Open trackbacks at Stop the ACLU. Did I say that already? Anyway …
Let's review those data from the latest battleground poll:
D3. When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be . (READ LIST, ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP)
| Very conservative | 21% |
| Somewhat conservative | 40% |
| Moderate | 2% |
| Somewhat liberal | 27% |
| Very liberal | 8% |
| Refused/unsure | 2% |
And here are the conflated data:
| Conservative | 61% |
| Moderate | 2% |
| Liberal | 35% |
| Refused/unsure | 2% |
And here are the percentages for the "fringe" groups (calculated by dividing the percentage of each group by the conflated percentage):
| Very conservative | 34.4% |
| Very liberal | 22.9% |
As we know, liberals love polls, even when they're irrelevant — such as a President's approval rating (hint for liberals: only unprincipled executives govern by the polls, you know, like Clinton). But since the Dhimmicrats are always crowing about the polls, let's see how we can and cannot interpret those polls in the context of our battleground poll data.
Of course, the Demorats interpret the poll results, both for the Iraq War and the President, to mean that America is turning into a nation of socialist hippie peaceniks. However, if 61% of the population identifies themselves as conservatives, and a little over a third of them identify as very conservative, then this is (cough, cough) unlikely.
So why might someone be dissatisfied with the President, the direction the nation is headed, or the War on Terror if not because he wears birkenstocks and marches in pro-terrorist peacenik protests?
Given that President Bush is not a conservative, any more than Nixon or Bush.41 was a conservative, and given that Bush has expanded, instead of reduced, the size of government, and given that contrary to the liberal MSM spin we have handled Iraq with kid gloves, one could reasonably conclude that these are valid explanations for a large number of those negative poll results — remembering, again, that 61% of the populace is conservative, and 34.4% of the conservatives are very conservative. And given that only 35% of the population is liberal, and only 22.9% of liberals call themselves very liberal, the usual spin cannot be assumed.
In other words: Being unhappy with the results in Iraq does not translate into wanting to pull out immediately or disapproving of the War on Terror in Iraq.
In other words: Being unhappy with the direction of the nation does not translate into wanting more of a socialist state (especially in light of the fact that Bush has expanded the welfare state).
In other words: Being unhappy with the President does not translate into a vote for Cindy Sheehan in 2008.
Now, let's look at that last one, the President's dip in approval ratings. Here's what you won't see from the Demorats: Ratings fell sharply right after George nominated Miers (after she withdrew and Bush nominated Alito, they have started to rise).
That tells us that it probably wasn't only the "religious right" or the "extremists" who were unhappy with the Miers appointment, as Reid, Boxer, Schumer, or Durbin claim. It was a significant section of the conservative base, you know, that 61% of the population. The fact that his numbers are starting to rise again supports the interpretation that those voters are happier with Alito — you know, that awful man who will take us back to the Stone Age, according to Ted (hick! burp!) Kennedy.
It tells us the Dhimmicrats are probably even more out of touch than they seem.
Finally, what do these polls tell us conservatives that could help us in the next two elections?
Keep in mind that these are only possible interpretations, though they are much more likely given the results of the latest battleground poll than the liberal interpretations. But having said that, these results tell us we most likely don't need to fight for the "moderate" vote, nor do we need to appeal to "liberal" voters. They tell us that it is likely that many (not just a few "fringe" voters) are not happy with the liberal direction in which Bush has steered the nation, and that the party should drop the outdated notion that "moderate" candidates win, and support real conservative candidates — fiscally conservative, as well as socially conservative candidates. Toomey, not Specter. Of course, it's not realistic to always support the more conservative candidate in every race, because different areas are, well, different (for example, while Paynard would be right at home in Indiana as a conservative, he's too conservative to win in Pennsylvania, especially running against Lynn Swann in the primary). Still, the party needs to start being conservative, and supporting conservatives who believe that the wings of the federal government and SCOTUS need to be clipped, instead of supporting fiscal liberals.
And it tells us that the further to the left the Democrats move, the better it is for us.
Technorati: polls, conservatives, moderates, liberals