Skip to comments.Which party is dominated by extremists?
Posted on 10/14/2010 8:37:53 AM PDT by WebFocus
More than one in every five Democrats (22 percent) in The Hill's survey said their party was more dominated than the GOP by extreme views. The equivalent figure among Republicans is 11 percent.
Results for independent voters reflected the larger sample. Forty-three percent of likely independent voters said the Democratic party is more dominated by its extreme elements compared to 37 percent who though the GOP had fallen under the sway of extreme views.
The figures by party do come with one caveat. Because the voter sampling size is smaller, the margin of error by party is 4.5 percent.
The data surprised Democratic strategists and political experts in a campaign season when much media attention has focused on the battle between the GOP establishment and Tea Party-backed candidates such as Sharron Angle in Nevada and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware.
They said it suggests problems for a Democratic party seen as too liberal.
For more than a year, the media has hammered the tea party and the GOP for being "too extreme." But the proof is in what each party has been pushing during that time. The Democrat's agenda is seen as radical by a plurality of voters - even 22% of Democrats think so.
Another false narrative crashes and burns before the election.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
Obama is the best the democrats had to offer now that’s extreme.
My view from the middle would be both, with a slight edge to the left.
If you ask the Dems, It’s just a P.R. issue.
Just as what every man does is right in his own eyes
if he doesn’t have an objective, external standard,
so every man is viewing the political spectrum from
his own definition of “middle”.
Usually, the ‘rat answer to this is that the voting populace isn’t smart enough to understand the leftists’ superiority.
Hi Mr.B! Boy I sure wish I was smart enough to understand all them big words you used! :)
You're either with us....or against us....the middle is where you get killed in the cross fire.
That’s easy. The man who was voted most liberal senator is now leading his fellow extremist rats off the cliff.
Here’s a question: What conservatives that are considered “extremist” would have been considered extremist 40 years ago, and why?
I will suggest that the so-called “middle” has moved significantly in the last 40-50 years, and it is moving back to where it belongs.
With subjects like this, who is to say there really is an objective, external standard, or if that standard is right, or even if that standard is any better than one’s own?
You have to have a fixed standard to measure against,
or words like “middle” and “extreme”, and even “left” and “right” don’t really have any meaning.
Use the founders and the Constitution as written and ratified as your standard, and now almost everyone is “extreme left”.
Can’t have sides without a middle, can you? How can something in the center, be extreme with relation to the sides?
The middle is dynamic, where the demands and the requests go to come up with solutions. Being in the cross-fire, is not for lazy or the wimps. The lazy and the wimps, seek protection from the cross-fire by going to one side or the other.
See, if you don’t have that standard, or even believe in one,
you can’t discuss any issue,
as all you are expressing is an opinion,
and your opinion is no better than anyone else’s that isn’t based on a fixed, unchanging, and objective standard.
That standard, the standard of moral absolutes, the standard of absolutes in right and wrong,
exists and is discoverable in the Bible.
Reject it, and you have no place to stand in order to assert anything other than an opinion that isn’t any more truthful than anyone else’s.
>>Use the founders and the Constitution as written and ratified as your standard, and now almost everyone is extreme left.<<
And that is exactly where I was going.
Is a person that thinks Social Security should be abolished an extremist? Not by constitutional standards. ;)
The whole thing seems to shift left or right over time.
1. to stupid to pick a side
2. to lazy to pick a side
3. to pretentious to pick a side
4. to pompous to pick a side
5. to scared to pick a side
6. to popular to pick a side
see a pattern here?
PICK A SIDE!
Actually the opposite is true, one can discuss any issue, in any manner.
Why is an opinion that is based on a fixed, unchanging and objective standard, any better than one’s opinion, when discussing such topics as politics, religion, faith, morals, spirituality, etc? All that means, is one’s arguement, faith, beliefs and so on, are relative to that standard, not that that standard is correct.
If it were the way you say it is, then we probably would all be believing the same thing after enough time had passed.
>>The whole thing seems to shift left or right over time.<<
Although that may be true in the VERY long run, there is no evidence of any shift to the right that I am aware of since the signing of the declaration of independence. There has been plenty of shift to the left, however.
I may have missed something, but what would you say shifted to the right of our founding fathers in the last 240 years?
When one picks an equal amount of issues from each side, isn’t their position the middle?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.