Rasmussen: Dem party affiliation at all-time low

posted at 2:45 pm on January 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Perhaps the report of a general retreat on party affiliation was a bit exaggerated — at least for one of the two parties.  Rasmussen’s latest monthly survey of 15,000 respondents for party affiliation shows Republicans gaining more than a percentage point from November to December and nearing the year-long high, while Democrats declined to the lowest level in the Rasmussen series:

The number of Republicans in the country increased by a percentage point in December, while the number of Democrats fell back two points to the lowest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports.

During December, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.3% in November and just below the high for the year of 35.6% reached in May.

At the same time, just 32.7% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 34.9% in November. The previous low for Democrats was 33.0% in August of this year.

As with the USA Today report, independents grew fastest in December, going up 1.2 points from 30.8% to 32%.  The real story in this survey, though, is the growing gap between Republicans and Democrats.  The margin in December was 2.7%, the widest margin for all of 2011.  Just three years ago, as Barack Obama took office, Democrats had an eight-point edge in affiliation, 41/33.  The new level for Republican affiliation breaks out of the long-held 31-34% range for Republicans.

Most of the GOP gain has come through subtraction, of course.  Democrats have lost more than eight points, while Republicans have only gained 2.4 points, so the movement hasn’t been from Democrat to Republican.  It looks more like Democrat to independent, with a smaller migration from independent to Republican.  There may be practical rather than ideological reasons for the shift, as I wrote with the USA Today piece.  Only one party will hold a meaningful primary process for the presidential election, which may mean that some of the GOP growth might be from people who want to participate in closed primaries in some states.  Previously affiliated Democrats may not see any advantage to staying with the party in the absence of a meaningful presidential primary, either. Still, it’s clear that Obama and his allies on Capitol Hill aren’t making much of an argument for staying inside the Democratic Party at the moment.

Nevertheless, it’s a trend that bears watching.  Rasmussen has generally tracked closely to the same trends seen in Gallup’s quarterly party-affiliation polling, so it will be interesting to see if the same trend appears there.  This will be particularly useful in analyzing general-election polling and the samples used, even if the survey itself may not lend itself to broad assumptions about the electorate’s mood.

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Of course, why would anyone claim to be a contemporary Nambla member in a boy scout convention.

RAGIN CAJUN on January 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Not to worry Ed, the recount will include all the dead ones that were omitted in the initial count.

rightoption on January 2, 2012 at 2:48 PM

All of the Anti-Romneys you can move along. Rasmussens polls are worthless. /

CW on January 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Throw harry reid into that picture and you’ve got the trifecta. Wouldn’t want to be affiliated with that treasonous bunch either.

msupertas on January 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Recall – Obama gave 500 million in car loans…cars made in…Finland.

This is who Ds really are.

Take note occupiers and related fools.

Schadenfreude on January 2, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Treasonous trifecta – one old waesel is missing from the picture.

Schadenfreude on January 2, 2012 at 2:51 PM

They must all be signing up with the Socialist Workers Party of America.

That, or NAMBLA is having open registration

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Now if only ‘Generic Republican’ would enter the 2012 race we would really have something to get excited about.

Bob in VA on January 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Tomorrow marks the 5th anniversary of Nancy Pelosi’s swearing in as Speaker of the House.

Five years ago today, January 2, 2007, was the last time that Republicans held all three of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

How were unemployment and national debt at the end of majority-Republican control?

Unemployment was at 4.4% (Dec 2006)
and the national debt was under $8.7 Trillion.

Then, on January 3, 2007, Democrats took control of 2 of those 3 (the House and Senate), and have held a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency ever since.

Both unemployment and national debt have skyrocketed under majority-Democrat control!

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Plenty more south of the border.

Kenosha Kid on January 2, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Democrats in action.

Studies are for elitists only.

Schadenfreude on January 2, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Is it possible that a number of NeoCom dems have registered as repubs to hopefully nudge a preferred candidate for the general?
I’m not sure how that works in all the states. Could be a dumb question.

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Seeing as the democrat party has become the party of radicals and extremists I’m surprised the number isn’t lower.

darwin on January 2, 2012 at 2:58 PM

The voter are only going in one direction this year.
Away from Obama and the Democrats.
Nobody who voted against Obama is going to vote for him now while many people who did vote for him regret it and will vote (R) or not at all.

It only takes a 2.5% percent shift in voter preference by Obama voters to vote him out.

NeoKong on January 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Let’s look at average annual deficits by Presidential administration, but further breaking down which party held the majority of the three pieces (House, Senate, Presidency):

“President and Overall Majority Party”, “Average Annual Deficit”

Obama with Democrat majority….. $1,440 Billion
Bush 43 with Democrat majority… $1,451 Billion
Bush 43 with Republican majority… $533 Billion
Clinton with Republican majority…. $139 Billion
Clinton with Democrat majority…… $281 Billion
Bush 41 with Democrat majority….. $389 Billion
Reagan with Democrat majority…… $254 Billion
Reagan with Republican majority…. $225 Billion
Carter with Democrat majority………. $75 Billion

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 2:59 PM

You know what this means?

The Liberal polls from the MSM will only over sample donks by 6 points instead of 9.

jukin3 on January 2, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I expect a low troll turnout on this thread.

hoofhearted on January 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

The FY 2000 budget, passed by a Republican majority in the House and Senate, produced a deficit of $18 Billion.

The FY 2009 budget, passed by a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, produced a deficit of $1,885 Billion ($1.885 Trillion).

The FY 2009 Democrats produced a deficit that was more than 100 times the size of the FY 2000 Republicans.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

There are lots of left leaning independents out there who wouldn’t be caught dead formally linking ourselves with a major party. And much like Taylor Marsh, when it comes down to November I will pull it for Obama for one reason. The Supreme Court. I’ll be voting green on a local level and any down ticket Democrats are going to have to really earn my vote. In this way I feel I probably have a lot in common with Paul voters and most conservatives vis a vis their relationship to the Republican party. The two party system is a joke and these numbers reflect it.

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

*cough* War On Terror *cough*

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

In each of the last three election cycles, 2006, 2008, and 2010, the electorate has voted for the party that they thought would be the more fiscally conservative. I’ll break each of the three into separate comments for readability.

In 2006, voters punished Republicans for their large $500+ Billion deficits, and believed Nancy Pelosi’s lies about how Democrats were going to end deficit spending.

Here’s what Pelosi (rightfully) criticized:

Fiscal Year End Date, Majority Party, Increase in Debt (i.e. Annual Deficit)
9/30/2006 Republican majority $574 Billion ($0.574 Trillion)
9/30/2005 Republican majority $554 Billion ($0.554 Trillion)
9/30/2004 Republican majority $596 Billion ($0.596 Trillion)
9/30/2003 Republican majority $555 Billion ($0.555 Trillion)

Those are the four years to which Nancy Pelosi was referring when she authored her 2006 “New Direction for America”.

Here’s what Pelosi promised:

With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people.

Our federal budget should be a statement of our national values. One of those values is responsibility. Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline.

Budget discipline has been abandoned by the Bush Administration and its Republican congressional majorities. Congress under Republican control has turned a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus at the end of the Clinton years into a nearly $3 trillion deficit– including the four worst deficits in the history of America. The nation’s debt ceiling has been raised four times in just five years to more than $8.9 trillion. Nearly half of our nation’s record debt is owned by foreign countries including China and Japan. Without a return to fiscal discipline, the foreign countries that make our computers, our clothing and our toys will soon be making our foreign policy. Deficit spending is not just a fiscal problem – it’s a national security issue as well.

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

Again, here is what Pelosi and the Democrats promised in 2006:

Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline

Our New Direction is committed to “Pay As You Go” budgeting – no more deficit spending.

Here’s what Pelosi produced in Fiscal Years 2008 – 2011:

Fiscal Year End Date, Majority Party, Increase in Debt (i.e. Annual Deficit)
9/30/2011 Democrat majority $1,229 Billion ($1.229 Trillion)
9/30/2010 Democrat majority $1,652 Billion ($1.652 Trillion)
9/30/2009 Democrat majority $1,885 Billion ($1.885 Trillion)
9/30/2008 Democrat majority $1,017 Billion ($1.017 Trillion)

They criticized “piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren”.

They promised “no more deficit spending” in order to win control of Congress, but then went on to produce the four worst deficits in the history of America.

Then they produced deficits that were more than 2.5 times the size of the deficits they had criticized. They didn’t keep their promise to end deficit spending… no, they more than doubled deficit spending!

The four deficits that Pelosi critized totaled $2.279 Trillion.

The four deficits that Pelosi produced totaled $5.783 Trillion.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM

Democrats in action.

Studies are for elitists only.

Schadenfreude on January 2, 2012 at 2:56 PM

It’s always fascinating to me to watch Democrats implement a really, really stupid idea and then pat themselves on the back for being enlightened, intelligent and courageous. And do it all in a condescending way.

SlaveDog on January 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

If this pattern persists we can expect an EO providing amnesty to 15-20 million illegal immigrants. You don’t want to back a snake into a corner.

Obama; part snake, part worm.

fogw on January 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

There are lots of left leaning independents out there who wouldn’t be caught dead formally linking ourselves with a major party. And much like Taylor Marsh, when it comes down to November I will pull it for Obama for one reason. The Supreme Court. I’ll be voting green on a local level and any down ticket Democrats are going to have to really earn my vote. In this way I feel I probably have a lot in common with Paul voters and most conservatives vis a vis their relationship to the Republican party. The two party system is a joke and these numbers reflect it.

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Well bless your heart.

Love your handle, by the way.

SlaveDog on January 2, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Dem party affiliation at all-time low

What do they expect after surrendering to the Marxists/socialists/progressives?

petefrt on January 2, 2012 at 3:18 PM

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:13 PM

+10

BacaDog on January 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

In 2008, even though Pelosi and Reid did not keep Pelosi’s promise to end deficit spending, the electorate still generally believed Pelosi’s lies that it was the result of the “failed policies of the Bush administration”, and the electorate punished Republicans for the Fannie/Freddie subprime mortgage crisis), even though the Republicans had been the ones who had tried to reign in Fannie/Freddie, and the Democrats had been the ones who falsely claimed racism and blocked any attempts to increase regulation of Fannie/Freddie.

Video: Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004
posted at 9:50 am on September 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Still, the electorate blamed Republicans for TARP, and Democrats were rewarded in 2008 because they were viewed as the more fiscally conservative party.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

when it comes down to November I will pull it for Obama

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Wow. You really do like him.

hoofhearted on January 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I will pull it for Obama for one reason. The Supreme Court.

And that’s exactly why I’ll vote for whoever the GOP has on the ticket.

BacaDog on January 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Yet we’re told only Romney can beat Barack. Hmmmmm.

SouthernGent on January 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

By 2010, the electorate finally started understanding what the unchecked power of Democrats was doing to unemployment, the national debt, and our freedoms. Democrats had shoved a very unpopular “Porkulus” and Obamacare down our throats, even in the midst of very puplic opposition. And Democrats had produced record-breaking $1+ Trillion deficits each year.

In 2010, voters finally blamed Democrats and voted for Republicans.

The wave didn’t just flip the House in D.C., it flipped houses in state legislatures across the country.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:24 PM

The answer to winning big in 2012 is to emphasize (and deliver on!) Fiscal Conservatism.

That doesn’t mean that the candidate has to be socially “moderate”. The candidate can absolutely be socially conservative. But the FOCUS has to be kept on Fiscal Conservatism.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

MICHAEL MOORE, ON CNN: Well, “The Washington post” three weeks ago had this investigation and they said that President Obama has now raised more money from Wall Street and the banks for this election cycle than all — than all eight Republicans combined. I don’t want to say that, because if that’s the truth, that Wall Street already has their man and his name is Barack Obama, then we’ve got a much bigger problem.

J_Crater on January 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM

And that’s exactly why I’ll vote for whoever the GOP has on the ticket.

BacaDog on January 2, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Can’t be said often enough.

Also, importance of House/Senate races for eventual confirmation fight.

Purple Fury on January 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Tomorrow marks the 5th anniversary of Nancy Pelosi’s swearing in as Speaker of the House.

Five years ago today, January 2, 2007, was the last time that Republicans held all three of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

How were unemployment and national debt at the end of majority-Republican control?

Unemployment was at 4.4% (Dec 2006)
and the national debt was under $8.7 Trillion.

Then, on January 3, 2007, Democrats took control of 2 of those 3 (the House and Senate), and have held a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency ever since.

Both unemployment and national debt have skyrocketed under majority-Democrat control!

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Thank You!
There are still massive amounts of turds out there!
They just don’t want to be caught on the pile of sh!t, we see now!

KOOLAID2 on January 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM

This seems pretty logical. As Dems move further left, they’re pushing out their more moderate members. The GOP is moving further right, so fewer Indies are joining the GOP than they’re gaining in catapulted Dems.

The reason the GOP is showing modest gain though, is that the rightward shift is drastically less radical than the leftward lurch of Progressives.

BKeyser on January 2, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Dream 2012 Post Title: Obama loses in landslide, “unexpectedly“.

I hope HotAir gets to use it this November.

Mutnodjmet on January 2, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Rasmussen: Dem party affiliation at all-time low

Meh.

/jaded after too many HA headlines and stories about how Obamacare wasn’t going to pass…

Purple Fury on January 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

I’m a thinking that maybe some older adults maybe switching. Some have voted dem all there lives and are starting to see, this isn’t what I want for my grandchildren. My mother has been dem all her life and is now realizing ,at 77, this isn’t the right way. For years I’ve tried to show her its not the same party as in the 40′s,50′s @ 60′s.

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Unemployment was at 4.4% (Dec 2006)
and the national debt was under $8.7 Trillion.

Then, on January 3, 2007, Democrats took control of 2 of those 3 (the House and Senate), and have held a majority (2+ out of 3) of the House, Senate, and Presidency ever since.

Master of the obvious.. yes, very insightful.

And your contention is that massive deficits are avoidable in the aftermath of a massive asset bubble, accompanied by the near collapse of the economy and a prolonged balance sheet recession?

bayam on January 2, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Pay attention to how Obama’s team is gaming the Republican primaries. Know your opponents.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/70993.html

onlineanalyst on January 2, 2012 at 3:32 PM

…I feel I probably have a lot in common with Paul voters and most conservatives vis a vis their relationship to the Republican party. The two party system is a joke and these numbers reflect it.

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I’ll personally confirm your feeling, lib. I’m sure we agree on little politically, but I appreciate your clarity and reasoning.

SomeCallMeJohn on January 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

*cough* War On Terror *cough*

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Are you leaning over…at the doctor’s office?

KOOLAID2 on January 2, 2012 at 3:41 PM

*cough* War On Terror *cough*

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

How much does that add?
Didn’t the CBO total the direct cost of the Iraq war at 780 billion for the whole duration?

Mimzey on January 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM

So despite the Obamamedia’s best efforts, the Republican primary isn’t turning voters away from the Republican Party. Quite the opposite, in fact. The more they hear, it seems, the more they come to realize what a train wreck the Obama regime has been. Good news.

Rational Thought on January 2, 2012 at 3:43 PM

KOOLAIDS
Probably laying on the table with a tube up his a$$!

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:44 PM

/jaded after too many HA headlines and stories about how Obamacare wasn’t going to pass…

Purple Fury on January 2, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Do you realize all that that Dems did to pass Obamacare?

1) Stole a Senate election in MN to get the filibuster-breaking 60th vote.

2) After Teddy Kennedy died, they changed the law in MA (after Kennedy himself had changed it back in 2004 so that if John Kerry won the Presidency, Mitt Romney would not be given the opportunity to appoint a Senator), changing it so that the now-Democrat MA Governor could appoint an Obamacare-friendly Senator until the January election.

3) Bribed several Senators with kickbacks.

4) Held a Christmas-eve vote in the Senate, pasing it with both that stolen MN Senate seat and rigged MA seat.

5) Once the MA special election was held and Scott Brown was elected, the Dems had no chance of reaching 60 votes again.

6) So, they used the Byrd budget reconciliation process (which only required a simple majority of 51 votes), even though Robert Byrd himself, back before he went senile, had very vocally criticized the very notion of using the Byrd budget reconciliation process to pass a massive healthcare bill.

All of unethical behavior that went into passing Obamacare. And the public punished the Democrats for it in 2010.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I expect a low troll turnout on this thread.

hoofhearted on January 2, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Look two posts below ya!

KOOLAID2 on January 2, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I’m a thinking that maybe some older adults maybe switching. Some have voted dem all there lives and are starting to see, this isn’t what I want for my grandchildren. My mother has been dem all her life and is now realizing ,at 77, this isn’t the right way. For years I’ve tried to show her its not the same party as in the 40′s,50′s @ 60′s.

angrymike on January 2, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Exactly.

Democrats in the 40′s,50′s @ 60′s actually cut taxes, occasionally had budget surpluses ($11 Billion surplus in FY 1947, $2.1 Billion surplus in FY 1951, $1.6 Billion surplus in FY 1956, $2.2 Billion surplus in FY 1957), and understood the Biblical foundation of America and our freedoms:

The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

- President Harry S. Truman

Today’s Democrats are nothing like that. It’s not the Democratic Party anymore… it’s now the National Democratic Socialist (Communist) Party. And I’m not kidding. Read the Constitution and Program of the Communist Party USA, and try to find where it differs in any significant way from the agenda of today’s Democrat Party.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:57 PM

overall on this thread:

ITguy- 100
libfreeordie- 0

Meat Fighter on January 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

It’s always fascinating to me to watch Democrats implement a really, really stupid idea and then pat themselves on the back for being enlightened, intelligent and courageous. And do it all in a condescending way.

SlaveDog on January 2, 2012 at 3:14 PM

and then cook the polls to make it look like what they have done is loved by the “public”. condescension, projection and delusion. and in Nov, belief disconfirmation paradigm.

t8stlikchkn on January 2, 2012 at 4:15 PM

overall on this thread:

ITguy- 100
libfreeordie- 0

Meat Fighter on January 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

i believe libfree receives the “huntsman”: an asterisk.

t8stlikchkn on January 2, 2012 at 4:17 PM

overall on this thread:

ITguy- 100
libfreeordie- 0

Meat Fighter on January 2, 2012 at 4:05 PM

But…but…butt…0?
For a proponent of negative numbers?!
That’s sort of high!

KOOLAID2 on January 2, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I’m much more interested in the numbers for conservatives, liberals, & spineless jellyfish moderates.

OhioCoastie on January 2, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Thanks, Meat Fighter.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 4:25 PM

ITguy

+ 1,000,000

Your posts are awesome!

kakypat on January 2, 2012 at 4:30 PM

ITguy

4 billion quatloos!!

but dont get too frisky. ever since the triskelion central bank enagaged in QE197 the quatloo aint what it used to be.
you do come packaged with Shahna right?

t8stlikchkn on January 2, 2012 at 4:36 PM

. . . the survey itself may not lend itself to broad assumptions about the electorate’s mood.

Rasmussenites, here’s a hint for you: If the conservative electorate’s mood is anything like mine, we’re so mad that blood is spurting from our eyeballs. If you count the blood-spurting eyeballs and divide by 2, that should give you a fair indication of the national mood.

TheClearRiver on January 2, 2012 at 4:50 PM

If those who identify as R is 35.4 and the D’s are 32.7, I want Rasmussen or somebody to figure out who exactly is the other 32.9%.
Depending on who is discussing this poll, this 32.9% is either Independents, fundamental Christians, left-wingers who think Obama let them down or anarchists.

Someone, maybe Frank Luntz, needs to develop a serious poll with a balanced voting block and ask them a series of let’s say, 25 questions that will narrow down how Americans really break down in their beliefs. I believe that there are tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans who “think” they know where they stand in their political ideology, but when asked about the policies and principles they support, they will find that they’re in conflict with themselves. I believe that we’re a right of center nation, but until we see some hard evidence, polls like this one are way too open to interpretation.

pjean on January 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Thank you, kakypat.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Party affiliation means nothing.

Especially in a POTUS election. If it did, a third party candidate might actually have a chance to win.

Moesart on January 2, 2012 at 4:56 PM

t8stlikchkn,

It’s funny… I was watching the Sci Fi channel last night for their Twighlight Zone marathon (only watched a few episodes), but I saw “Nightmare at 20,000 Feet” and had forgotten that William Shatner played the lead role in that episode…

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 4:59 PM

pjean on January 2, 2012 at 4:53 PM

This is much simpler: Fiscal Conservatism wins every time it’s tried.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 5:00 PM

No worries, what the Democrats lose in party affiliation, they’ll more that make up for it in multiple votes and votes of the dead.

Just ask Eric Holder.

GarandFan on January 2, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Romney could do the same to the GOP.

besser tot als rot on January 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM

*cough* War On Terror *cough*

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Dude, I know you have mental deficiencies, but let me spell this out for you using ITguy’s stats that YOU laughed off…

9/30/2011 Democrat majority $1,229 Billion ($1.229 Trillion)
9/30/2010 Democrat majority $1,652 Billion ($1.652 Trillion)
9/30/2009 Democrat majority $1,885 Billion ($1.885 Trillion)
9/30/2008 Democrat majority $1,017 Billion ($1.017 Trillion)

9/30/2006 Republican majority $574 Billion ($0.574 Trillion)
9/30/2005 Republican majority $554 Billion ($0.554 Trillion)
9/30/2004 Republican majority $596 Billion ($0.596 Trillion)
9/30/2003 Republican majority $555 Billion ($0.555 Trillion)

9/11 happened in 2001. The Afghanistan War started in 2002, with combat warriors moving to stabilizing the country in 2003. The Iraq War started in early 2003, with all Sadam’s forces deposed by end of 2003. Pretty difficult to try and blame the deficits on the wars since they were in full swing WAY before the deficits REALLY skyrocketed.

It also seems telling how the deficit nearly doubled in 2009 once the Dems went from controlling Congress to having full control of both Congress and the Presidency.

Seems to me, we’re just arguing different perspectives of the same argument… that the Dems can’t say “NO” to spending. They’ll have had 4 years to leave their mark, and I’d say the barrels of red ink are a pretty substantial mark!

dominigan on January 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Not surprising the democrats are bleeding out, the “party of the working man” hasn’t been that for a great many decades now. They lead in multimillionares in office, in back door contributions, they get vastly more cash from wall st. than the GOP, they have turned voter fraud into a cottage industry, which I’ve seen firsthand..

If you have a loved one in a group home with a developmental handicap,.. check,.. my brother voted for Obama in 08. First time voter, at 47, had never voted before, and has a mental age of about 4.

He voted early ballot, filled out, and mailed in, by a very very “helpful” commmunity activist “helping the handicapped vote”, wether they understand it, or not,.. my brother can’t even read, never watched the news,.. and thought the nice man was helping him, when he was just stealing the votes of the handicapped.

This happened to my family.. and I’ll damn every thieving vote stealing progressive to their own secular Hell for it.

no Honor, no integrity, and the few dems who even bother to respond about it.. just shrug….

mark81150 on January 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

when it comes down to November I will pull it for Obama

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Just what will you be pulling?

docflash on January 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

OWN IT MORONS.

Keep voting democrat!

tom daschle concerned on January 2, 2012 at 5:35 PM

dominigan on January 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Correct.

The 2000 fiscal year ended 9/30/2000 with a deficit of $18 Billion.

The 2001 fiscal year ended 9/30/2001 with a deficit of $133 Billion.
I think a large part of the jump from $18B to $133B was the result of decreased revenue in the wake of the Dot Com bust (decreased capital gains revenue and decreased payroll tax revenue due to higher unemployment).

The 9/11/2001 attacks and the “war on terror” really started having a budget impact with the 2002 fiscal year which ended 9/30/2002 with a deficit of $421 Billion.

This ramped up further in the 2003 fiscal year which ended 9/30/2003 with a deficit of $555 Billion.

The next three years, FY 2004-2006, had deficits of $574 Billion, $554 Billion, and $596 Billion.

The last budget that was passed by a Republican Congress (in 2006) was for FY 2007 and produced a deficit of $501 Billion.

Pelosi and Reid took over the House and Senate with an explicit promise to the American people that Democrats would restore “Pay As You Go” budget discipline and there would be “no more deficit spending”.

Here’s what happened next:

The 2008 fiscal year ended 9/30/2008 with a deficit of $1,017 Billion.

The 2009 fiscal year ended 9/30/2009 with a deficit of $1,885 Billion.

The 2010 fiscal year ended 9/30/2010 with a deficit of $1,652 Billion.

The 2011 fiscal year ended 9/30/2011 with a deficit of $1,229 Billion.

Data Sources:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
and
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
(for looking up debt on 09/30/2011)

It’s easy to take the total debt numbers from any two consecutive years, subtract one from the other, and you have the size of the deficit for that particular year.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Repeating something I said above, but with some additional observations.

Keep in mind that those who are elected in November of a given year are sworn in in January of the following year, but typically there is already a budget in place, so the first budget for which they vote is the FY that starts in October of that year (nearly a year after their election) and finishes in September of the following year (nearly two years after their election).

Let’s look at average annual deficits by Presidential administration, but further breaking down which party held the majority of the three pieces (House, Senate, Presidency):

“President and Overall Majority Party”, “Average Annual Deficit”

FY 2010-11 Obama with Democrat majority….. $1,440 Billion
FY 2008-09 Bush 43 with Democrat majority… $1,451 Billion
FY 2002-07 Bush 43 with Republican majority… $533 Billion
FY 1996-01 Clinton with Republican majority…. $139 Billion
FY 1994-95 Clinton with Democrat majority…… $281 Billion
FY 1990-93 Bush 41 with Democrat majority….. $389 Billion
FY 1988-89 Reagan with Democrat majority…… $254 Billion
FY 1982-87 Reagan with Republican majority…. $225 Billion
FY 1978-81 Carter with Democrat majority………. $75 Billion

Each of the two-term Presidents in that list has:

A) Periods when their party controlled at least one chamber of Congress (giving their party the majority)

and

B) Periods when the opposition party controlled both houses of Congress (giving the opposition party the majority)

Let’s look at Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43 to see if we can see a pattern regarding deficits and majority party…

During the Reagan administration, average annual deficits were 12% larger with a Democrat majority Congress than with a split Congress.

During the Clinton administration, average annual deficits were 102% larger with a Democrat majority Congress than with a Republican majority Congress.

During the Bush 43 administration, average annual deficits were 172% larger with a Democrat majority Congress than with a Republican majority or split Congress.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 6:49 PM

“when it comes down to November I will pull it for Obama”

You’re a little late there, kiddo. The male liber-alls in the government-controlled media have been “pulling it” for Obama since early 2008.

It’s mostly in the wrist motion – Practice, Practice, Practice.

Horace on January 2, 2012 at 7:29 PM

*cough* War On Terror *cough*

libfreeordie on January 2, 2012 at 3:12 PM

And yet it took Bush 8 years to raise the deficit that high when Obama in as little 3 has already almost surpassed it. But…don’t let facts get in way.

FontanaConservative on January 2, 2012 at 7:31 PM

And yet it took Bush 8 years to raise the deficit that high when Obama in as little 3 has already almost surpassed it. But…don’t let facts get in way.

FontanaConservative on January 2, 2012 at 7:31 PM

What it took was Democrats gaining majority control.

The last Republican-passed buget under Bush was FY 2007 which produced a deficit of $501 Billion.

The first Democrat-passed budget under Bush was FY 2008 which produced a deficit of $1,017 Billion.

The Democrats waited until Bush was out of office and Obama was in office to pass the FY 2009 budget which which produced a deficit of $1,885 Billion.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 9:16 PM

The “war on terror” had something to do with deficits in the $500-$600 Billion range, but had nothing to do with the deficits that were double and triple that size.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 9:17 PM

clarification:

The “war on terror” had something to do with deficits in the $500-$600 Billion range, but had nothing to do with the increases that lead to deficits that were double and triple that size.

ITguy on January 2, 2012 at 9:19 PM

You miss another overriding reason for obamacare’s enactment. In 2004 Santorum had the opportunity to endorse rock ribbed conservative Toomey or RINO Spector. He chose to endorse Spector. Spector won the primary by 18000 votes attributable to that endorsement. Spector changed parties and became 60 vote for cloture on obamacare and 50th vote for reconciliation for obamacare. So Santorum has more blood on his hands with Obamacare than anyone else but Romney. And if his judgments on qualified republicans is any measure vis a vis Spector we are looking at a Gerald Ford Bush 41 crash and burn candidate.

eaglewingz08 on January 2, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Hey

Mr. Joe on January 2, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Uh-OH BARRY!

Major_Skidmark on January 3, 2012 at 12:45 AM

eaglewingz08,

I’ll agree that it would have been better to get Toomey in the Senate 6 years earlier.

But you have to keep in mind that President Bush was backing Spector, and Santorum would have had to have gone against President Bush in order to back Toomey.

The endorsement ad that I saw showed Santorum praising Spector’s vote in favor of the Bush Tax Cuts.

ITguy on January 3, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Where’s the cell phones Scotty? Don’t be passing out koolaid, we need data. This is not good enough:

To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel.

I call BS. SurveyUSA is all over this. Rasmussen needs to adapt, cough up the coin, and call cell phones.

motionview on January 3, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Leftists are calling themselves “independents” because they think it makes them sound rational.

Finbar on January 3, 2012 at 10:33 AM