich, Cantor, Etc. Doing A Heck Of A Job”

  1. Jaim says:
    May 19, 2009 at 3:41 am

    Let me put on my swami hat and predict what Jay will say as he wipes the spittle from his chin: “ZOMG POLLS DON’T MATTER!”

    Except when people vote, of course.

    Buh-bye, GOP. At least for 2012.

  2. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    May 19, 2009 at 6:00 am

    And yes, Yo Mama, we are still laughing at you. We are still not scared of you.

  3. jr says:
    May 19, 2009 at 6:50 am

    People no likey Bircher talking points

  4. SaveFarris says:
    May 19, 2009 at 8:17 am

    As long as we’re talking Gallup Polls…

  5. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    May 19, 2009 at 8:20 am

    SaveFarris: “As long as we’re talking Gallup Polls…”

    So they found even party affiliation, yet the GOP still lost ground with nearly all demographics.

    How does this help the GOP?

  6. Parthenon says:
    May 19, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Those numbers Farris linked are basically static, longterm. I have to ask Farris, what’s your point?

  7. SaveFarris says:
    May 19, 2009 at 11:08 am

    The numbers Oliver highlights are static too, longterm. Gallup (and Oliver) just picked out high and low points on the sine curve and are trying to extrapolate a trend. It would be just as stupid if someone looked at the link I gave and said in February 2005 “Look, Republicans have gained 9 points on Democrats in a month. REBUBS 4-EVAH!!”.

  8. Jay says:
    May 19, 2009 at 11:17 am

    Those numbers Farris linked are basically static, longterm. I have to ask Farris, what’s your point?

    Actually, the numbers he linked to are short term trends, not long term. The numbers Oliver linked to are long term.

    The point is, the Democrats lost a hell of a lot of support in terms of party ID in just over a month. Whether this continues or not remains to be seen, but those short term numbers are more revealing than the numbers over the last 8 years because most of those losses occurred as the article says, in the last 3 of those years when everybody was getting fed up with the GOP.

    And those who are already celebrating Obama’s re-election and the Democrats maintaining control of Congress in the 2010 elections really need to read up on their history.

    1991 – Nobody was going to beat GHW Bush. He had approval ratings nearing 90%.

    1993 – Democrats had a majority in Congress that seemed unstoppable.

    1995 – President Clinton was talking about his ‘relevance.’

  9. Oliver says:
    May 19, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    And in 1996 Bill Clinton had some electoral success despite 1994

  10. Jay says:
    May 19, 2009 at 1:59 pm

    Yes, I know that. I was pointing out that in the spring of 1995, Clinton was arguing he was still “relevant” with approval ratings in the 40′s and a little over a year later, he was re-elected quite easily.

    To be bragging now about victories in 2010 and especially 2012 is a bit premature.

  11. I'm a Hick says:
    May 19, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Have to agree with Jay here. In politics, a few years are an eternity. Who, on election night 1928 would have predicted the next election would be won by FDR or in 1964 would have predicted the next election would be won by Nixon or in 1972 would have predicted Jimmy Carter?

  12. Burn says:
    May 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    This is GREAT news for McCain!

  13. Tyro says:
    May 20, 2009 at 12:14 am

    In politics, a few years are an eternity.

    By the same token, when a party is exiled into the wilderness, they don’t realize that they’re off in the wilderness. Victory is always “just around the corner” even when never elect any but a moderate member of their own party president and even when their party is in the minority of the congress for years and years and years. Each small victory looks like the gateway to a grand realignment (or a continuation of the previous order in which they dominated), and each defeat is just close loss that could have gone either way.