Take me to your leader
New poll results out today give credence to the argument that the GOP -- battered in the 2006 and 2008 national elections, trying to find its way in opposing President Obama's agenda -- really is without a leader.
The Gallup survey asked respondents to name the "main person who speaks for the Republican Party today," but 52 percent could not name anyone -- either saying no one, everyone, or no opinion.
Even among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, 47 percent could not name a single person. And among those party leaders who were picked, only one of the top six -- Senator John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee last year -- is in elected office at the moment.
Leading the pack among Republican respondents were talk show host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at 10 percent each, former Vice President Dick Cheney at 9 percent, and McCain at 6 percent. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney each drew 2 percent. None of the other names being mentioned as possible presidential contenders in 2012 -- Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the vice presidential nominee last year, for instance -- made the list.
The standings were generally the same among all respondents. Interestingly, former President George W. Bush and John Boehner, the top House Republican, were named by all respondents and by Democrats, but not by Republicans.
Democrats, on the other hand, had little trouble identifying their leader. Obama led, not surprisingly, at 67 percent, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi drew 6 percent and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at 3 percent.
"While being associated with the party of the sitting president gives the Democrats a natural advantage over the Republicans in having a well-defined person representing them, these data clearly underscore the leadership vacuum that confronts the Republican Party today," Gallup says in its analysis. "Almost half of those who identify with or lean toward the GOP cannot think of a single political or other figure when asked to name the main person who speaks for their party. And none of the three individuals whom Republicans name -- Limbaugh, Cheney, and Gingrich -- would likely be characterized as new visionaries or individuals bringing a fresh or new face to the Republican political scene. None of the three hold elective office at this time, all are older white males (the youngest of the three is Limbaugh, who is 58), and only one has a realistic chance of running for the presidency in the future (Gingrich).
"Perhaps most importantly, none of these is mentioned by more than 10% of Republicans, a telling indication that rank-and-file Republicans today simply have no single consensus leader around whom they can gather their forces."
The poll results are based on responses to a survey conducted May 29-31 that has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Comment
Permalink
EmailThis blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
About Political Intelligence
News from the Washington Bureau
What do you mean, no leaders?
They've got Newt and Rush, don't they? Well, it's plain to see they're all losers who won't get past their "base" in any upcoming election. I'm glad the right wing extremists control the Republican Party. Since they cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with their dogma (RINOs anyone?), they will continue to lose, and lose big. They've proven just how hapless they are at running government (8 years of Bush) and people know they bear most of the blame for getting the country into the mess it's now in.
Well, so what???? Was O'bummer a leader before he got elected? Did anyone outside of Chicago really know him? Big deal...
In order to have a leader, you must have a message. Hello! GOP, what do you stand for other than killing abortion doctors? Any positive message? Anything? Anyone?
52% of the national vote went to Obama and 53% of the poll can't name a leader for the Republican Party, think there is a coincidence? Whenever there is a party out of power there is no defined leader until t is time for the next election and the Primaries are over.
Since they have some deep-seeded psychological need to follow the leader or der Fuhrer or whoever looks like a strong man so they don't have to think too deeply on their own or worry about facts, having to create their "reality," the Republicans are truly in floundering in the wilderness even with blowhards like Rush, Palin and Newt. Sorry that Reagan cut off funding for the mentally ill years ago, so they have little chance for recovery and deprogramming.
Field Marshall Walther Model: Why do all my generals want to destroy my bridges? 'A Bridge Too Far' 1977
Field Marshall Mitt Romney: Why do all my generals want to burn my bridges? 'Several Burnt Bridges Too Far' 2012
The foundation of any democracy lies in having one or more opposing parties.
In this country, we decided to go with only 2, thus guaranteeing that one is either "in" or "out". The problem with this format is that when one party is profoundly "out", it tends to make the other party profoundly "in", even if many people aren't all so "in" with the in party: it just means there's no choice.
I am conviced that we need more parties, not less, to ensure that whatever majority party is in power at the moment doesn't get too comfortable (ex: Massachusetts state government in the present, New Hampshire state government of the recent past), and to dilute political strength across the spectrum. This way, no one party is profoundly "out" (or "in"), and there is a variety of options for voters.
Not at all unusual for the party out of power. Who spoke for the Dems back in 2003-2004 when the Republicans ran the show? Hmmmmmm????
Well at least the Republican leaders are doing a great job courting the Hispanic vote. Oh wait, they've let me know Sotomayor is a Marxist. Just one more voting group they've alienated.
It's a mystery how the GOP ever loses an election - they do such a good job with the big tent thing.
They have no leader because they have no message, except hysteria and obstruction. Even the clowns that speak up for them (see Paulo above) don't have anything good to say about the GOP, they just spew their venom towards Obama. Their "leadership" is so out of touch and morally bankrupt they cheer on every bigoted and racist comment made by their memebers (see Limbaugh and Voight) The right has nothing to offer this country, all their cherished concepts have been shown to be utter failures.
BOSTON GLOBE WROTE: "Poll results: GOP has no leader "
You got that right. But you left off the second question. Do you like your GOP no leader better than Obama... and 100% said yes.
There is still time. Obama just need continue his policies and the rest will fall into place. He looks like a one-termer.
Defeated parties need to chew on why they lost, and why the party in power is appealing. In some cases, it may be that they AREN'T what the party that used to be in power is. The G.O.P. needs to figure that out. Maybe the deficit hawks come back to lead the G.O.P. instead of the supply siders.
Reagan was not Carter, who was not Nixon. We pick leaders that are the opposite of the things we didn't like about the old leader. We couldn't trust Nixon (Ford doesn't count) so we voted for the honest but ineffectual Carter. We didn't like a President talking about America in malaise, and who couldn't solve the Iran Hostage crisis, and voted for Six Gun Reagan, who exceeded the expectations of the chattering classes, changed America's mood, and was re-elected in a landslide.
Tough right now, since Obama seems to be making progress on several fronts, and has been bold and decisive even if you don't agree with adding troops in Afghanistan, the GM and Chrysler bailouts or scolding Israel on settlements. He makes a tough target. Palin's complaints on Obama seemed so shallow. No substance.
The problem with the Republicans right now is they see a switch to the hard right as their way back. This plays very well with the base, however, it turns off the independents. This is not a huge problem when their is high voter registration for Republicans, however, when only 28% of the population identifies as Republican that is a huge issue.
They are at a point right now where those that will do well during the primaries (Palin, Gingrich), will not appeal to the larger group of moderate voters. While those that do appeal to moderates (Romney, Guiliani) will never win the parties nomination because they don't fit the Good Christian requirement of the far right. That is going to be tought to break free from, but I don't think the Dems should get too cocky as only a few years ago they wetre out in the wilderness themselves.
Of course they have a leader, it's the corpse of ronald reagan.
Huh? Who cares who is "Leader". there are many...and any of them will win against the moron failure Obamapromter. Are there any adults in the White House? He is a failure! His policies are a failure! Gas Prices up. Job losses up. Debt up. Homelessness up. Business start-ups down.
Obama has failed. Period.
Why are the Dems OBSESSED about the Republiucans?
They are in power. GET OVER IT!!!!! Bush is gone!!!
I know - to distract people as much as they can from the HORRIBLE
mess they have caused.
ridiculous poll, as most are. if you asked this same poll about the Dems leadership 2 years prior to the last election, the results would've been identical. no one cares about it right now...it will matter in 2012, trust me.
Do you Republicans who are trying to blame the current President for the mess that Bush created actually believe your own nonsense? Or are you just mindless drones that spew out whatever Rush and Glenn Beck programmed you to say?
No honest and sane person would expect anyone to be able to clean up such a huge mess in only 5 and a half months.
The issues that concern people the most can shift a bit as national and international vicissitudes wax and wane. Obama is an extraordinary person who came along at an extraordinary time. I say this time is extraordinary because the mood of the country seems to have rallied around a person who at any earlier time could not have gotten to this point that Obama has done. But that is the interesting thing - if not for Obama, could the Democrats have come up with anyone else?
The Democrats have somewhat of a general platform, but it is very fluid and is of less value to the party than the people who step out and deliver the message, and are able to connect with the greatest number of people at a given time. The Republican party has the same problem. Certainly Reagan was the right man for the greatest number of people at the time. As some of you may recall, he wasn't the right man for the Republican party originally, but when the party accepted him, everything came together and he was just the person much of the country wanted.
The Republicans could do better by organizing around a positive set of messages rather just than talking about how bad the Democrats are, but that alone is unlikely to make the difference right now. They need another Reagan, in the sense of a person who can unify the party and much of the country. They need to look throughout their ranks and try to find someone who is not only smart but has the personality of a true national leader, someone who can be true to the concept of more limited government while knowing that the USA is a large and diverse country with many valid and competing interests. A tall order. Right now, very tall indeed. But as times change, as the national mood changes, as new people come onto the scene and into the Republican party, another Reagan will appear. The party leaders need to know how to recognize this person when he or she (yes, this too is possible) comes along. Otherwise, the leadership vacuum in place right now will linger long.
Dems are obsessed because they do not have the propaganda apparatus of Clear Channel, Sinclair, Fox and Limbaugh on 3000 AM Radio stations, 24 X 7 They are finally waking up to the horror that Clinton created in 1996 by signing, not vetoing, , the Telecommunicaton Act, as he sucked up to curry favor with the Republcans who then voted to imeach him two years later. This act permits multi-ownership of outlets in all markets and removed many local broadcasters in favor right-wing talk show hosts that are subsidized by the top ruling families to put their broadcasts on the air, in all markets big and small. Some Dems are even traveling in America's rural areas and finding out that all they can get on the AM band is Rush, Savage, North, etc. etc. etc.
@Mad Farmer Manifest
You are correct about not expecting a President to clean up a mess in 5 months, but the problem is that he is making it worse. While Bush spent too much both on social programs (his "Compassionate Conservative" platform) and dubious wars, Obama has already blown Bush deficits out of the water. When the bill comes due we will all be paying dearly - and future generations. This is his area of major weakness - spending - while talking out of both sides of his mouth. Standard fare with Washington. Doesn't seem to matter who is in charge, they are going to screw it up. That's why big government doesn't work.
The fog will begin to clear in a few month. Dems will help to do the clearing. Already are.......
The fog will begin to clear in a few month. Dems will help to do the clearing. Already are.......
Yes, J.B. God forbid we should have a man who actually wants to make peace in the world and try to do something positive instead of just going around bombing people and calling them evil. When are conservatives going to learn the lessons Jesus taught, like "Love thy enemy" and "Judge not lest ye be judged". That's what Obama is trying to do. Get a clue!
That huge sucking sound you hear is either the vacuum/lack of Republican leadership or Republicans themselves.
Ronald Reagan? Had Alzheimer's most of his term.
Ok people, I am a democrat but my question to all of you is... why are you supportive of Obama? What exactly has he done to make anything better? Nothing. Everything is on a downward spiral heading for socialism! He's a great leader though, great at leading you into his trap! And the worst part is you all have this high opinion of him and are too ignorant to realize what he's doing to this country!
@holycrow
Obama is looking to weaken the US on all fronts in the name of everyone being equal (ie communism). I have a clue. You know not the real world.
Nader said he would build the Green Party in 2000, but in 2004 he called the Green Party part of the problem, and he has called the Socialists not viable. He didnt call the Greens part of the problem before attempting to get the Green nomination, and he was still promising to help build the Green Party before losing the nomination in 2004 - but when the Greens nominated Naders 2000 campaign manager to be the candidate in 2004, suddenly they were part of the problem. Yet even with leaderhip like that, with quotes around it, Nader is still the leader - with quotes around it - of the Bush=Gore crowd.
Posted by J.B. June 10, 09 11:26 AM
"There is still time. Obama just need continue his policies and the rest will fall into place. He looks like a one-termer."
Remove Obama and add in any of the following namesBush, Clinton or Reagan and you have what the opposite party said of those presidents first term. It is damn hard to unseat a sitting president so be ready for 8 years of Obama. Obama is doing a damn fine job considering the mess the country is in when he took over and the people see it. It really does not matter what people on these boards think, they are not the average American, they are the political junkies who think they know what they speak of. More often than not they are wrong and they are so wrong about Obama
Good.
Look I'm a democrat and a big Obama supporter but people gloating over the fall of the Republican party have pretty short memories. In 2003, can anyone recall who was the leader of the Democratic party when Republicans were in power? We didn't have one. Obama had yet to give his convention speech and was a total unknown, Hillary Clinton had yet to emerge as a major player as a first term senator, and Al Gore had categorically refused to run again for president. Don't you all remember the mantra "Anybody But Bush" from that time? Is this starting to sound familiar in light of what's going on with Republican right now?
@odumba
You haven't really said how Obama is helping. I will only say that spending us into oblivion and taking on too many things at the same time will be our undoing, if not his. Take the name and replace it with Carter, Ford, GHW Bush...you get the point. And while many people think they know what they are talking about on here, more of them are informed than the typical Obama voter.