Pew poll: America trending Democratic, secular
posted at 2:11 pm on March 27, 2007 by Allahpundit
I don’t have much to say as the graphs and charts are self-explanatory, but Pew’s got a thumbnail analysis up and, for the hardcore poll junkies, a 122-page PDF extravaganza with crosstabs galore. A few highlights, starting with Iraq blowback blowing us all the way back past 9/11 to 1994:

Actually, past 1994, too:

And here’s the GOP’s Iraq dividend. I can’t find the link in our archives, but last year the New York Times had a similar graph tracking the trend among young voters specifically. It was at least as sharply blue as this one, maybe more.

Eh, it’ll swing back. It did after Watergate, too. It just took seven years to get there.
Here’s a special Bush windfall. Don’t accuse him of never having done anything to encourage small government:

And now the two fun ones. Not only are we looking more like Europe militarily and politically, but culturally, too!


The last graph tracks people who answered yes to all three of the following questions:
1. Prayer is an important part of my daily life.
2. We will all be called before God at the Judgment Day to answer for our sins.
3. I never doubt the existence of God.
The drop-off among Democrats in only four years is astounding. I wonder which of the three questions they’re getting hung up on.
Perhaps I’ll ask someone in a position to know.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Dubya will be to the 21st century Republican party what Hoover was to the 20th. Kinda impressive in a “how can one painfully average man inflict so much damage?” way.
honora on March 27, 2007 at 2:16 PM
she looks embarrased…. like she just coughed up a hairball
mrfixit on March 27, 2007 at 2:19 PM
From page 25 (29 on the pdf) of the survey:
Heart-ache.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 2:21 PM
honora is once again licking the back window of the short bus.
quax1 on March 27, 2007 at 2:22 PM
What happens if you map those numbers against CO2 levels?
saint kansas on March 27, 2007 at 2:25 PM
We have had 4 years of non stop leftist propaganda flung at us from Holliweird and the nutroots. They claim to have all the answers.
Its only a short matter of time before the American people will see that they have been duped by the left and the democrats and lied to repeatedly
William Amos on March 27, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Just perused the report and it’s interesting. A major shortcoming of it seems to be that the questions are locked into a Democrat-Republican-Independent paradigm. The data itself seems to show that people are fiscally conservative-ish but growing more socially liberal/moderate.
Comes a man…
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 2:27 PM
These poll numbers are unsurprising at best, troubling at worst…
I’m to the point where I’m almost hoping that there is a Democrat majority in 2008–save for the Senate. Republicans are a much better opposition party than they are at governing.
After a few years of a leftist majority in power, you’ll see that’s when the pendulum will swing back. Hard.
My only prayer is that the pendulum swing does not require a nuclear attack on American soil.
ScottMcC on March 27, 2007 at 2:28 PM
I meant to mention that in the post. If ever there was a time to consider a centrist nominee, this would seem to be it.
Allahpundit on March 27, 2007 at 2:28 PM
It’s probably just another manifestation of BDS. If there were a God, Bush wouldn’t be President.
RedWinged Blackbird on March 27, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Anyone else find this handbasket we’re riding in surprisingly comfortable?
aero on March 27, 2007 at 2:32 PM
What the heck happened in between 2001 and 2002 that caused the political party identification to suddenly just skew off the map in opposite directions?
Don’t tell me something happened. I just can’t put my finger on it. Wait is that when the “Spiderman” movie came out?
It certainly points to a country of sissies.
LakeRuins on March 27, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Another interesting point on page 24 (28 in the pdf). In July 2001, 10% of Democrats viewed the military unfavorably. In Jan 2007, that number has grown to 17%.
In addition, “Most Americans (55%) feel that the use of military force is often or sometimes justified against countries that may seriously threaten the U.S., but have not attacked. In October 2005, roughly the same number (52%) said that force against enemies that could threaten the U.S. was at least sometimes justified.” So we’re just as hawkish (maybe slightly more – within MOE) as we used to be.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 2:33 PM
OK, Allah, I thought I was being “punked” with that first graph. But the PDF (page 25) shows that that’s the actual question:
Fewer Say ‘Get Even’
In 2002, with memories of 9/11 still fresh, 61% of Americans agreed with the statement:
“It is my belief that we should get even with any country that tries to take advantage of the United States.” That marked a 19-point increase from 1999, and was the highest percentage agreeing with this sentiment in the 20-year history of the values survey.
***
Was that what 9/11 was? Being “taken advantage of?” And the GWOT is “getting even?”
You have got to be #$%ing kidding me. Preventing another attack on our soil is “getting even.”
saint kansas on March 27, 2007 at 2:38 PM
The worst way to predict the future is to take current trends and project them out in a straight line. As others have said, it’s all cyclical and the pendulum will swing to the other side.
It always does.
thirteen28 on March 27, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Yeah, “centrist” like Barack Obama.
I’d wager the same lemmings who responded to this poll would enjoy a good hard spanking from Fred F. Thompson and thank him with their votes.
saint kansas on March 27, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Honora- The problem is not President Bush’s policies but his arrogant lack of battling the press. His “new tone” has damaged conservatives because here is a guy who for 7 years has refused to answer the lies and deceit of the Left. He has been above it, thus damaging the conservative cause.
At the same time, you have this wacky multiculturalism that has infested public schools since the 1990s: The kids are getting dumber and dumber (thus trending Democrat) but feeling better and better about themselves. Many kids don’t know anything about American history, government, literature, economics. . . but they sure know, for example, about the medieval Muslim kingdoms of Mali, Ghana, and Songhai–that are presented as if the greatest kingdoms in world history–and the wonderful, peaceful Kingdom of the Aztecs.
januarius on March 27, 2007 at 2:45 PM
I was just going to make the same point, jan. You can link the upswing of liberalism with the decline of public education.
foxforce91 on March 27, 2007 at 2:50 PM
I would recommend everyone take the time to read the report, and ignore the thumbnail analysis. The picture isn’t nearly as dire for Republicans as Pew makes it sound in their thumb sketch.
They seem to be measuring the strength of social conservatism on a ridiculous “old-fashioned values” scale, which seems a bit too subjective to be of any real use.
If you look at page 37 (41 pdf) of the report, it’s clear that the traditional “social conservative” issues still trend heavily in the favor of Republicans.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I should add that abortion is the outlier – America does seem to be getting more libertarian on this issue.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Don’t bother with her, janarius – she’s just indulging in wishful thinking. The democrats are not anywhere near in position to take advantage of the situation as they were when Hoover was president, and the new congress is illustrating that every single day.
thirteen28 on March 27, 2007 at 2:53 PM
The temptation of looking at a graph is to think that this number is somehow permanent. I look at the party swing graph and say, “well duh. Obviously that’s true or we’d still have a GOP congress.”
The “identify Republican” numbers seem strange to me though. The trend obviously follows the Bush Approval Ratings trend, of course, but the low end numbers hold at Bush’s hardcore “Bush is a saint, no matter what” numbers. I think what this graph may show is is the rock bottom of the Swing Vote: the number in the electorate that one could consider “tribal republicans”.
Lehosh on March 27, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Pew poll: America trending Democratic, secular
I have a problem with their name(odor reminder and poll results). Wouldn’t put too much into this, the pew gets in the way.
tormod on March 27, 2007 at 2:56 PM
A little modification to the questions could sway the Donks in this poll. What if they were phrased this way:
1. I’m fascinated by people who pray.
2. I believe Bush will be called before God at the Judgement Day and sentenced to serve eternity in hell.
3. I saw the movie God, starring George Burns, and found him believable.
I’m thinkin …… 99 – 100% ??
fogw on March 27, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Regarding the yoot vote for the Dems, Is this the decades of liberal dominated education and indoctrination coming home to roost, or the brainless 20′s?
Bad Candy on March 27, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Yeah, what these data sets suggest to me is that Americans are tired of excessive partisanship and the hardcore ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum. If Democrats read this to mean “maintain the status quo” they’re in trouble, as people are not trending liberal.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 3:00 PM
keep in mind that once they’ve won the white house and congress, they’ll keep coming at us. suddendly, evey blog, radio show, think tank and townhall meetup will be portrayed as a klan rally financed by unseen global corporate puppetmasters. not just by the nutroots, but also by elected officials who will face absolutely no scrutiny in the mainstream media when they paint their grassroots, civilian opponents as traitorous and corrosive enough to merit official action. it’s already begun with the reintroduction of the fairness doctrine.
jummy on March 27, 2007 at 3:03 PM
As for the secular part of the survey, that’s not really surprising. Barna has been noting the same trends in his work.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 3:03 PM
If ever there was a time to consider a centrist nominee, this would seem to be it.
Yep. That would be McCain.
Rightwingsparkle on March 27, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Um, no. The candidate in question has to win a primary first. :-)
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 3:06 PM
My guess would be this one:
I was practically born a Christian, and I can’t claim 100% that I never doubt. It’s the concept of forever that bothers me. I can’t imagine forever, but I can’t imagine nonexistence either.
Esthier on March 27, 2007 at 3:09 PM
1994, and thereabout, was a time when nothing seemed to ever happen again, at least nothing bad. All that needed to was invented and the U.S.S.R. crumbled like the cardboard box it was. Who knew? President Reagan, honora, was called by yours a “dunce”, a dumb, boring actor, who occasionally napped during meetings…the rest is history.
These responses are a result of complacency and ‘good times’. They’re really a sign at how much terror has been kept under control, without shouting about or propagating the successes. Also, on how not-even-mentioned the economy is humming…The survival instinct kicks in when the knife gets closer to the oss/bone.
Entelechy on March 27, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Totally disagree Slubbo, I think its less about the partisanship and ideology, and more about effectiveness. They know the gov’t is a bunch of f*ckups, and they see the left as a bunch of socialists and we know socialism is a total failure, and they don’t want that, and the right is a bunch of pigs, chowing down on pork money and corporate favortism and they don’t want that either.
They see gov’t completely impotent to deal with any of their problems, and people are desperate for change. If people sound competant, they’ll be drawn to them, at least on a presidential level. We always hear that people don’t want partisanship, I disagree, they want results, they don’t care about partisanship as long as someone gets the damn job done.
Bad Candy on March 27, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I suppose this is similiar to the constant negativity we got from the press after the Nixon pardon about Republicans and then we had 4 years of Dimmy Carter (which is where the problems began with Islamofacists). However,4 years later the country woke up out of it’s funk. I’m not suprised-public education is nothing more than indoctrination into the dim way of life, then there’s college and the msm.
Catie96706 on March 27, 2007 at 3:14 PM
These these swing but it gets scarier each time it does. This is why you support your president…He is more important than you.
tomas on March 27, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Some of the questions in this poll sound like they came from a second grade class project…or maybe a liberal college PhD thesis.
RedWinged Blackbird on March 27, 2007 at 3:17 PM
RWS, no chance in hell. That guy has stabbed conservatives in the back way too many times for them to turn around and say, ‘yeah, sure John, we’ll support you!’
But he did just get a bump in the 18-25 year old male vote and the passionate young lesbian vote.
Bad Candy on March 27, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Many of you are hoping this is temporary. Unfortunately, the liberalization of America is being driven, in large part, by immigration. Even the most pro-Hispanic (and pro-illegal-immigrant Republicans) don’t manage to draw over 35-40% of the vote and to get that much they’ve basically had to be as non-conservative as McCain or Schwarzenegger.
This is where we are headed folks. In decades to come, we may well be a country where our only choices are between the Clintons, the Boxers, and the Kennedys on the one hand or the McCains, Schwarzeneggers, and Specters on the other.
Electing McCain, with his pro-immigration stance, will only accelerate the trend toward the Democratization of American politics.
tommy1 on March 27, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Say what you want about Ann Coulter but her Godless hit the nail on the head. Secular Humanism has become the religion of the Liberals and Pope Al is their annoited leader.
Anything you say in opposition to their beliefs will be seen as herecy and punished accordingly.
LonelyMassRepublican on March 27, 2007 at 3:32 PM
To clarify my last post, I’m referring to the Hispanic vote.
tommy1 on March 27, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Good points, and that’s what I was trying to say – ideology is going to matter less in the future.
I think a centrist (or concilatory) candidate will be the winner in 2008. Giuliani’s views seem to match up with what people are looking for in a candidate, as does Thompson’s reassuring persona. Both of those men are interesting, but the one thing they have in common is the perception of competence.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 3:40 PM
No one should be shocked by any of this. The public trends the way the media decides it wants them too. They’ve always been pushing people this way, and as we’ve seen in the past few years it’s been full speed Bush/GOP hate in the media, coupled with lies and when not lying they’re spinning. I’m not confident in truth prevailing. I’m not confident that the folks are going to recognize that the secularization and abandoning of traditionalism is what has lead to (and continues to lead to) most of our problems in society. All you have to do is think about when you were a kid to realize how f-ed up stuff is now.
RightWinged on March 27, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I can understand where the pessimism is coming from, but would caution against defeatism. What Bad Candy said above applies to Hispanic voters as well – they are looking for competence, not always ideology. If we put the right person forward, we’ll get Republicans elected.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 3:45 PM
I blame Bush… literally
Opinionnation on March 27, 2007 at 3:45 PM
I agree with Esthier, the “I never doubt the existence of God” question is where the fall off comes. After 9/11, who wouldn’t doubt the existence of God? I sure did. That, combined with stuff like the Danish cartoon reaction and Iran’s ascendancy, pushed me into Atheismland.
Come on over, we know how party. ;)
Enrique on March 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Don’t let Ramesh Ponnuru see that. He’s argued extensively over at The Corner that Rudy’s centrism/liberalism on the social issues won’t help him at all, even in the general election.
I do agree about the idea that competency and effectiveness will trump partisanship and ideology in 2008, but that favors Rudy as well, IMO. Nobody running in either party can match what Rudy accomplished in shutting down the NY Mafia as a prosecutor and then cleaning up NYC as Mayor, and all that was before 9/11.
Dudley Smith on March 27, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Can the United States of America purchase something similar to Carbon Offset Credits in regard to dealing with Jihadi prisoners, as in torture and extracting information?
Perhaps for every claim of torture of a suspected Jihadi, with the intention of preventing further Jihadi attacks on innocent humans, or even against our military or any government officials, the US can “purchase” interogation-torture-compassion-mercy credits. Perhaps the US can pay 50 cents to a little boy in Africa or Southeast Asia to pet a kitten, or feed milk to a puppy, or plant worms in a garden, or put feed in a bird feeder.
That should “balance” the meanness of “torturing” suspected terrorists during interrogation.
The next task – how to label these “Torture Offset Credits.”
William
William2006 on March 27, 2007 at 3:51 PM
Yeah….no.
Most of you guys are the moonbattiest of moonbats. Lotta you guys have let yourselves get sucked into the socialist cult of the God of the State or the cult of Gaia.
Bad Candy on March 27, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Not to get into a major theological debate here but how do you base your beliefs on God based on what some humans have done claiming to act in the name of God ?
I certainly dont base my veiws of all germans because the nazis were evil. Not all germans were then or are now evil because the nazis were.
William Amos on March 27, 2007 at 3:53 PM
The right person will be in the mold of a Latin American conservative. A Latin American conservative is one who has no interest in personal responsibility, self-reliance, or smaller government. They merely promise to make government work more efficiently. Mend-it-don’t-end-it “conservatism.” People don’t realize that conservatism in the Anglo-American mold is a rare animal in the larger world.
tommy1 on March 27, 2007 at 4:05 PM
In my experience, no. That’s not what Hispanic voters look for at all.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 4:07 PM
But you are correct about the unique nature of American conservatism.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Well I can’t compare to your intellect obviously…..as so obvious from this brilliant comment. Short bus to denote lack of brains–where do you come up with these witty metaphors…
honora on March 27, 2007 at 4:08 PM
How about adding paranoid to that list?
honora on March 27, 2007 at 4:12 PM
This from someone whose political brothers-in-arms regularly panic about Bush declaring martial law, cancelling elections and herding liberals into Halliburton built and run camps and think 9/11 was an inside job…
Bad Candy on March 27, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Isn’t the religious ones counter intuitive? If the country is becoming more secular, why won’t anyone elect an atheist?
lorien1973 on March 27, 2007 at 4:15 PM
They smell like cabbage.
Small hands.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Whoops. Just re-read my comment. What it should have said is : “That’s not what all Hispanic voters look for.”
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Unlike the Reagan years, we have gone six of Bush’s eight years with no one in elected political office clearly articulating the conservative position save a few congressmen and senators from states other than mine, Nevada. I’m excited about getting an ARTICULATE Republican up there in the White House. We slip into liberalism (gimme, gimme, gimme) if we do nothing; conservative always takes thought and effort.
Mojave Mark on March 27, 2007 at 4:46 PM
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Go to war with them? Do the exact same thing they did to us to them? Kill their leader? How ambiguous can you get?
Nonfactor on March 27, 2007 at 4:49 PM
The Jack Bauer dividend.
jdpaz on March 27, 2007 at 4:53 PM
This poll is the result of 8 years of liberal smears and a biased leftwing press, excluding about a 6 months abeyance after 9/11. [I have a lot more to say about PEW, the source of this poll, below.]
Let us take a trip back into time before we allow our opponents to bury it in the memory hole of revisionism.
The media smear started in late 1999 with the media’s attack on Republicans over Clenis and the ascendence of George W. Bush among Republicans. In spite of a year of concentrated bile aimed at Bush, and in spite of the media orchestrated claims of a “successful Clinton Presidency,” and why Al Gore would continue it, Gore was clobbered by the electorate. By rights Gore should have won election by more than a 2 to 1 majority in both popular and electoral votes.
As we all know, Gore’s popular vote advantage was razor slim and the electoral college tabulations were a dead heat.
Further, as we all know, BDS began on 13 December 2000 when the US Supreme Court tossed out Gore’s attempt to steal the Florida election by selective recounting, and has continued unabated right up until 9/10/2001.
It slacked after 9/11, for a brief period of a “patriotism” display from the Democrats and the media.
After that “grace period,” the anti-Repuublican, anti-Bush, anti-war media and official Democratic Party rancor has been continously rachetted upward.
The PEW survey we are discussing here is the end result of a biased and hostile media and duplictious behavior of the Democratic Party whose open sabotage of the war effort was aimed at restoring them into power and for no other reason.
Like 1974, there will be a rebound period where the Democrats are ascendant. Like the media’s hatred of Nixon, their hatred of Bush will continue long after Bush retires from office in 2009.
However, this is NOT 1974, and things are very much different today, not the least of which the fact that America if fighting a hot war and that the underlying technology of news distribution is completely different.
I predict that the rebound cycle this time will be much shorter than the 6+ years after Watergate. I think that it mmight even be over by the 2008 elections. I think, irrespective of Bush’s apparent inability to fight back on most issues, there is a sense among Republicans and conservatives OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY that it is long past time to start pushing back, and I expect this to happen. I see this, BTW, with Republican relatives and friends and even among a number of Democrats in the “blue state” where I live, who see their party crashing on the anti-war reefs and fear its breaking up because of the leftwing brownshirts that they have, defacto, put in charge of their party.
Here is the good news.
Despite this poll, other polls have shown that the majority of Americans (2/3rds, including Democrats) do not want to see America lose in Iraq or Afghanistan, and likewise do not want to see the troops undercut in any way.
This is a consistent result from immediately after the election and is unchanged 5 months later. Why voters gave control of Congress to the Democrats is NOT because America wants to immediately run from Iraq, but because of the apparent indifferent leadership and lackof PR skills of the Bush White House and some other issues including “pork” and an media-orchestrated sense of Republican corruption.
I point to the nearly 10 point bounce in “approval” of the surge since early February, that the major media is NOT reporting on, due to the early success of the surge. Despite a media blackout and continued attempts to undermine support of the war, most Americans want to see the surge succeed.
Unlike 1974, when the overwhelming liberal/Democratic Party oriented media was unopposed in its message, today is a very, very different environment. The blogs and alternate media (including talk radio) will shorten this “wilderness” time that the Pew organization is attempting to convince us is going to come about.
Those of us who either support Bush or support victory in Iraq need not begin slitting our wrists quite yet.
Now about the PEW surveys.
I will point out that Pew is NOT ideologically neutral. They are NOT “non-partisan,” or “ideologically neutral” folks just “reporting the facts, maam.” The research organization is FUNDED AND CONTROLLED by the PEW Charitible Trusts whose explicit agenda includes:
PEW is a leftwing funding machine. Period. The PEW survey has all the earmarks of a leftwing PR operation.
As such, their methodology and their data collection cannot simply be taken at face value. We have all seen how DEMOCRATS are oversampled in almost every media sponsored poll. We have all see cherry picked data and carefully formulated poll questions that appear to provide for a predetermined result in some of these polls.
I do not claim that such was the case in this PEW poll, but given the underlying philosophy, and given the importance of political domination to liberals, I simply believe that this poll ought not to be taken that seriously.
I believe that we are being “had” by PEW and the media.
In other words, Honora’s chortling at the beginning of the comments is another simple act of disinformation and/or sabotaging of our morale.
In conclusion, we should not simply dismiss this poll as partisan garbage, but should understand its limitations while heeding its message.
In 2008, the Republicans are going to have to field candidates that will not pander to the media, that have a clear sense of values common to the party membership, and who are not afraid to openly root for success in the war on terrorism. If Republicans cease pandering for media approval (which will NEVER come, BTW), and stay on message, the voters will cut short the dreams of hegomony and total control of the Democrats.
My 2 cents.
georgej on March 27, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Interesting that they didn’t specifically add “independent” in the party identification question. I believe that demographic would show the largest increase. In other words, ask if they identify as “Democrat”, “Republican” or “Neither”. In Texas, voters refusing to affiliate with either party now outnumber the voters of either party.
crosspatch on March 27, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I think this is how the Democrats viewed things prior to the 2006 election in regards to Republicans.
Centrist is not a dirty word. Just as the far left is finding out now, majority party in the house and senate does not mean they drive the train. The Republican right would do well to remember this.Reagan didn’t always have republican majority in the senate and never had majority of the house – yet he was successful because he stuck to principles but understood the need for compromise on some issues.
Bradky on March 27, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Thanks for that analysis, georgej. That makes sense and changes my opinion about the results of the survey.
januarius on March 27, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Actually, I think the data and metheodology seems pretty sound – much, much better than a poll taken by the media. Good sample size, good timeframe and good random sampling.
The problem is not the data, but Pew’s analysis of it – which seems like a bit of wishful thinking. I’ve had time to read most of the full report and the data is not at all bad news for Republicans or conservatives.
Slublog on March 27, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Polls, polls, polls,
The wording is everything.
Someone mentioned “getting even”. The actual question should have been “preventing another attack”.
The results would have been much different.
csdeven on March 27, 2007 at 9:55 PM
I never answer polls.
None of my friends or family that I’ve asked ever answer polls.
…
That is one of many flaws in depending on polls for anything.
And this is Pew anyway, which is not anything like independent from political concerns. They have a consistent agenda.
Merovign on March 27, 2007 at 10:02 PM
I agree with those above who pointed out the “never doubt the existence of God” question. That is an absolute where absolute is not possible. Thats why they call it faith. Sheesh. I’m a sunday morning musician and worship leader and I could not say I’ve never ever questioned my faith. They really do think we’re robots don’t they? Newsflash – we’re human. Secondly, the democrats were two elections away from implosion and political extinction and pulled out a significant narrow victory before they slammed into the ground. And all of a sudden I’m supposed to think we’re doomed? Ya know what you can do with your
polepoll. Say what you want about Honora, at least you can understand what she’s trying to say. Thats more than I can say for some of our HA democrats.Buck Turgidson on March 28, 2007 at 12:38 AM
And…
Jummy’s right. When you use the phrase, “American people,” I assume that you mean the average American.
Well, I don’t think the average American (aA) is visiting sites like this. The aA gets their news from the MSM–the local newspaper, network news, etc.
Add to that ‘fact’ the outrageous decline of the public school system…the aA is not going to know (or maybe even care) that they’ve been duped.
In their defense, being bombarded by propaganda from all angles can tend to wear down one’s mental ability to see truth.
RedCrow on March 28, 2007 at 3:24 AM
In your etc., I’d add their friends and family. The peers of the aA are very influential and the more shrill and loud, the more convincing. This is especially true of young adults. My kids had frustrating experiences in their US History and Gov classes because I educated them and their peers were not. But I guarantee you there were many kids exposed to ideals they never heard articulated in their lives.
I do what I can to explain rational conservatism to youth whenever I can. I have a myspace page and don’t have a single adult “friend”. I post bulletins and blogs and link them to these friends for their consumption. I know I am making a difference. It’s a great way to network ideas and I get the peer issue working for conservative ideas.
csdeven on March 28, 2007 at 6:37 AM
This sounds a little elitist don’t you think? I submit that anyone who feels that they can get the “truth” by limiting their exposure to a couple of websites that offer a synopsis is asking someone else to define their world view. Before the internet people who cared scoured different articles, read diverse viewpoints from columnists, and basically made up their mind based on their interpretation.
These sites offer very useful service if used in the context of noting a story or issue and then researching/reading other sources. But, To rely on one or two sites for one’s information is somewhat narrow minded and is kind of like subscribing to the fast food version of political awareness.
Bradky on March 28, 2007 at 8:34 AM