Summations Only

Well, in one sense, this is a tautology. I can't link to any polls off the top of my head, I may be able to find some done, but when people are asked whether they're conservative or liberal, most people say conservative. The republicans then crow about this and claim that the country is right with them and is moving to the right.However, when they are asked about certain policies, without labelling either as liberal or conservative, most agree more strongly with the liberal position. Now, this may be because they are centrist and the conservative idea is just way too out there, or it may mean they are, in fact, more left leaning than they even realize.In general, I would agree that most people, when aggregated, would be more centrist than liberal, but I also think "centrist" is a bit more to the left than most people would think.

Exactly. They've done a masterful job of making the word "liberal" into a dirty word, and can now use it with impunity on anyone who is even moderately to the left of them.And you're right, it's never "moderate left" or even "leftist" it's always got an extreme adjective attached.

Exactly. It's almost like he just doesn't realize there is a disconnect. He could have said he owns a few American cars, and that would have gone over fine.He also could have said that he has a couple friends who follow NASCAR very closely, without going so far as to say they're team owners.I'm beginning to think he really just doesn't understand us "normals."

And that might be his very issue. he sees where he is, compared to where he was, and thinks that where he was is where normal people are. Being less than affluent just doesn't compute with him. Being in dire straits generally means not being able to pay down your second mortgage...not on your house, but on your second house.

Romney has been declared the victor in Michigan, meaning he should win the two state-wide delegates. The rest of them are given out to the winner of each district, meaning Santorum will win a fair percentage of them.In Arizona, however, all delegates are awarded to the winner of the state, so Romney picked up all of those.As soon as the full results in Michigan are in, it might be useful to list the total delegates won by each candidate.

This would only be possible in an "open" primary, where people can vote in either (but not both) of the primaries being run (the Democratic and the Republican). In "closed" primaries and caucases, you have to be registered with the party in order to vote. So, in theory, a Democrat could register as a Republican in order to vote in the Republican primary and cause mischief, but they would then be barred from voting in the Democratic primary, which would let them choose between the candidates that they may actually want to win, rather than just the person they think would be easier to beat.

For local and statewide elections, I have no doubt, but for a national election, such as President, or even Senate, that's probably not true. I know Austin is a bastion for Democrats in a very red state, so around there I would assume there would be more going on in a Democratic primary.Besides, if there are so few Democrats around the state, in general, then there aren't too many Democrats to covertly register as a Republican in order to facilitate shenanigans during the primary.

I'm not sure where you're from (other than USA) but I'm from Wisconsin. We have a large proportion of both parties (and a bit of an independent streak). I don't wonder how so many are supporting these Republicans because I hear the same things they say being said by people around me.People don't vote for the person who will do the best in elevating their position, they don't vote for the person who will be the most moral in their governance. They vote for the person they think is most like them. Part of it comes from arrogance, they think they know the problem, they think it's obvious to them, so someone who agrees with them will be the one to fix it. Part of it comes from propaganda, the reason they think they know the problems is because they've been fed those solutions for as long as they can remember, either from the "news" or from their family and friends (who ultimately got it from the "news"). And finally, part of it comes from fear; fear of the other and fear of the unknown.For the poorly educated and the just plain poor, that equates to connecting on a religious or social angle. That's why Republicans, who generally do best among the uneducated and rural people, devote so much time to religious and social issues.The Democrats, however, have to contend with a group of people who are more educated, but still come preloaded with biases and diverse interests. There isn't as strong a bind as the Republicans have with religion. The Democrats then either try to appeal to a niche, and when they lose, decide to emulate the Republicans (Blue Dog Democrats, Dixiecrats, etc) or they try to appeal to everybody, and thus stand for nothing specific.Lewis Black said it best, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas.

McCain was vilified by Bush Jr. then became the nominee in 2008. Romney was destroyed by McCain, then is looking to become the nominee in 2012.Santorum and Gingrich are jockeying to be the runner-up, which means they should be "next in line" for the next contested Republican primary season. If Romney loses to Obama, the ultra conservative wings will say that he lost because he was too moderate, and suddenly Santorum or Gingrich looks good to them again.Im willing to bet on it, unless a scion of a Reopublican family steps in, Santorum or Gingrich will be the nominee in 4 years. (I'm assuming Romney loses, if he doesn't, then one of them will be the nominee in 2020.)

Nor "Etch-A-Sketch, for the flip-floppers and convictionless."