I don't think you have talked to enough Limbaugh listeners. They don't consider themselves Republicans. They call themselves "Conservatives". As such, they feel that the Republican party has failed them. Obviously, that would include the leaders of the republican party. Which couldn't include Rush Limbaugh.

In fairness, nobody actually believes that Rush Limbaugh is the Leader of the Republican Party, in any legal sense. But many of us suspect that his voice is the one that (too) many of the self-identifying Republicans listen to the most intently. We argue he is the Leader though clearly nobody elected him.

In just the same way, there are many who believe -- erroneously -- that George Soros is secretly giving orders to Democrats or running things behind the scenes. The fact that they're wrong doesn't mean that some people will quite truthfully answer "George Soros" the same way others will say "Rush Limbaugh" and cause Republicans to think it was an unfair question.

And yes, it does occur to me that the group of people who slavishly listen to Limbaugh, and the group that really belives George Soros is running things, have a large overlap in population.

So Jon Stewart is the liberals' Rush Limbaugh?

I would be a bit troubled if I couldn't name the "leader" of my party if they were voting vitually unanimously on everything, using the same words, sharing funding, and never contradicting each other. Folks, you have a leader. You should at least want to know who it is.

85% of Republicans have no clue who their leader is? Then why are these bozos constantly on TV? The MSM desperately needs a new set of talking heads to explain everything the Dems are doing wrong.

This is some deep wilderness. From within the thicket, Patrick McHenry cries out.

Rumor suggests that the new leader of the Republican Party may very well turn out to be...Meghan McCain.

I'm someone else!

That makes me exactly as popular as Sarah Palin as GOP leader.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind Jon Stewart so much.

I love how there's "No Clear Leader" and "Not Sure". It's like Rasmussen tried to get as many none-of-the-above votes as possible to water down any potential Rush responses.

Rush Limbaugh -- The OxyFurher

They probably included George Soros in the poll question to ferret out those freepers who pretend to be Democrats when answering polls.

Oh ... they were serious?

Too bad, because that would be a great way to ID fake Democrats. Freepers are obsessed with Soros whereas only a small percentage of Democrats even know who he is, and even fewer know his position on any issue. All we know about him is that he doesn't like Bush, which is a pretty mainstream position.

They are still not asking the right question.

"Who do you trust most to set Republican policy: Rush Limbaugh, Mike Steele, etc...."?

5% John McCain
5% Michael Steele
2% Rush Limbaugh
1% Sarah Palin

Ha ha. Rush must love that! Barely beat out the twit from Alaska.

in order to get any decent results the pollsters would have had to push leaners. you have 86% leaners in this poll.

Rasmussen, no doubt reeling from the blowback resulting from the last go-round, went with another weasel question. By now, wingnuts know they aren't supposed to say that Rush is the head of the party, so it isn't surprising that few did.

The right question would be more like, "which of the following Republican/conservatives most closely articulates your beliefs and concerns?" On that question, Rush would run away from the field like Secretariat.

Jon Stewart is the leader of MY political party, but not the Democrats.

The poll is clearly flawed. Notably absent from the choices are Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Satan.

Their new leader is Jonathan Krohn.

Once again, Rasumussen is whored out to do the clean-looking dirty work of the Republican Party.

The new narrative being pushed is that there currently is no leader of the Republican Leader...and that's a GOOD thing, you see. Because now, there's this free-flowing exchange of ideas (amongst people who all agree on pretty much everything) and from this free-flowing exchange, the NEW leader of the GOP will arise. This inoculates the party elders from criticism that they're...you know...slurping down on Limabugh's rancid tool. No one who occasionally wants to be thought of as rational WANTS to believe that such a pudgy demon speaks for an entire movement, so given the opportunity to pretend it's not true, of course they're going to stick their head in the sand & pretend he's not dere Fuhrer over dere, dere.

If Rasmussen had left the question COMPLETELY open-ended - "In your opinion, who would you consider to be the current 'leader' of the Republican Party?" - without "no clear leader" as an option and without a list of specific candidates, you'd see, yet again, drastically different results. You'd still see some "No ideas" or "no opinion" but everyone else would be significantly higher, as well. Except for probably that scumbag Boehner.

Given Soros is included, then Sheldon Adelson or T. Boone Pickens or someone similar should have been included on the Rs side....

Having "Not Sure" on the list, topping all the actual names, shows that the Republican party has now achieved idiocracy.

All hail president "Not Sure."

It is kind of scary when a large, powerful organization that , imho, is far from ready to disappear, has not a clue as to who its leader is. We could get blindsided by whatever fills the void.

so are we going to have to change will rogers' famous line now?

(had to link to my own blog, sorry, but washmonth doesn't allow strikethru html, and my punchline depends upon it.

and whose doesn't?)

Goodness, it's four years till the next election.

It's the economy, stupid. Focus like a laser. Only the bottom of the barrel, I mean the insider base like Stephanopoulus, Carville, Begala, et. al., are still pumped up on campaigning and attack politics.

common, zmulls. There is no possible comparison between the market share of Soros and Limbaugh. Limbaugh is King of the Hill. Soros is a very rich also ran. Soros uses his own money to get his message across, where the Rush uses other peeps money. King Rush is making money by sowing the seeds of discord.

As I recall my readings of Dante's Inferno, there is a spot in hell dedicated to people like Limburger.

- it's the natural result of the party's weakened state. I suspect there would have been a similar vacuum for Democrats in 2005.

In 2005, the party leader was Howard Dean.
I suspect more than 5% of Democrats knew it too. (5% being the most any one person earned in this poll.) While I couldn't find a 2005 poll that explicitly said so, I had no trouble finding numerous articles, blogs, and editorials stating that opinion.

By 2008, virtually everyone acknowledged who their leader had been who wasn't tipping back appletinis with James Carville.

I do not believe a Rasmussen poll should ever be presented without the context of other, more reliable, poll results. Oh, OK, you might just be making a joke.