Nate Silver recently put this up on his 538 site. His point, as in the title, was why the GOP is motivated to not compromise. I OTOH see the numbers he puts out there as more significant for how those who consider themselves moderate have been fading away.
Currently of those who voted Republican 67% call themselves Conservative, only 30% call themselves Moderate, and of course only a very tiny 3% identify as Liberal. He focuses on the impact that being Republican now means being Conservative and how the most Conservative are the most likely to vote has. But he alludes to this Gallup result as well, which shows that while those who call themselves Conservative has increased, self-identified Moderates are at their lowest point since 1992, and those who identify as Liberal have slightly increased over the years (albeit still a minority).
It seems to me that Nate’s point that the GOP has to double down on the Conservatives is valid, and that the Democrats mostly own the Moderates, if they vote, but also that there is less middle ground than there used to be. And that is a pity.
If the GOP were becoming less representative of the electorate at large, one would expect them to have lost in 2010.
They also make the perfectly legitimate point that political identifications are not immutable. Possibly some proportion of those who would otherwise identify as “moderate” saw that a big-spending liberal like Obama and his cohort in Congress is what the New York Times thinks of as a “moderate” - and ran screaming in the other direction.
The issue for this thread is not if the electorate at large is or is not represented by the GOP. It is that the electorate at large is losing its self-identified middle ground. Indeed, from 2008 many have stopped calling themselves Moderate and have instead begun to identify as Conservative. Have the views changed or is it what people call themselves that has changed? I am not sure.
I think you also are very capable of understanding Nate’s point: the very conservative element of the GOP are more likely voters, especially in Congressional and primary elections. There can be fewer of them than there are moderates plus liberals but more of them actually come out on election day -
Turn out matters and his point includes how that turn out is different in Congressional races than in presidential ones, and in primaries than in generals.
I was rather trying to imagine a proper honest response. Economist being well-known as a raging Leftist rag… And Googling Brooks I see he’s actually a conservative.
I suppose cognitive dissonance does that to the more rigid.
An interesting take-home message from the Gallup polling data is that Democrats who identify as moderates have been declining somewhat over the last decade, while self-identified Democratic liberals have been increasing and now slightly exceed the moderates.
So Republicans are increasingly viewing themselves as conservatives and Democrats as liberals, while roughly twice as many Americans overall see themselves as conservative rather than liberal (and that has become even more noticeable in the last few years).
This sounds to me more like a problem for Democrats than for Republicans. Whether the demographic shifts favoring Democrats counterbalance that in the short or long term remains to be seen.
(as an extreme centrist (rather than moderate) I consistently have voted for Democrats as generally representing the less repulsive alternative, except in those cases where both major party candidates seemed sufficiently vile as to justify not voting for either (as in the last Ohio gubernatorial race). That’s one definition of a “disappearing moderate” - someone who does not feel compelled to vote for the lesser of two evils if such an entity cannot be discerned).
Not as “conservative” is now defined. While I often disagree with Brooks, he is too reasonable a high percentage of the time to be considered a legitimate conservative by those who’ve hijacked the term.
Well this is where this thread intersects with the left right linear model thread. Perhaps the labels “Liberal”, “Moderate”, and “Conservative” are too simplistic to really be useful in this context? But clearly Brooks thinks of himself as Conservative.
In terms of the game I think it is a problem for both in different ways but more importantly I see the ever increasing polarity as a problem for us all.
According to the 2011 Pew Political Typology, of the two Republican-leaning groups, 9% of the general public and 10% of registered voters are “Staunch Conservatives”; 11% of the public and 14% of the voters are moderate “Main Street Republicans.” So, no, I would not say the GOP’s extremists outnumber its moderates. Any difference you perceive in the vitality of the two wings is probably due to differences in zeal and organizing.
When I find is that there’s no room for moderates.
When I post that Maybe Obama isn’t the anti-Christ and he wasn’t born on Kenya on TownHall or RealClearPolitics, they scream that I’m a socialist and a traitor and a bunch of other crap.
When I post on “Straight Dope” that maybe Obama can’t fix some of the problems, like today’s 9.2% unemployment rate, I get called racist and worse.
I’m a moderate Republican. But when I look at my party arguing about birth certificates, holding Tea Party rallies, and offering up candidates like Bachmann, Palin, and Trump for the Presidency, I look to the Democrats for relative sanity and responsibility.
Oh, you poor dear! Need a moment? Beaten upon by the hive mind, were you? And all you did, the sum total of your comment, was simply the perfectly pedestrian observation that Obama could not fix all the problems. That he is not, in effect, omnipotent.
And for that innocent little remark, you were vilified as a “racist” by the rabidly worshipful Obamanistas, who will greet any such modest suggestion with calumny and slander!
Well, I’m shocked, shocked and sickened! Who are these miscreants who befoul our discourse! Let their names be known, I say, give us the opportunity for good solid scolding, so richly deserved! If you could give us a sample of this…you know, where all you said was Obama couldn’t solve all the problems and somebody called you a racist for it… cite us an example, and I will be the first of many to offer said poster a jolly good thrashing! Just a few for now…
Of course, we can’t really hi-jack this whole thread for that, more’s the pity. Too bad there isn’t someplace…oh! wait!..you’ve a Pittee party going on, don’t you? Splendid! Perfect spot for such a citation and proof! And already in place, a golden opportunity! I wait with bated breath…
I know, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. What seems so stupid to me is that either group supposedly wants more support so that they can have their way, but rejects any support that is not 100% in lockstep with everything they want, and both wind up alienating the person who thinks for himself (assuming the person who “thinks for himself” naturally agrees in part and disagrees in part. Buying the whole agenda completely of either side seems to let others think for you. This assumption has a lot to do with the “individual.”) as though they really don’t want your vote.
I say the more you reject a person or their views because of lack of total compliance with your views, the more unreasonable your arguments will tend to be and the less you should even be listened to to begin with.
I think it is a fundamental proposition of life that the better the grace a person conducts themselves with, the more they are listened to.
Being rude is a good way to say your position sucks.