Reclaiming Their Obvious Title?

It seemed like literally moments after Barack Obama took the Oath Of Office that Conservative Republicans renounced the (R) on their voter registration cards and took up the mantle of the "Independent" - something the Tea Baggers championed on literally a daily basis.

But as Obama's first term entered the later portion, the Tea Baggers seemed to become less relevant and the so-called "Independent" began to disappear from media coverage and those that championed them started to wonder where all the Republicans were.

One such person is Hot Air's own Ed Morrissey.

In another of his meandering poll evaluations, he concludes with this statement:

Finally, let’s look at the sample. The D/R/I in the April poll sample was a ridiculous 32/22/41. This sample has a slightly better split, although still skewed at 31/25/39, which still undersamples Republicans. In a sample more reflective of reality, Obama’s job approval would be lower than the 47% shown here, and he’d be in deeper trouble against Republican challengers than this shows.

Where did the love of the Independent go?

And this isn't the first time Morrissey pulled the victim card when a particular poll didn't suit his particular need or reflect his desire to make people believe that a majority of Americans believe exactly as he does. If he were as honest as she should be - given Hot Air's love for the Tea Baggers - he would be able to at least tacitly admit that just because you claim to be "Independent" doesn't mean that you always agree with and vote along Democratic Party lines.

I've noted here many time, polls are interesting snapshots into a particular moment in time but in no way dictate how people will vote come election day. But there is an obvious caveat that I should offer here.

The embrace of Scott Rasmussen by the Modern American Right seems, to me at least, that many of them look to polling and focus groups as voting indicators. This is quite troubling when you begin to take a deeper look into it, as this completely contradicts the Right Wing notion that they act based off their own desires and not the desires of any outside force. But that's another story for another day.

Pushing The Poll Limits

I've always stated that public opinion polls are nothing more than data manifested from a person's "feelings" on any given issue during any given news cycle. The later is the most prominent factor in this, as the modern cable news outlets are either taping into what is happening in Wisconsin from a pure visceral level or they are blandly reporting on it.

Cable news programs hosted by the likes of O'Donnell, Maddow, Schultz, Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly are all opinion programs - Well, the first three will state without equivocation that they are opinion programs - but the fact still remains that a lot of people base their standpoints on another person's opinion. What I would have like to have seen from the NYT/CBS sample data regarding Unions in America is where they get their news from - particularly the MSNBC/Fox"News" split.

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air tries to crunch the numbers:

First, the partisan split in the sample gave a ten-point advantage to Democrats. Their sample for this poll had a D/R/I split of 36/26/31, an absurd sample for political polling. In December, Rasmussen’s general-population survey put Republicans ahead, 36.0% to 34.7% for Democrats.

I'm trying to figure out why Morrissey considers this an "absurd" sample, as the modern American Right have been claiming that the "independent" voter in America is against things like public sector unions. By their own metric, the NYT/CBS poll looked at responses from a larger Independent set than Republican; and only 5 percentage points separate the I's from the D's. Moreover, since the modern American Right insists that "independents" vote largely along the same lines at Republicans, this actually puts the Democrats at a 21% disadvantage.

But then again, I'm just going by what people like Morrissey have been claiming.

While Ed does go on to harp about the percentage of Union employees that were polled, there's some data that he is ignoring; chief of which is as follows:

- A majority of those polled claim their political alignment to be more Moderate or Conservative.

- A majority are not supporters of the Tea Bagger movement while approximately an average of 17% claim no affiliation or opinions of the group.

- The split between the lower and upper age ranges are negligible, as is household income and highest educational level earned.

But Morrissey's final statement at least hints that he knows he just splitting hairs with this one:

The gaps in the results are wide enough that these issues by themselves might not have swung them to the opposite. However, at least the magnitude of the results can certainly be questioned in a poll this flawed.

Flawed in the sense that he isn't being given what he expected? I would largely say yes, as Morrissey is want to denounce any poll that isn't conducted by Rassmussen - who only polls "likely voters" and uses a methodology that only contacts people with "land line" service. Talk about flawed.

But the larger point goes back to the fact that a poll is never going to show you precisely how a person is going to act, simply how they feel at that particular moment in time based off the way they process the information they have available to them, which is primarily from Cable news outlets.

And speaking of ridiculous polls being pushed by the modern American Right, check this out. It's touted as the "real Tea Party Straw Poll".

What Mandate?

Here's a brief piece on the results of a Gallup Poll and what the what the "Tea Bagger Tidal Wave" really amounts to.

Though it became clear early on that the 2010 midterm elections would likely favor the GOP, it was unclear whether Americans would be giving Republicans a mandate if their party became the majority party in Congress. Gallup data from the late summer and early fall suggested that Americans were more likely voting to register their frustration with the Democrats than as an endorsement of the Republican Party. Now that the elections are over, Americans are no more positive toward the GOP than they were before, further suggesting the public is not necessarily embracing the Republican Party.

To break it down to a more simple formula, conservatives voted the way they did in order to continue their strategy of "no" rather than finding a way to fix the problems that plague this country. And now that it's "morning again in America", those same people seem to be having that tingle that many drunks feel the morning after a full on bender - oh shit, what did I do last night?

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- Upon hearing the news that Sen. Robert Byrd had died early this morning, I began to wonder exactly how long it would take conservatives to politicize his passing. Considering the upcoming vote on Financial Reform in the Senate, as well President Obama's desire to have a vote by the end of the week, I'm looking for conservatives and their media masters at Fox"News" to be going full throttle on this one.

- Elena Kagan is to start her Supreme Court confirmation hearings today, after opening remarks from Senators, and it's likely to be a much bumpier ride than Justice Sonya Sotomayor got. With all the falsehoods being perpetuated by conservatives - and even some normally reliable media like NPR - this confirmation process is likely to take some of the spotlight away from the Gulf oil disaster. Perhaps someone like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity will find a way to bundle the two together.

- I heard Geraldo's initial offering of this comments regarding Rolling Stone writer Micheal Hastings when he was debating the firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal with The Howard Stern Show's Robin Quivers - herself a military vet. You can usually tell when a person - be they conservative or not - has reached the bottom of the barrel when the comparisons to terrorists come out as the keystone to your argument.

- It usually the loudest within the conservative movement, be they hardcore Tea Bagging screamers or not, that decry the government are going to be some of the first with their hands out when they see the opportunity to gain from it. In a regarding manufacturing, 74% of self-described Tea Baggers support a nationalized manufacturing strategy. This is in stark contrast to the "message" that they are attempting to bring with them. Not only that, but such a pro-worker stance does tend to smack of hypocrisy, considering their utter disdain for an organized workforce.

- Arizona Governor Jan Brewer continues to milk her 15 minutes of political fame with a misleading ad that continues the false narrative that the Obama administration has surrendered American soil to Mexico. And while this has been completely discredited, the shear gimmick factor for conservatives is just too juicy to give up.

Isn't This "Interesting"

I'm wondering why we aren't hearing these numbers touted by Fox"News"? After all, this is their own poll.

Overall, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (42 percent favorable) has the highest favorable rating of the potential 2012 Republican candidates in the poll. He is followed closely by former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney (40 percent favorable) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (37 percent favorable). About a third of voters have a positive view of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (32 percent favorable).

Among only Republicans, Palin (65 percent favorable) and Huckabee (64 percent favorable) lead the field — topping Romney (59 percent favorable) and Gingrich (51 percent).

By comparison, President Obama has a 53 percent favorable rating overall, and a 91 percent favorable among Democrats. Twenty-eight percent of voters have a positive view of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as do 49 percent of Democrats.

So, Caribou Barbie is still in third place when it comes to Presidential contenders on the Right ( I suppose conservatives favor her to be lifetime dictator for the movement instead ) and Obama actually has an overall rating of 53%? But this can't be true. I mean, what about all those times Rasmussen told us that he was in the 40s?

Some Thoughts For Your Morning

- It seems that Republicans are trying a new gimmick when it comes to cutting spending and bringing down the deficit. A new online project called YouCut is designed so that voting public can suggest what spending to cut from specific areas. Nevermind that the average American that would use such a social networking site has little to no idea what they are talking about ( most Tea Baggers want to do away with everything from the FDA to Department of Education ) but do you honestly think that Republicans are going actually act on anything that is suggested? Guess this is another example of how the GOP completely lacks any plan of their own.

- Modern day theologian Glenn Beck has apparently been having conversations with the voice in his head that he claims is Jesus. It seems that The Son Of God doesn't want Cap and Trade. I'm quite curious as to what Beck's Jesus thinks about bearing false witness to they neighbor. And where in the Constitution does it say anything about what Jesus does or does not want?

- Seems that in light of Sarah Palin's endorsement of Carly Fiorina that GOP candidates are opting out from appearing at fundraising events with her. I don't think it's too much of a far reaching statement, but the fractioning of the modern conservative movement ( and the GOP as a whole ) is more evident now than it ever has been.

- It's rather troubling when seeing poll results like this. I'm quite skeptical of any poll that makes such a broad determination regarding any piece of legislation that the public at large has been misinformed of. And while Pew Research has been a reliable polling agency for many years, I feel that the results shown indicated that many of the near 1000 that were polled don't seem to understand the far reaching implications of Arizona's fascist stance on this issue.

- I still don't get it. If S.E. Cupp is really an atheist, why did she write a book about how the "evil, liberal, media" is destroying religion? It just doens't make sense - unless it's all just a charade. Regardless of her motives, she gets taken to the woodshed by Cenk Uyger in the linked interview.

- Arizona is getting a lesson in "free market capitalism" that they likely won't forget anytime soon. The conservative mantra of "choice and competition" isn't exactly playing in their favor on this front, as the boycott of the state is showing a loss of millions is tourism dollars. Even the GOP didn't want to have their convention there.

Some Thoughts For Your Afternoon

- Apparently it's not good form to teach kids to eat healthy anymore. Michelle Malkin takes after Michelle Obama like she's built up a police force that is going to prevent parents from feeding their own children what they think is good for them. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that some conservatives are intentionally getting fatter to show their hatred of Mrs. Obama. Rush Limbaugh has already got a good start on this.

- It seems that some people in Alaska are starting to wake up to the fact that Sarah Palin is a complete and utter disaster. Some within the conservative realm are claiming that the release of her next book will boost her ratings, I have to question that. After all, people thought that here Fox"News" special would be a ratings phenomenon, but it turned into something wholly unspectacular. I'm fairly certain that her "nature program" isn't going to be a shining star on her record either.

- For conservatives to continually claim that there is no violent rhetoric directed at liberal/progressive, this little stunt doesn't really help their cause.

- You can generally tell when a conservative is completely out of rational ways to discuss any given topic when they result to homophobic/sexist blatherings. I can recall when Newsweek ran a cover picture of Sarah Palin and conservatives went completely bat-shit insane, calling it a blatant, sexist, attack. Personally, I didn't find it sexist at all, as Palin posed for and signed off on the picture herself. But there certainly are different rules for anyone outside the conservative sphere, isn't there.

- Much in the same way that Glenn Beck is completely misrepresenting what Net Neutrality is, Megyn Kelly is doing here part to misinform people by actually censoring the realities of what the FCC is trying to do. What happened to "fair and balanced"?

- Seems that Arizona has a serious problem not only with Hispanics, but takes issue with students even learning about them. I'm sure the term "racial animus" will be striken from any English text within the next few months as well. The one question I have is this - does this just do away with only learning about hispanics or anyone that isn't white and from America?

Tea Bagger Polling

According to a new CBS/NYT Poll, 25% of those within the Tea Bagger movement think that violence against the government is acceptable.

While this number is dwarfed by those that call it unacceptable ( 71% ) it only takes one act of violence to tarnish the entire movement. Some have argued that recent terrorist activities in America are somehow connected to the Tea Baggers. But the jury is technically still out on those.

What's more interesting to me is the fact that a plurality of Tea Baggers consider Glenn Beck's and Sean Hannity's programs on Fox "news programs".

Considering the eliminationist rhetoric that comes from Beck and the continual hype of Obama's "anti-Americanism" by Hannity, I'm quite surprised that the number of those accepting of violence against government is as low as it is.

But likely the most bizarre of realizations coming from a poll of Tea Baggers is that more than half of them think their tax burden is fair.

Yet while some say the Tea Party stands for "Taxed Enough Already," most Tea Party supporters - 52 percent - say their taxes are fair, the poll shows. Just under one in five Americans say they support the Tea Party movement.

Is that 52% made up of people that are just wanting to feel like they are part of something? Do they realize what they are a part of? My guess is no for the later.

Think Progress has more.

Ron Paul Spells Trouble For Obama?

Well, if you conservatives that swallow polls hole like so much bitter conservative candy.

That's being said, Allah at Hot Air brings his own particular blend of conservative spin to this.

He leads each of the top GOP contenders by margins that are reasonably healthy, especially in light of the fact that his approval’s headed down the toilet over ObamaCare. That’s because Romney, Huck, and Palin all bring their own baggage to the hypothetical whereas Bush and Paul are more symbolic — Paul because his agenda is probably unknown to most voters (i.e. he’s baggage-less) and Bush because, of course, he embodies the pre-Obamanomics era. In their own way, each is a much purer “Anybody But Obama” choice than the current crop of Republicans.

Allahpundit is a peculiar animal in the realm of Hot Air. His headlines are quite misleading and his semi-cogent prose is somewhat out of place for the particular blog that employs him. He seems to know the reality behind his misinformation but favors staying part of a wildly popular website connected to Michelle Malkin so long as his voice, for what it's worth, is being pushed more than other conservatives. In that respect, he's a much more subdued Glenn Beck without all the preposterous conspiracy theories. After all, Beck recently told Forbes he didn't care about the political process, but to see his nightly show on Fox"News" you'd think otherwise.

Here's where his latest piece reveals what Hot Air is really about.

Nate Silver sampled several polls and weighted for different factors to determine that Huckabee and Romney, not Paul, actually do best head-to-head with The One. That’s useful but no fun; the fun poll, of course, would be an HA reader survey to see where you guys stand on the thorny hypothetical of an Obama/Paul race.

Nate Silver sampled several polls and weighted for different factors to determine that Huckabee and Romney, not Paul,

Yeah, it's no fun looking at the realities of polling and a pollster that Republicans favor. It would be more fun to have a wildly unscientific polls where members could vote multiple times in order to favor the Republican over the Democrat.

Here's another problem with Allah's statement.

...as regular readers of this website will know, the person conducting the poll can have a profound impact on its results. Rasmussen, in particular, has had a substantial Republican-leaning house effect thus far this year. Perhaps they will turn out to be right (although their idea of trying to apply a "likely voter" model 2.5 years in advance of an election is dubious). But it would be wrong to take a Rasmussen poll (or any other) at face value without taking into account this context.

Instead, I've compiled all polls conducted since July of last year(**) that test Obama against a Republican opponent. For this exercise, I use the Real Clear Politics rule of only using one poll from each firm for each matchup (the most recent). I then adjust the polls for house effects using a simplified variation of our standard method; both Presidential approval polls and the numbers from these 2012 matchups are used to calibrate the house effect.

See this graphic:



You see that name, the 4th one down on the Right. That's Ron Paul. What was it that Allah said?

Nate Silver sampled several polls and weighted for different factors to determine that Huckabee and Romney, not Paul....

Oops, seems like somebody wasn't paying attention.

This is just another classic example of how conservatives are more than willing to skew results, and actively ask for results to be contorted, in order for their ideological blatherings to be validated.

Of Polling And News Sources

I'm not to terribly worried about this latest Rasmussen poll that shows the Tea Baggers have a negligible lead against Obama in terms of who is seen more favourable.

On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly feel closer to the Tea Party and most Democrats say that their views are more like Obama’s. Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, 50% say they’re closer to the Tea Party while 38% side with the President.

This, as well as the further breakdown of the data, shows that people are responding more to media noise ( *cough Fox"News" *cough* ) than the realities on the ground.

This leads me to wonder how this data set can be further expanded upon. Where do these people get their information from? What is their age group? What do they consider a "major issue facing the country"? That's a pretty vague question.

Also, were these 1000 people polled ( over the phone mind you ) all from one general, geographic area, or is this an apparent sample from across the country. If you polled a random 1000 people from the South, I can see how you would get the Tea Baggers coming out ahead. Conversely, if you polled that same number from the Northeast, the totals would likely shift a complete 180 degrees.

Who Are The Supporters

Today, Nate Silver highlights two questions from an ABC News/Washington Post survey regarding how people view the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling that allows unlimited spending by corporations and unions during election seasons on ads.

The results show that the American people think this is a horrible idea.

The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.

I'm honestly concerned about how the mid-term elections are going to be affected by this ruling. Considering the fact that a plurality of Americans know this is a bad idea, are corporations really going to be able to sway elections the way they would like?

Round One: FIGHT!

And as should have been expected after Bayh's announcement - let the Obama bashing begin.



This does fit in nicely with a recent NYT/CBS poll that shows ( among other things ) that only 6% of respondents believe the Stimulus created jobs.

And while reports as early as March of last year were showing jobs that were to be created, this hasn't stopped the cable news narrative from taking hold of almost all of the country - as the poll clearly shows.

Results of this type of poll show one thing - that people's perceptions of a given thing can be skewed based on their intake of information. Even though the results show only 6% think the stimulus has already created jobs, 42% think the stimulus will create jobs. Coupled together, this shows that a plurality of the American public have faith in the Economic Stimulus Package despite the current storyline being disseminated throughout the media.

But back to Bayh....

The more he speaks about what he will or won't do, the more one gets the sense that he is going to be the first to toss the metaphorical hat into the ring for the Presidency. The only question is whether or not he'll run as a Republican or as a Democrat. After all, his actions of late have certainly caused one to question the validity of the "D" after his name.

Palin's Poll Numbers Are Up

But this is not the poll that she and her rabid followers would like to see.

There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

I'm reminded of the clip of Pam Geller's twitching reaction to Ron Reagan Jr. and Stephanie Miller claiming that Palin is essentially an intellectual midget and lacks the ability to even articulate her most basic ideals she allegedly holds dear. These are the people that think Palin could serve as President. And that, if anything, should show the American people who makes up her base - the wing-nuttiest of wingnuts.

Tears Of An August Ego

A recent Harris Interactive Poll shows that Oprah is still most liked amongst television personalities. But that's nothing new. What is is who came in second place - Glenn Beck. Now take a wild guess as to where Bill O'Reilly showed up - 10th.

Ever since Beck's rise to prominence at Fox"News" I've stated clearly that he is a direct threat to Bill O'Reilly and his coveted 8pm EST slot. Bill knows this to, as he has literally kept Beck at arms length throughout his tenure. From Beck's own segment on The Factor to a joint speaking-tour the two are going on - though O'Reilly was sure that the title was taken from his book and not Beck's.

One can speculate with a fair amount of certainty that O'Reilly is not pleased that he is no longer the face of Fox"News". The smiles, laughs, and jovial attitude that he displays when in Beck's presence is pure theatre, although I'm wondering if Beck knows this. After all, his brain is usually addled with wild conspiratorial nonsense most days. But one has to wonder whether that is all for show.

It's been proven that he has take a complete 180 degree turn from his more vocal standpoints while he was at Headline News. The "new" Beck fits in far too well at Fox"News" for it to be real. But what if it is? What if Beck is foolish enough to not only believe what he says on his show but has somehow managed to convince himself that O'Reilly and he are "friends".

Oh, to be a fly on the Fox studio wall.

Brown Hype And Irony

Conservatives, when it comes to citing information in order to push a specific school of thought, often reference material that is too closely linked to their own self-interests. More plainly put, when you reference a poll that you conducted to prove your point, it pretty much invalidated from the jump.

Fox"News" is notorious for doing this. And now, Pajamas Media has a poll out that says the Scott Brown in some 15 points ahead of Martha Coakley in the special Massachusetts election to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate. However, Nate Silver provides the context to this that shows this isn't something Democrats should worry about.

Worry about Suffolk. Worry about what PPP and Rasmussen are going to have to say over the weekend. But for the love of God, don't worry about the Pajamas Media poll which reports a 15 point lead for Scott Brown, which I'm not going to do the favor of posting a link to.

The poll was conducted by a firm connected with the Black Rock Group, which bills itself as a "strategic communications and public affairs firm" and whose chief spokesman/strategist, Carl Forti, just so happens to be the spokesman for this polling firm that nobody has ever heard of and just so happens (as David Dayen dutifully reports) to be the spokesman for a big pharma lobbying group that's pushed the death panels meme and just so happens to be the lead PR flak for Pajamas Media.

This bizarre bizarre Mobius Strip form of political strategy plagues Scott Rasmussen as well, considering his former ties to the Republican Party.

One important thing to remember about polls is that they reflect a person's feelings at the time of the poll, not what they are going to do once at the "ballot box". As of right now, the race is well within the margin of error, so it's anyone's game at this point.

But let's take a look at what is likely to happen is Brown wins.

One of his key, if not THE key, pillars of his campaign is blocking healthcare reform. If Brown wins and becomes the "41st vote" - his current moral boosting chant - that will in effect help to derail healthcare reform, he will be profiting from the taxpayer due to the healthcare coverage that is offered to elected members of government. The taxpayer pays their salary and that salary is used in part to pay for healthcare coverage. It's a rather ironic place Brown could potentially find himself in - as a member of the government that conservatives continually rally against. Then again, conservatives only rally against government when they aren't in the catbird seat.

Not only that, but Brown is hardly the "man of the people" he claims to be, as his campaign coffers have been filled in these final hours by the financial sector. It seems that those that favor profit over the consumer are more than willing to back a candidate for his stance that would favor them. After all, another conservative pillar is massive deregulation, the same that got us into the greatest economic disaster not seen since the 30s.

As of this writing, it could be either Brown or Coakley. If it's the former, be prepared for more of the same from conservatives, and be prepared for Brown lay willingly in the arms of his masters - the special insists that care nothing about the tea-bagging masses that oppose them. If it's the later, be prepared for conservatives to cry foul play. Either way, there's still a great fight ahead of us that are for the betterment of this country.

Divided And Conquered

With all the talk about the 3 Dems that are retiring this year, the conservatives are continuing to ignore the fact that their chances of taking both houses of Congress are virtually non-existent and that with each day, they are ensuring that a Democrat ( Obama or not ) will be elected President in 2012.

Recent polling of GOP "insiders" suggests that Palin alone is doing just as much damage to conservatives chances of regaining the Presidency in 2012 as the tea-baggers have been doing.

A poll of GOP insiders suggests that ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has little support among the party's professional class -- and maybe that's just how she wants it.

In a survey of 109 party leaders, political professionals and pundits, Palin finished 5th on the list of candidates most likely to win the party's '12 WH nomination. Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) was the overwhelming choice of the

Voters were asked to rank 5 candidates in the order of likeliness to capture the GOP nod. The results:

Likely To Win WH'12 Nomination (First place votes)

Ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney 81 points (62%)
MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty 46 (9%)
Sen. John Thune 38 (12%)
MS Gov. Haley Barbour 28 (6%)
IN Gov. Mitch Daniels 25
Ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin 25

Rounding out the top 10: Ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee, ex-FL Gov. Jeb Bush, LA Gov. Bobby Jindal. Candidates other than Romney, Pawlenty, Thune and Barbour split the remaining 11% of first-place votes.

And the folks at Fox"Nation" are more than willing to defend Palin against the reality of what she and the tea-baggers have done. It's quite the sight to see so many on the fringe-right willing to slit their own throats in order to make a point.

Smiling While They're Getting Screwed

In a recent poll from Republican favorite Rassmusen, results showed that the teabaggers could really cause of problems with more "rational" members of the GOP.

Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.

And while the "non-affiliated" data appears to show that the teabaggers have a greater chance of gaining seats during the upcoming election, there is one piece of important data that Rassmusen has conveniently left out - that third-party candidates rarely ( if ever ) have a chance in national elections.

With all the hype that people like Sarah Palin, Doug Hoffman, Michelle Bachaman, and Glenn Beck get, the reality is that their neo-conservative brand of idiocy is accepted by a minority in America. It's a lot of special-effects and sound-bites that work well to get ratings, but it's hardly the combination of intellectual honesty, experience, and policy know-how that will be effective in a position of leadership.

But if the teabaggers want to try to push one of their rising stars as even a Congressional candidate, we're likely to see the GOP fracture even more and the Democrats historic losses during a mid-term election will be even smaller than predicted.

The Nuts Blaming The Nut

Chalk it up to the predictability factor, but a majority of Republicans ( not just the teabagger/conservative wing ) actually believe that ACORN stole the election for Obama.

...PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately...The organization is generally unpopular though, with only 11% of voters viewing it favorably to 53% with an unfavorable opinion and 36% without one. The only politician we've polled on this year with comparably bad favorability numbers is John Edwards. The constant harping on ACORN by Republican politicians may sound nutso in some circles, but it certainly has hurt the organization's image and it looks like the anti-ACORN message may resonate with a decent portion of the American electorate. ACORN is probably well overdue for a rebranding.

So what do these results tell us about Republicans? For starters, this is not about race. Well, in as much as there is likely a marginal racial component, it's not likely that this is more about the voices of the few having such a large microphone to scream into.

ACORN has been demonized more than any other non-profit, community organizing group, than any in modern history. With literally wall-to-wall coverage of an organization that not many people had heard off before outside the metropolitan areas where the group operates, opinions from middle America - the cradle of conservative ideology - were formed and fomented from the reactionary prattlings of Fox"News" and conservative talk radio. Do you really think the average American actually did any research into ACORN's history?

So how could they have stolen the election? There is the reality of a small fraction of voter registration infractions, but that's registration, not actual votes being tabulated. And ACORN wasn't in charge of counting the votes, so that theory is out. There wasn't some massive data-mining operation where ACORN purged the names of voters from the rolls, as that tactic is reserved for those who wish to prevent people from exercising their right to a vote.

All that ACORN did was get people out there to vote who likely hadn't before. And entire, disenfranchised, group of people had little incentive to vote, as the last four years were controlled by a Republican administration that only served the more affluent within society.

The results of this poll show one thing quite clearly - that conservatives believe that Democrats, liberals, and progressives shouldn't be allowed to vote, because it means that they won't win when we all come together.

They Would Favor A Loss Without Purity

In a recent CNN poll, it appears that a majority of Republicans questioned would actually prefer a purely ideological candidate, even if it meant losing on election day.

The poll indicates that a slight majority, 51 percent, of Republicans would prefer to see the GOP in their area nominate candidates who agree with them on all the major the issues even if they have a poor chance of beating the Democratic candidate. Forty-three percent of Republicans say they would rather have candidates with whom they don't agree on all the important issues but who can beat the Democrats.

So, what does this say of the modern Republican electorate?

Well, for starters it is a clear signifier that they will completely rule out the bipartisanship that they have been shouting for these past months. Tell me, how many times have you heard people like Boehner and McConnell whining about how they have all these great ideas and no one wants to hear what they have to say? I don't recall their right to deliever their ideas being cut off in any way. Could it be that they aren't really wanting bipartisanship, but a return to their untethered idiocy that was the root cause of multiple problems here in America?

And what are all the "major issues" concerning not just Republicans, but the conservatives that made up a large portion of those polled?

Considering that rhetoric of some of the conservative movements most prominent voices, it would have to be completely denying any form of rationale healthcare reform, privitizing Social Security and Medicare, as well as completely walling off America from Mexico and profiling anyone that isn't white and votes Democratic.

And They Believe In Man-Bear-Pig Too

According to a recent Pew Research, there's a perculiar set of people that believe something that really doesn't exist.

14% of people polled about Fox"News" and their coverage identified the network as "liberal".

Really?

I'd really love to see some more data in relation to that particular group. I mean, do they believe that Xenu brings them pillow mints everytime they stay at Holiday Inn?