Battleground Poll: Is the Conservative Movement Losing Momentum?

The latest Battleground Poll numbers have been released. There have been more than twenty Battleground Polls over the last ten years, and the most consistent datum in these polls has been the response to Question D3, which asks Americans to identify their ideology. Sixty percent of Americans called themselves "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative," while thirty-six percent of Americans called themselves "very liberal" or "somewhat liberal." The Lilliputian "moderate" or "refused/don't know" has seldom for either been higher than two percent.

The poll taken in late August 2011 appears to show a trend away from this overwhelming conservative majority. Question D3 in this poll shows a decade-low fifty-five percent of Americans call themselves conservative while the percentage of Americans who call themselves liberal has risen to a decade-high thirty-nine percent. If the numbers in all the past polls had not been so extremely consistent, regardless of how Americans felt on other issues or about political leaders, this sudden jolt would not be particularly curious.

Conservatives heartened by past responses to Question D3 could look at the latest Battleground Poll and compare it to the last Battleground Poll before May 2011 and wonder if the conservative movement was not beginning to lose some steam. The May poll showed that fifty-seven percent of Americans called themselves conservative and thirty-seven percent of Americans called themselves liberals. The May 2011 numbers showed a slight diminishing of conservative support in America over prior Battleground Poll data.

Yet, if this was a trend, it was in stark contrast to what Gallup had been reporting. Last month Gallup polling showed that conservatives were not only the largest ideological group in America but that more Americans were conservative than in at least twenty years. As I have observed before, Gallup is not exactly enthusiastic about polls which...

“( - - - The Battleground poll, by the way, is the bipartisan poll, - - - )”

“Bi” means two. Partisan means party. The basic assumption is that there only two sides to a coin, aisle, issue, opinion, etc. This is two-dimentional thinking! The answer is rarely “either-or.” The answer is almost always NONE OF THE ABOVE !

Not counting the illegal aliens, there are 290 +/- legal Americans, including about 120 million who are of voter age. About half of them actually vote, so about 65 million vote.

Republicans and Democrats are about 20 % each of those voting or 13 Million voters for each party.

Independents are about 20 % also. That leaves 40 % or 26 million voters in the largest political party in America. The name of that party is The Disgusted Party.

Yep, some of The Disgusted Party members hold their noses when they vote for Candidate tweedle-dumb or tweedle-dumber, ( I did that in 2008 ).

Some of The Disgusted Party complete their ballot by leaving blank the candidates that are the most vile, ( I also did that in 2008 ).

These blanks are called ABSTAIN VOTES in the UN, “PRESENT” in the US House and Senate, and NONE OF THE ABOVE in some States.

In Texas, and many other States, the blank or legally cast ABSTAIN votes are never counted.

In fact, in Texas write in voting is not allowed if the name is not on the ballot, and thus illegally restricting our freedom of choice when we vote.

In reality, two dimensional polls are not realistic anymore.

It is time to demand polls that are multi-dimentional, and a vote count method that is similar to the method used by The US House and Senate.

But this shift to a more liberal and younger polling sample also means that the answers to all the other questions in the August 2011 Battleground Poll, which pundits are sure to be musing soon, have been skewed from earlier Battleground Polls to underestimate the weakness of the left. The August 2011 Battleground Poll, as it is, cannot give the left much to cheer about. Using a consistent polling model, however, things for the left must look downright desperate.

The left politizes everything to shape perception. It may backfire. The young are already less motivated to vote. This will support their naive perception of the world. Conservatives are donning their kevlar vests to crawl over broken glass.

The problem with Perry is that he is an unknown throughout most of the U.S. They had 5 million people watch the debate. So Texas and 5 million know who this Perry guy is.

Good point. I've had friends from outside Texas seek my opinion about Perry. One staunch conservative friend of over ten years was just here visiting, and after just five minutes in the house, he said, "Ok, so tell me about Rick Perry."

Point is, outside of Texas, most conservatives have little idea of who Perry is, except for the odd article here and there. I suspect that Freepers are much more informed about him than others, but I find that even non-Texas Freepers are still doing their due diligence on the man.

It's actually one-dimensional thinking with a left point and a right point. Two dimensions would represent a marked improvement.

Your point about the size and scope of the "Disgusted Party" is well made.

Case in point: Many of us are fed up with banks ripping off the poor, a system designed to punish hard work and maintain a serf class, and yet do not necessarily see an almighty government as the answer. One large corrupt bureaucracy won't necessarily provide a salve against the damage caused by other large bureaucracies. Many of that group are nonetheless conservative on social issues, defense, what have you.

A myriad of other viewpoints exist - as many as points on a two-dimensional plane.

Quit thinking of what was and what is as the same. Pollsters deliver a product, period. What producer of a product will produce something the eventual customer doesn’t want? None who hope to stay in business.

So, the next question should be who is paying for the poll? Just like all of the “studies” we were hammered with about this, that and the other thing, finding out who actually paid for it revealed a bias in the results tilted to who paid for it to use to bolster their product.

So just to keep credibiity, these “polls” magically seem to shift to reality the closer it gets to the actual vote, but one has to wonder just how much did the poll create the news instead of being an indicator of it.

“Polls are for stippers and cross country skiers”

Americans, apparently, have been becoming even younger

Maybe the author means this sarcastically. Just because they are polling a disproportionate amount of young people doesn't mean that the population is getting younger. Certainly, there would be no big shift in the population like that in one year.

They obviously are deliberately polling a higher percentage of young people to skew the results in the direction which is desirable for whoever is paying for the poll. Polls are not really worth much because of this very thing. They can get whatever results they want by their sampling method and the questions that they ask. And by the spin they put on the results.

If Sarah wasn't going to run, she would have said so a long time ago.

If she had run a conventional campaign and declared two years before the election, the GOP ruling class would have taken her out by now, because to them DC is an exclusive country club that doesn't cotton to outsiders.

The last thing they want is somebody coming in and rocking them right out of their cushy little boats.

In order to win the nomination, she has to outwit and outmaneuver them.

If she can succeed at that, imagine how many knots she'll tie Ubama into.

And about that "she quit the governorship" thing: Democrats routinely use the legal system to destroy their opponents.

Alaska Democrat operatives filed over 200 ethics complaints against her, not one of which was upheld.

It actually cost her and her family over $500,000 in legal bills to fight the frivolous charges, and had she stayed on it would have cost the state of Alaska millions, plus they would have had a governor embroiled in personal legal battles rather than taking care of the state's business.

Had she not resigned, right now you'd probably be saying: "If she'd managed to get through her term as governor without declaring bankruptcy and being in court half the time and costing her state millions of dollars I'd support her, but she has proven that she can't run a state, much less the entire country."

Resigning was the right thing to do for her state, the right thing to do for her family, and the right thing to do for her country.

And as for the "she only resigned to make money" argument, she could have stayed in office and gotten paid millions for her book, just like Ubama did with the two autobiographies he allegedly wrote.

One more thing: Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.

So when she runs and wins, will you apologize?

Yes, I will. If she runs at this point I think she'd lose badly in the primaries, but I'd certainly admit to having been wrong.

Or will you pretend you were for her all along?

See, this is your problem right here. You equate not thinking she is going to run to not supporting her. It's as if you don't realize it is actually possible to like Governor Palin just fine and still think she has no intention to run for President in 2012. You seem unable to grasp the idea that one can genuinely admire Palin, and yet still believe that she has chosen a path from quitting her job as Governor, to doing fluff realityTV, to regularly showing up to steal the spotlight from real candidates, that has just not worn well with most Republican voters (including conservatives and Tea Party folks). If Palin won the nomination, I'd be thrilled to volunteer for her, contribute and do everything I could do to get her elected. It's as if you perceive every observation, criticism, etc, that runs counter to the idea Palin will be the next President as some sort of heresy.

You should never, ever, become so fanatical obsessed with any politician. Eventually, they will always let you down. These are fallible human beings that cut deals you won't like, that make huge errors in judgment, that change their minds periodically, that sit in their own echo chambers sometimes and follow terrible strategies, etc.

Yes, I will. If she runs at this point I think she'd lose badly in the primaries, but I'd certainly admit to having been wrong.

I guess you're talking about those fabricated "negatives" that are oh-so-important to know-nothings.

You do realize that at this time in the last election cycle Thompson and Giulliani were in the lead, right?

Where did that get them?

Sarah Palin is the ONLY conservative that Ubama fears.

She knows how to fight like a girl.

So does he, but he's not very good at it without a TelePrompTer.

I guess you're talking about those fabricated "negatives" that are oh-so-important to know-nothings.

High negatives can be over come, astronomically high negatives that include people in your own party are a serious barrier.

You do realize that at this time in the last election cycle Thompson and Giulliani were in the lead, right?

Yup, and BOTH, particularly Rudy, tried to run "unconventional campaigns" and failed miserably. This is just evidence that all the "well Sarah is going to run an unconventional campaign" is a whole lot of nonsense.

Sarah Palin is the ONLY conservative that Ubama fears.

This is garbage statement with nothing to back it up. She polls horribly against Hussein, worse than pretty much any other actual Republican candidate. Obama does not fear Palin at all. He'd likely be thrilled if she were the GOP nominee.

She knows how to fight like a girl.

More meaningless blather.

“problem with Perry is that he is an unknown throughout most of the U.S. “

And yet he manages to beat Obama in head to head polls (Ras poll from last week).

“Everyone knows President Palin!”
Alas, as a known quantity she has less oppty to move her numbers, and she has higher unfavorables than any other Republican and the worst head-to-head numbers vs Obama. Quinnipiac:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1639
“In the trial November matchups, the president ties Romney 45 - 45 percent. Obama edges Perry 45 - 42 percent and leads Bachmann 48 - 39 percent and Palin 51 - 37 percent. “

Long-shot candidates who cannot run the conventional way always reach for the ‘unconventional’ route.

Yup. Heard it countless times before and it never works. Wanna run a real presidential campaign? Do the hard work, stay active in Iowa and NH, build organizations in all 50 states, hire the best staff you can get and hold on to as many as you can, get out and shake as many hands as possible. It's really hard work and a full time gig, not something you can substitute occasional Facebook posts with or believe just by announcing people will magically flock to the campaign.

Thanks for your reply.

In early 2007 the stock prices of many major companies began to decline as the smart money knew that the USA housing market was going parabolic.

In mid 2008 Sub-Prime Barney publicly stated that Fannie and Freddie were in no financial peril.

About that same time Greenspan was shown the figures for the about to burst housing bubble and said “I don’t believe it.” Thanks for nothing Mr. Watchdog!

When the FHA, Fannie, and Freddie went bankrupt in September, 2008, guess who the Feds blamed? Not the sacred FHA, Fannie, and Freddie, nope, just the banks got selected to be blamed.

The tabloid MSM bought the Feds CYA scheme hook-line-and -sinker. The MSM then sold it to the public. What would the Feds do without their very own MSM? To prove how gullible the public is, the MSM took opinion polls , and guess what? Yep, the gullible public believed that it was just “the banks fault.”

Bush’s fault, bank’s fault, - - -, hmmmmm - - -, must be some more “b” words that are the cause of all our troubles?

Anyway, the Feds pulled off a near perfect CYA move. To the delight of the Feds, Chrissie Doodle-Doo and Sub-Prime Barney rammed through their bill, got it signed and now the bill/law/bill will be written for the next 6 years. That means that punk kids that are now in high school may be writing this ultimate necktie-party bill/law/bill for business years from now.

Who in their right mind would want to expand their business in the USA between now and 6 years from now? Oops, sorry I forgot “it was the bank’s fault.” Suurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre it was!

Consider your statements again, do your own due dilligence, and see if you haven’t bought into the CYA of the Feds, the Main Stream Media, and your own gullibility.

Well, a rising tide lifts all ships.

If the banks quit taking advantage of the gullible poor in the name of "free markets" and instead embrace the all-but-extinct notions of honesty all altruism, more poor could get out of poverty.

Banks don't produce or innovate a damned thing. They play games with perception: "Oh, you're not a typical 9-5er employee who sits on his ass and drinks beer after work? Oh, ho, we're going to charge you 60% interest!" - regardless of the person's honesty and means.

Higher interest rates mean less disposable income for innovators/producers (and more for the banks, who do not innovate yet seem to enjoy lavish lifestyles).

Moral of the story: To become wealthy, don't innovate, don't invent, don't produce. Instead, learn to rape and pillage the poor. The name of the game is perception, not substance!

My views on the banks have nothing to do with any of the events you described.

As far as your points, I am in complete concurrence with you on the Dodd/Frank nonsense. The banks did get scapegoated there in that huge CYA. I even helped cover that by citing/linking to newspaper articles on an external site (which in turn was linked here at FR) chronicling the entire fiasco from Carter's Community Reinvestment Act (its genesis), all the way to the (then) current day.

Please don't confuse my disdain for the banking industry (which reasons are more personal) for support for boondoggles like that, which was also a travesty of justice.

I guess if there's any moral here, it is this: Banks can be tyrants, picking and choosing who gets to be in which class. Governments can be even bigger tyrants.

Shark, bigger shark.

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.