Republicans are becoming dissatisfied with their party polls show - Polidicks

[QUOTE][I]Negative perceptions of the Republican party are on the rise...among Republicans. Donald Trump may be leading in national polls, but Walker and Rubio are perceived as the most acceptable and viable candidates by activist Republicans. And a low response rate doesn't automatically mean a survey is wrong. This is HuffPollster for Friday, July 24, 2015.[/I][B]REPUBLICAN PARTY IMAGE TAKES A DIP[/B] - Pew Research: "The Republican Party’s image has grown more negative over the first half of this year. Currently, 32% have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, while 60% have an unfavorable view. Favorable views of the GOP have fallen nine percentage points since January. The Democratic Party continues to have mixed ratings (48% favorable, 47% unfavorable). The Democratic Party has often held an edge over the GOP in favorability in recent years, but its advantage had narrowed following the Republicans’ midterm victory last fall. Today, the gap is as wide as it has been in more than two years. Republicans, in particular, are now more critical of their own party than they were a few months ago.…[B][P]ositive views of the GOP among Republicans have declined 18 percentage points since January, from 86% to 68%[/B]. Independents also view the Republican Party less favorably; 29% today, compared with 37% six months ago. Democrats, by contrast, continue to express highly positive opinions of their party: 86% view the party favorably, little changed from 84% in January. Independents’ views of the Democratic Party also are unchanged since January, at 38%." [[URL="http://www.people-press.org/2015/07/23/gops-favorability-rating-takes-a-negative-turn"]Pew[/URL]] [URL="http://www.people-press.org/2015/07/23/gops-favorability-rating-takes-a-negative-turn/7-23-2015-1-56-01-pm/"][IMG]http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/07/7-23-2015-1-56-01-PM.png[/IMG][/URL] [B]Gallup finds similar pattern[/B] - A new poll finds the favorable ratings for both parties "close to their historical lows" with positive ratings of the Democrats up slightly since March (from 36 to 42 percent) and ratings of the Republicans down (from 42 to 35 percent). [[URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/184214/democratic-party-reclaims-edge-favorable-ratings.aspx"]Gallup[/URL]] [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/184214/democratic-party-reclaims-edge-favorable-ratings.aspx"][IMG]http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-07-24-1437734319-2745440-GallupPartyFavs.png[/IMG][/URL] [B]Why the drop among Republicans?[/B] - HuffPollster [URL="https://twitter.com/MysteryPollster/status/624335733734678528"]asked our followers on Twitter[/URL]for their their best guesses and two theories emerged. First, a sense of disappointment that the Republican majorities have not made progress on their agenda, and perhaps have lost further ground to President Obama. Second, in one word, "Trump", or more broadly the "chaos" in the 2016 field. Some highlights: -[B]Richard Freedman[/B] (R): "GOP has not stopped ACA, moved to secure border, reduced spending in logical manner, etc. While generally not...possible, disappointing. Also primary looks like clown show from afar. [@richfreed [URL="https://twitter.com/richfreed/status/624349744102572032"]here[/URL] and [URL="https://twitter.com/richfreed/status/624349744840724480"]here[/URL]] -[B]Brian Stryker[/B] (D): "Perceived impotence? Obama/libs lots of recent wins, and GOP just hasn't had a lot of chances to block things up" [[URL="https://twitter.com/BrianStryker/status/624343553129451521"]@BrianStryker[/URL]] -[B]Conn Carroll[/B] (R): "what has the GOP Senate accomplished since January exactly?" [[URL="https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/624338518865784832"]@conncarroll[/URL]] -[B]Michelle Diggles[/B] (D): "Republicans expect their leaders to get their way. When they don't (e.g., ACA not repealed) feel lied to." [[URL="https://twitter.com/MichelleDiggles/status/624337202751868929"]@MichelleDiggles[/URL]] -[B]Matt Dabrowski[/B] (R): "Portions of the base continue to be strongly dissatisfied. At the risk of being reductive, this is the Ted Cruz story." [[URL="https://twitter.com/MattDabrowski/status/624359772247171072"]@MattDabrowski[/URL]] -[B]Greg Dworkin[/B] (D): "Trump...with a dollup of losing important SCOTUS cases." [@DemFromCT [URL="https://twitter.com/DemFromCT/status/624336774651867137"]here[/URL] and [URL="https://twitter.com/DemFromCT/status/624336774651867137"]here[/URL]] [B]Drop since December as strong among conservative Republicans as among moderates[/B] - HuffPollster asked Pew Research to break out the trend among Republicans by self-reported ideology. While the drop since January is slightly steeper among conservatives than other Republicans, there is little difference since December. Given the relatively small samples sizes, especially for moderate-to-liberal Republicans (just 139 interviews on the most recent poll), the changes are essentially indistinguishable. [IMG]http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-07-24-1437736068-4582370-PewGOPFavorabilityByPartyIdeology.png[/IMG] [B]HUFFPOLLSTER SURVEYS ACTIVIST REPUBLICANS; WALKER AND RUBIO EMERGE AS THE MOST VIABLE GOP CANDIDATES[/B] - HuffPollster: "...The Huffington Post worked with our survey partner YouGov to scour its Internet survey panel for activist Republicans: those who have run for or held office, served as party officials, worked on campaigns, or volunteered their time before elections. Our survey of 500 of these activists provides a look at the opinions of some of the GOP's best-informed and most politically involved supporters...[T]hese activist Republicans are far from reaching a consensus on a 2016 nominee. [B]Half say they are 'still making up' their minds about whom they will support[/B], with no clear frontrunner emerging in their first choices....The poll does show a clear top tier of candidates currently perceived as both worthy of support and electable by the activists. By those measures, [B]Walker and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio currently stand well above their rivals[/B]….Walker earns a few superlatives. Alone among the candidates, he's viewed 'very favorably' by more than half of the activists surveyed. Just 5 percent say they wouldn't back him under any circumstances....Still, [B]Trump attracts considerably more backlash than most other candidates[/B], joining Bush, Graham and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie among the candidates that more than 1 in 4 activists say they'd never vote for and that they'd be angry to see nominated." [[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-activists-primary-poll_55afd500e4b0a9b9485352ad"]HuffPost[/URL]] [B]DOES A LOW RESPONSE RATE PRODUCE LESS RELIABLE POLLS?[/B] - Pew Research: "The short answer here is 'no.' The potential for what pollsters call 'nonresponse bias' – the unwelcome situation in which the people we’re not reaching are somehow systematically different from the people we are reaching, thus biasing our poll results – certainly is greater when response rates are low. But [B]the mere existence of low response rates doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not nonresponse bias exists.[/B] In fact, numerous studies, including our own, have found that the response rate in and of itself is not a good measure of survey quality, and that thus far, nonresponse bias is a manageable problem. For example, our 2012 study of nonresponse showed that despite declining response rates, telephone surveys that include landlines and cellphones and are weighted to match the demographic composition of the population (part of standard best practices) continue to provide accurate data on most political, social and economic measures." [[URL="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/21/the-challenges-of-polling-when-fewer-people-are-available-to-be-polled/"]Pew[/URL]] [B]PERCEPTIONS OF RACE RELATIONS HAVE WORSENED SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE[/B] - New York Times: "Most Americans think race relations in the U.S. are generally bad, and blacks hold a particularly negative view of the nation’s racial climate – [B]the worst since the country’s first black president took office in 2009.[/B] After Barack Obama’s historic win in 2008, both black and white Americans were notably sanguine about race relations in the nation. This was a striking reversal among blacks. Before the election, most blacks characterized race relations as bad; just several months into the Obama presidency, however, most rated them as good. Since then, the public’s perception of racial harmony in the U.S. has deteriorated." [[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/23/us/race-relations-in-america-poll.html"]NYT[/URL]] [B]METHODOLOGY CHANGE FOR WASHINGTON POST/ABC[/B] - From an email sent by Langer Research Associates: "After extensive review we’ve revised the sampling methodology we use in the ABC News/Washington Post polls we produce for ABC...From October 2008 through last month we employed a non-overlapping dual-frame design, including two separate sampling frames – one for people who can be reached on landline phones, another for those who can be reached only on cell phones. We increased the cell-phone-only proportion as it increased over the years, based on ongoing estimates from the National Health Interview Survey …[A]s the incidence of cell-only users has grown, the proportion of young adults available via landlines has decreased. [B]Our new approach makes use of an overlapping dual-frame design[/B], which can be thought of as three frames – individuals who can be contacted on cell phones only, those who can be contacted on landlines only, and those who can be contacted on either. The total number of cell interviews continues to be set to reach the cell-phone-only target derived from NHIS estimates As such,[B]starting with this week’s ABC/Post survey, 65 percent of our interviews are conducted by cell phone[/B], 35 percent via landline interviews."[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/24/republican-party-image-decline_n_7864092.html?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000078[/URL]

what a shocker, an exclusive political party thats doubling down on the smallest fringe groups will eventually start cannibalizing itself

You can only have your own party intentionally sabotaging the government to try to pin it on the Democrats for so long before people start to notice, I guess.

this is exactly what i've been saying for a few years now, and it pisses me off that suddenly im being called a democrat by my brother even though the republicans have literally nothing constructive to offer anymore

Yes, we are becoming dissatisfied. It's not hard when your party tried to elect a guy who changed every few years and believed he wore magic underwear.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48295901]Yes, we are becoming dissatisfied. It's not hard when your party tried to elect a guy who changed every few years and believed he wore magic underwear.[/QUOTE] romney wasn't bad, until after the RNC when the tea party nuts got to him and he suddenly went radically right. idk why i even bothered to vote for him, his single issue was "i'm going to kill obama care!" but now i really don't like the current system of health insurance we have, if half the republicans lived with someone who was chronically ill and unable to afford their care, they'd pass single payer health care immediately

[QUOTE=Sableye;48295900]this is exactly what i've been saying for a few years now, and it pisses me off that suddenly im being called a democrat by my brother even though the republicans have literally nothing constructive to offer anymore[/QUOTE] it's terrible how being republican associates you with such idiots, but if you don't associate with those idiot's you're a "SOCIALIST" it doesn't make any fucking sense

Unfortunately the republican's problems with the GOP is that they're not being effective enough at pushing conservative ideals, not the fact that they're so assbackwards to begin with.

[QUOTE=J!NX;48296046]it's terrible how being republican associates you with such idiots, but if you don't associate with those idiot's you're a "SOCIALIST" it doesn't make any fucking sense[/QUOTE] Socialism isn't bad anyways. The only reason we in America hate Socialism is because in the 1950s and 60s, when we had that feud with the USSR, conservatives took advantage of the fact that Socialism and Communism are in some ways similar to pretty much associate the two together. I'm sure as hell that if we took the actual ideas of Socialism and called them something else, people would probably vote for those ideas.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48296158]Socialism isn't bad anyways. The only reason we in America hate Socialism is because in the 1950s and 60s, when we had that feud with the USSR, conservatives took advantage of the fact that Socialism and Communism are in some ways similar to pretty much associate the two together. I'm sure as hell that if we took the actual ideas of Socialism and called them something else, people would probably vote for those ideas.[/QUOTE] you can see that right here on facepunch when people defend outright socialist ideas, but say they aren't. red scare was amazingly successful pretty much everywhere.

The GOP is due for a rewrite. It's been splitting at the seems for awhile and can't seem to get itself together.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48296158][B]Socialism isn't bad anyways[/B]. The only reason we in America hate Socialism is because in the 1950s and 60s, when we had that feud with the USSR, conservatives took advantage of the fact that Socialism and Communism are in some ways similar to pretty much associate the two together. I'm sure as hell that if we took the actual ideas of Socialism and called them something else, people would probably vote for those ideas.[/QUOTE] Tell that to people who go "but that MUSLIM is a SOCIALIST" every time they see Obama being supported, as if it's a universal evil, an absolute wrong. Something so terrible that it is naturally referred to, without explanation or logic, as bad. As if it's a curse word, only said to imply wrong doing and terror. Socialism is borderline Nazism to these people. They can't see the contrast between even just light amounts of Socialism, and true wrong, such as pure fascist belief.

I honestly think they are hammering shit candidates like Trump right now so that later they can bring in the supposedly moderate candidates and say "look guys, the party is saved!" [editline]26th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Wizards Court;48296187]you can see that right here on facepunch when people defend outright socialist ideas, but say they aren't.[/QUOTE] That's because the so-called "European Socialism" is not socialism at all. It is a mixed economy that largely favors private institutions but isn't afraid to engage in Keynesian economics to protect its people. That isn't socialism; that is capitalism with proper regulation and management. Socialism is when the people own the means of production. [I]All[/I] of the means of production, collectively owned. Nowhere in the world is this practiced, and it has never been practiced because such a thing is entirely impractical to impose and monitor. How do you stop certain citizens from gaining leverage in the system? No, what the US has implemented is borderline economic anarchy. They have eroded business regulations to a minimum and passed legislation highly favoring the upper quarter percentile of the population. They've gone Austrian School through and through; next to no regulation and almost absolute freedom and ownership to private citizens. And it is strangling the country. Our political institutions are even less democratic than before, with bribes and corruption being openly legal (Political Action Committees) and discussed on the morning news. Businesses gouge the American people without making proper returns in things like wages, resulting in a population that is struggling to afford the very product or service they help sell. The only interaction the government has with its people is sending its police force to stop riots in the streets and bust drug peddlers. The media is under the full control of private businesses, which all have a political agenda that they will push until the population is radicalized and bickering while missing the main issue; those on top. This is the country Republicans have given us. It is no wonder why so many are seeing the party for its true colors. Although the Democrats can hardly claim perfection, at the very least their policies [I]in theory[/I] are geared towards promoting a free, democratic state that improves the lives of it citizens, even if that doesn't occur in practice.

So people aren't dissatisfied with the GOP because its agenda is toxic, but because it hasn't been successful enough in shoving said agenda down everyone's throats. Great.

Well yeah. Look at the fucking race right now. We have had years since the train wreck that was Romney and the best we can come up with is fucking Trump? If we can't even roll out someone sane for the presidential race, what future do we have as a party. Meanwhile, Hillary has been effectively campaigning since the early 2000s. We're gonna get rolled in 2016 and there's not a damn thing we can do about it

[QUOTE=Sableye;48295984] if half the republicans lived with someone who was chronically ill and unable to afford their care, they'd pass single payer health care immediately[/QUOTE] More to the point, if most of the GOP's constituents experienced how lovely it is to not have to worry about unpayably high medical bills and whether or not X procedure or Y drug is covered they'd demand the GOP pass single payer healthcare. I find it hilarious and sad at the same time that GOP voters, which make up some of the poorest sections of American society, vote against something that [b]would directly benefit them personally[/b]. Political equivalent of shotgunning one's own leg off, that one, and they have no idea they're even doing it. [editline]26th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=capgun;48297653]Well yeah. Look at the fucking race right now. We have had years since the train wreck that was Romney and the best we can come up with is fucking Trump? If we can't even roll out someone sane for the presidential race, what future do we have as a party. Meanwhile, Hillary has been effectively campaigning since the early 2000s. We're gonna get rolled in 2016 and there's not a damn thing we can do about it[/QUOTE] Would be nice to see partisan politics in general die off because of this.

The bigger story is that perceptions of both parties is down. If the Democrats did not idolize their own party so much you'd think we are almost done with our stable two party system! Maybe.

[QUOTE=capgun;48297653]Well yeah. Look at the fucking race right now. We have had years since the train wreck that was Romney and the best we can come up with is fucking Trump? If we can't even roll out someone sane for the presidential race, what future do we have as a party. Meanwhile, Hillary has been effectively campaigning since the early 2000s. We're gonna get rolled in 2016 and there's not a damn thing we can do about it[/QUOTE] We? I'm British so I don't really follow this as much as an American might, but do you really support these nutjobs?

With luck, Hillary won't get the nomination. She's dirty as hell and shouldn't be president. Bernie Sanders 2016!

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48296158]Socialism isn't bad anyways. The only reason we in America hate Socialism is because in the 1950s and 60s, when we had that feud with the USSR, conservatives took advantage of the fact that Socialism and Communism are in some ways similar to pretty much associate the two together. I'm sure as hell that if we took the actual ideas of Socialism and called them something else, people would probably vote for those ideas.[/QUOTE] I would bet 10-to-1 that Socialist policies, packaged under a different name, would see huge spikes in support in the United States. The word "Socialism" has been commandeered by conservatives and twisted to mean the same thing as :bullshit: It's not until party affiliation comes into play that support would waver, if you ask me. [I]It's Liberal, it's Socialist, thus it's evil and un-American![/I] I'd bet anything that the majority would rule in favor if you twisted it around and asked a bunch of Average Joe Republicans on the street, [I]"Do you support the [U]GOP's[/U] new bill to reform the national budget and taxation policies to provide tuition-free higher education and universal healthcare to all American citizens?"[/I]

[QUOTE=TestECull;48297719]More to the point, if most of the GOP's constituents experienced how lovely it is to not have to worry about unpayably high medical bills and whether or not X procedure or Y drug is covered they'd demand the GOP pass single payer healthcare. I find it hilarious and sad at the same time that GOP voters, which make up some of the poorest sections of American society, vote against something that [b]would directly benefit them personally[/b]. Political equivalent of shotgunning one's own leg off, that one, and they have no idea they're even.[/QUOTE] Most conservative political ideals are about what's better for the country in the long term instead of what's better for me now. While free medical would be great, we just don't have money for it. Medicare is already on the path of bankrupting us, and no one is willing to fix it.

That's kind of why Bernie Sanders is on a bit of a boon at the moment. He's attracting people from both sides of the political spectrum, including a number of old Ron Paul supporters, who feel that Rand is batshit. [editline]27th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;48298358]Most conservative political ideals are about what's better for the country in the long term instead of what's better for me now. While free medical would be great, we just don't have money for it. Medicare is already on the path of bankrupting us, and no one is willing to fix it.[/QUOTE] You spend significantly more on healthcare than any other developed nation accounting for your population size. European, Canadian and Aus/NZ do much better per dollar spent. Although Australia's current prime minister wants to change our healthcare to a system more similar to the American one. I will leave the country if that happened.

[QUOTE=sgman91;48298358]Most conservative political ideals are about what's better for the country in the long term instead of what's better for me now. While free medical would be great, we just don't have money for it. Medicare is already on the path of bankrupting us, and no one is willing to fix it.[/QUOTE] We spend a higher percentage of our national budget on our healthcare than any other country in the world, and that is because of our bastardized system. Medicare tries to provide a semi-socialized health alternative for qualifying people in a system that is still primarily profit-based and thus inflated. The bottom line prices of training, supplies, medicines, and equipment here are [I]dramatically[/I] higher than the rest of the world, despite not being of any higher quality. Insurance, education, and medical suppliers have massively inflated the cost of care here in the interest of maximizing profits. Universal Healthcare keeps base prices of all of these things low, thus keeping the cost low for the healthcare providers, thus keeping the cost low for the government. Universal Healthcare is [I]cheaper[/I] than our bastardized system because it allows the government to aggressively negotiates the costs of supplies, procedures, training and facilities down to the minimum since profit-maximization is no longer a driving concern. [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/[/url] [img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/angiogram-800x553.jpg[/img] [img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/office-visit-800x576.jpg[/img] [img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/angioplasty-800x572.jpg[/img] [img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/bypass-surgery-800x568.jpg[/img] [img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/hip-replacement-800x561.jpg[/img] [img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/knee-replacement-800x555.jpg[/img] [img]https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/03/C-section-800x568.jpg[/img] And so on and so forth. Are you seeing the pattern here? As long as our healthcare system remains one that is primarily profit-motivated, prices will remain high. That is the law of profit maximization: charge as much as you can at the most efficient output level to minimize financial losses and maximize financial gains. The fact that this point is so far above what the lower and middle classes can realistically afford doesn't matter, because they are still going to pay for the services despite the potentially lifelong debt those services will incur, because when your choices are, "pay it or die," you are going to pay. Universal Healthcare is better in every possible sense. The cost to the government is ultimately lower, the cost to the consumers is extremely marginalized [I](instead of buying insurance, which is expensive and still has co-pays and deductibles, you pay with your taxes and never worry about any additional medical costs)[/I], and the quality of services is not reduced.

As a brit, I'm hoping bernie will win this thing, I believe alot of people's lives outside of the U.S depend on it it, he might be the only candidate that would take America out of this super capitalist hole it's been in for the past 40 years.

[QUOTE=Faunze;48298433]As a brit, I'm hoping bernie will win this thing, I believe alot of people's lives outside of the U.S depend on it it, he might be the only candidate that would take America out of this super capitalist hole it's been in for the past 40 years.[/QUOTE] Bernie's support outside of internet circles is largely exaggerated, though. We'll see if his grassroots approach works to rally support, but there's only so much a President can do within their power anyway as they have to convince Congress to work with them.

[QUOTE=Faunze;48298433]As a brit, I'm hoping bernie will win this thing, I believe alot of people's lives outside of the U.S depend on it it, he might be the only candidate that would take America out of this super capitalist hole it's been in for the past 40 years.[/QUOTE] In the [I]extremely[/I] unlikely event that he did win, there are still limits to what he could accomplish. People think of the President as this King-like individual who gets to call all the shots, but the truth is he's just as beholden to the legislative and judicial bodies as everybody else. While he has a couple of tools to keep their power in check, they have tools for his as well. Sanders could hardly just walk into office and say, "Now we have universal healthcare and tuition-free higher education!" I think the best we could hope for would be some [I]notable steps[/I] towards a more socialized system, not an actual adoption of one. That said, I do think it's inevitable that America will end up with free healthcare and higher education, but the timeline on it is probably closer to twenty or thirty years than four to eight.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48296158]Socialism isn't bad anyways. The only reason we in America hate Socialism is because in the 1950s and 60s, when we had that feud with the USSR, conservatives took advantage of the fact that Socialism and Communism are in some ways similar to pretty much associate the two together. I'm sure as hell that if we took the actual ideas of Socialism and called them something else, people would probably vote for those ideas.[/QUOTE] If they hate Tweedledee, call it Tweedledum so they'll love it.

[QUOTE=fishyfish777;48298593]Bernie's support outside of internet circles is largely exaggerated, though. We'll see if his grassroots approach works to rally support, but there's only so much a President can do within their power anyway as they have to convince Congress to work with them.[/QUOTE] A grass roots swell to put him in Congress can easily sweep in Democrats to nullify the republicans control, after all they haven't really capitalized on any of their promises to end the gridlock or be bipartisan

[QUOTE=Govna;48298861]If they hate Tweedledee, call it Tweedledum so they'll love it.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah. Branding and public perception is a well documented marketing concept, and a huge part of politics is literally just marketing. The polls showing public support for the contents of the Affordable Care Act up until it is labeled as the Affordable Care Act, or more damningly, "Obamacare," is evident of that. The same applies to Socialism, I would imagine. There is a [I]huge[/I] misconception of what Socialism actually is in this country, due largely to fears of Communism from the Cold War and the misrepresentation of Socialism and Communism being synonymous. While it's totally fine to disagree with the principles and methods of Socialism as a financial and political ideology, much of the dissent towards it in this country simply does come from an ignorant emotional reaction to the word "Socialism."

I can't wait for the GOP of the early 2000's to be studied in school 50 years from now as an example of a self-defeating system that somehow remained popular due to feeding on peoples' fears and basically nothing else It's fucking amazing how easily they mind control people to vote against their self interests by just saying a few buzzwords [editline]26th July 2015[/editline] Also is there anyone outside of the US that doesn't see the GOP as the most baffling political party on the planet?