Explain something to me about Sarah Palin......

[Smash255]

Palin is conservatives' imagined salvation to their inability to accept modern womanhood. In their minds only a woman who agrees with them (e.g, submits to them) is a "normal" woman. They never claim that only pro-life, pro-gun men can be "normal" men, but they will easily act as if only one very particular kind of woman can be a "normal" woman or a "real" woman.

The root of all this kind of thinking is sexism, pure and simple.

Conservatives love Palin in part because she allows them to engage in their own kind of sexism while at the same time pretending to be opposing sexism. It's genius. But as a product of campaign '08, one of the most sexist campaign seasons in history (albeit also one where women broke through into mainstream presidential politics), Palin really fits right in.

Who gives you the right to define modern womanhood?  You liberals feel that the only path to liberation for women is for them to spike their hair, dye it black, have multiple abortions and enter into lesbian relationships (FYI, there's nothing wrong with being gay, Im just pointing out what liberals advocate).  Abortion upon demand is in fact, more important to most liberals than the healthcare bill that they are arguing right now.  I mean, I had a friend in high school who bought into all that garbage, so much so, that one time when we were at the library, she approached me proclaiming that she had broken the bonds of womanhood and peed standing up like a man.

What normal means to a conservative is that she speaks for the over-arching majority of Americans (don't bring up the polls, they do not reflect truth with 11+pt dem margins).  No, she doesn't speak for you Beet, but she speaks for most Americans and understands what they are feeling.  I will say one thing that is a little bit chauvanistic (sp?) and non PC: Thank god she doesn't wear pants suits.  I hate those things.

Let me also tell you one other thing: My mom was a single mother and is both pro-life and pro-gun.  She has experienced discrimination and harrassment in the workplace and likes Sarah Palin.  She doesn't buy into the I have to be more of a man to become a full woman thing.  She hates the feminazis that do too.

It is obvious based off this post you do not know a damn thing about liberals....

[You kip if you want to...]

Sarah Palin is a pro-life, pro-gun normal woman and represents an existential threat to the Washington way, the elitism.  The democrats hate her because they know she can defeat Obama.  It's instinctual.  She is the only republican who can raise massive gobs of money and get comparable sized crowds to Obama.  She's the only one that's interesting and the only one who can really change the news cycle (meaning, she gets people out to listen to what she says).  All of the other mediocre candidates cannot command this level attention even if they tried.  

Democrats and the media always try to pick our candidates for us.  They viciously attack our strongest candidates and lavished praise on the ones that they knew were defeatable - like McCain, like Dole and ones that were already defeated by dems - Bush I & Ford.

Please do everything in your power to ensure that Sarah Palin wins the GOP nod in 2012.  

You have my blessing.  

Seconded.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Palin's an easy & prominent target. Democratic commentators can attack her without too much trouble, so they do so. Who am I to complain if it further reduces whatever remote chance she might have had of becoming President?

[pbrower2a]

Palin is conservatives' imagined salvation to their inability to accept modern womanhood. In their minds only a woman who agrees with them (e.g, submits to them) is a "normal" woman. They never claim that only pro-life, pro-gun men can be "normal" men, but they will easily act as if only one very particular kind of woman can be a "normal" woman or a "real" woman.

The root of all this kind of thinking is sexism, pure and simple.

Conservatives love Palin in part because she allows them to engage in their own kind of sexism while at the same time pretending to be opposing sexism. It's genius. But as a product of campaign '08, one of the most sexist campaign seasons in history (albeit also one where women broke through into mainstream presidential politics), Palin really fits right in.

Who gives you the right to define modern womanhood?  You liberals feel that the only path to liberation for women is for them to spike their hair, dye it black, have multiple abortions and enter into lesbian relationships (FYI, there's nothing wrong with being gay, Im just pointing out what liberals advocate).  Abortion upon demand is in fact, more important to most liberals than the healthcare bill that they are arguing right now.  I mean, I had a friend in high school who bought into all that garbage, so much so, that one time when we were at the library, she approached me proclaiming that she had broken the bonds of womanhood and peed standing up like a man.

Sara Palin is a crank. I think that had Senator John McCain known what she was like he would have chosen someone else -- someone less exciting to the right-wing base, but also less likely to enrage the opposing Base. She acts as if what she says in rural Virginia -- what she calls "the real Virginia" doesn't appear on big-city television. It does, and when it isn't what urban and suburban Virginia dislikes, it gets very bad. Yes, those film clips from "the real Virginia" also get shown in places like Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Florida, and Indiana.  

Have you read her book? I have seen bits and pieces. She claimed that Steve Schmidt, campaign manager of John McCain sabotaged her efforts to defeat Barack Obama and his campaign with her own rhetorical grenades. What does that say about her?

She quit the governorship when things were getting tough in Alaska. What does that say of her? The Presidency is a much tougher job.

I have heard her contradict herself between the dependent clause and the independent clause of a compound sentence. That suggests a scatterbrain.  A hint: you never go into a speaking situation without having some idea of what you are to say -- at least beyond 8th Grade. The late William F. Buckley never made that mistake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The word conservative has become at times a euphemism for radical and extreme positions. Such is a pity. Now we must discern what sort of conservatism we like if we can identify ourselves in any way "conservative".

Maybe the 11+ Democratic margin wouldn't be so large if the Republican Party hadn't become so extreme in its positions -- its anti-intellectual, anti-worker, anti-peace rhetoric. Its idea of racial and gender equity is to incorporate some token figures, ideology mattering more than competence, while standing for people who step on everyone else.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Want to reduce abortions? Create an economy that works for people other than those who own the assets and wield the power. Pro-gun? What has President Obama done or said that shows intent to confiscate guns? Closing the loophole for gun shows?  Do you really want the outlaws to have all the access to firearms that they want?

Feminazi is a word coined by Rush Limbaugh to describe feminists who fail to toe his ideological line. Note that the word contains an contradiction in itself: the Nazis were male-chauvinist pigs of the worst kind.

[Beet]

Palin is conservatives' imagined salvation to their inability to accept modern womanhood. In their minds only a woman who agrees with them (e.g, submits to them) is a "normal" woman. They never claim that only pro-life, pro-gun men can be "normal" men, but they will easily act as if only one very particular kind of woman can be a "normal" woman or a "real" woman.

The root of all this kind of thinking is sexism, pure and simple.

Conservatives love Palin in part because she allows them to engage in their own kind of sexism while at the same time pretending to be opposing sexism. It's genius. But as a product of campaign '08, one of the most sexist campaign seasons in history (albeit also one where women broke through into mainstream presidential politics), Palin really fits right in.

Who gives you the right to define modern womanhood?  You liberals feel that the only path to liberation for women is for them to spike their hair, dye it black, have multiple abortions and enter into lesbian relationships (FYI, there's nothing wrong with being gay, Im just pointing out what liberals advocate).  Abortion upon demand is in fact, more important to most liberals than the healthcare bill that they are arguing right now.  I mean, I had a friend in high school who bought into all that garbage, so much so, that one time when we were at the library, she approached me proclaiming that she had broken the bonds of womanhood and peed standing up like a man.

What normal means to a conservative is that she speaks for the over-arching majority of Americans (don't bring up the polls, they do not reflect truth with 11+pt dem margins).  No, she doesn't speak for you Beet, but she speaks for most Americans and understands what they are feeling.  I will say one thing that is a little bit chauvanistic (sp?) and non PC: Thank god she doesn't wear pants suits.  I hate those things.

Let me also tell you one other thing: My mom was a single mother and is both pro-life and pro-gun.  She has experienced discrimination and harrassment in the workplace and likes Sarah Palin.  She doesn't buy into the I have to be more of a man to become a full woman thing.  She hates the feminazis that do too.

So you claim to know what the majority of Americans think but reject the results of the polls? The polls tell the truth. They aren't a conspiracy. The reality is that most Americans are pretty strict when it comes to gun control, women more than men, the only reason why the NRA is so powerful is because the people who care most about the issue are pro-gun, not because they represent the majority of Americans. Most Americans also support Roe v Wade. Pro-life and pro-gun are a minority. Asserting otherwise will not change that fact.

The difference between conservatives and liberals on the woman question is not what you think. The difference is that liberals judge men by the same standards as we judge women. That means if a woman wants to spike their hair, dye it black, have multiple abortions and enter into lesbian relationships, then we accept that and defend their right to do so, and accept their womanhood. And if a woman wants to wear pants, we accept their womanhood, too. And yes, most women wear pants from time to time, and would like the freedom to do so without being called a fake woman. You don't need a poll to tell you that. But if a woman wants to wear a dress and act like Sarah Palin we're also okay with that. We don't necessarily think she's qualified to be President, nor will we necessarily agree with her on the issues, but we don't have a problem with her behavior as a woman.

That's the difference.

Your reply just proved my point. You are an extreme bigot and you don't even know it. To you any woman who doesn't meet your extreme standards that she's not a real woman, not worthy of the name. That's just another version of the old stereotypes of African Americans, who got 'uppity', were not 'proper negroes'. The difference that, that kind of thinking is widely acknowledged as deeply racist. Yet the assertion that as soon as a woman starts wearing pants and disagreeing with conservatives she starts becoming some dyke worthy of nothing but hate-- is not yet acknowledged for what it is: naked, brutal sexism. You are so clueless and self righteous with your bigotry though, I doubt that what I'm writing has a chance of really penetrating your brain.

[nhmagic]

Palin is conservatives' imagined salvation to their inability to accept modern womanhood. In their minds only a woman who agrees with them (e.g, submits to them) is a "normal" woman. They never claim that only pro-life, pro-gun men can be "normal" men, but they will easily act as if only one very particular kind of woman can be a "normal" woman or a "real" woman.

The root of all this kind of thinking is sexism, pure and simple.

Conservatives love Palin in part because she allows them to engage in their own kind of sexism while at the same time pretending to be opposing sexism. It's genius. But as a product of campaign '08, one of the most sexist campaign seasons in history (albeit also one where women broke through into mainstream presidential politics), Palin really fits right in.

Who gives you the right to define modern womanhood?  You liberals feel that the only path to liberation for women is for them to spike their hair, dye it black, have multiple abortions and enter into lesbian relationships (FYI, there's nothing wrong with being gay, Im just pointing out what liberals advocate).  Abortion upon demand is in fact, more important to most liberals than the healthcare bill that they are arguing right now.  I mean, I had a friend in high school who bought into all that garbage, so much so, that one time when we were at the library, she approached me proclaiming that she had broken the bonds of womanhood and peed standing up like a man.

What normal means to a conservative is that she speaks for the over-arching majority of Americans (don't bring up the polls, they do not reflect truth with 11+pt dem margins).  No, she doesn't speak for you Beet, but she speaks for most Americans and understands what they are feeling.  I will say one thing that is a little bit chauvanistic (sp?) and non PC: Thank god she doesn't wear pants suits.  I hate those things.

Let me also tell you one other thing: My mom was a single mother and is both pro-life and pro-gun.  She has experienced discrimination and harrassment in the workplace and likes Sarah Palin.  She doesn't buy into the I have to be more of a man to become a full woman thing.  She hates the feminazis that do too.

So you claim to know what the majority of Americans think but reject the results of the polls? The polls tell the truth. They aren't a conspiracy. The reality is that most Americans are pretty strict when it comes to gun control, women more than men, the only reason why the NRA is so powerful is because the people who care most about the issue are pro-gun, not because they represent the majority of Americans. Most Americans also support Roe v Wade. Pro-life and pro-gun are a minority. Asserting otherwise will not change that fact.

The difference between conservatives and liberals on the woman question is not what you think. The difference is that liberals judge men by the same standards as we judge women. That means if a woman wants to spike their hair, dye it black, have multiple abortions and enter into lesbian relationships, then we accept that and defend their right to do so, and accept their womanhood. And if a woman wants to wear pants, we accept their womanhood, too. And yes, most women wear pants from time to time, and would like the freedom to do so without being called a fake woman. You don't need a poll to tell you that. But if a woman wants to wear a dress and act like Sarah Palin we're also okay with that. We don't necessarily think she's qualified to be President, nor will we necessarily agree with her on the issues, but we don't have a problem with her behavior as a woman.

That's the difference.

Your reply just proved my point. You are an extreme bigot and you don't even know it. To you any woman who doesn't meet your extreme standards that she's not a real woman, not worthy of the name. That's just another version of the old stereotypes of African Americans, who got 'uppity', were not 'proper negroes'. The difference that, that kind of thinking is widely acknowledged as deeply racist. Yet the assertion that as soon as a woman starts wearing pants and disagreeing with conservatives she starts becoming some dyke worthy of nothing but hate-- is not yet acknowledged for what it is: naked, brutal sexism. You are so clueless and self righteous with your bigotry though, I doubt that what I'm writing has a chance of really penetrating your brain.

Don’t think you read what I said…I reject the results of the polls because the majority of polling institutions ask for 11pts more democrat respondents over republicans and independents.  The party identification gap has only ever been 6-7pts in recent history (which, incidentally, is what Obama won by in the general).  Yet consistently, they survey 11pts more of democrats when it’s just not true.  Oh, and if you want to go by a poll, the Gallup poll says the majority of Americans are now pro-life (50%).

Just because I have an ideal of the aspects of a woman that I like doesn’t mean I force that ideal upon them and does not mean I am a bigot.  There’s nothing wrong with preferring that a woman wear a skirt or dress or jeans rather than a “pants suit”.  It makes women look like men and was advocated by the radical left feminist movement.  Im sure that the majority of women do wear pants, (not necessarily pants suits) and there isn’t anything wrong with that.

Don’t give me this holier than thou crap.  You liberals are more discriminatory, more bigoted, than any other class of people.  You claim to tolerate people’s religion, yet you sit around and bash evangelical Christianity and Mormonism.  You call people bitter, clinging to guns and religion because they cannot deal with hardship.  Also, get your history right, it was liberal democrats who were the ones that kept blacks in slavery, liberal democrats who called blacks “uppity”, liberal democrats like Margret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood for black eugenics prior to its “transformation” into “pro-choice”, liberal democrats who almost kept the CRA from passing.  Lest ye forget, liberals were incredibly sexist during the 2008 election against Clinton in order to push Barack Obama.  Even Obama himself got nasty (not necessarily sexist like his campaign chiefs) when he flipped-her off.  He certainly got sexist when he called Sarah Palin a pig.

Finally, what the heck were you doing on this board on New Years Eve/day around midnight instead of engaging in healthy libation consumption?

[Alcon]

You reject the results of a poll wholesale because of a party weighting shift that would barely change the toplines at all?  Or you reject the concept of weighting?

Won't get involved in the ridiculousness that is the rest of this thread.

[nhmagic]

You reject the results of a poll wholesale because of a party weighting shift that would barely change the toplines at all?  Or you reject the concept of weighting?

Won't get involved in the ridiculousness that is the rest of this thread.

Sampling 11% more respondents with a liberal/democratic viewpoint would change a polls toplines significantly. 

[Beet]

The party identification gap is identified by polls. If you don't trust polls asking people their positions on abortion and gun control because they don't match with party identification gaps, how do you know which one is wrong? The polls were very accurate during the 2008 elections. I think Nate Silver predicted Obama would get 52.3 percent of the vote and he ended up with 52.9 percent. Why would pollsters be able to accurately project horse-race numbers but all of the sudden have massive, systematic error when it comes to abortion rights and gun control questions?

There's nothing wrong with liking certain kinds of womens' dress over others. But it is wrong to judge women on a moral basis because their style of dress is aesthetically unappealing to you, especially when you apply stricter standards to women than men.

Your third paragraph reveals bald faced lies ("liberals kept the CRA from passing") and a complete ignorance of my posting history here (I was and am one of Clinton's most hardcore supporters-- don't forget she got 1/2 the vote in the Democratic primaries and favorables through the roof among liberals).

Overall I think you have a lot of bigotry and stereotyping issues, and which are even greater than what I tried to point out in my original post.

[pbrower2a]

You reject the results of a poll wholesale because of a party weighting shift that would barely change the toplines at all?  Or you reject the concept of weighting?

Won't get involved in the ridiculousness that is the rest of this thread.

Sampling 11% more respondents with a liberal/democratic viewpoint would change a polls toplines significantly. 

For some reason Americans seem on the whole to identify themselves more D than they used to. It has something to do with out 43rd President, who did a poor job in convincing Americans to become right-wing Republicans like himself. It has something to do with Karl Rove suggesting that the accretion of power trumps ethical values. It could also be that Corporate America isn't trusted in offering the opportunity that it once did to people who didn't get the right start in life. Add to that, the Religious Right that used to be a reliable conduit for right-wing voters has lost its appeal to young adults. Meanwhile the GOP has  purged itself of anything moderate and liberal.

[Bo]

You reject the results of a poll wholesale because of a party weighting shift that would barely change the toplines at all?  Or you reject the concept of weighting?

Won't get involved in the ridiculousness that is the rest of this thread.

Sampling 11% more respondents with a liberal/democratic viewpoint would change a polls toplines significantly. 

For some reason Americans seem on the whole to identify themselves more D than they used to. It has something to do with out 43rd President, who did a poor job in convincing Americans to become right-wing Republicans like himself. It has something to do with Karl Rove suggesting that the accretion of power trumps ethical values. It could also be that Corporate America isn't trusted in offering the opportunity that it once did to people who didn't get the right start in life. Add to that, the Religious Right that used to be a reliable conduit for right-wing voters has lost its appeal to young adults. Meanwhile the GOP has  purged itself of anything moderate and liberal.

FYI, I read in a book by Chris Matthews about the 1960 election that in 1960 47% of American voters self-identified as Democrats. Right now the figure is only about 35% or even slightly less than that.

[JSojourner]

This, exactly.  I still haven't seen the level of vitriol aimed at Palin that was aimed at Clinton for eight years or more.  I'm not familiar with any rumors of Sarah Palin having people murdered. 

Keep in mind that that was sponsored by one individual, for less than 8 years, and that it was debunked by Ken Starr.

I've never seen anyone on the left jumping to Palin's defense like that.

Oh, you're thinking of the Foster murder.  Good point.

I was thinking of the nuts who accused her of complicity other deaths...like Ron Brown.  And wasn't there some sort of conspiracy theory that she and Bill engineered the death of another cabinet member?  I could be off on that, I let my subscriptions to Newsmax and Whirled Nuts Daily lapse.


As to people on the left jumping to Palin's defense,  I DID hear quite a few liberals disparage the slams and innuendo about her baby/pregnancy, etc.  I've heard liberals attack rags for reporting on a supposed Palin extramarital affair.  There is no proof of that at all.  LOL -- in fact, I recall none other than the ever-annoying Keith Olbermann going off on those who were headed down that trail.

But most of what gets slammed where sweet Sarah is concerned merits insult or ridicule.  Not being able to answer simple policy questions, for instance.  Quitting in the middle of her first term. Lying about death panels.  That sort of thing.

I do agree with BRTD, though.  She is a paper tiger and hardly worth the effort anymore.

[pbrower2a]

You reject the results of a poll wholesale because of a party weighting shift that would barely change the toplines at all?  Or you reject the concept of weighting?

Won't get involved in the ridiculousness that is the rest of this thread.

Sampling 11% more respondents with a liberal/democratic viewpoint would change a polls toplines significantly. 

For some reason Americans seem on the whole to identify themselves more D than they used to. It has something to do with out 43rd President, who did a poor job in convincing Americans to become right-wing Republicans like himself. It has something to do with Karl Rove suggesting that the accretion of power trumps ethical values. It could also be that Corporate America isn't trusted in offering the opportunity that it once did to people who didn't get the right start in life. Add to that, the Religious Right that used to be a reliable conduit for right-wing voters has lost its appeal to young adults. Meanwhile the GOP has  purged itself of anything moderate and liberal.

FYI, I read in a book by Chris Matthews about the 1960 election that in 1960 47% of American voters self-identified as Democrats. Right now the figure is only about 35% or even slightly less than that.

People were more partisan in identification in 1960 than they are today. For one thing, being able to vote in a primary election was limited to people who stated a preference. Of course, six other major changes have happened:

1. Southern blacks got the vote, inflating the Democratic vote for an electoral cycle.

2. Southern whites drifted Republican, more than offsetting the first change.

3. "Open" primaries became commonplace, and people started registering in whatever party had the more interesting race even in "closed" primaries.

4. The GOP began to rely more heavily upon the Religious Right as a conduit of voters who demanded and expected little on economics.

5. Independents tended to drift Democratic in the northeastern quadrant of the US and in the Far West

6. Voters not identified easily as either "white" or "black" entered the electorate in large numbers -- Asians to a small extent and Hispanics to a large extent.

If Democratic identification has weakened some since November 2008, the GOP has gained little. Of course this year's midterm election will bring out the partisan rhetoric and help people decide how they will vote this time, if not give a permanent identity in one Party or the other.  

[pbrower2a]

This, exactly.  I still haven't seen the level of vitriol aimed at Palin that was aimed at Clinton for eight years or more.  I'm not familiar with any rumors of Sarah Palin having people murdered. 

Keep in mind that that was sponsored by one individual, for less than 8 years, and that it was debunked by Ken Starr.

I've never seen anyone on the left jumping to Palin's defense like that.

...


As to people on the left jumping to Palin's defense,  I DID hear quite a few liberals disparage the slams and innuendo about her baby/pregnancy, etc.  I've heard liberals attack rags for reporting on a supposed Palin extramarital affair.  There is no proof of that at all.  LOL -- in fact, I recall none other than the ever-annoying Keith Olbermann going off on those who were headed down that trail.

But most of what gets slammed where sweet Sarah is concerned merits insult or ridicule.  Not being able to answer simple policy questions, for instance.  Quitting in the middle of her first term. Lying about death panels.  That sort of thing.

I do agree with BRTD, though.  She is a paper tiger and hardly worth the effort anymore.

FoX News, which desperately seeks to keep the right-wing dream alive, pays as much attention to the Tea Bag revolt and to Sarah Palin as it can get away with. Lots of people still rely upon FoX News as a source of information; it fits their world view.

Should she run for President, left-wingers like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann will savage her on programs that left-wingers find satisfying. The Democratic Party will keep quiet about any potential opposition to Obama in 2012 until a nominee is certain -- and then down will come the hammer.

"If she quit on Alaska, will she quit on America?"

[Хahar 🤔]

Abortion upon demand is in fact, more important to most liberals than the healthcare bill that they are arguing right now.

Cool. I didn't know you could read minds. What else can you do?

[Sewer]

You liberals feel that the only path to liberation for women is for them to spike their hair, dye it black, have multiple abortions and enter into lesbian relationships (FYI, there's nothing wrong with being gay, Im just pointing out what liberals advocate).

lol

[Sewer]

Abortion upon demand is in fact, more important to most liberals than the healthcare bill that they are arguing right now.

lol

[Sewer]

she approached me proclaiming that she had broken the bonds of womanhood and peed standing up like a man.

LOL!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Democrats enjoy bashing her because they need a new stupid and incompetent Republican to ridicule now that Bush Jr. is out of office and thus she perfectly fits the bill. I seriously doubt any Democrat views her as a threat now--maybe in Aug.-Sep. 2008, but not now.

There are plenty of stupid and incompetent Republicans. But somehow, Palin provides more comedy goldmine than most of the others.

[Alcon]

You reject the results of a poll wholesale because of a party weighting shift that would barely change the toplines at all?  Or you reject the concept of weighting?

Won't get involved in the ridiculousness that is the rest of this thread.

Sampling 11% more respondents with a liberal/democratic viewpoint would change a polls toplines significantly. 

Um, the difference between 6-7% and 11% is 4-5%, not 11%, and you are talking about a margin gap, so actually the difference is 2-2.5%, no?  That would not change the topline much.

[Bo]

You reject the results of a poll wholesale because of a party weighting shift that would barely change the toplines at all?  Or you reject the concept of weighting?

Won't get involved in the ridiculousness that is the rest of this thread.

Sampling 11% more respondents with a liberal/democratic viewpoint would change a polls toplines significantly. 

For some reason Americans seem on the whole to identify themselves more D than they used to. It has something to do with out 43rd President, who did a poor job in convincing Americans to become right-wing Republicans like himself. It has something to do with Karl Rove suggesting that the accretion of power trumps ethical values. It could also be that Corporate America isn't trusted in offering the opportunity that it once did to people who didn't get the right start in life. Add to that, the Religious Right that used to be a reliable conduit for right-wing voters has lost its appeal to young adults. Meanwhile the GOP has  purged itself of anything moderate and liberal.

FYI, I read in a book by Chris Matthews about the 1960 election that in 1960 47% of American voters self-identified as Democrats. Right now the figure is only about 35% or even slightly less than that.

People were more partisan in identification in 1960 than they are today. For one thing, being able to vote in a primary election was limited to people who stated a preference. Of course, six other major changes have happened:

1. Southern blacks got the vote, inflating the Democratic vote for an electoral cycle.

2. Southern whites drifted Republican, more than offsetting the first change.

3. "Open" primaries became commonplace, and people started registering in whatever party had the more interesting race even in "closed" primaries.

4. The GOP began to rely more heavily upon the Religious Right as a conduit of voters who demanded and expected little on economics.

5. Independents tended to drift Democratic in the northeastern quadrant of the US and in the Far West

6. Voters not identified easily as either "white" or "black" entered the electorate in large numbers -- Asians to a small extent and Hispanics to a large extent.

If Democratic identification has weakened some since November 2008, the GOP has gained little. Of course this year's midterm election will bring out the partisan rhetoric and help people decide how they will vote this time, if not give a permanent identity in one Party or the other.  

Southern blacks didn't get the vote until 1964-5, and even those that somehow managed to vote before that mostly voted Republican. Also, the large influx of Latinos and Asians to the voting pool began after 1965, while I am talking about voter registration in 1960. The only thing that worked against the Democrats since 1960 is that many Southern whites have left the party, but that should have been compensated by the increasing pool of minority voters and the fact that Southern balcks were given the franchise. Yet remarkably, the total % of registrered voters who self-identified as Democrats fell from 47% in 1960% to 35% or less today. Gee I wonder why...........