excerpt:

In every single Battleground Poll, conservatives vastly outnumbered not only liberals, but moderates and undecided respondents combined. The Battleground Poll itself is a bipartisan poll, combining the resources of the Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners. Unlike many polls driven by newspapers, networks, or other agenda driven organizations, this poll is one of the few which has no ideological agenda or partisan bias.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/still_the_biggest_missing_stor.html

During calendar 2009, Democratic support has ranged from 38% to 42%, while the Republican range has been from 35% to 41%.

Democrats began the year holding a six- or seven-point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and the Republicans actually took a two-point lead for a single week in the middle of March. Since then, the results have ranged from dead even to a four-point lead for the Democrats until the GOP regained the lead.

excerpt:

Short version: the DNC kept quiet about its fundraising for a reason; the NRSC & DSCC remain tied in their ability to bring in cash; the DCCC is underperforming; and that debt problem is still looming for the Democrats.

excerpt:

Bottom line? For a organization that’s supposedly simultaneously dead, hated, at war with itself, and shrinking, the Republican Party seems to be oddly functional.

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/05/20/reviewing-the-april-fundraising-numbers/

—–

Palinism: Calling the RINO bluff

By backing Steele, Palin is calling the moderates’ and insiders’ bluff. If her party adversaries really think that they can do without her and her supporters, all they have to do now is get rid of Steele and put some faceless Crist-Huntsman-Powell “insider” in his place.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/20/palinism-the-rough-draft-2-calling-the-rino-bluff/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

Party Affiliation (May 7-10 poll)

Rep 32%
Dem 32%
Ind 34%
Rep w/leaners 47%
Dem w/leaners 47%

I was wrong, though. Dems and Inds both dropped; Repubs gaining.

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that many on the far right are. If they could just get a candidate that is conservative enough, then everyone would come flocking, right? Wrong.

Regan, for example, was actually quite moderate on social issues. Not his PERSONAL values, but he had no desire to use the federal government to force his personal values down the throats of the people.

Reagan gave us the biggest immigration amnesty in history. And then there is Proposition 13 in California that was the greatest “redistribution of wealth” ever seen in the state. Prop 13 limited counties to a 2% increase in taxes per year and that is all anyone seems to focus on. But what it also did was forced the counties to turn over ALL their property tax to the states who redistributed it back out after taking a cut for the state. There was no limit on how much the state could increase their take each year. People supported it because of the potential of the poorer rural counties to benefit from the property value inflation in the urban counties. So the vast majority of the counties supported the 2% limit on assessments because they were actually going to get even more money when they got a piece of the revenue from places like Orange County.

What has come to pass, however, is that the state is increased its share of the revenues faster than the counties can raise assessments and now the counties are starving for revenue and have no source of it now because they turned their property tax over to the state and are at the mercy of the state as to how much of it they get back. Ronald Reagan did that.

But the notion that the center would come running to the GOP if they were to run someone like a Huckabee or a Tancredo is just lunacy. In a choice between McCain and Obama, the center picked the MORE LIBERAL of the two, not the more conservative of the two.

In 2010 we are likely to see Democrats losing a lot of seats in Congress but not because people are suddenly more conservative, but because the Democrats have so screwed things up that people are going to be afraid of them. It isn’t going to be a validation of the Republicans so much as a repudiation of the Democrats. A choice of “less bad”.

The GOP gives america mr moderate and he looses, and so your concept of doing more of the same is not wise. I have offered several reasons for GOP loss. The election, most any election, is won or lost by a combination of factors.

In any case, America is in the hands of a Marxist.

Sad days for America.

So your concept of doing more of what repulsed the center and moved them left is really, really dumb. By insulting the center you push them away and the GOP loses.

Duh!

You still fail to answer the question why did McCain, Mr. mavrick Moderate, failed to win. I have yet to get one of you Mods to answer it, I get some fantastic dilusionary statement like, “McCain is not moderate”. The whole primary season your guys called for the mavrick, reaching out to the left, McCain, and wanted him because we need a moderate candidate, then when he looses mods all say he was not a moderate.

Bush was slightly right of McCain and won two straight elections. Now because a bunch of lemmings fell for a silver tounged demagogue, Mods think the solution is to go further to the left. Always with Mods its go further to the left, and get away from them christians” Mods are followers never leaders. I may not agree with leftist politics but admire them in the sense that they do have enduring beliefs. None of my mod friends can be counted on to hold political opionion for more than 5 years.

McCain lost for several reasons. Not because he was too conservative. For one Obama, is a very talented speaker, and as Hitler said “the vast majority fo the public can be swayed by polished talented rhetoric alone (I paraphrase).

Obama, like Hitler, like Louisiana’s own Huey Long, is a dynamic speaker, and he has found his whipping post to blame all ills of the country on, “the rich.” Hitler had the Jews and Huey long also pilloried the rich and big business. Obama has take a page form Longs playbook and is using it for all its worth.

Also he is young and just black enough, and just white enough for all the “white guilt” plagued centrists to vote for, and feel good about themselves. It was a charity vote. MC also lost because he was to closely tied to Bush who might have come out of his second term with some respect, but in the end because of the well orchstrated october suprise of a financial meltdown (yes it was planned and orchstrated, but thats another discussion) but the meltdown made Bush look like a BOOB. Also the firs debate was the nail in his coffin. He refused to lookat Obama and stood there like a zombie staring at the moderator. It made him look like a programed manchurian candidate, and at the very least a senile old man. That debate was the end of Mccain. without Palin he would have not even shown. It would have been a landslide.

The GOP needs to get back to its core beliefs. I know lots As long as its packaged and presented well enough, many moderate lemmings will follow. We can win on a conservative platform.

Sincerly and with no guile.

I agree with that assessment. The Republicans are set to be swept into power in Congress in the next election. My fear is that many of them will misread that as validation of their social position and not as repudiation of the Democrats.

Obama has done a lot to validate the decisions of George Bush recently. A most recent example being the decision not to close Guantanamo Bay and to reinstate military tribunals. So after careful review, change has turned to “business as usual” which would imply that there are more to these decisions than meets the public eye and it was only after taking office and learning why things were done the way they were, that they make sense. It would appear that Obama et al. have had one or more “holy crap!” moments.

But if you’ll indulge me in a bit of exegesis of Yeats, I think you miss the point of his writing, which to me seems to be just as relevant now as it was then.

Of course the center outnumbers the fringes – it always does. But he was writing of a time when the center (of politics, of populations, of the world) was demoralized and leaderless, and thus effectively powerless. Converserly, the fringes are full of energy and passionate leaders. Hence, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.”

When these times come, societies seem to take off an irrational and destructive paths, and there is no strength left in the rational center to restrain them. Yeats, sensing some great and unhappy shift in the world around him, wrote this prediction of something horrible about to be born in 1919. Fast forward a few years, and we all know where this led. He was far more horrifingly correct in his assessment than even he could have imagined.

The point is that the times today are similar, not just in this country but around the world. The republicans are indeed discredited, and I don’t see them coming back. But I believe the democrats are going to discredit themselves to an even greater extent. Where will power flow then? History suggests that the results will not be rational or very pleasant to live through.