That’s a stretch.
I don’t think so. Not any more. I can’t help but think that the GOP has made a serious miscalculation on this. I think they have played the issue badly. I think a lot of people who would have went GOP will now have second thoughts and those on the fence with fall to the left just because of this issue. I mean, Limbaugh and his ilk have spewed some bullshit, but never looked as dickish to …hell, everyone who has been sexually active in the last 20 years.
I think the best thing any of the candidates could have done would be to throw Limbaugh to the wolves.
I cannot demonstrate this evidence, of course. This is just a feeling. I may have to wait till November to see if I’m right.
Neither here nor there, but isn’t Rush the one that claimed to have a long-term celibate relationship with his own wife? Am I remembering that wrong?
I don’t think Republicans fear Limbaugh. I think they simply agree with him.
I doubt it. He’s on his fourth wife, and he’s only been married to the most recent for two years.
Semi-relevant (prescient) wordplay.
Anyway, I wouldn’t see this as indicative of anything if I were a Republican. Maybe if I were personally offended and disappointed by the major contenders lack of a response I’d shift more towards Ron Paul, but I don’t feel responsible for anything Michael Moore or Chomsky says. That said I remember one of the more controversial things Michael Moore has said was echoed in sentiment by Ron Paul.
The “entertainer” bit is a curious thing. Limbaugh IS an entertainer, a form of shock jock whose beat is politics as opposed to sex/drugs/rock. The problem lies in that Howard Stern does not lead his fans on to believe in demanding a campaign pledge of government subsidies for strippers, while Rush does give a form to the frustrations of his fan base and tells them it’s ideological. His followers are not just laughing they are saying “hell, yeah, tell it like it is! I didn’t know how to put my feelings, but now **that **sounds like it! And I can’t say it in public or I’ll be sleeping in the couch, it but you can! I think I’ll vote for whoever sounds like you!”.
He’s the most succesful person at being able to tap into a portion of the population that at the time he broke through were ready to hear something like this and felt the media were ignoring them, people to whom many mainstream conservatives failed to reach out in a language they could understand. Who truly, sincerely believe that if their lives are not performing to expectation it’s someone’s fault and it must be that* the liberals are deliberately out to destroy us*, and to whom a gut reaction is “authentic” and thus superior to a reasoned consideration. Opposition to Rush means that you are someone who’d consider compromise with those out to destroy us.
And I would not put it past Rush to be thinking: “Oh sure, I’m just a fat radio jock. But YOU, Mr. Ivy League Law Degree, Mr. Big Business Country-Club Republican, YOU who believed you were annointed to rule the sheep, now you have to come through ME to get to them, and they’re not sheep they’re hungry hounds. How do you like that, ah?” In a way I don’t begrudge him the pleasure of making the brahmins sweat.
While at it, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It likely will not be a landslide for the Dems in November (and indeed it’s nowhere near sewn up. The current CinC has 8 months to blow it) and the 45% mark is probably the GOP vote proportion even in losing, unless there’s massive abstention. Keep your shorts on, people.
deleted
I lived in Illinois in 2004, and I use the Senatorial election that year to gauge the GOP floor for voting. Obama of course was the winner–and based on his reputation, his route in the Democratic primary, his featured-speaker slot at the 2004 Democratic convention, and the dominance of Democrats in Illinois (this was when George Ryan had just exited as govenor in the wake of scandal, and Rod Blagojech was still hugely popular), only an extraordinary GOP candidate would have had a chance to beat him.
The GOP candidate that year was Alan Keyes, who had been drafted into the role just three months before the election (the GOP primary winner had resigned due to a sex scandal). Keyes had never lived in Illinois, and because he was the same race as Obama there was no chance for race-baiting votes (I’m not saying he or the Illinois GOP would do that deliberately, but the Bradley effect is real). And if anyone is a “severe” conservative, it’s Keyes: Served under Reagan (UN ambassodor), staunchly pro-life, anti-gay (he cut off his daughter completely when she came out in 2005)–he mirrored the base to a T.
So here you had a wildly-popular Democrat running against possibly the least-advantaged candidate in electoral history, and Keyes still got 27% of the vote. That tells me that 27% of voters (at least in the GOP, but probably on both sides) are going to vote for “their guy” no matter what.
Another test case: In Montana in 2008, the Democratic candidate for the House did not campaign. At all. He literally spent not one single cent on the campaign, and yes, I do know what “literally” means. He still got something like a third of the vote. So clearly, both sides have a sizable chunk of people who just vote for the letter after a candidate’s name.
But on Election Day we can take them off, right?
Ha :).
Thanks to everyone for the wealth of interesting responses. The point about Michael Steele is new to me. So are the points about the percentage of people who vote for “hopeless” candidates - i.e. ones that do not campaign, or are hopelessly outmatched, etc.
And I do wonder how many moderate Republicans are offended by Limbaugh. Not the hardcore Republicans who listen to Limbaugh, but the more moderate ones.
I think you put an extra l in cock.
A slightly older example. In 1986, the Lyndon LaRouche fanatics took advantage of a sleepy Illinois Democratic party primary and managed to get their candidates nominated for Lt. Gov. and Sec. of State. This caused the Democrats to, in effect, beg the electorate to vote for someone, anyone, other than their nominees, even if it meant voting for the Republicans. The nutjobs still managed to get 17% and 15%, respectively, in the general election.
The present-day GOP cultivates a perverse kind of loyalty. You don’t just listen to the voice that yells the loudest; you show it every deference and above all, stay in line. Of course, the line can be damn difficult to follow if you have any principles of your own, because the loudest voice this week might contradict that of last week.
I think their followers are afraid of them. Rush Limbaugh. Ann Coulter. Bill O’Reilly. They’re all so ANGRY and TOUGH. Why, you sniveling little pipsqueak! Can’t you SEE how immoral/socialist/whatever Obama (or Clinton) is? And their followers fall in line, like the kids that hang out with the school bully, hoping the angry person will allow them to live another day. They pretend it’s all about political issues and current events, but it’s really all about “Don’t hurt me” or “Don’t hate me.”
Probably Romney would have called her Harlot, or Jezebel, or Whore of Babylon.
Something much more biblical.
And that 27% is a subset of that set of voting-eligible citizens who are sane and lucid enough to vote (i.e., to register to vote, and to get to the polls on e-day, or vote early/absentee by mail). Think of all the non-voters out there . . . Scary, ain’t it?
What terminology does the BoM favor?