The jmfcsts and GOP primary voters: How much overlap?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Since the jmfcsts are, according to jmfcst, the decisive influence in the Republican Party these days, just what percentage of the party are they?

[Yelnoc]

A decent cross section, but by no means representative.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

well, the 10% who support Paul are NOT the jmfcsts, neither are the 20% who support Romney...nor are the jmfcsts the 10% who will choose a religious wacko.

that leaves 60%, of which 40/60 are the jmfcsts, with the jmfcsts having heavy influence over the remaining 20/60

[Paul Kemp]

Please stop using this term.

[RI]

Please stop using this term.

^^^

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, the jmfcsts aren't a thing. Cain was still leading in national polls weeks after our apparent forum representative of this group un-endorsed him.

[© tweed]

what does this mean?  there will be and always has been a crosstab in exit polls for 'white born-again evangelicals', and that tells us whatever we could want to know.  nothing novel is going on here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

what does this mean?  there will be and always has been a crosstab in exit polls for 'white born-again evangelicals', and that tells us whatever we could want to know.  nothing novel is going on here.

It doesn't mean so much that but rather the group of GOP primary voters that are jumping to whoever the flavor of the month is.

[© tweed]

what does this mean?  there will be and always has been a crosstab in exit polls for 'white born-again evangelicals', and that tells us whatever we could want to know.  nothing novel is going on here.

It doesn't mean so much that but rather the group of GOP primary voters that are jumping to whoever the flavor of the month is.

I guess I should be one to talk
There's nights that I can't even walk
There's days I couldn't give a f**ck
And in between is where I'm stuck

From blocks away I heard somebody screaming
That small child inside of you that you left bleeding
You stabbed him up not once but twice
Cubicles will now suffice
say it's some the roll of the dice
I think they're wrong I know I'm right

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

what does this mean?  there will be and always has been a crosstab in exit polls for 'white born-again evangelicals', and that tells us whatever we could want to know.  nothing novel is going on here.

It doesn't mean so much that but rather the group of GOP primary voters that are jumping to whoever the flavor of the month is.

the ones jumping to the latest flavor, as determined by the jmfcsts, are the 20% influenced by the jmfcsts:

well, the 10% who support Paul are NOT the jmfcsts, neither are the 20% who support Romney...nor are the jmfcsts the 10% who will choose a religious wacko.

that leaves 60%, of which 40/60 are the jmfcsts, with the jmfcsts having heavy influence over the remaining 20/60

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yeah, the jmfcsts aren't a thing. Cain was still leading in national polls weeks after our apparent forum representative of this group un-endorsed him.

the jmfcsts don't all move at the same time, but the jmfcst is a leading indicator of their overall movement

[Sewer]

Please stop using this term.

^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[angus]

Since the jmfcsts are, according to jmfcst, the decisive influence in the Republican Party these days, just what percentage of the party are they?

We're talking about white-collar Republicans.  College educated and in command of a stable, top two quintiles level income.  That will narrow it down quite a bit.  Also, we're talking about devout, practicing Christians, of any branch.  That narrows it down a little as well.  And gun-owning, home-owning, realistic types who self-identify as cultural conservatives.  About 40% I'd figure.  I voted 40-60%, but it's under half I think.  

Don't forget that the GOP voting rules empowers the party's ideologues so as to give them a disproportionate voice.  This is because Republicans have traditionally had a primary system that mirrors the Electoral College: winner take all.  Lately, however, they have adopted a sort of hybrid structure.  The early states must allocate their delegates proportionately, but primaries after April 1 will still be winner-take-all. That might lead the party to coalesce around a frontrunner at a late date.  Or it may suppress turnout among the non-jmfcst faction of the party, which would have the effect of exacerbating the jmfcst effect.

In any case, don't expect the party to nominate a candidate who isn't jmfcst-approved.  Ron Paul, for example, or Rick Santorum, will not likely win the nod.

[opebo]

...in command of a stable, top two quintiles level income.  

Top two quintiles? I thought the terrible made three hundred grand.

Anyway Gop voters are 99% mad, so he overlaps that much with that many. 

[angus]

...in command of a stable, top two quintiles level income.  

Top two quintiles? I thought the terrible made three hundred grand.

Anyway Gop voters are 99% mad, so he overlaps that much with that many. 

I'm just grouping it larger (small business owners & salaried employees of businesses, etc. who are self-identified RR and traditionalists).  We could quibble about the exact bottom income level, but it's safe to say that they're generally not on the receiving end, so they prefer low taxes.  This economically and culturally conservative group makes up about 40% of the primary I'd think.  And I reckon they could come to terms with Romney, Gingrich, or Huntsman, and probably even Cain or Bachmann.

[Torie]

jmfcst is about as representative of the GOP as I am. Thank you. 

[angus]

jmfcst is about as representative of the GOP as I am. Thank you. 

You (and I) don't seem to recoil at the notion that we might actually have to increase our tax burden if we want to maintain the current level of government spending.  I'm really not sure how relevant we are in the primaries.  Of course I'd hope that it is a popular idea that if you're going to spend a five trillion dollars a year then you need to collect five trillion dollars a year because deficits cannot be sustained ad infinitum, but if I hope in one hand and defecate in the other, my prediction is that the hand that fills up first will probably the be one filling up with shit. 

[Torie]

jmfcst is about as representative of the GOP as I am. Thank you. 

You (and I) don't seem to recoil at the notion that we might actually have to increase our tax burden if we want to maintain the current level of government spending.  I'm really not sure how relevant we are in the primaries.  Of course I'd hope that it is a popular idea that if you're going to spend a five trillion dollars a year then you need to collect five trillion dollars a year because deficits cannot be sustained ad infinitum, but if I hope in one hand and defecate in the other, my prediction is that the hand that fills up first will probably the be one filling up with shit. 

You know about the polls, that reflect that a majority of Pubbies don't want to cut back on medical subsidy entitlements?  At the end of the day, the greedy geezers won't have a problem having taxes increased if that is what it takes to have a very generous triage regime for themselves. The problem right now is that politicians of both parties are just lying to voters about the hard choices out there. Demographics and the march of medical technology in tandem are just a fiscal hydrogen bomb.

[angus]

Yes, polls (for example Bloomberg in November), show that 53% of Republicans support raising taxes on those earning more than a quarter million per year, and 77% say that reducing the deficit is a "critical issue" (compared to 74 and 66 percent for "the economy" and "jobs" and around 30% each for issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, and immigration). 

The question asked about primary voters.  That same Bloomberg poll shows that only about half of registered Iowa republicans plan to attend the caucus.  What percent of registered Republicans nationwide are "likely" to attend the primaries?  And, forget about likely, what percent actually do attend the primaries?  Historically, it's about 30%.  I guess the point is that republicans and "GOP primary voters" (as it asks about in the thread) might not be exactly the same.  I'm not saying that the jmfcsts are 40% of the republicans.  I'm just saying that the subset of those republicans that will attend the primaries/caucus in their states can count among them a disproportionate number of wealthy, white, culturally conservative male voters.