Are the Faithful Losing Faith? (in GOP, according to new Newsweek poll)

[jefferson_dem]

Are the Faithful Losing Faith?
Two weeks till midterms, the NEWSWEEK poll shows Republicans in danger of losing a big chunk of their base. And a growing consensus for a bread-and-butter Democratic agenda.

Oct. 21, 2006 - If the elections for Congress were held today, according to the new NEWSWEEK poll, 60 percent of white Evangelicals would support the Republican candidate in their district, compared to just 31 percent who would back the Democrat. To the uninitiated, that may sound like heartening news for Republicans in the autumn of their discontent. But if you’re a pundit, a pol, or a preacher, you know better. White Evangelicals are a cornerstone of the GOP’s base; in 2004, exit polls found Republicans carried white Evangelicals 3 to 1 over Democrats, winning 74 percent of their votes. In turn, Evangelicals carried the GOP to victory. But with a little more than two weeks before the crucial midterms, the Republican base may be cracking.

If something doesn’t give—and quick—Republicans will view 2004 as the good ol’ days. Fifty-five percent of likely voters in the new NEWSWEEK poll say they would vote for the Democrat in their district if the election were held today, versus 37 percent who say they would vote for the Republican. That’s not surprising; the Democrats have been leading in the opinion polls for months. But the new poll suggests—from the leanings of bellwether voting blocs to voters’ priorities—that a possible Republican loss could turn into a rout.

Take white Catholics, swing voters who went for President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. This time 44 percent of them plan to vote Democrat versus 42 percent who plan to vote Republican. Among independents, 44 percent support the Democrat in their district, while 34 percent support the Republican. And voters have more faith in the Democrats to handle almost every major issue presented in the poll, which was conducted on Thursday and Friday nights through phone interviews with 1,000 adults: from Iraq (46 to 34), to the economy (50 to 35), to federal spending (52 to 29), to health care (57 to 24).

But Democrats shouldn’t start measuring for the drapes in the Speaker’s Office just yet. Compared to the NEWSWEEK poll two weeks ago, taken in the aftermath of the Mark Foley Congressional page scandal, the Republicans seem to be closing the issues gap—at least on the issues where they have traditionally enjoyed greater voter trust than the Democrats. The Oct. 5 and 6 poll gave Democrats a lead on moral values (42 to 36), a stunning reversal of every previous poll. While Republicans have not retaken their lead on the issue, they have stopped their slide. In the new poll, 41 percent of Americans say they trust the Democrats more on values and 37 percent said they trusted the GOP more.

<SNIP>

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/

[yellowcanine]

1. Voters are so fickle. Pubbies got more moral in last 2 weeks? I don't

think so. Stupid poll question anyway. What is their definition of moral values?

[Felinity]

2. Not to be picky, but

Are there any journalists at MSNBC?

"Take white Catholics, swing voters who went for President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. This time 44 percent of them plan to vote Democrat versus 42 percent who plan to vote Republican."

Emphasis added.

Democrat is not an adverb.

[ClassWarrior]

3. No, it's a noun. As in, "Vote Feingold."

The use of "Democrat Party" is used as a framing tactic by many Rape-Publicans, but we shouldn't start chasing phantoms, either.

NGU.

[hlthe2b]

5. see my post below...

There is history to this. Democrat is a noun, but the use here is as an adjective. The correct useage is "Democratic."

[ClassWarrior]

6. If its use here is as an adjective, what does it modify?

NGU.

[hlthe2b]

8. See this nice expose' of the issue from Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005

GOP strategists christen "Democrat Party" -- and the media comply

Summary: Several media figures, including news reporters, echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to refer to things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party.

In recent months, media figures, including news reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press echoed Republicans by employing the word "Democrat" as an adjective to describe things or people of, or relating to, the Democratic Party -- including referring to the "Democrat" Party itself, even though that is not the party's name. The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation." In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

Hertzberg pointed out in an article for the August 7 issue of The New Yorker that the word "Democrat" is a noun, arguing that its use as an adjective defies the rules of English grammar:

The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun "Democratic Party" as "One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828." (It defines "Democrat n" as "A Democratic Party member" and "Democratic adj" as "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party," but gives no definition for -- indeed, makes no mention of -- "Democrat Party n" or "Democrat adj".) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points.

Hertzberg noted that Republicans "as far back as the Harding Administration" have referred to the "Democrat Party," including late Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), who "made it a regular part of his arsenal of insults," and former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS), who "denounced 'Democrat wars' ... in his <1976> Vice-Presidential debate with Walter Mondale ."

Further, Hertzberg wrote that "among those of the Republican persuasion," the use of " 'Democrat Party' is now nearly universal" thanks to "Newt Gingrich, the nominal author of the notorious 1990 memo 'Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,' and his Contract with America pollster, Frank Luntz." While Hertzberg noted that Luntz "road-tested the adjectival use of 'Democrat' with a focus group in 2001" and "concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the ... Democratic Party," he also wrote that Luntz had told him recently that "hose two letters <'ic'> actually do matter," and that Luntz "recently finished writing a book ... entitled 'Words That Work.' "

more at the link above



In answer to your question, VOTE DEMOCRATIC is correct because it is being used as an adjective--how one should vote--not who one should vote for.

[ClassWarrior]

9. You didn't answer the question. What does the adjective modify?

I fully understand what you post. But it doesn't apply here.

An adjective must modify a noun. Where's the noun?

NGU.

[hlthe2b]

11. The object noun in this case is understood...

This time 44 percent of them plan to vote Democrat (sic for the Democratic ticket) versus 42 percent who plan to vote (sic for the Republican ticket) Republican."

[ClassWarrior]

12. Yes, "Democratic ticket" is a noun phrase.

You remove "ticket" from "Vote (verb) Democratic (adjective) ticket (noun)"and you have a verb and an adjective.

You can make a sentence out of a verb and a noun ("Vote Feingold"), and a verb and an adverb ("Vote quickly"), but you can't make one out of a verb and an adjective ("Vote quick" - in fact, in this instance "quick" becomes an awkward adverb which completely changes the meaning of the sentence).

Now you could argue that "Democratic" is shorter version of the proper noun "Democratic Party" and have a legitimate point, but that's not what you're arguing.

(Hey, I was a proofreader in a previous life, and a damn good one if I say so myself. So I know from whence I speak...)

NGU.

[hlthe2b]

13. Well, to complicate things.....

I ran it both ways through one of the leading grammatical software programs (Grammar Slammer)and it accepted both versions....

This time 44 percent of them plan to vote Democrat versus 42 percent who plan to vote Republican.

or

This time 44 percent of them plan to vote Democratic versus 42 percent who plan to vote Republican.

:shrug:


I don't see your point by the way...Is there a typo in your reply post?

[ClassWarrior]

18. The second, I gather, is based on using "Democratic" as...

...a shortened version of the proper noun "Democratic Party." But the fact that that usage is valid doesn't make "Vote Democrat" invalid.

NGU.

[hlthe2b]

20. I've asked for a clarification...

on this and a related issue from a grammarian friend employed in academia-- with major national "creds." I will let you know what he says when he emails me back. However, in contrast to the incorrect useage of "Democrat" as an adjective in the Media Matters discussion, it may well be that either useage here is correct.

[immoderate]

14. Bosh!

The subject of an imperative is "you" understood. The sentence "Vote Democratic," has (you) as a subject, vote as simple predicate and Democratic as the nominative of apposition, which is an adjective that modifies (you). It's conventional to put understood words in parentheses.

In the sentence "(you) Vote (for) Feingold," Feingold is indeed a noun but (you) is the subject again, and Feingold is the object of the preposition (for) which is understood.

--IMM

[ClassWarrior]

17. I stand corrected. However...

...that still doesn't add up to "(you) Vote (for) Democratic."

NGU.

[immoderate]

21. Right!

The (for) is not needed because Democratic is an apposition. It reflects the subject. A test would be to substitute a form of "is" for the verb. You could say "Be Democratic." In declarative form, "You vote Democratic" is similar to "You are Democratic."

Feingold needs a preposition because it (he) does not reflect the subject of (you) understood. That is you're not saying "You are Feingold." (Unless, of course, you're talking to Feingold.) You could say "You are for Feingold."

Note: My ninth grade English teacher was a lunatic, who taught a lot of grammar, and eventually flunked me. I had the last laugh though, when I breezed through two semesters of English Grammar in college, without cracking a book. :)

--IMM

[hlthe2b]

4. THANK YOU... I was just about to post that...

It really, really, pisses me off that supposed JOURNALISTS are now doing this...:mad:

Heaven forbid that anyone confuses "BIG D" Democratic with "LITTLE D" democratic...:mad:

I think we really do need to call them on this BS. If you say "vote Democrat" then you must say "vote Repub..: :eyes:


This isn't a minor grammatical issue. It is a manipulation of the language that was intentional and dates to Newt Gingrich's "Contract (on) America." That the media has enabled and perpetuated it, is simply unconscionable. Where are their editors?

[ClassWarrior]

7. This is good...

Doesn't matter if the Rape-Publicans "close the issues gap," as long as we have values.

And speaking of values, read George Lakoff's new handbook for Progressives, "Thinking Points" (http://www.RockridgeInstitute.org/ThinkingPoints).

NGU.

[WillyT]

10. The Wave Continues To Build !!! - K & R !!!

:woohoo::kick::woohoo:

[immoderate]

15. I don't see the problem.

Nouns are commonly used as adjectives. Have you ever heard of a "baseballic fan" or "streetic urchin" or "caral port" or "housan party" or "kitchenic sink?" Some words are commonly used in an adjectival form, such as political. But I am not aware of any rule. I think it may be because their noun form is rarely used.

I will generally say Democratic because it's adjective form is most common, especially with words other than party, like democratic principles or societies. I'm not offended by Democrat as adjective. I just think the person is not a careful speaker. BTW, I heard Joe Trippi say "Democrat Party" on TV, maybe on Hardball.

--IMM

[wickerwoman]

27. The Republicans do it to make the last syllable "rat"

which has displeasing and untrustworthy connotations. And you'd better believe we'd be hearing complaints if we ran around calling them "Repubes" or "Repubelicks" on national news.

[immoderate]

28. Sure I've seen that. But the last syllable is "crat."

And they'll continue and do other things like that, just as we do to them. I don't think the rat thing works at all in speech, only in print, and there, I don't think it changes anyone's mind.

So that's something, and thanks, but I still don't think it's significant.

--IMM

[speedoo]

16. Love the photo. Caption:

"Party Time? Democrats are feeling optimistic about Election Day. (From left to right) Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Barack Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid."

[Beetwasher]

19. SERIOUS BS ALERT! (Headline s/b MAJORITY SUPPORT IMPEACHMENT)

"Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.) Rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts would be contentious too: 38 percent of Americans say the Dems should make that a top priority; 28 percent say it should be a lower priority; and 28 percent say it shouldn’t be done at all."

Look how they are mixing and matching the demographic data sets and slicing and dicing these numbers to make results that are significant look less impressive. From the results above you might not get the impression that the majority of Americans support impeachment, would you? But they do. Read it carefully.

"Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done."

28% of all Americans thing it should be a high priority and 23% say a lower priority, BUT 51% OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY SUPPORTS IMPEACHMENT!!!!! That's fucking big, big news.

Same thing w/ the tax cuts:

"38 percent of Americans say the Dems should make that a top priority; 28 percent say it should be a lower priority; and 28 percent say it shouldn’t be done at all."

56% PERCENT OF AMERICANS SUPPRT ROLLING BACK THE FUCKING TAX CUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! But you don't get that impression do you? Instead you get the impression that these position are NOT well supported. I wonder why? Maybe it's because of this first sentence from the paragraph:

"Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support,..."

THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. MAJORITIES OF THE PUBLIC SUPPORT BOTH POSITIONS. *sigh*

Liberal media *grumble grumble*

[eppur_se_muova]

22. Geez, this tactic is getting old. Split the vote into microcategories then

add them up in such a way that the bad news is hidden.

Kpete posted a thread on this, BTW ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2448984&mesg_id=2448984

[yurbud]

23. the article really tried to minimize impeachment

[BornagainDUer]

24. It's unbelievable how fast they dumped the R's after Foley.

This country only gets interested when its about sex. Pro-life until after birth.

[ms liberty]

25. I was called for this poll on Thursday night...

That was a quick turnaround! I was expecting it to be released with their new issue next week.

[dweller]

26. listening to my local AAR affiliate on the way home tonite

local 1360am, the CBS newsbreak quoted these same stats, yet noted that the Evangelical numbers had risen (can't quote the numbers, but they did note it up) in favor of Repigs.

a :wtf: moment

dp

[sarcasmo]

29. Every time you are told a new Rapture date and it does not come.

How can you not loose Faith.