November 3, 200422 yr OK, so the issues that the Dems have are showing up as strong undercurrents in other threads, so I thought I'd try to bring it all together in one thread. What is wrong with the DNC and its' strategies? A couple thoughts to start off for little old me.... 1) The Kennedy-Clinton effect Apparently Democrats view Kennedy and Clinton as templates for success instead of anomalies that won largly on their own charisma. Newsflash to the DNC....Just b/c a guy is a southern Democrat (Gore) or a statesmanlike Massachussetts liberal (Kerry) does not mean they are viable as electable candidates. 2) The base isn't enough As evidenced by the red/blue state map, Dems get no penetration outside of the liberal northeast and with te fruitloops in CA. They need to stop speaking to thier base and make a solid move into the southern ideology. And once again, the mere fact that a guy is from the Soouth doesn't mean that he'll be successful there. Just because Clinton did it doesn't mean anyone can. 3) Liberalism is dead At least as we know it. Whether you like it or not, liberalism (which used to be a compliment) has been virtually criminalized by the right. The base liberals in the NE and CA will vote dem no matter what, so it's time to start thinking of mainlining the message. The Democratic liberal message has no resonance in the midwest, nor in the south. As much as some dems hate the idea, the party must move to the right. That's all there is to it.
November 3, 200422 yr I got an even better idea. Let's just abolish the Democratic party and make this a one-party country because we're almost there as is. Maybe Bush can make attending church compulsory, throw every black person in jail, and cut income taxes for the top 1% to 0. :plain
November 3, 200422 yr I don't think liberalism is dead, it has not been updated since the likes of LBJ. Liberalism can be brought back but it has to evolve and not just change. I also think Kerry was hurt because he ran from the "liberal" label. I think he should have embraced what he was, it wouldn't have hurt at all and might have helped. Bush only won the national polls by 3 percent, yes he is the first over 50% in a long time, but he is an incumbent, and generally incumbents win healthily and he's only won by a few points. And Clinton didn't get over 50% in '96 is because of Perot, didn't he pull like 15%? I think Nader pulled only 1%, people acctually picked sides this time, '96 people we're okay with voting 3rd party because they knew it was going to be a blow out. The nation is still split, and there is still a solid base there for the democrats. What they have to do is figure out why morals was such a big deal is this election and how to get some of those votes to swing.
November 3, 200422 yr I got an even better idea. Let's just abolish the Democratic party and make this a one-party country because we're almost there as is. Maybe Bush can make attending church compulsory, throw every black person in jail, and cut income taxes for the top 1% to 0. :plain 607516[/snapback] I'm okay with everything but the first and last thing you said there. So really I am just for the middle thing. :plain I'm not racist, I own a colored tv.
November 3, 200422 yr I got an even better idea. Let's just abolish the Democratic party and make this a one-party country because we're almost there as is. Maybe Bush can make attending church compulsory, throw every black person in jail, and cut income taxes for the top 1% to 0. :plain 607516[/snapback] You may have something there!. No, we should not outlaw the Democrat party, we need to keep it around to poke fun at. The black faction of the Democrat party has way too much control, Dems can not win without them. Cutting income taxes for the top 1% would be a good idea,if you get to the top 1% it would be an incentive to work hard to get there,very good idea. Maybe a campaign theme?
November 3, 200422 yr I got an even better idea. Let's just abolish the Democratic party and make this a one-party country because we're almost there as is. Maybe Bush can make attending church compulsory, throw every black person in jail, and cut income taxes for the top 1% to 0. :plain Gotta love the liberal whining and namecalling. If you cant win an election, instead of looking at why you fail, just demonize the opponent. Need a tissue?
November 3, 200422 yr Author Realizing a hyper-polarized ideological debate the Dems have taken the extreme left without hedging with moderates. Want a moderate in the GOP you can identify with that isn't way out to the extreme right? No problem, there's plenty of them at a very high level. Not nearly as many on the Democratic side.
November 3, 200422 yr It's going to be a LONG four years for this country. Now Bush can do whatever he wants without much opposition.
November 3, 200422 yr Can not wait to see the red map/blue map that the USA Today published in 2000. The country mouse/city mouse theme is a reality.Really is an eye opener!
November 3, 200422 yr Author It's going to be a LONG four years for this country. Now Bush can do whatever he wants without much opposition. 607527[/snapback] Not quite. If he runs a trainwreck the midterms will be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. Much like what happened to Clinton with the contract with america in the mid 90's.
November 3, 200422 yr It's going to be a LONG four years for this country. Now Bush can do whatever he wants without much opposition. 607527[/snapback] I kno this is terrible isnt it? Too bad we dont live in a democratic country where the masses could have voted him out of office
November 3, 200422 yr Author It's going to be a LONG four years for this country. Now Bush can do whatever he wants without much opposition. 607527[/snapback] I kno this is terrible isnt it? Too bad we dont live in a democratic country where the masses could have voted him out of office 607532[/snapback] Nearly a 4 million vote lead with "the masses." He not only won, but has a majority, which even Billy-Boy couldn't do. The masses have spoken.
November 3, 200422 yr It's going to be a LONG four years for this country. Now Bush can do whatever he wants without much opposition. 607527[/snapback] I kno this is terrible isnt it? Too bad we dont live in a democratic country where the masses could have voted him out of office 607532[/snapback] Nearly a 4 million vote lead with "the masses." He not only won, but has a majority, which even Billy-Boy couldn't do. The masses have spoken. 607533[/snapback] You got that right. This is a victory not just for bush but for conservative ideals. And the election really wasnt any closer than several others in the past
November 3, 200422 yr Realizing a hyper-polarized ideological debate the Dems have taken the extreme left without hedging with moderates. Want a moderate in the GOP you can identify with that isn't way out to the extreme right? No problem, there's plenty of them at a very high level. Not nearly as many on the Democratic side. Uh, what made John Edwards or John Kerry "extreme left"? I'd LOVE to hear this one. The only moderate Repubs. at a very high level that aren't way out to the extreme right are Colin Powell (who's a Democrat in Republicans clothing) and John McCain. That's it.
November 3, 200422 yr It's going to be a LONG four years for this country. Now Bush can do whatever he wants without much opposition. 607527[/snapback] I kno this is terrible isnt it? Too bad we dont live in a democratic country where the masses could have voted him out of office 607532[/snapback] Nearly a 4 million vote lead with "the masses." He not only won, but has a majority, which even Billy-Boy couldn't do. The masses have spoken. 607533[/snapback] Clinton didn't win majority because Perot ran at like 15%, people didn't care with their vote in '96 it was so lopsided. Billy won a heck of a lot more electoral votes than Bush either time.
November 3, 200422 yr Nearly a 4 million vote lead with "the masses." He not only won, but has a majority, which even Billy-Boy couldn't do. The masses have spoken. Yeah, 4 million out of 300 million. Let's do the math. That's about 1% of the population. Whooooweee! Such a HUGE margin there! Bush barely wins the election and you people act like this was Reagan-Mondale. The overblown sense of importance on here is hilarious.
November 3, 200422 yr Nearly a 4 million vote lead with "the masses." He not only won, but has a majority, which even Billy-Boy couldn't do. The masses have spoken. Yeah, 4 million out of 300 million. Let's do the math. That's about 1% of the population. Whooooweee! Such a HUGE margin there! Bush barely wins the election and you people act like this was Reagan-Mondale. The overblown sense of importance on here is hilarious. 607540[/snapback] The underblown sense of proportion here is hilarious. And by the way find me figures on perot winning 15% of the vote b/c i dont remmeber a third party getting that many
November 3, 200422 yr OK, so the issues that the Dems have are showing up as strong undercurrents in other threads, so I thought I'd try to bring it all together in one thread. What is wrong with the DNC and its' strategies? A couple thoughts to start off for little old me.... 1) The Kennedy-Clinton effect Apparently Democrats view Kennedy and Clinton as templates for success instead of anomalies that won largly on their own charisma. Newsflash to the DNC....Just b/c a guy is a southern Democrat (Gore) or a statesmanlike Massachussetts liberal (Kerry) does not mean they are viable as electable candidates. 2) The base isn't enough As evidenced by the red/blue state map, Dems get no penetration outside of the liberal northeast and with te fruitloops in CA. I don't know if you looked at that map. you know the one with the blue and the red, but they also took a good chunk of the Midwest in addition to Oregon and Washington. They need to stop speaking to thier base and make a solid move into the southern ideology. And once again, the mere fact that a guy is from the Soouth doesn't mean that he'll be successful there. Just because Clinton did it doesn't mean anyone can. People from the NE, the West Coast, and the midwest don't share the same ideology as Southerners. That's why they don't vote for the same people. If you can remember back to 2000, Gore moved the party even more conservative with the appointment of Lieberman and was subsequently punished at the polls. If he selects someone more to the left, Nader isn't even a factor in 2000 and Gore wins it going away. 3) Liberalism is dead At least as we know it. Whether you like it or not, liberalism (which used to be a compliment) has been virtually criminalized by the right. The base liberals in the NE and CA will vote dem no matter what, so it's time to start thinking of mainlining the message. The Democratic liberal message has no resonance in the midwest, nor in the south. As much as some dems hate the idea, the party must move to the right. I don't know if you paid attention to the '90s or even to what the Democrats had to say this time, but I have news for you - the party already did move to the right. The Democratic candidate, Kerry, was the one who was preaching fiscal conservatism in this election. Liberalism has hardly gone anywhere. Just beacause you disagree with it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
November 3, 200422 yr OK, so the issues that the Dems have are showing up as strong undercurrents in other threads, so I thought I'd try to bring it all together in one thread. What is wrong with the DNC and its' strategies? A couple thoughts to start off for little old me.... 1) The Kennedy-Clinton effect Apparently Democrats view Kennedy and Clinton as templates for success instead of anomalies that won largly on their own charisma. Newsflash to the DNC....Just b/c a guy is a southern Democrat (Gore) or a statesmanlike Massachussetts liberal (Kerry) does not mean they are viable as electable candidates. 2) The base isn't enough As evidenced by the red/blue state map, Dems get no penetration outside of the liberal northeast and with te fruitloops in CA. I don't know if you looked at that map. you know the one with the blue and the red, but they also took a good chunk of the Midwest in addition to Oregon and Washington. They need to stop speaking to thier base and make a solid move into the southern ideology. And once again, the mere fact that a guy is from the Soouth doesn't mean that he'll be successful there. Just because Clinton did it doesn't mean anyone can. People from the NE, the West Coast, and the midwest don't share the same ideology as Southerners. That's why they don't vote for the same people. If you can remember back to 2000, Gore moved the party even more conservative with the appointment of Lieberman and was subsequently punished at the polls. If he selects someone more to the left, Nader isn't even a factor in 2000 and Gore wins it going away. 3) Liberalism is dead At least as we know it. Whether you like it or not, liberalism (which used to be a compliment) has been virtually criminalized by the right. The base liberals in the NE and CA will vote dem no matter what, so it's time to start thinking of mainlining the message. The Democratic liberal? message has no resonance in the midwest, nor in the south. As much as some dems hate the idea, the party must move to the right. I don't know if you paid attention to the '90s or even to what the Democrats had to say this time, but I have news for you - the party already did move to the right. The Democratic candidate, Kerry, was the one who was preaching fiscal conservatism in this election. Liberalism has hardly gone anywhere. Just beacause you disagree with it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 607546[/snapback] 286-252
November 3, 200422 yr 286-252 607551[/snapback] Clinton won 379-159. 607558[/snapback] 1996, we can throw out 1984 if it suits your fancy as well, but lets stay in the present
November 3, 200422 yr I think some of you who are suggesting what the democratic party needs to do are missing the big picture here. Its neither a move to the left or a move to moderate. Kerry effectivley fought off being labeled a liberal. Undecideds broke his way. He didnt alienate the left because they were already pissed at Bush. He lost this election because Bush brought out the christian right to save him. Effectivley, they can save a non moderate social president. The reality is, that the future of our nation is now in the hands of the Jerry Falwell ideology. Some of you might not want to accept this because you are GOP, but this is as much a disaster for moderate Republicans as it is for democrats. Bush didnt move to the middle for success. He showed the moderates and the dems that he would stay to the right and still win. That, my friends, is scary. The evangelic movement won this election. Are you ok with that fishfillet and legacy? You guys are social moderates from what I can tell but you have to realize that this election was about social conservatives and the moral issues. You dont share those views with Bush. But youll go along with them to drag the economic angles in with it. Listen to what that means. Is this ok with the libertarians on the board? The effects of this election go beyond what some people suspect. The democratic party did a great job. They did fine. Social moderates loss this election. Evangelicals are now the linchpin to success. I find that very scary.
November 3, 200422 yr The thing is Bush doesnt have to worry about reelection. I think his move to the neocon side was a campaign strategy. Bush himself is not a neocon, and I think in the 2nd term those issues will not be key issues, and he will focus more on balancing the budget through welfare reform, more tax cuts for everyone, and more emphasis on national security
November 3, 200422 yr Author There is no way to interpret the results as anything other than the country expressing a shift to the right. Forget the presidential election, look at the senate, house and governors races. And no, Kerry didn't effectively fight off the liberal label. This election overwhelmingly on every level trended towards conservative control and conservative initiatives. As a Democrat, you can sit there and deny reality, but you should of learned that ignoring reality won't make it go away. F_M, your thoughts are exactly whats wrong with the democrats. It's why they've run (and lost) 4 times in the last 25 years with a liberal candidate from Mass. How many times does it have to happen before the realization that it doesn't work? Outside of Clinton the DNC has been nothing but a disaster for the last 30 years. Carter for 1 term, empty suits against Reagan, the loss of Congress, 3rd parties taking chunks of your vote, etc... Time to recognize a change is needed. Heck, it's been needed for 3 decades.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.