Gallup Poll: More Adults Define Themselves As Conservative In The United States Than Any Other Group

220px-Democratslogo.svg220px-Republicanlogo.svgWhile many Democrats are calling for a shift back to the left and a rejection of the Clinton establishment, a recent poll from Gallup suggests that the population is moving further away from the party’s liberal wing. Indeed, Gallup found that more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal. Yet, the real story is the loss from the middle of the spectrum.

Gallup found that an average of 36% of U.S. adults identified themselves as conservative in 2016 while only 25% identified themselves as liberal. There is still some good news for Dems. The 11 point margin was 14 points just two years ago. Moreover, it is half of the margin at its peak in 1996.

Gallup has been polling on such ideological identification since 1992. The polls show a move to the extremes of the spectrum. In 1992, some 17% called themselves liberal while in 2016 it was 25%. Nevertheless, the majority of Americans remain in the middle and increasingly isolated from both parties. They remains the largest group in American politics but the extremes on the political spectrum tend to control the two major parties in their primaries.

It is the trend on moderates that I found most interesting in the poll. There has been a decrease in the percentage of voters identifying as “moderate” from 43% to 34%. While still quite a large group, conservatives are now the most prevalent group. This would suggest that moderates and conservatives could be an overwhelming alliance if the Republican party were to tack more to the center of the spectrum.

166 thoughts on “Gallup Poll: More Adults Define Themselves As Conservative In The United States Than Any Other Group”

    1. And those two just scratched the surface while the same applies to conservative. The terms are so over used and way over defined they are useless.

    1. I see no confusion. I see a lot of misinformation and propagada. That’s why we voted them out.

  1. I would sum up this election as: We had a coronation and a Democracy broke out,

      1. Actually, and this does take an education to understand, the ultimate source of power gained a lot – The Citizens. The loss was mostly government – the employees. Big deal so what?

    1. The loser won by three million votes and one party now has control of all branches government with an oligarch as the head.. Sounds more like tyranny.

      1. You are correct to say she is a ‘loser’ but you are incorrect to suggest that she ‘won’ anything. “Sounds more like tyranny”? No, sounds more like the voters are smarter than you idiots give them credit for being.

      2. Both candidates (if you can call them that) were well aware of and agreed to (at least prior) the rules regarding the electoral college. This has been covered again and again.

        By my own belief system, I am more inclined toward your point of view, Bella, but I have no doubt at all that were the tables reversed, that is if Hillary had won the electoral vote but not the popular one, that Democrats would be defending the system just as the Republicans (correctly) are now.

        Also, I find it hard to understand how you can keep trying to blame anything and everything OTHER than Hillary herself, a very corrupt, undesirable part of a dynasty (of all things), and the Democrat party, for the abject failure to connect with the American public. Especially so, when they have abandoned virtually every principle of the FDR new deal and functionally have the exact same platform as their opponents, extract ever more, provide ever less, from and to the people.

        1. Don’t see where I mentioned blame for her loss of the inaugural college. She was a very flawed candidate and lost for a variety of reasons which I no longer care to rehash. At the same time, Trump does not have a mandate and there will be resistance and particularly so in blue states that have stronger environmental and other progressive friendly laws already in place. Some cities like Austin, TX in red states pass ordinances and laws that are friendlier to progressives even though the state govt itself is repressive. I am thinking local for now.

          1. The loser won by three million votes[…]

            What do you mean by “won”? Won what? Of course you didn’t, mentioned blame for her loss of the electoral college. What you did do, was imply Hillary won the election. She did not. Fair and square. You may tiptoe back your assertion and claim you were saying she won the popular vote, but that’s not at all what you implied and if it had been, you would have added the three simple words.

            Otherwise, your points are quiet good, particularly local resistance. That will indeed occur in some instances. Hopefully, we will get better choices next time on both sides. It is hard to argue that Hillary and Trump are not both deeply flawed. I do agree with many on this site that it is only fair to wait before going too far with pronouncements, but as far as being flawed goes – that is simply hard to miss. Also, a President Elect’s picks for his/her administration are thoroughly fair game (red or blue) for initial flags/assessments to be raised.

        2. To add the three main descriptives of the Democrats who asked openly to be called Socialists are left wing, fascist, and war mongers. Socially, economically and politically inept follow but it ends up and we should be eternally thankful as Stupid IS as Stupid Does. Hoist you glass and join me in a toast. May they Never change! Considering their leadership that’s a foregone conclusion. “May They Never Change.”

    2. We had an election and the use of representative democratic principles reappeared as the foundation and a Constitutional Republic was regained. Now if the ultimate authority in the land, the citizens, can only keep it.

      If not it’s up the military and their oath of office.

      1. Everyone knows it is disguised as Rupert Murdock’s Fox News.

        No news there, just neuz…

        1. Correction DBB, “Everyone” knows it is disguised as MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, WaPo, etc. Fox News is the number one most trusted news source in America.

        2. I would say the exact same thing about CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and most if not all newspapers. If you rely on print media or television you are indeed a fool. If not you are much the wiser.

          1. exactly! It’s 100% main stream media across the board. No favorites. They all are 99% fake news.

      2. Thanks to WikiLeaks we all know for certain that the media are colluding with the Democrats and pushing their agenda. We might even say there is no such thing as real unbiased news; there is only partisan agenda-driven news and satire.

  2. Doglover, January 4, 2017 at 9:29 am
    “One wonders what the word ‘conservative’ means to people. To some, it means some very radical positions – favoring torture, white supremacist ideas, ubiquitous guns. To others it might mean peace, love, and compassion.”

    Horuss, January 4, 2017 at 1:36 pm
    “Simplistic labels don’t have any validity in determining whether or not people in the country are moving away from or toward the left or the right. That’s a complete misuse of this information. The only relevant information in this respect is how the population shakes out with respect to issues and what should be done about them.”

    Dave137, January 4, 2017 at 12:22 pm
    “Those who fervently subscribe to such labels are unthinking drones; in reality almost everyone is a political blend.

    “No party, transient (albeit prevalent) group, or philosophic sentiment is capable of fully representing anyone.”

    These three comments, taken together, point out fairly clearly what apparently still needs to be said: political labels (abstract nouns) are generalizations that have very little predictive value regarding someone’s position on any given issue, as many self-described “conservatives,” “liberals,” and “moderates” may all agree about what constitute social problems and what their best solutions are, while others so self-describing themselves differ vociferously regarding the same issues. This has resulted in the increasingly commonplace assertion, for example, that oneself is a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.”

    As another illustrative example, I’m confident that most self-described “conservatives” consider William F. Buckley, Jr. to have been a fellow conservative, rather than a totalitarian socialist, but consider the following:

    “BUCKLEY REVEALED: Review of William F. Buckley, Jr., ‘A Young Republican View,’ The Commonweal, January 25, 1952.

    “Buckley’s article in the recent issue of this Catholic magazine is significant in its revelation of the full extent of Buckley’s views. As a result, we congratulate ourselves for treating the Buckley Boom on the intellectual Right with considerable skepticism. The article is completely deplorable, and reveals the morass into which the individualists of today have sunk.

    “The brief article begins splendidly, with the affirmation that our enemy is the State, and excellent quotations from such great individualists as Albert Jay Nock, Herbert Spencer, and H.L. Mencken. Buckley declares that the great issue of our time is freedom vs. Statism, and sides with Spencer that the State is ‘begotten of aggression and by aggression.’ He goes on to castigate the Republican Party for offering no real alternative to the Statist power-drive. It begins to appear that young Buckley is indeed a welcome newcomer to the libertarian ranks.

    “But such an illusion is not destined to remain very long. It soon appears that Buckley is really, in 1952 terms, a totalitarian socialist, and what is more, admits it.

    “He admits that his opposition to Statism, eloquently expressed at the beginning, is merely romantic academicism. For Buckley favors: ‘the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-Communist foreign policy,’ and by implication supports ECA aid and 50-billion dollar ‘defense’ budgets. He declares that the ‘thus far invincible aggressiveness of the Soviet Union imminently threatens U.S. security,’ and that therefore ‘we have got to accept Big Government for the duration–for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged…except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.’ [My emphasis]

    “Therefore, he concludes, we must all support ‘large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington–even with Truman at the reins of it all.’

    “In the light of this arrant nonsense, Buckley, considered by practically everybody (and, saddest to relate, by himself) as an ‘extreme individualist’ must be classified as a defacto totalitarian.”
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/buckley-revealed/

    1. A very interesting and well formed comment touching on the difficulty boxing the individual by label. An important truth to keep in mind. That said, these labels are very expertly and effectively used by many groups and think tanks (both conservative and liberal) as a means of dividing people and obscuring events by tribal bias and team loyalty (sports being a very lucrative way of reinforcing the model).

      So, while it’s true that people of different ideological inclinations will often react to particular events outside of their supposed loadstar of tribal beliefs/misconceptions/truths, those beliefs nevertheless have a profound effect on the individual, who he or she votes for, sympathies with, promotes, and so on.

    2. Good proof the terms are meaningless. For example many not most but many racial supremacists are called Conservative but the notion is pure fascist socialism and includes the National (nazi) and international (communist) sort. yet one ends up at the right and some gets twisted into being conservative while the other is on the left and is considered sacrosanct. Both are hard core left wing socialists and both are fascist.

      Conservative and Liberal used to have good dictionary meanings If used Obama and the Democrats would be the present conservative party and the opposition(s) the liberals. But the left has this rule about redefining everything. Lykoff is the worst along with Carville. The press and media is also in on the game and not to be believed What for example is the extremist view to the right? Answer some hermits and anarchists. The latter means against any kind of government while the left extremists mean totalitarian government.

      Being useful i invented my own measuring device and i use no other. Especially that PC crap. But. someone asked me why the Republicans always cave to the Democrats. “they don’t the Republicans beleive as do the Democrats in Government Over Citizens. Follow the logical sequene in each direction. Citizens generally believe in Citizens over government .

      Now look at what is the center. to the left it’s the center of the left. To me it’s Republicans on out to Communists and Nazis and not far Behind George Soros and the Secular Prgressives.

      In a Constitutional Republic the Constitution is the center. Add to that the base at the local level is a a representative democracy Something the left turned their back on this last fall opting to be called socialists instead of Democrats.

      So…what is the right? Formerly the position where the King or Emperor or representatives sat in assemblies. Name comes from ‘divine RIGHT of Kings.’

      That lasted almost everywhere except in the new and forming United States of America. They held a theory called self government and the independence and freedom of each citizen. The founders wrote up the Constitution to make that fact using checks and balances (since dismantled by the progressive movement) and included life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (which to them mean property rights as well.)

      They referred to the citizens as the ultimate source of power as they could vote up or down any of the three parts of government (Now there are four and one holds the power of all the original three and they hold complete unfettered sway over citizens) defying even the President and the Congress. IRS, BLM to name two but DHS is fast moving into supremacy.

      the citizens as designted ultimate power holders assumed the position of the Kings and back when it was assumed the citizens held the divine right. Back in the days of morals, ethics, values and standards.

      That’s all there is to it. but vertically it was God, King, Barons, henchmen, population and in the USA Citizen Family government but now Citizen, Family Government and if you line that up vertically over the Constitution you get a clear graph of what was and what should be. In practice the vertical has reversed and moved to the left.

      That is my system. Works for me. Explains everything in detail It wont’ work for secular progressives as they are condsidered cells in a single entity called a collective and not allwoed to think . Plato and Kant killed their chances.

      it won’t work for anyone who strays too far left or right and fails to keep one hand on or one foot in the center.

      There is one segment that has voluntarily – unless the damn draft is activated from sign up at 18 to full use – given up their rights as a citizen momentarily. They come under UCMJ and are all in the military. They have one job loosely defined as protect the nation. Their oath covers one item.Loyalty is to the Constitution. They are required to reinstate that document when the feel it has been set aside or abandoned or taken over in an illegal manner. Whims of the citizens at that point don’t count.
      .
      This time around they chose to use ballots especially in the combat arms instead of bullets (force) but don’t get hyper it’s anot a tanks in the street scenario. although martial law would be invoked. Otherwise back under the Constitution you go until you do it right.

      That’s how the system works. It’ explains for example why the fear of Obama declaring martial law would never happen. The military had no allegiance to him or any President. But it’s also why Trump chose a General and a Marine to head up DHS. Obama himself said he wanted to make it as or more powerful than the military and gave them unheard of powers of arrest substituting ‘suspicion of’ in place of ‘probable cause.’

      Obama’s version is also known as a protective echelon or SchutzStaffel. Their former leader Neapoliatano of Arizona has it right. The greatest danger this particular government faced was active and former military.

      The rest is self explanatory and self evident.

      Those who don’t agree? That’s fine but…one way or another you are not going to prevail. The one way is an i’s dotted t’s crossed Constitutional Convention that does away with it’self AFTER a consenting vote of sufficient states.

      The other is whatever it takes to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

  3. It isn’t clear to me that peoples’ views are actually shifting, just their willingness to be identified by one tag or another. This election season’s progressives have made civil disagreement all but impossible. Anyone who disagrees is called the most vile, hyperbolic names the left can conjure.

    Additionally, the center has shifted significantly in the last couple of decades. Issues that were once hotly debated are becoming more mainstreamed.

    1. Name-calling. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist wants hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief on its own merits. -from Wikipedia

      1. It’s not adhominem unless the target is hominem and most aren’t even anthropomorphic.

  4. It is necessary to read the entire Gallup article to get a perspective on what the findings mean. In essence, there is a growth in the percentage of people self-identified as liberals, a slight decline in the number of conservatives and a more significant decline in the number of moderates. Of course, as the comments here indicate, there is little agreement on the definition of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” However, it is clear that Democrats are becoming more liberal and Republicans more conservative, producing a more pronounced ideological divide.

    1. I used to be in the middle class until the last eight years forced me into early poverty. Then I moved to Mexico and became middle class again. As for medical none of the government programs including TriCare, Medicare and Medicaid are worth a damn outside the country but the good news is I can pay for quality medical aid out of pocket What’s the difference. No tort reform is needed, medicine is priced properly and so forth and so on. I’m close enough to the border though to make sure I stil discharge my duties as a citizen and was VERY happy to vote against Obamacare, Democrats in general, secular regressives and so forth as a very very happy member of the Constitutional Republic/Representative Democracy system which puts me square in the center and makes me a moderate. The center you ask? Where else in a Constitutional Republic would you find the Constitution?

      The center is not the center of the fascist war mongering left nor do we recognize foreign political systems and philosophies. That’s their fictionary fairy tail.

  5. The mainstream media and the mainstream bloggers belittle the very word: Liberal. It is more akin to Mexican and you do not need the word “friggin” in front of it.
    But to not call oneself a “liberal” does not mean that one is not for civil rights for all or for social security as we know it.
    The isse which will trump the Republicans is medical provision. Go ahead. Do away with Obamacare. See what the response is.

    1. Obamacare was a financial catastrophe for anyone in the unsubsidized middle class. Plus many top cancer providers did not accept the 30% pay cut and extra paperwork that came with it. It was a death sentence to someone with cancer who could not afford to pay for the chemo that was off formulary, or pay out of pocket to see the rich specialist who didn’t accept an Obamacare policy.

      Plus, it was already dying. When you’re down to a single, shaky, provider in many of the Exchanges, after the mass exodus of all other providers over a mere few years, it’s not working. It’s in its death spiral. Any inconvenience anyone suffers at all while they repeal and replace is a direct result of its authors lying about it to get it passed, and I quote, “taking advantage of the stupidity of the American people”. It was designed poorly, and crashed, and a lot of us suffered greatly under it. That’s not the fault of those who pick up the pieces afterward.

      Obamacare was a humanitarian and financial crisis to us. What bothered me the most is that Liberals ignored the consequences we faced. Ignored that we lost our health insurance that we liked, that the replacement cost as much as a second mortgage, that most of our doctors wouldn’t accept it, that we had to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, and that the deductible was like the cost of a good used car…annually. They absolutely did not care a jot about what that did to us. Instead, they lectured us that we didn’t care about the poor if we complained, and were bad, bad people.

      But now, they’ve started worrying that conservatives are going to take away Medicare. Oh my God! All of a sudden, it would really bother them if they lost their insurance that they liked and the replacement was unaffordable. It has to actually happen to them, or threaten to happen to them, before they care. And they see no connection at all between the two.

      1. This comment is spot on. Very well developed and accurate.

        Obamacare was a humanitarian and financial crisis to us. What bothered me the most is that Liberals ignored the consequences we faced. Ignored that we lost our health insurance that we liked, that the replacement cost as much as a second mortgage, that most of our doctors wouldn’t accept it, that we had to pay out of pocket to see a doctor, and that the deductible was like the cost of a good used car…annually. They absolutely did not care a jot about what that did to us. Instead, they lectured us that we didn’t care about the poor if we complained, and were bad, bad people.

        Yes! But Liberals is the key word, not leftists and not the left. They were saying exactly the same thing you are here. Now it’s possible that would still result in two different proposals for solution and then again perhaps not. The left would argue for universal health care as a right of every citizen and something we could not NOT afford. The right might suggest vouchers or simply going back to the old system. Either, would be vastly better than Obamacare which as you point out was a total disaster that, besides being a huge financial albatross around the necks of a large segment of the population, sucked the oxygen out of any useful or lasting solutions.

        I could also point out that “liberals” were not the only ones to push Obama care. Mitt Romney, a Republican, implemented it in Massachusetts first, and before him it was the conservative Heritage Foundation that first came up with the idea on the drawing board as a way, by mandating financial fealty to private enterprise, to save the drowning insurance companies who had priced themselves out of any market.

        1. BB – given the millions per day we spend on Israel and all the other tax money dollars that disappear for the MIC, etc. why do you think we can’t “afford” single payer healthcare?

          http://www.pnhp.org/

          1. What I said Autum, is that we can’t NOT afford it. Double negative = a positive.

            Just a way of saying that healthcare for all should be beyond financial concerns. It’s also true that universal health care, like Medicare, is the most efficient model in existence for getting the best medical care for the least dollar amount. But it’s impossible to argue that fact to those for whom the whole point of human suffering is simply another profit opportunity.

          2. Do you think Trump will help us save Medicare and draft a proposal for Medicare for all?

            1. No. But he will propose something that is equally profitable to rapacious insurance companies and therefore equally difficult to maintain over any long term. The upside to this is that we will probably start at zero again in four or eight years. If Obamacare survives (say Trump simply puts his own name on it – though we all know he has NEVER EVER done that before ), then it will become ingrained and take another generation before we can finally get beyond it.

              1. As to Medicare itself, I suspect he will attempt to broad side it with a privatization scheme including vouchers or some such. We’ll see. He is going to go for much the same things Clinton would have gone for except he will be much more open and direct about it. He is a great salesman.

                1. Why do you feel that everyone deserves health insurance? It is not the role of the govt. to provide it. I would argue that food is way more important than health insurance and for that matter water is even more important than food. So why don’t we have universal water or food service? Why is it my fault that people can’t afford a like luxury health insurance? And if I owe it to the lazy, then there is a fundamental issue in that I should then have a say in how they live their lives. I had this same argument with my daughter about college grades. She looked at me once when I inquired about how well she was doing and said, “they are my grades what does it matter to you?” I told her that when she pays 100% for her college, I will butt out, until then, I have a right to know what you are doing. Same goes for health insurance. If you want me to pay for the lazy, then the people should have a say in how they live. To me, that is a big problem you are opening up. And frankly, I don’t want the govt. to have a say.

                  1. One of the strongest reasons is that public health affects everyone. So it’s like the fire department. You might be less than enthusiastic if a poor person’s house burning created a trail of fire that led right to your house. Also, selfishness has functional limits as a social model. It promotes corruption as much or more than the largely mythical lazy man ploy to divide people by resentment.

                    1. “One of the strongest reasons is that public health affects everyone.”

                      So does hunger and water. Why aren’t they just free too?

                      So in your world view, a chain smoker should get the same cost benefits as the non smoker. Or the runner who wears out their knee joints early should get a pass too.

                      Who said anything about being selfish? I’m selfish because I would like to keep what I have earned and not have stolen from me and given away to people who just want a hand out or are lazy? Or because I’d rather donate to who I feel is deserving instead of a faceless govt?

                    2. Brooklin – there are two ways to ration health care. One is for consumers to share costs. They are less likely to go to the doctor and take up appointment time and benefits every time they have a splinter if they have a $20 office visit copay. The only ones who don’t pay anything are the indigent, and they tend to clog up the ER and doctors offices for common colds and sprained ankles, because there is absolutely no reason for them to try to monitor costs. The other way is to ration accessibility. That’s why they have concierge services in Canada, where wait times can be many months, plenty of time for patients to become hooked on pain killers while they wait for surgery, or for them to kick off entirely. So they have a thriving industry where companies either fly customers to the US, or they utilize private surgical centers in provinces where they are legal.

                      One way or another, they have to ration care or the system would collapse under the cost. Right now, our system is what drives R&D. Socialized medicine countries don’t invent many new treatment paradigms. Our system could definitely be improved. I’d like a more whole body approach, including lifestyle, fitness, and nutrition as prophylactics. And I would like to see a return of a variety of plans, so people can pick what they want and can afford.

                      It is not selfish to oppose universal healthcare, based on the observed results. Here in the US, the only single payor system we had was the VA, and we saw how our government handled that. They kinked the numbers to hide wait times, while our vets literally died waiting to see a doctor. Health insurance is just one arrow in the quiver of access to healthcare. The universally accepted fact is that health care is unaffordable unless it’s been subsidized by health insurance. We need to focus on that, affordability, rather than hyper focusing on only one aspect of health care – insurance.

                  2. Bad reasoning. Air, Food, Water, Shelter, Clothing are the essentials the rest are add ons. The founders lumped that all together under life, liberty AND the pursuit of happiness.–

                    Education is mentioned as it was left to the States. Medicine wasn’t mentioned and both were if memory serves not discussed much, if at all, even in Federalist and Anti Federalist papers. When I was young medcine took up 5% of the family budget. My parents each made $3,000 a year. The G.I Bill paid $50 a month in the late fourties early fifties. But you had to be a veteran to get it. Of course back then we actually received an education. Value for Value but no longer.

                    When did the cost of medicine go up? When the government stuck it’s nose in that area. Same with education. Costs up value down. You want to solve the problem restrict government to it’s stated job. Part of which is monitoring but not dictating to certain areas. Sweden is doing a wonderful job of proving that now they have gotten rid of socialism and especially the open ended welfare system. Finland has just voted to beome another Greece.

                    1. Now as to hunger and water etc and forced altruism. Look at the difference between egotist and egoism . It’s ok to be one but not the other. Wha’ts wrong is when some puke puts a gun to your head and demands a donation or worsea voluntary donation. That’s theft. What the government does is theft. and it promotes a spread of welfarism. As Sweden found out. take care of, through donations or private charities those truly in need. The rest work or die.They also now have a robust economy based on market capitalism and can afford to assist when real need appears. No giving back it’s a stupid phrase meant to thide the activities of theives. The Swedes will laugh at the stupidity and ask “why?” Meanwhile we have on Justice on the Supreme Court that wants to lower age of consent to 12.

          3. Aid to Israel amounts to about 0.15% of annual medical expenditure in this country. And, of course, the only people who whinge about aid to Israel are anti-semites.

        2. I could also point out that “liberals” were not the only ones to push Obama care. Mitt Romney, a Republican, implemented it in Massachusetts first,

          No, he didn’t. The market for household medical insurance in Massachusetts was ready to implode due to state mandates and Romney moved to prevent that by crafting a repair with the state legislature’s cooperation. Republicans never had a majority in the state legislature so Romney had to take what he could get in crafting a program that paid more respect to markets. Romney’s program included coverage mandates. That’s the primary point of similarity.

          Progressives never stop lying.

          1. Progressives never stop lying.

            As Greenwald says about fake news, the people most guilty of it are the ones who most accuse others of doing it.

            Romneycare and Obama care came from the same drawing board, The Heritiage Foundation. Regardless of the color of their brain wash, the purpose was the same. Mandate replenishing and maintaining the coffers of the insurance companies by private citizens.

            The Democrats in the Massachusetts State Legislature are DINOS.

            1. bb, re: ” Mandate replenishing and maintaining the coffers of the insurance companies by private citizens.”

              EXACTLY! they contribute heavily to both Dem and Rep pols. These disgusting parasites who make billions off NOT paying for access to medical care. Same coin, different sides.

              Whenever I have to speak to a BC/BS person I have to restrain myself to just address the issue at hand because I really want to say “how the hell can you justify working for an organization like this?” – of course I realize they need a job!

              1. In both cases also, they (the insurance companies) are the ones that actually wrote the legislation.

            2. Romneycare and Obama care came from the same drawing board, The Heritiage Foundation.

              No they did not. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation floated a sketch in 1993 which included coverage mandates. That is the connection in toto.

              Progressives double down on their lies. Routinely.

              1. Your job is apparently to hide the salient features of these fiascos in a forest of bs.

                The mandate is the message is the massage.

                In your own somewhat creepy vernacular, Get over it.

              2. Take it from the horse’s mouth. 🙂

                […] This came up at Tuesday’s Western Republican Leadership Conference Debate, where Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich tussled on the question [of the individual mandate]:

                ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

                GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

                ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

                GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

                ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

                GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

                (CROSSTALK)

                ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

                GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

                ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

                ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

                GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

                ROMNEY: OK.

        3. It heartens me greatly when anyone on the Left takes a more moderate view, and is open to the problems inherent in Obamacare. Many of the Left used to be quite moderate before they started to believe everyone else was the devil.

          There were many differences between Romneycare and Obamacare:
          1) They were trying to address those who could pay for insurance, but wouldn’t. They would just show up for emergency care that could not be denied them. Romneycare dried up the free ride for those who could afford insurance but wouldn’t get it.
          2) It was implemented on the state level. Mass has far fewer uninsured, and welfare recipients than many other states.
          3) It was a bipartisan bill where all sides got input, founded on conservative principals. Obamacare deliberately shut out conservatives.
          4) Romneycare did not crash the private insurance market, or make premiums or deductibles skyrocket. It was not specifically designed to take advantage of the stupidity of the American public. It did not increase taxes. It did not mandate that all private insurance have exactly the same coverage, a one-size-fits-all plan (which all women know never fits anyone).

          Here are more differences:

          http://mittromneyandhealthcare.blogspot.com/p/romneycare-vs-obamacare.html

          https://spectator.org/36046_obamacare-vs-romneycare-crucial-difference/

          Romneycare did have its flaws. Luckily, since it was only implemented in one state, it has time and scope to work out those flaws.

          I absolutely believe that states are a great place to experiment. They should have had a beta test of Obamacare, so when it failed miserably and was unaffordable, we wouldn’t hear that we couldn’t repeal it because it was too big to fail.

          1. Karen S, your replies are always thoughtful, much appreciated and enjoyable. I don’t agree entirely with several points about Romneycare being all that different from Obamacare, but setting that aside, the main issue that runs throughout all these schemes is the individual mandate and government sanctions on those who don’t participate.

            I will touch upon one similarity where I disagree with you because it relates directly to the mandate. I live in Massachusetts and can tell you that premium costs have indeed risen; and at a speed and to a degree that puts an impossible burden on many. People have to keep lowering the type of policy they have just to keep up with payments meaning the benefits are less, the deductibles are higher, the networks are narrower and so on. Everyone in the category where salary is too high to get assistance, but too low to afford the premiums or the deductibles is forced by their government to keep the insurance companies swimming in profit – hardly the land of the free, even if I were to agree on the moral pinnacle of declaring that one’s take home pay defines whether his or her family deserve to live or die or suffer due to lack of medical attention.

            More troubling than just this particular instance, is the whole notion of government programs forcing the public into the profit nets of private enterprise as those companies become too rapacious to maintain their levels of ever higher profits without government force being applied on the public to keep on coughing it up. This does not work out well with a philosophy that also says government should never put restraints of any sort on business (just on people).

            And this brings us, inevitably, to those areas where for one reason and another, we simply don’t agree and remain puzzled by the others “obtuseness” even though we might also feel the other is trying to be open.

            Examples would be my opinion that dead beats (people trying to game the system), the so called “lazy”, are statistically insignificant. Most humans want nothing more than to be productive though they do not always agree on what that consists of (such as an artist). That is a far different thing than saying that all those people could find productive work no matter how hard they tried.

            Another, would be both Canada and particularly France as examples of countries where universal health care has been brilliant in providing the highest degree of medical care for the lowest per unit cost, just as Medicare has in this country. The medical level of care in France was and largely still is second to none and long waiting lists were a pure fabrication; so much so that the lie only existed outside of France where people had no idea of what they were talking about and where it was easy for duplicitous think tanks and vested interests to spread lies. I have heard mixed opinions about the wait time in Canada. I assume there must be some truth to it, but do not accept that it is an intrinsic fault in universal health care.

            It’s my contention that a significant portion of those disagreements are artificially created by think tanks, corporations, and vested financial interests, in many forms, but one of the most effective being partially manufactured ideologies. Also, that both sides of our duopoly do it, and finally that the purpose, or beneficiary, is always the usual suspects; big business, the MIC, power groups, and so on, though the particular players differ from decade to decade.

            But I also understand that there is simply no grounds for agreement at this time and perhaps ever. We will just keep slugging away with our different points of view and feeling resentment when those POVs shed an unflattering light on the other. Unlike Autumn, I am almost convinced we have entered a period so complex (by our own doing) that we have moved beyond human ability to extricate ourselves. Part of that, is this ever widening gap in fundamental beliefs which creates an insurmountable obstacle to even agreeing on what the problems are.

            Such notions as, “We got ourselves into this, we can get ourselves out,” sound very macho, but have absolutely no logical basis in fact. I admire positivism, refusal to give up, but it seems ever more like a lottery pick rather than any sure fire human capacity to solve any and all problems including those we create for our selves.

    2. Let’s see your argument is just because you left wing liberal fascist war mongers intentionally screwed up health care, education, the economy by using the money for your endless non stop wars we have to pay the price for ever?

      The Same Democrat/socialists/liberals/secular reggressives who declared a Jihad against the elderly and their retirement funds and NOW are oh so suddenly concerned about their health? Anthropophagic should be the buzzword of the day instead of liberal.

      So go blame the right wing of the left AKA RINOs or something. Tomorrow will be a different story with the same conclusion.

      We don’t believe you.

      Has nothing to do with Trump. Has everything to do with turning our backs on stupidity.

    3. Liberals just another name for progressives are at best Democrats and at worst secular regressives. Now. Since Democrats have always been and continue to be the party of slavery, lblack laws, Jim Crow laws, anti civil rights and pro single party facism why wouldn’t they be considered anti civil rights? No evidence to support that. For sure they are followers of the worst Plato had to offer.

  6. Politics has become more polarized. We are finding less common ground with each other, and turning away.

    Darren is right. Conservatives can only take being ascribed evil tendencies for disagreeing with Liberals for so long, and Liberals believe the ad hominem, and so are less inclined to build bridges with conservatives or consider a moderate position.

    Nick – suspending critical thought is required for the hard Left, or any extremist position. There’s no other explanation for how much they ignored or excused. If Trump had forced an abstention vote on that Israel resolution, or made those remarks about how Israel could be Jewish or democratic, but not both, they would have crucified him. But it’s completely fine because it was Obama and Kerry who said it. I have relatives who literally believe that Hillary has never done anything wrong in her entire political career, and that it’s all spurious right wing attacks. Compare and contrast with those who voted for Trump, or anyone else than Hillary, who called Trump out when he was wrong. I will never understand rosy political glasses.

    1. Karen S, It’s the ‘hard Left” aka Progressives who consistently called out HRC – and defended Trump – and refused to vote for her. Big difference between them and the cultist Liberals who ignored the travesties committed by the DNC and exposed by Wikileaks. Pretty sure that your HRC relatives despise Bernie/Jillbots =)

      Being a Partisan puppet is where all the craziness comes from. The RNC is also being challenged thanks to the folks Trump brought in. Good bye (hopefully!!) the Linda Grahams and Joan McCains who want continual warfare and proceeds from the MIC to fund their next election cycle.

      I think this election cycle brought some unity from very disparate parts of the citizenry which did not exist previously.

      1. Let’s hope so, Autumn. I think a lot of people realized that the Establishment gets its votes with false promises, panders to its big donors, and then the majority of us keep getting plowed under the scramble for political favors. They care more about their donors than the voters, but the same people kept getting voted back in office. It’s not experience that I want thrown out of Washington; it’s the selling of political favors and the big money. It’s the back door deals that fail to take into account how it affects the people they are supposed to represent.

      2. If anyone can help bring unity, you can Autumn. Also, what Karen S. said, ++, in response to your comment.

        1. BB, you are very kind. I honestly think we have a chance to bring a new “awareness” if you will to unite people who are earnestly concerned about the fate of the US, the world at large and the environment, etc. We will certainly disagree on how to get there or what policies are best, but I think it is hopeful that we are all honestly talking.

          I have been enlightened by so many people who dare to “cross the lines” and search for truth irregardless of the olde D and R paradigms.

      3. “Being a Partisan puppet is where all the craziness comes from. The RNC is also being challenged thanks to the folks Trump brought in. Good bye (hopefully!!) the Linda Grahams and Joan McCains who want continual warfare and proceeds from the MIC to fund their next election cycle.” Autumn Why do you call men women’s names? Rumor has it that Graham could possibly be gay but your statement appears to be homophobic at best.

      4. They existed but no one listened nor cared. PEW did as study on numbers and reasond and even they missed some key group.Some of the groups we were able to contact and discuss strategies and tactics but all of us were shocked when the avalanche hit the polls. The GOOD thing is the left for sure but the Rino’s also are back on that ignoring track. We’ll have to kick their butt again in 2018.

  7. True that Nick. Isaac has consistently demonstrated this last year that he is a member of the hardcore DNC cult. Facts and ethics be damned – “winning” is paramount no matter the methods and results…

    Off topic – what do you think about federal intervention in Chicago to alleviate the insane shootings? I watched a video the other night regarding Trump’s tweet:

    1. They don’t need federal intervention. They need a better mayor and a better police chief. The role of the federal government should be to neutralize the judiciary if they try to run interference for the criminal class and the lawyer left.

      Using New York as a benchmark, the Chicago police has ample manpower. That manpower is not optimally deployed, not using best practices, and (per a quondam chief) given paperwork to do which distracts them from patrolling (as well as hanging out at the doughnut shop because they get grief from the higher ups for doing their jobs).

    2. Autumn – I don’t have enough bandwidth to watch the video. Would you mind sharing what they are proposing to do in that war zone they call Chicago? Because we shouldn’t have our people living like it’s the Third World in the US.

      1. Karen S, damn, this is the second time you’ve asked me to summarize a YouTube because you don’t have bandwidth — NOT slamming you – I just think it’s sad that we don’t have national technical bandwidth for all our citizens to have access. That, is truly 3rd world! No, we aren’t allowed to say that – “newly emerging economies” is the correct term.

        So, on Monday Trump tweeted: ““Chicago murder rate is record setting — 4,331 shooting victims with 762 murders in 2016. If Mayor can’t do it he must ask for Federal help!”

        Trump did not offer any concrete proposals, but the Demoncrats went wild as they saw it as an attack on Rahm Emmanuel. Tim Black produced a video outlining the horrors that poor — obviously many black – people in Chicago are dealing with and he supports any type of intervention that would lead to stability. He calls out the failures of Emmanuel and Democrats overall to deal with the situation.

      2. I cannot resist. I know of an experienced out of work Community Organizer I’d be happy to not recommend.

    3. Off topic observation on Chicago mayor….Rahmbo won reelection by the hair of his chinny chin chin. There was a documentary-type show being filmed about him and I remember a scene where Rahmbo was in his motorcade rushing to get to a meeting and the motorcade simply blew threw red traffic lights in order to get him to his meeting on time. If that isn’t an example of his power-tripping ‘laws are for the little people’ mentality, I don’t know what is.

      1. No, he won the runoff by a 10-point margin.

        The thing is, there wasn’t one good candidate in the race and his principal opponent was, if anything, worse than the incumbent. Chicago’s political class stinks and it’s electorate is unable to influence its skunky political class in a salutary direction. They are all suffering, and they are all stupid.

        1. I stand corrected. But my point is that it went to a runoff which is far from a decisive victory for Rahmbo who is not a popular mayor.

    4. The problem in Chicago is that there are so many gangs with turfs equal to one block. They are also heavily armed and are often poor shots so innocent bystanders end up getting shot. Wonder how Trump plans to intervene?

    5. Autumn

      “winning” is paramount no matter the methods and results…”

      Almost 3 million more Americans voted against Trump, as it was an ‘against’ election, not a ‘for’ election. Yet the strategy of garnering less than 80,000 votes in three states to win, ‘technically’, is what gives us the greatest con man and buffoon to come along ever. DDT used racism, bigotry, lies, and any other gutter tactic to convince the dupes in the backwoods to vote for him and yet the outnumbered Republicans have the delusion to state that the people have spoken. The Republican Congress obstructed at every turn to garner power at the expense of the best interests of the American people. And, you have either the ignorance or hypocrisy, to accuse the Democrats of winning no matter the methods. DDT won and we will see what we will see. However, if there ever was a scenario that illustrated winning no matter the methods and results it is that of the Republicans and Despicable Donald Trump. Bask in your win but don’t call it by any other name, a win. There is absolutely nothing to be proud of on the right.

      1. 48.2 popular and way low electoral. Your self crowned lost on both counts. By the way you are two weeks behind on reprogramming and your collective is looking for you.

      2. A win is a win is a win. And boy does it feel good. Why there wasn’t this kind of uproar about someone like Barack Obama taking office without having any background in anything worth squat is mind blowing.

  8. Simplistic labels don’t have any validity in determining whether or not people in the country are moving away from or toward the left or the right. That’s a complete misuse of this information. The only relevant information in this respect is how the population shakes out with respect to issues and what should be done about them. On every major issue of concern the majority, and not by a small margin, is with the left and Democrats. Period.

    1. On every major issue of concern the majority, and not by a small margin, is with the left and Democrats. Period.

      Uh huh. And you’ve managed to parlay your ‘majority’ into the worst position you’ve had in legislative bodies in nearly 90 years. Spare me the blather about ‘gerrymandering’. You’re losing the popular vote and state-wide races as well.

    2. The so-called Left – Liberals, not to be confused with Progressives, have talked the talk and NOT walked the walk. Sure, people have concerns about issues mostly associated with the Left, HOWEVER they have fleeced and lied to the people and that’s why folks are not voting for Democrats.

      1. What you say is correct Autumn, but while I think most polls are worthless, there is a movement to the right that is taking place generally right now; here, in Europe, in South America, and elsewhere.

        To guage exactly what the minor currents are, say of center left, center right and so on, however, is about as difficult as trying to determine what temperature effects to within 2 degrees Fahrenheit global warming will have on a specific town on Monday 12 December a year from now. Happy hour stuff.

        1. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/03/treasury-nominee-steve-mnuchins-bank-accused-of-widespread-misconduct-in-leaked-memo/ Trump hired another former Goldman official as chair of the SEC that oversees Wall St. today. He is hiree no. 5 out of that investment bank. Being anti investment banker was Trump’s biggest con and it apparently it worked extremely well. While all the little people obsessed over pc, Goldman Sachs made a very lucrative move.

        2. Bella, making me laugh. Goldman?? Really? t Ha ha ha ha. the “kool aid” is from the the demented Dems. And now they so so sad sore losers. Robert Reich whinin’ and bitchin’ And now the queen of the DNC hive is going to suck it UP and attend Trump’s inaugeration where they gonna go with the safety pins?

          1. Maybe you are going to the alt reich “inaugeration” party.. Heard Milo will be there giving the old Nazi salute.

    3. Assuming their figures were correct – given the absence of a huge segment of the population that didn’t get polled but did vote – they failed to poll their own people on how the polticial system works and ended up with less than 50% popular (48.2 to be exact) not that it mattered and FAILED to go for the vote that counted. Well, stupid is as stupid does. but repeating stupidity is the best comment on the ability of the leftist collectives programming abilities. You Kant get away from Plato.

  9. Given the restrictions of two parties, two sides, conservative or liberal, these polls and expositions are next to worthless. Each side contains parts of the other as well as its own spectrum ranging from balanced to radical. The past election has illustrated one thing, however. The right wing or conservative argument contains at its extreme the most disgusting and unAmerican profiles. The left wing may, at its extreme, disgust those who are in balance regarding their conservative positions but in contrast to conservatism only. The extremes of the right wing remain in contrast with humanity in general, as seen through history as well as in more advanced and successful democracies. Within the US the economy has suffered under Republican Presidents with residual recessions. It has recovered and solidified under Democrat Presidents. Ralph Nader is a much greater American than David Duke.

    However, the real culprits are the duopoly system which leaves only one choice, us or them and the reliance of the success of candidates on yuge financial machines. The adversarial structure of American politics and government combined with the three ring circus that is the election process speaks to those who rely on mindless communication without delving beneath the paint job of character assassinations, lies, and exaggerations. America’s devotion to a dysfunctional system solely because it has endured this long reminds one of certain religious arguments; that just because it has been around for so long it must be right. One must review, however, that the endurance of Catholicism, Judaism, and moderate Islam is a result of revision and adaptation.

    1. Our Canadian friend slams the duopoly, but is not righteous. He will vote straight Dem as all slaves to that party do.

      1. PI

        Instead of getting so defensive because someone who enjoys a broader perspective than do you, get aggressive and offensive in changing this dysfunctional duopoly. Take a lesson from the founding fathers who studied the constitutions of Sparta, Carthage, and Rome, who analyzed and dissected the history of self rule, before they put together their hybrid, this overly sacred ‘Constitution’. Your defensive posture illustrates the primary problem with America today. Nobody will look outside their own environment for paradigms that just might help. By the way Canada may not have ten aircraft carriers or the rest of what Americans seem to put first, but it does have a much superior democracy with better representation, as do so many other countries. Now, tell me to go to Canada if I like it so much.

        1. No! I wouldn’t wish that fate on a…..on a…..Hillary Clinton!!!! North Korea yes. Canada NO! They may talk funny eh? but the are good neighbors.

        2. Isaac, I have a nice French Canadian story. I was just at an Apache resort and casino in NM yesterday. I was playing craps and 2 Quebecers came up to play. They only knew the basics. I worked past my derision for French Canadians and did what I have done hundreds of times, answered questions and gave pointers. They were good guys. Their English was poor, but craps is about numbers..2 to 12, and I know how to count in French, thanks to the Good Sisters of St. Joseph. The crap table is a great equalizer. The wealthy to inner city dudes, all standing around a table trying to beat the house. I am intellectually and just plain old honest. I thought you would appreciate this little snippet of life and think it was well timed.

          1. Nick

            Again with the stories. How about some ‘intellectual’ self criticism of the American political system. This blog successfully, although unfortunately rarely, brings forth actual and knowledgable criticism of the American justice system(s). After this latest, shameful, and worsening exhibition of a dog and pony show of what is as far removed from a democratic or republican ideal of an election, one would think that the issue(s) foremost on any responsible and thinking American mind would be to fix this travesty.

            The root causes lie in the American ego which is not that much different, if at all, from anyone’s ego. This ego, bloated by economic and military powers, impedes one’s self criticism, as what could be wrong with this sacred experiment. We just experienced it. Why not dissect it and come up with a dialogue akin to that of the ‘lawyers’ on this blog. Turley could really become credible by focusing on this most paramount of problems instead of ‘who was arrested for what’ games, and the overly beaten dog of ‘free speech’.

            1. LOL! I love it when you talk down to me. You never lived up to your expectations, did you.

              1. Well Nick what did you expect?

                Classic example of a left wing collctive interchangeable part. Plato to the bone and Kant do a thing about it but Marx lockstep with the ruling class of the classless society changing the buzzword of the day. then it’s follow the plan and don’t deviate each and every time. What a sad pitable life.

                Let’s pull his chain a little .. Izzac you have to to change your name to Wezaac I or it’s forms are not allowed at your level. You’ll get replaced by a Rosie Clone if you dont straighten up and fly left like the others.

                1. Michael, I’ve gotten to know the Canadian over a couple years. But, I keep trying to find some humanity, some humility, some soul, some humor in him. It’s quixotic, I know. He thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. And, he usually is because he’s the ONLY guy in the room .No one wants to be in the same room w/ him.

                  1. Two deaf Canadians meet on the street.

                    “Hey Eh!”
                    “Eh? Eh!”
                    repeat until yout get it.

                    To speak Canadian one only needs to spell Canada

                    C eh A eh N eh A eh D eh A eh Got it? Eh?

                    This is the exception.

                    Westernn Saskabush Canadian :

                    Hay! Eh?

                    Eastern Canadian:

                    “Bon après-midi. Je suis Canadien Français. Eh!”

                    A Canadian national team is “the Eh? team”.
                    The Canadian Brass, plays “Take the Eh Train”t, or “Take the Eh train, eh?”.

                    A classic joke illuminating this: “How did they name Canada? The letters were thrown in a bag, and the first one to be picked was ‘C’ eh?, then ‘N’ eh? and finally ‘D’ eh?”

                    So the results of all this what ever whats his name says the explanation is limited two lettes E and which iyou have to admit si decades and miles ahead of ‘What Ever Huh it’s like really duuhh’ and you could be transferred to California. Personally I would prefer to be a Saskabush.

        3. O Canada, did you see the NYTimes? “Our list of 52 Places to Go in 2017 starts with Canada. (Yes, Canada!) One reason: National park access is free this year.”

          1. Banff and Lake Louise are worth the high price. But, if they’re free then GO!

    2. There is but one party, the rich, and it has two faces or tribes, Republican and Democrat. Those two faces are little more than a marketing charade, a blue pennant and a red one, for the rubes to tear each other to bits over so as to notice less the one pocketing every penny they have.

      As to these polls, I couldn’t personally care less. We’ll get to hell at about the same time – give or take a millisecond or maybe even two.

      But I will observe a remarkable coincidence. Gallup claimed that Hillary had a higher likelihood of winning the election and yet the same people who are now treating a Gallup poll as the word of God, back then were claiming, no doubt by pure coincidence, that Gallup polls in general were absolutely worthless.

      I agreed with them then and feel the same way now. Even if the poll in question today is correct, and it would seem quite reasonable that it is, Gallup polls are worthless – almost always engineered to say what the prevailing winds want to hear.

      1. Note, I agreed then that polls are generally useless. As to Hillary, I assumed -wrongly- that she would be coronated. It had nothing to do with winning, but also nothing to do with polls.

      2. Simple answer. The polls didn’t know who to poll. They completely disregarded some rather large chunks of the population. Even one who recognized the mistake didn’t know the true extent or magnitude of those who had been marginalized, shoved aside, and never represented. The same groups that are being shunted aside again by the same people in the media and in the Government Party AKA Establishment AKA neo-feudalistic self proclaimed Aristocracy. We’re preparing a little surprise for them in 2018. I don’t think they are going to like it. I don’t care.

  10. Those who fervently subscribe to such labels are unthinking drones; in reality almost everyone is a political blend.

    No party, transient (albeit prevalent) group, or philosophic sentiment is capable of fully representing anyone.

    1. No, very few people are a political blend who devote much thought to public affairs.

  11. It’s Gallup poll. Jane Gallop is a moral degenerate employed as a literary critic.

  12. When someone tells you they’re a ‘moderate’, that usually means (1) they’re not invested in public affairs and have no vigorous opinions on it or (2) they draw their self-understanding from their social circle and that self-understanding is completely cockeyed (i.e. they live in Pauline Kael’s special world) or (3) they’re a certain sort of haut bourgeois you see in New England, the New York – Washington corridor, and (more intermittently) the Rustbelt: intelligent, educated, and unserious. The best example I can think of from proximate to my social circle was a candidate for a position on an Episcopal vestry some years back who wrote a brief statement to the congregation which red thus: “I support Winifred [the rectrix of that church] in her emphasis on the worship which unites us rather than the issues which divide us”. I asked a member of the congregation I knew about him. She says, “Oh….sort of a glad-hander…”.

    1. DSS – an insightful take IMO on “moderates” – I am going to copy and send it out to my Liberal friends – NOT that they will pay any attention. =)

      1. Autumn,
        Would a libertarian-leaning Independent be a moderate?

        I would argue that moderates could be split into the crowd described above and into those who try to be well-informed and try to consider issues thoughtfully and have positions that fall on either side of “the divide”.

  13. My analysis on the moderates shift to the right is simple. This country is, and always has been center/right. And ,as PC and SJW’s take over the MSM, it is bound to have moderates say, “SCREW THAT NONSENSE.” I have said for over a year, the under reported issue that propelled Trump was his contempt for PC and SJW’s.

    1. Agree – the PC creeping into every corner of American lives disturbed them deeply – the fear of speaking out “incorrectly” and being vilified became widespread – the liberal party line became sacrosanct – for a free people a pushback was bound to occur –

  14. One of the major targets on the left was and still is the extremist secular progressives along with Clinton herself. But don’t forget another target from the Constitutional Republic center were the Republicans in Name Only who can also be described as the cavers or the right wing of the left. Three Targets three bullseyes from a lot of different sources. There’s still plenty more of them for 2018 and 2020.

    Not sure what conservative means any more the left wing extremists used it as a kneejerk term for anyone they didn’t like and the media followed their lead. I’ve noticed blogs like Town Hall etc. have shifted the left of center since the election as well. The term is shopworn and pretty much useless anymore along with liberal.

    What IS the center? In a Constitutional Republic it’s the Constitution it is NOT the center of the left.

    1. To be a moderate one would have to be in the true center…..and not out on the fringes of the left. The founders themselves referred to the citizens as the ultimate source of power. They proved that Nov 8th by both voting against a foreign philosophy and system but also by showing an understanding of the true center and how a Constitutional Republic based on a Representative Democracy works. Direct vote locally Electoral College nationally.

      The rest just flushed their votes down a socialist toilet.

      Congratulations for Citizens Over Government and Government as temporary employees.

    1. Why? The crux of conservatism is the idea that the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. More bureaucracy equals less liberty.

      1. Defintion 537. But a good reason I’m not conservative but a plain old ordinary moderate centrist standing in the center of political discourse.

      2. Bob, W was handed 1 Trillion dollars.

        He wasted it along with 4500+ of our finest military soldiers.

        For what result?

        Where were the “conservatives” then?

        Back to my original point.

        1. True. Now we have Trump who is probably one of the first true independents to get elected. He’s no conservative. But, say more about why conservatism is the greatest ruse ever. I need to be edumahcated.

    1. They aren’t “D’s” anymore. They abandoned-pr the notion when they asked to be called Socialists some months ago. Now the choice is National Socialism, International Socialism or Secular Progressives. The choice is entirely up the classless societies ruling class. For programming or re-programming tweet comradegeorge@soreassdotgrump

  15. One wonders what the word “conservative” means to people. To some, it means some very radical positions – favoring torture, white supremacist ideas, ubiquitous guns. To others it might mean peace, love, and compassion.

    1. “…To some, it means some very radical positions – favoring torture, white supremacist ideas…”
      ~+~
      And it is with statements such as this from the left that is one of the reasons why they are losing support of the average American. (who can only take being called a racist and a misogynist so many times before they have had enough of it.)

      1. Darren, I agree that when we Leftists constantly accuse others who disagree with us racists and misogynists, it does get rather tiresome. However, we believe strongly in the “big lie” theory that through constant repetition, our adversaries will eventually succumb to our Leftist positions on the issues.

        Nonetheless, I have been trying to persuade my fellow Leftists to expand their buzzword attack vocabulary by introducing some lesser used words to be applied in a vituperative manner when someone expresses a viewpoint which does to agree with our Leftist philosophy, such as xenophobic, hispanophobic, latinophobic, Trumpaphobic, eurotophobic, phallophobic, ithyphallophobic, and/or medorthophobic. So far these have not caught on yet. But if they do, I am certain that we will be able to swing these Gallup polls in our favor.

      2. If you voted for a candidate backed by the KKK, you are a racist. You chose to assume that mantle when you voted that way, and now you get to wear it.

        1. No, I did not vote for the Democratic party as you suggest. Remember, they were the ones backed by the KKK for a very long time in the South. Care to rephrase your narrative again?

          Let me impart a little wisdom upon you if you are so inclined to accept it rather than just parrot rhetoric you hear from your contemporaries. Candidates for any election have almost no control over who chooses to endorse them. If you believe that because an individual or organization chooses to voice their approval or disproval of a candidate it does not automatically indicate the candidate agrees or supports their position.

          It is a better approach to see what the candidate themselves has to offer rather than judge by the positions of third parties who are not related.

          1. That was cheap. The meaning of Democrat changed greatly with FDR and the Dixiecrats faded away.

        2. emw, Darren is far too mature and polite. I’d say it another way: you are an idiot.

        3. emw, what is the difference between KKK and BLM? Are they not different versions of the same thing?

          1. The Bureau of Land Management? I don’t think they are quite as radical as the KKK.

            1. The difference is the KKK were not funded by George Soros nor backed by the Hollywood Irrelevants nor the Lame Stream Media nor a sitting President nor his wannabe successor nor the ACLU nor the Regressive Seculars.

              The simlarity is the KKK grew from the defeated forces of pro slavery and anti civil rights and well….there’s a good stand alone description of the left.

              1. One spelling mistake. I had to look and see if anti civil needed a dash.

            2. “The Bureau of Land Management? I don’t think they are quite as radical as the KKK.”

              Why does this remind of where is Behghazi or was that Aleppo?

        4. You forget the kkk was a democratic organization. The republican congress was able to make it possible to sue the kkk and eventually bankrupt the organization. Later I odder ed in the 60s when republicans passed the civil rights law which the left wing democrats fought furiously. Study your history. Remember Republicans freed the slaves. The dems went to war to prevent that.

            1. Does anyone on the blog recall a guy named Lee Atwater? He was head of the GOP or Executive Director under Nixon, Reagan time period. He outlined, and the Republican Party adopted hook, line and sinker: The Southern Strategy. Yes and the KKK went into the Republican Party.

          1. Ditto on that. LBJ’s 1966 or 68 Civil Rights Act was going down the drain with most of the Democratic Majority voting against it. The GOP minority party had 100% of it’s members vote for it which added to the Democrats that did vote for it barely made a majority. Similar votes in those years went the same way. Democrats were anti civil rights up until Clinton whose sole contribution was announcing they would be the party of civil rights then forgetting the whole thing. Since then they have been complicit in voting for a move to a one party system of government and voting for a number of anti civil rights and even original rights legislation the latest of which was the Money Is Free Speech which in the end created a brand new not authorized by 9th or 10th amendment right while interfering with some existing original constitutional rights. Such is the power of money where Congress etc is concerned along with laundering tax dollars via Davis Bacon Act to their campaign etc funds. There’s a lot of swamp needs draining.

    2. In terms of our competitive position, we actually benefit when the opposition is manned by people who are stupid, disoriented, and vicious. So, keep up the good work.

    3. dl,

      The interesting thing is that the same may be said of liberals. Obama engages in torture and now more Democrats than Republicans favor its use. Obama bombs black people on behalf of a largely white oligarchy and Democrats support this. Obama has sold more weapons than even Bush so I guess because Dems support these weapons sales we must say Dems are very much pro guns.

      It’s just not possible to put people in the box you want any longer. Liberals are saying we must overthrow Trump and install a war criminal to the throne. This is because being a war criminal is somehow better than being a fascist. (And I would argue that Obama is already a fascist). I would never have thought liberals would come out for war criminals! I certainly stand corrected!!!

      So I’m not sure what you call anyone any longer. Many people are holding positions which don’t fit with older definitions of liberal or conservative. At this point we need to look at beliefs/actions and go from there because, for my money, the terms simply don’t matter in any real way.

Comments are closed.