Things You'll Never See On The CBC

A couple of points about this finding:

1. It casts further doubt upon other polls suggesting a significant affiliation advantage for the Democrats and a multi-point lead for Obama (positive development). Such other findings I note have been disappearing in recent days, but I've steeled myself for yet another MSNBC poll with a 9-point lead for Obama: that one we can be sure will be on CBC...

2. It suggests better circumstances than those in September 2004, the year GWB was re-elected by about three percent (according to Rasmussen's data, the Democrats still enjoyed an affiliation advantage at that time and through to the election of that year; positive development).

3. It suggests that the Democrats are still garnering more of the independent vote in the presidential race (by a margin of 11 to 7 versus the Republicans; according to the data, GWB would have had to have had a lead of reverse but equal proportions among independents to overcome the affiliation disadvantage he faced and to attain his margin of victory; still more progress needed on this front).

Mitt and Paul -- keep going!

This is but a blip. The multi-decadal trend is of a lower and lower number of people registered as either D or R. They are saying no to the play-fighting of duopoly politics.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/09/percentage-of-independents-reaches-an-al

I wonder what could have prompted this?

It's political fatigue and the economy.

Some really strange things have been happening in Florida. Dead people have stopped registering as Democrats!

http://babalublog.com/2012/09/why-democrats-fear-voter-i-d-laws/

LAS, the Florida example seems to be somewhere outside of the term, "trend".

phil "Sort of like the world's tallest dwarf."

But they're 4.3 points ahead of the world's smallest dwarf.

LAS, interesting stats that now 40% of the US voters consider themselves independents. The biggest practical impediment to Libertarians taking power is that any presidential Libertarian candidate with significant support would result in a Democratic president. There just aren't enough of us yet.

It's interesting that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are both Libertarians and elected Republicans. The best hope of implementing Libertarian policies lies from changing the Republican party from within as well as having strong populist groups such as the Tea Party.

One of the major problems the US faces is that about 50% of the population are essentially parasites and parasites will always vote for the party that promises them more. Breaking peoples addiction to other peoples money is going to be the major US headache in the near future. The devastating social effects of this addiction to statist support are far more devastating than the worst case predictions of the harmful effects of some drugs in the drug warrior propaganda. Perhaps the DEA should be immediately retasked with dealing with extreme cases of addiction to welfare in which case they would finally be doing something useful.

Loki: One of the major problems the US faces is that about 50% of the population are essentially parasites and parasites will always vote for the party that promises them more.
True, but only because this issue is never addressed by the conservative side. A clear example is the Alberta election past. The NDP vote disappeared because government unions were promised largess by Redford; now the finance Minister says sorry, no money. Government workers do better under a right wing government with a good economy rather than a debt ridden left leaning one.

Loki, right, a third party would split the anti-socialist vote.

Furthermore, "One of the major problems the US faces is that about 50% of the population are essentially parasites and parasites will always vote for the party that promises them more."

This reminds me of Rome's bread and circuses, and keeping the mob on your side. The tipping point is here somewhere.

"One of the major problems the US faces is that about 50% of the population are essentially parasites and parasites will always vote for the party that promises them more."

and that is why there are PROGRESIVE conservatives, instead of REAL conservatives

Couple of points:

First, lest I appear churlish, let me say I agree with LAS that more Americans are fed up with both parties. The question is: where to go from here?

Now, we went through this 20 years ago. The Tories after Mulroney imploded. And we went through many years in the wilderness of the Reform, Alliance, etc., before we emerged with the modern CPC. Even then, it took the incredible ineptness of the Liberals to nominate Martin and then Dion and then Iggy (surely a trifecta of political ignorance that will live for decades) to give Little Stevie Harper his government.

The great news for Canadians is that while the Tories were in the wilderness, the left was busy splintering itself. Every time I read about the newest BQ initiative or Green party proposal or a Jack Layton massa.. er, message, I knew we were one step closer to the goal.

I fear Americans have waited too long. They can't afford the 15 years Canada's Tories waited in the wilderness; things are coming to a head too quickly. At another site, I read that it's going to be "bullets, not ballots", which I truly - truly - fear is going to be the reality.

Kevin B: The free world can't afford another 4 years of president zero, much less 15 years of his ilk. Which other sites are you reading?

Actually,

The number of republicans is much larger than the popular belief. Many, (I know this is a nebulous concept), democrats and independents are in their thinking of republican mind. One, currently illustrated by Susana Martinez, the governor of New Mexico. As the governor said, she was a republican and didn’t know it.

The facts of life are conservative with libertarian tendencies. Most, (I know this is a nebulous concept), of population will agree with that, the thing is ideology.

Ideology truly washes the brain of common sense, viz Phil.

Growing up in a communist run country, it is easy to recognize that being of certain persuasion, one might find it difficult to abandon demagogic ideas because they sound so warm and fuzzy and you just don’t want to go against the flow.

Loki’s most excellent comment, September 2, 2012 1:18 AM, illustrates precisely how and why the demagoguery works.

KevinB,excellent points & you can include that the media was predominantly negative to conservatives and Harper won in spite of it.

Despite the MSM drivel regarding Clint Eastwood's speech at the Republican gathering, I suspect most clear thinking Americans are siding with the Republican free marketers.

Good on you Clint Eastwood!

Also, well said "Loki"!

Loki's comments are spot on, third party vote splitting is something we want the Left to be doing.

Without being too Pollyanna about things, I point out that while 50% of Americans get money from government, most of them don't get that -much-. So the percentage which depends on government to survive is less. But growing, and by design.

Therefore as Loki says, the winning strategy is for the TeaParty to take over the Republicans from inside. The choice of Ryan for VP indicates that movement is well under way.

Kevin B @ 4:03;
As one who worked in conservative party politics for a number of years I can understand the disinterest by many citizens. You appear to have more of a + attitude than I.

WHile it appears that a majority of the people on both sides of the border vote for who promises the most there is another factor. It has always amazed me how voters gravitate to a 'father figure' adulation of their chosen leader. Whether left or right makes no difference. Why should Stephen Harper get anymore a free ride than a Paul Martin from a philosophical perspective. If fiscal responsibility is the key plank in conservative thought then why is the CPC still running $20 billion deficits? Why did Romney get the nomination without a vote when Ron Paul deserved his time at the podium. If process is a valued educator then the RNC was a failure. I have no trouble believing that Mitt Romney is a nice guy but how important is that in the greater scheme of things.

Romney made a good point during convention when he dwelled on his experience building his startup company. COmpare that to what Obamy has to offer. Harper has a degree in economics but what does that really mean? Paul Martin had more business experience. Ron Paul's libertarian thought appeals to many as the rationale is discussed more openly with a clear actiion plan attached. Harper and Romney move to the center to attract that swing vote of +/- 5% that gives them a majority government. The result is usually a watering down of policy and a 4 or 5 year campaign for re-election. How many times do we have to experience this before things change?

NME666 @3:37. Sounds like the situation between the ROC and quebec.

Loki, yes, I agree, breaking the parasitic addition is going to be a key agenda for the US.

That parasitic population, however, is made up not only of those on welfare and other social assistance but also, of those very well-off in the unionized public services. Obama's Stimulus went to the unionized public service, his lawsuit against S. Carolina's Boeing plant was all about the unions.

I think that the GOP went too far to the left and the pendulum is now swinging back, just as occurred in Canada. BUT, can Romney take the election back from these socialized socialists? Or will it take, as it took Harper, several elections?

The situation in the US is far more economically fragile than it was in Canada, which might be a factor in enabling a GOP win. But the Obama gang are hardcore socialists and this means that they are effectively above the law and indifferent to principles and ethics.

What, for example, will they do about the debates? I'm going to suggest that they'll do a Victim Set-Up for Biden. Anyone with a reasonable awareness realizes that Ryan, in a fair debate, will intellectually and factually smash Biden. Therefore, what will the Democrats do? Hmm.

I'll suggest that they'll set him up as an object of pity; he'll be presented as someone with the flu, or a terrible cold, filled with mind-numbing drugs. All errors and flubs will be blamed on that. He'll even go into hospital the day after for an 'observation'. That way, the Democrats will write off that debate as irrelevant.

What will they do with Obama? Lies, lies and emotional podium appeals of 'give me a chance'. That is, they'll set up Romney as only rebutting Obama's lies rather than presenting his own platform. Romney will come off as negative.

I hope I'm wrong.

The best hope of implementing Libertarian policies lies from changing the Republican party from within as well as having strong populist groups such as the Tea Party.

Yes. This should be the primary course of action but there needs to be a backup plan. If the GOP ends up with full control again starts to blow it again (would not surprise me a bit), then the 'free-ish' faction of the GOP needs to splinter for its sake and America's sake. That splinter will offer a meaningful alternative to GOP-Dem statism. There is nothing wrong wrong with vote-splitting. Just means all your eggs are not in one basket and you have groups competing for your vote. The NDP hasn't won an electoral battle but they won the political war by influence. Reform was a more effective advocate of freedom than the CPC for the same reason.

Lev @ 08:45. You got that right.

As Kate is wont to say, Liberals are all for liberalized sex laws, right up until their 15 yr old is dating the 40 yr old male down the road.

Ideals are for the ideal, reality has a say too.

I say this as a strident fiscal conservative who has held the current gov't to task over debt and the size of the civil service rolls but I still vote for them.

I don't think that a government in this modern age can be too far left or too far right. The only way any extremes of opinion and lifestyle become dominant is by authoritarian force. That's valid for a cult and a nation.

The normal range of distribution is the Bell Curve, where the majority of the population is centrist or even centre-right or centre-left and is aware of other viewpoints. This refers to a number of societal parameters.

This most important is economic capacity, where the majority of the population must be in the middle range, ie, the middle class and only a minority should be in either economic extreme. But it refers also to societal values, religious modes, political ideals.

This means that a healthy democracy must always have peripheral groups; that is, it must function as a Bell curve with members existing on each end of the range. The problems emerge when the population in the middle are reduced.

Why did the GOP choose Romney, he is just like Barry O!? Ron Paul speaks to the aspirations of all Free people (Demos, Repubs, Libertarians) and he could have united the American people. Mitty and Barry pit the American people against each other. Liberty and individual ownership are very attractive aspirations to people at the top of the economic heap and to those at the bottom; individual ownership crosses all skin color lines.

An Idea is what the USA really is - it is too big to be a geographical entity. The idea of having the right to voice an opinion and the freedom from oppression from those with more power/$$ who do not wish to hear to hear such opinions. All people from the poorest bum to the wealthiest landowner are attracted to the idea of independent ownership of property, the right to own property without an interfering bureaucrat regulating you and your property (a tent pitched on a lot instead of a house, smoking in your machine shop, not draining a pond for a 'special' frog...).... Both contenders favor EPA, carbon taxes, gument 'sustainable' development of American soil, regulations over citizens habits and use of property.

Mit and Barry are fine with TSA grubbing though citizens property and their personal underpants, they are fine with NDAA and the President having the power to assassinate/detain (indefinatly) American citizens. Both are fine with unending wars (and the costs of those wars in $$ and in civilian and soldier's lives - note that neither contender (or their sons/daughters/fathers) has ever been in the line of fire so they don't have a personal connection with the grief of families who have a soldier come home in a box. Both are invested in foreign offshore banking accounts so they don't care about the deflation of the dollar caused by the debt (a HUGE tax increase).

On social issues both contenders are flip floppers. Neither have credibility. Ron Paul is the Champion of the Constitution and the Constitution assumes that the citizens of such a grand Free nation will have an innate code of conduct that will insure citizens will enforce their own social mores.

So I ask again: "Why did the GOP pick Mit Romney?" WHO picked Mit? ( a statment or a question). Did the voting machine programers and the msm pick the contender(s)? Why did Mit quit/lose to MacCain in 08? Of all the Republican contenders Mit was the most progressive and the least vocal. How did he win the nomination? Why was he so afraid of Ron Paul that he refused to let the latter speak at the convention?

We all know all about BarryO! and the self centered vengeful fools who support him; for me he is out of the conversation because everyone here knows his agenda.

I say this as a strident fiscal conservative who has held the current gov't to task over debt and the size of the civil service rolls but I still vote for them.

If you vote for them then you're not 'taking them to task'. You're just ineffectually nagging.

Jema: it's worth noting that Romney has not improved his vote total over 2008 significantly. Offers him a bad prognosis for November.

Growing number of American calling themselves republicans?

Now Obama, you DID build that!!!

Jena54

I think that the GOP refused to let Ron Paul speak at the convention because he refused to support Romney. His refusal would have bled into the Democratic propaganda who would use this public rejection of Romney in their own campaign.

I like Paul's fiscal conservativism but I totally reject his foreign policy perspective, which views, in particular, the Middle East problems as due to 'American imperialism'. I think the ME problems are due to their own medieval two-class tribal infrastructure.

Would Ron Paul have taken the risk that Romney took, for example, by selecting Ryan as the VP? That was a bold and courageous move. Compare Obama's selection of an empty grin (Eastwood)of Biden.

LAS, most of the 2008 polls for Obama and McCain show Obama almost always a few points above McCain. In late August and September, Obama kept the lead of about five to eight points. In October, the lead moved up to 10 points and it was clear that Obama would win.

The situation now is different, with an incumbent who ought to have higher poll numbers than he now has.

The 2004 Bush vs Kerry election was close all the time, but even so, Bush had higher numbers froom September, averaging 48 to Kerry's average of 46. In July, Kerry had the lead but in August Bush took over and retained it.

We have to see the September polls.

I would merely note that even Soros sees little difference between Mittens and the Chimp in Chief:
http://americanvisionnews.com/4398/soros-there-isnt-all-that-much-difference-between-romney-and-obama
I will be voting against the GOP nominees all the way down the ticket. The stench is overwhelming.

Whereas Romney had to pretend to be bold and courageous by putting faux-reformer Ryan as VP, Paul wouldn't have to because he is the real deal himself. Paul's FP is flawed but still significantly better than the MOAR HARDER line of 'thought' espoused by the GOP neocon establishment Romney is a client of.

LAS, could you provide some evidence that Ryan is a 'faux-refomer'? Please define the term and explain why you label Ryan that way.

Could you explain how Paul's foreign policy, which blames the US for Middle East unrest and ignores their own infrastructure and also, rejects any interaction with the rest of the world, is better than Romney's?

What 'GOP neocon establishment'? Who are they? How do you know that Romney is their client? What's your evidence for their existence and his filiation?

In 2008, Obama won 7.2% of the popular vote and 7.6% more of the public were registered Democrats than Republicans.

In 2012, there are 4.3% more registered Republicans than Democrats, therefore Romney's going to win the popular vote by about the same.

I mean a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.

QED

LAS, could you provide some evidence that Ryan is a 'faux-refomer'?

I've already done this for you and others.

Could you explain how Paul's foreign policy, which blames the US for Middle East unrest and ignores their own infrastructure and also, rejects any interaction with the rest of the world, is better than Romney's?

Could you debate honestly-oh wait I forgot you're pathologically dishonest. Ron Paul does not reject all interaction with the rest of the world he favors free trade. His policy set, while flawed, is better than Romney's for one simple reason: $. Romney wants to actually increase US military spending to 4% of GDP, which is insane even not considering America's deficits. Ron Paul would cut military spending as needed and not get involved with China's affairs like Romney feels America needs to.

The GOP neocon establishment includes Kristol Strassel Rice Rumsfield Cheney and a bazillion others including those who voted to renew the PATRIOT act. Romney is their man he mouths their talking points ("America must 'lead' the world" and other bromides.

LAS - you haven't provided any answers, and insulting me personally is not a valid method of argumentation.

Again, please provide some evidence that Ryan is a 'faux-reformer'.

Why is increasing military spending 'insane'? What do you mean by 'getting involved with China's affairs'? That's an extremely ambiguous sentence. As is your previous sentence of cutting 'military spending as needed'. Who decides what is needed?

You haven't provided any evidence for your opinion that Romney is a 'neocon'. You'll have to define your understanding of the term. You haven't done that and are merely using it as an insult. That's a tactic of the left, to insult rather than to argue.

And I'd like to know what is objectionable about the neo-conservative perspective of, for example, Strauss.

To declare that 'America must lead the world' is hardly evidence of anything other than national pride and acknowledgement of the factual reality of American technological and political exceptionalism.

So, rather than insults and ambiguity, I'd suggest that you define your terms and provide your evidence. Otherwise, your comments are empty rhetoric. Just like Obama.

1) Ryan voted for Medicare D, TARP, autobailouts, etc. His plan doesn't do anything to reduce entitlement spending for a decade. No reform here.

2) Increasing military spending is OBVIOUSLY insane because there are no major military threats to America period. Our Islamist enemies could be rolled with the military America had in 1the '80s.

3) Romney wants America to perform an 'Asia pivot' ie defend SE Asian nations from China particularly in the South China Sea. Which isn't America's responsibility.

4)The term 'neoconservative' reflects a school of thought that in foreign policy terms says that America is morally obligated to use military force to benefit others chiefly in promoting democracy. Romney is all that. He wants to stay in Afghanistan basically forever to help build their stupid country. He wants to 'stand up' to China. He wants America to be World Police and that basically what Neoconservatism is all about.

To declare that 'America must lead the world' is hardly evidence of anything other than national pride and acknowledgement of the factual reality of American technological and political exceptionalism.

WTF? Do you ever think? Do you ever have thoughts? How does the reality of America's technological and political awesomeness lead to 'we have to be in charge of the world'?

LAS, again, stop with the personal insults and stick to the issues. Insulting someone personally is extremely childish.

I disagree with your first set of points. Ryan's Medicare reform IS a reform and for you to say it isn't, is very strange. His 'same coverage' for 55 and over, and choice between three options for under 54 is a reform. Same with his malpractice reform, purchasing insurance across state lines, using employer's contribution to purchase different plans.

I disagree with your opinion that increased military spending is 'obviously insane' (that's a personal not objective opinion). You ignore the Islamist terrorist threat and the very real threat of Iran.

Your point three is ambiguous. Defend SE Asia..how?

I disagree with both your definition of neoconservativism and also, with your views of Romney. Could you provide evidence that Romney wants 'to stay in Afghanistan forever'? From what I've read, he's all in favour of the US leaving by the end of 2014 and for Afghans looking after the country themselves but he says that these decisions should be based on military advice not political agendas.

Again, stop with the juvenile insulting language. The phrase 'America leads the world' does NOT mean 'America has to be in CHARGE OF the world'.

You ignore the Islamist terrorist threat and the very real threat of Iran.

I already addressed that. America does not need a military this big to take care of that threat.

Ryan's medicare reform is just insufficient. It doesn't result in spending reduction it just increases spending at a slower than otherwise.

I have never heard Romney speak in favor of leaving Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, when Huntsman mentioned getting out of Afghanistan, he was admonished by Romney.

The phrase 'America leads the world' does NOT mean 'America has to be in CHARGE OF the world'.

No it's just conveniently vague enough to justify anything.

You can't rebut my points you can only split hairs and otherwise pile questions on questions.

Romney: "And the timetable, by the end of 2014, is the right timetable for us to be completely withdrawn from Afghanistan, other than a small footprint of support forces" (Debate November 12, 2011).

other than a small footprint of support forces"

That doesn't inspire confidence. But at least America will get out of there for the most part.

Don't split hairs, LAS; Romney gave a specific date for complete withdrawal, despite your constant assertions that he did not 'speak in favour of leaving Afghanistan'. He did exactly that.

Oh, and I find it interesting that you, who have no military expertise nor intelligence information on the Middle East and Iran, claim that you have the wisdom to decide on the exact strength of the US military required to deal with this area.

ET >

"Oh, and I find it interesting that you, who have no military expertise nor intelligence...."

That's easy, LAS is a run-of-the-mill troll who just disagrees with every post regardless of subject matter. No expertise or intelligence required.

No dignity or respect required to be given in return as well.