America is becoming a more Republican nation

by NW Spotlight

Richard Florida has an article this month in the Atlantic that talks about the country’s shift since the 2008 election of President Obama. Some key findings:

  • “In just three years, Republican identification jumped by more than five percent in 20 states.”
  • “Other Obama states that saw big increases in Republican identification include …Oregon (+5 percent)…”
  • “Rising Republicanism appears to be more tied to voters’ perceptions of the future of the economy.”
  • “The percentage of Americans who say they lean Republican has increased in 47 of the 50 states”

link to Republican National Committee web site

  • Ladywriter

    This is sad news indeed. Repubs are only out for themselves and big business. They don’t care about unions, poor people, the disadvanted (like me) or any other things that get in their way of having the most and taking from those who have the least.
    If it were not for the democrats, I would have to work.

    • Lorineal7410

      Really….you would have to work??? Oh my gosh, such a tragedy!  I work hard for my money and give to charities that I want to give to.  That is how this country was built.  The Dems, unfortunately like you, are in it for the handouts.  Try and make a contribution to society would you?

      • 3H

        LMAO.   You realize, of course, that Ladywriter is trying to be ironic and satirical, right?  He/she is more more a liberal than I am a conservative.  I’ve got news for ya, the vast majority of democrats/liberals/progressives would prefer to have a job.   When you see things like “…I would have to work.”  You can pretty much bet it’s a conservative trying to be clever.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Political affiliations change and while the overall ethos of the country has been of a conservative/libertarian nature Republicans would be well advised to remember the situation three years ago.

    In that time a Democrat dynasty for decades to come was predicted by some, most notably James Carville. Where Carville made his mistake was in thinking the country had shifted to a leftest/liberal ideology. It had not. What had happened was frustration at Republicans, not acceptance of liberal orthodoxy.

    People saw what they wanted to see and that is why Obama et al Nancy Pelosi ascended to power. Both were clearly liberal in their ideology and had made no bones about that fact in their political careers. Yet people were surprised when Obama came to power an the political class focused on long standing goals of liberalism, nationalization of health care, cap and trade, rather than the problems of the country.

    The peoples frustration with that is why Pelosi had the shortest speakership in House history, and why Obama is an unpopular president. The country did not have an ideological shift, thus they were not enthused about pursuit of largely ideological goals over practical ones like the economy.

    Obama is seen as having no excuse. He was elected with a majority in the house and a bulletproof Senate. No president I can recall has had such favorable conditions politically nor such a willing press. If he had solutions economically he could have implemented them but he didn’t. Instead we got an 18 month diversion into health care. The public rightly feels frustration. What is it he wants to get done to solve our economic problems that he didn’t have ample opportunity to get done already?

    The lesson for Republicans is clear, results matter more than ideological goals. While the country is overall conservative ideologically, Republicans should bear in mind that the results of 2006 and 2008 showed that the country will happily overlook someone whose ideology clearly is not theirs, if they think that person might get results better than the person they agree with on an intellectual basis.

    • valley person

      “a bulletproof Senate….”

      How so? He entered office with a 58 Dem seat majority, and 5 or 6 of those Dems were named Nelson, Lieberman and the like. He picked up another dem seat 6 months in when Specter switched, and another when Franken was finally seated. But even then he still had Nelson, Lieberman, etc.

      “The people’s” frustration is not with policy, liberal or conservative, its with results. Too few jobs, declining median incomes, high debt, and declining prospects.  Neither party has solutions to any of this, and unless or until the situation improves they will vote in one and out the other every few years.

      As for “favorable conditions, Obama came in with an imploding economy and 2 festering wars. People were desperate and placed a lot of hope in him, as well as initial support.

      What he wants to get done is exactly what he has proposed that Republicans have blocked. More infrastructure spending, extended SS tax cuts and unemployment, additional funds to states and localities. All to help get over the hump until private job growth improves.

      Your last point is something I agree with. Its the results that matter. Unfortunately for Republicans, they have the same policies they had in 2000, and those led to the bad results we are living with.  

      • None

        Yes, what has the GOP House done for “jobs, jobs, jobs” in the last 11 months?

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Well, considering what Democrats and Obama did resulted in unemployment going up since he took office I would say doing nothing would be a better record than Obamas.

          • None

            Answer the question.

            The GOP gained control of the House by saying they would focus on “jobs, jobs, jobs”, yet they’ve done nothing about jobs.

      • Anonymous

        VP, you’re a real hoot. Obozo’s problem was that he had senators named Lieberman, Nelson, etc.? Really? Aren’t Nelson, Lieberman and the like exactly what Obozo said he wanted? Legislators who would vote what’s best for the country rather than a party line?

        The problem is that Obozo has a screwed up definition of non-partisanship. Obozo thinks that non-partisanship means that everyone in the Congress votes the way he wants them to vote, even when Obozo’s has ideas like the largest federal debt in history or overburdening healthcare that will bankrupt the country.

        Obozo thinks he’s going to pull a Truman and run against the do-nothing Congress. (What other reasons can you think of that he didn’t get involved with the supercommittee?) But Americans are smarter than Obozo gives them credit for. Americans can see that Obozo was handed two of his priorities in the Stimulus Bill and Obozocare. They can see how Obozo just did other things on his own prerogative…like buying GM and going to war in Libya. Americans understand that Obozo owned Congress for two years and accomplished very little and they also understand that Congress voted against Obozo and in the best interests of the country.

        Obozo thinks he’s a saint…or at least a superhero…but the country has other ideas. That’s why even though you think the GOP primary field is screwed up…Obozo is going to lose in November 2012. America will repudiate Obozo and turn control of the Senate over to the Republicans, all the while leaving the House in Republican control.

        By the way, the GOP primary is no more screwed up than the Democrats were a few years back when the D field was called “The Seven Dwarfs” and you should note that no one is referring to the GOP field as dwarves.

        • valley person

          Thanks Joel, I like providing amusement here.

          Obama has had lots of problems. One of them is a group of partly Democratic senators who side with Republicans on a number of issues. Two of these are named Nelson and Lieberman. Both were quite hard to bring along on the health care bill, among other things. On the stimulus, he had to dumb it down to get 2 Republican votes, wasting about 1/3 of it on tax cuts that did not stimulate. He didn’t buy GM, and he didn’t go to war with Libya, but never mind reality. It gets in the way of rhetoric.

          Health care is “overburdened” by a sick and aging population, not Obama.

          Like all presidents Obama tries to find some agreement with the other side to move things in the direction he wants them to go in. Its called bi-partisanship, not non-partisanship. Reagan needed Democratic votes, as did both Bushes. Clinton needed Republican votes.  The good of the country used to come first.

          Your side has set the table for Obama to pull a Truman by blocking every Obama initiative and accomplishing squat on their own.  So yes, he will use that argument. Why wouldn’t he? It has the advantage of being factual.

          Americans aren’t dumb. But by definition half of us are below average. Many if not most are not well informed. So enough are open to shallow arguments from either side, which is why so much gets spent on 30 second ads. And Obama will have a lot of money for ads.

          You may think you know what the country thinks. Good luck with that. I go with scientific polling, and that doesn’t tell us much worthwhile until about 2 months before the election. And even then polling is most likely to be within  error margin. I doubt we will know who the president is until the morning after the election.

          Using the dwarf analogy against the current Republican group does a disservice to short people everywhere. Other than Romney and Huntsman, this group is a sad joke. Know-nothings, blowhards, fruitcakes, and lying horndogs. Take your pick.

          • 3H

            I sure hope you didn’t find any of those facts on the internet.  

          • Rupert in Springfield

            Could you explain the liberal fetish for Huntsman? He has probably the lowest chance to get the nomination of any candidate and makes Ron Paul look like a major contender. Huntsman has never shown a strong polling in any poll and I doubt if 10% of Republicans would even recall his name if asked to list candidates. Yet liberals love this guy and refer to him constantly as if he were a serious candidate or actually in the running?

            What is it with Huntsman and you guys?

          • valley person

            I wouldn’t call it a fetish. I’d say he appears to be the most mature, stable, intelligent, balanced of the lot you have to choose from, and he has a good track record as governor, and he has international credentials. What’s not to like? Put it this way. He is easy for us liberals to picture as a president who would not steer a radical right course and would make good decisions under fire. 

            Economic policy-wise, he probably isn’t all that much different from the rest of the Repbulicans. He is stylistically moderate, but functionally conservative. Since he accepts reality with respect to global warming, I suppose that disqualifies him. Though Newt and Mitt also seem to accept that reality depending on which day it is.

            I agree that he has no chance whatsoever of gaining the nomination. But interestingly, he polls the best against Obama head to head, beating him by wide margins.   he is the only one in your race who can make that claim.

            Now you answer something. What is it about him conservatives don’t like? 

        • None

          The posting rules for are as follows:

               No personal attacks.     No harassment, demonization, or advocacy of harm to a particular individual.     No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.     No whining.

          Considering that Joel repeatedly engages in personal attacks and demonization, it appears that Oregon Catalyst isn’t serious about their posting rules.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >How so? He entered office with a 58 Dem seat majority,

        As I recall it did take something like six months for the Franken scam to give Dems a 60 seat majority. That 60 seat majority was what I was referring to. No president has had those kind of majorities, especially combined with a mimeograph press corps.

        >”The people’s” frustration is not with policy, liberal or conservative, its with results.

        To some extent I would agree with you. If Obama had gotten the economy going with traditionally liberal policy, people would have been just as happy as had he done so with conservative policies.

        However people are clearly angry 18 months was wasted on Obamacare and a stimulus plan that most feel didn’t work and dug the hole deeper.

        >As for “favorable conditions

        I was talking about general good will from the populous, the biggest majorities in congress we had seen in a long time, as well as a press corps that even Democrats felt was biased towards him.

        >What he wants to get done is exactly what he has proposed that Republicans have blocked.

        Very true, and rightly so. We went through the infra structure spending with Stim 1. No one is really interested in a repeat of that fiasco.

        > Unfortunately for Republicans, they have the same policies they had in
        2000, and those led to the bad results we are living with.

        Actually the current economy is the result of policies largely begun under Clinton, and not halted under Bush. No out there is really making a serious argument that it was strictly Republican policies that got us here.

        • valley person

          Obama had the 60 seat majority for all of 5 months, and even that was weak because Robert Byrd and Kennedy were both on life support and not there for many votes. Plus, several of the 60 were of the Nelson-Lieberman sort.

          Lyndon Johnson had larger Senate Dem numbers, to name just one.  He also had a much less unified opposition among the Republicans.

          Most may “feel” the stimulus did not work. In reality it did work at alleviating the recession, but was not large enough to pull the entire economy out of the very deep hole that was dug before Obama took office. 

          Its not correct that “no one” agrees on higher infrastructure spending. A majority of the American people, for one, agree with this proposal. It is true that this proposal is being blocked by Republicans in the House and Senate. Hence the point that Obama can indeed run against a do nothing Congress, which by the way is at its lowest popularity in history.

          The current economy followed 8 years of Bush plus 10 years of Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Under Clinton, with the same tax rates Obama is proposing, the economy flourished and the budget was balanced.

          Many “out there” are arguing that the economic crash and current mess was primarily caused by uneeded tax cuts, a lack of regulation of the financial sector, and the unwillingness to intervene in the housing bubble out of ideological conviction that free markets know best (see Greenspan). Clinton had a part in #2, but not 1 or 3.. And his errors in #2 could have been undone by Bush, who chose not to act until it was too late. Plus, his error in #2 was following the advice of the Phil Grahams of the world.

          What you haven’t stated, and i don’t blame you, is what the current Republican plan is for pulling us out of the ditch. It can be summarized as:

          1) More tax cuts for the rich
          2) Severe cutting to SSI and Medicare and Medicaid, to make up for the above
          3) Retaining high spending on defense at the expense of the above
          4) Re-deregulating the financial sector that created the mess
          5) Sitting on their hands and letting “the market” sort out the foreclosure disaster, which will depress the housing market for 10 more years if history is any guide. This is Romneys stated position by the way, consistent with free market ideology.

          This set of policies, if fully vetted, will be supported by maybe 25% of the American voting public. And that is generous, assuming those against cutting SSI and Medicare vote against their interest. So if Obama can make the election a choice between what Republicans clearly want and what he wants, he should win. If the election is about Obama being unable to completely cure the mess he inherited, then Romney wins.   

          We can both agree that it should be entertaining.



  • Anonymous

    To what extent we shall see in November 2012.  Considering that I was a Democrat for 36 years, and then began a slow shift towards Conservative beliefs since 2006, I’d say I know how the left thinks and I now know how the right thinks.  I have friends on both sides and most on the right are moving more to the right and most on the left are moving more to the center.  If you remove the emotion from the current environment, it’s a very interesting time to observe this shift.

    • valley person

      It seems to me most Democrats and Democratic leaders have been closer to the center than the left for at least 3 decades. Carter was hardly a liberal, which is why Kennedy ran against him. Clinton was the original “New” democrat. And Obama has continued to fight Bush’s wars, got in bed with the bankers early on, and backed the most moderate available approach to extending health insurance to all Americans.

      Republicans have lost pretty much all their centrist leaders. Its now a doctrinaire conservative party,   though I use the term “conservative” in the modern, radical revisionist sense, not the historic Burkean be cautious about changing things sense.

      The center of gravity of the modern Democratic party is: pro business/ free enterprise, but with regulatory oversight, pro middle class economic security (Social security & Medicare above all,) pro aggressive national defense, pro civil liberties, marginally pro labor (very mixed bag here) and marginally pro environment. Basically these are all strong majoritarian positions among the voting public. 

  • Great Post Thanks for sharing For most updated coupon codes store at

  • Obama et al Nancy Pelosi ascended to power. Both were clearly liberal in
    their ideology and had made no bones about that fact in their political
    careers. Yet people were surprised when Obama came to power an the
    political class focused on long standing goals of liberalism. For Best Online shopping coupons for usamm discount coupon For more coupons

  • Pingback: Yahoo is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: is a nice Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: Blue Coaster()

  • Pingback: alkaline()

  • Pingback: test adn()

  • Pingback: Serrurier sur deauville()

  • Pingback: mobile porn movies()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: laan penge her og nu()

  • Pingback: stop parking()

  • Pingback: water ionizer pay plan loans()

  • Pingback: paypal loans()

  • Pingback: pay per day loan plans()

  • Pingback: auto electrician jobs africa()

  • Pingback: t sound x locksmith music()

  • Pingback: Yahoo is a great Search Engine()

  • Pingback: house blue()

  • Pingback: source()

  • Pingback: is a nice Search Engine()

  • Pingback: water ionizer loans()

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • Its remarkable to pay a quick visit this web site and reading the views
    of all mates regarding this post, while I am also zealous of getting
    WFOE setup

  • Pingback:

  • Pingback: water ionizer()

  • sqiar

    Its amazing post. I blog often and I truly appreciate your content. The article has truly peaked my interest. I’m going to take a note of your website and keep checking for new details about once a week you can also check out this

  • Pingback: Bing is a gread Search Engine()

  • Pingback: lawn care services()

  • Pingback: internet service()

  • Pingback: bambini()