Democracy Corps: GOP Voters Think Obama Is Destroying America, Thus GOP Leaders Can't Compromise

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Eric Kleefield, TPM

On a conference call with reporters just now, Democracy Corps' James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Karl Agne went over their focus group study of Republican base voters and their worldview that President Obama is out to destroy the country -- and the pressure this puts on Republican voters to make no compromises with the Obama administration.

"I don't know if we'll say we were startled," said Carville, "but if you take the position that these Republican voters take, it's easy to see why it leads to this, but they really believe that Obama has a secret agenda here. And our view is this is a dominant view in the Republican Party."

Karl Agne also noted that GOP voters see the the party's leadership as too timid and not strong enough on the issues: "Their negative view of the Republican party is really startling."

Carville explained: "What they want is, if people in Washington look at the Republican Party, they say, gee, they really oppose everything the President does. What these folks say is what they're doing is not enough, they want more opposition. If you're a Republican and you watch this, and you don't want to get primaries, there's nothing here that tells you to go compromise on anything -- quite the contrary."

Later on, Stan Greenberg said that if he were in the Republican leadership, "I would be very careful about having people meet with Obama or talking with him or sounding like you don't want him to fail."

Agne said that this attitudes about Obama among independent voters, especially those who might lean somewhat conservative, is very different. "They harbor doubts, there's not doubt, but they want to see the president succeed, they want to see the country move forward," said Agne. "And that's diametrically opposed to what the Republican base voters want -- they want him to fail."

Another major theme on the call was that hatred of Obama is not centered around race -- the focus groups were given an open, relaxed environment to discuss what they thought, and this never came up. I asked whether race might be there as an undercurrent, taking shape in other forms such as birtherism, but even here the hosts shied away from it.

Greenberg said that while there were certainly some individuals who used racial epithets, it wasn't a motivating force overall. "I'm not saying people don't have racial attitudes, but in these discussions they didn't slip into a racial discussion," said Greenberg. "They had very explicit discussions about being accused of racism, and the one thing they gave Obama credence for was saying it's not racism."

Greenberg said the focus here has to be on ideology, and on the accusations that Obama is a socialist out to undermine America, as he's been accused of since the 2008 campaign: "It's not just tactical. It's deeply felt as a worldview, and what's at risk in a battle between the parties, as viewed by the conservative Republicans."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10...romise.php#more

[nowhereman 1]

Bush was a terrible President & there is a fairly substantial % of Republicans who want Obama to suck just as much so they can rub it in the Democrat's faces (much like the Dems did to the GOP about Bush).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bush was a terrible President & there is a fairly substantial % of Republicans who want Obama to suck just as much so they can rub it in the Democrat's faces (much like the Dems did to the GOP about Bush).

No doubt, there are many within the party that are power hungry and can't wait to regain that power even after 8 years of driving our country into the ground. IMO, if the Republican Party wants a future, they need to have more voices like Olympia Snowe and Lindsay Graham, who are by no mean liberal, but they don't always tow the hard line that the Far Right keeps towing. The Republican Party is in desperate need of pragmatism and less idealism.

[alienlovechild 75]

No doubt, there are many within the party that are power hungry and can't wait to regain that power even after 8 years of driving our country into the ground. IMO, if the Republican Party wants a future, they need to have more voices like Olympia Snowe and Lindsay Graham, who are by no mean liberal, but they don't always tow the hard line that the Far Right keeps towing. The Republican Party is in desperate need of pragmatism and less idealism.

Actually the article makes a case for the opposite to be true. The power hungry are the handful of Republican legislators willing sell their souls for tidbits from the Democrats. It's not the GOP leading those who vote Republican and it's likely people will vote some new some faces. Democrats used to love grassroot movements now it just demonizes them.

A complacent GOP will doom the party into irrelevance because few will for GOP positioned as a Democrat-Lite party. The Congress' disapproval ratings are dismal and majority party is still trying to blame anyone else for this fiasco. There's no reason for both parties to be bipartisan in failure.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No doubt, there are many within the party that are power hungry and can't wait to regain that power even after 8 years of driving our country into the ground. IMO, if the Republican Party wants a future, they need to have more voices like Olympia Snowe and Lindsay Graham, who are by no mean liberal, but they don't always tow the hard line that the Far Right keeps towing. The Republican Party is in desperate need of pragmatism and less idealism.

Actually the article makes a case for the opposite to be true. The power hungry are the handful of Republican legislators willing sell their souls for tidbits from the Democrats. It's not the GOP leading those who vote Republican and it's likely people will vote some new some faces. Democrats used to love grassroot movements now it just demonizes them.

A complacent GOP will doom the party into irrelevance because few will for GOP positioned as a Democrat-Lite party. The Congress' disapproval ratings are dismal and majority party is still trying to blame anyone else for this fiasco. There's no reason for both parties to be bipartisan in failure.

The Republican and Democratic Parties of 60 years ago were a lot more alike then they were different. FDR had a lot of Republicans in Congress who voted in favor of Social Security. That would never happen with today's Republican Party. Conservative has never traditionally been about trying dismantle the Federal Government. It has been more a mindset of sticking with the tried and true and cautious or reluctant about change. So what Conservatives might have been resistant to 40 years ago, they have now come to accept as tried and true. The Republican Party of today however has been overrun by Libertarian influence - which ironically has a very liberal approach towards policies. They essentially want the Federal Government to all but disappear. Since the Libertarian Party has never been successful at being taken seriously on its own merits, many Libertarians have found refuge in the Republican Party. While a Conservative approach towards economic policy would be to stick with what works, the Libertarian approach is to say to the Federal Government, get the hell out of the way. That's why the Republican Party is so splintered - they've forgotten what Conservative meant or stands for.

[Spoom 8]

I really don't understand why people can't judge things on the issues alone, as opposed to paranoia and hatred. What's the point of opposing whatever he does just because either it's him, or because he's a Democrat?

It makes me begin to see why third parties can never get a foothold in the United States: many voters vote "against the other guy" without even considering the platforms of either party. They just know they're "part of" one, and that the other is full of crazy [wingnuts | moonbats].

[nowhereman 1]

I really don't understand why people can't judge things on the issues alone, as opposed to paranoia and hatred. What's the point of opposing whatever he does just because either it's him, or because he's a Democrat?

It makes me begin to see why third parties can never get a foothold in the United States: many voters vote "against the other guy" without even considering the platforms of either party. They just know they're "part of" one, and that the other is full of crazy [wingnuts | moonbats].

That's politics today... support your party (even if they are dead wrong) and bash the other party (even if they have a valid point). You have the 20% on the far right fighting with the 20% on the far left, while the 60% majority is caught in the crossfire.