November 4, 200420 yr Author Three words: You can't vote. :plain 607916[/snapback] So, its the last time. There's definatly something wrong with the Democrats when Bush completely sweeps the entire south.
November 4, 200420 yr Three words: You can't vote. :plain 607916[/snapback] So, its the last time. There's definatly something wrong with the Democrats when Bush completely sweeps the entire south. 607924[/snapback] There's something wrong with the Republicans if Bush can't win any northeast states. :plain
November 4, 200420 yr Three words: You can't vote. :plain 607916[/snapback] So, its the last time. There's definatly something wrong with the Democrats when Bush completely sweeps the entire south. 607924[/snapback] No, there isn't. There is something called the Republican L which almost always sides Republican in elections. You can think of it everything West of Cali to MIMAL (anyone who has studied Geography knows MIMAL) where the MI goes left and the MAL goes right. From MIMAL east, everything from DC south is Republican (Florida fluctuates).
November 4, 200420 yr Someone should make a poll asking if the Republicans are too far right. The answer is a definite yes.
November 4, 200420 yr Too far left to do what? 608012[/snapback] Chewbacca is just trying to pick a fight. It doesn't matter though. His ass couldn't vote and I could so his opinion is moot IMO.
November 4, 200420 yr Even accounting that there are various interpretations about what constitutes a liberal, I tend to think that the problem facing the Democratic Party of today is not so much ideology as entrenched interests. In the DNC, you have your disparate groups of people who only share that they are to the left of Joe Lieberman. Many of the leaders of these groups hold, what I think, is a condenscending attitude towards the general populace. So I guess they are more "united" than the groups they represent. The party leadership must hold themselves accountable for the decline of the party in national races for the last 12 years. However, there's one big problem: they're elitists. They favor dispensing with general capitalism in favor of a socialistic hierarchal construct that's found in France and Belgium. In that construct, only the "favored people": certain university professors, hard left activists, big media "journalists", certain celebrities, what Rush Limbaugh calls the "Arts and Croissant Crowd", the so-called "Smart People", etc., get the important positions in society. The "Little People", meaning folks who have paying jobs to help with expenses, entrepreneurs, private non-profits, private salaried persons, church-going people, etc., must only be grateful to the elites. To me, the election wasn't about Right vs. Left, but was about The People vs. The Elites, regardless of the fact that both candidates come from privileged backgrounds. The Elites hate the fact that people who are not them have opinions on politics, life, culture, religion, etc.. The Elites do not want Ma and Pa Farmer in Kansas, Federico in East L.A. or Kenisha in Newark to have a say in politics. This year, the Reps appeared less elitist than the Dems. That wasn't the only factor. This wasn't the case decades ago. The Democrats once stood for something: being for the new Americans, for defending the Constitutional rights for all citizens. But they gradually allowed the hard left ideologues to define their party, leaving the average folk to drift to the Republicans. And now the South is solidly red for the forseeable future. What irony.
November 4, 200420 yr Too far left to do what? 608012[/snapback] Chewbacca is just trying to pick a fight. It doesn't matter though. His ass couldn't vote and I could so his opinion is moot IMO. 608018[/snapback] I beg to differ. I think he's probably thinking that the liberals have abandoned the Democratic party(?) Which I don't know I agree with.
November 4, 200420 yr He's voting in the next election, so that makes his opinion just as important as yours. :cool
November 4, 200420 yr Three words: You can't vote. :plain 607916[/snapback] So, its the last time. There's definatly something wrong with the Democrats when Bush completely sweeps the entire south. 607924[/snapback] I really don't think it's something that's wrong with the democratic party. It's that the southern states are dominated by the religious right which voted for Bush mostly because he shares their anti-gay and pro-life views.
November 4, 200420 yr Three words: You can't vote. :plain 607916[/snapback] So, its the last time. There's definatly something wrong with the Democrats when Bush completely sweeps the entire south. 607924[/snapback] I really don't think it's something that's wrong with the democratic party. It's that the southern states are dominated by the religious right which voted for Bush mostly because he shares their anti-gay and pro-life views. 608110[/snapback] How dare they!
November 4, 200420 yr Three words: You can't vote. :plain 607916[/snapback] So, its the last time. There's definatly something wrong with the Democrats when Bush completely sweeps the entire south. 607924[/snapback] I really don't think it's something that's wrong with the democratic party. It's that the southern states are dominated by the religious right which voted for Bush mostly because he shares their anti-gay and pro-life views. 608110[/snapback] How dare they! 608113[/snapback] Gay marriage was a brilliant strategy on Rove's part to win this election. They knew the amendment would never pass on the federal level, but if they made it a big deal and left it up to the states, there would be plenty of homophobes and zealots (is there a single reason to oppose gay people getting married other than religion or hatred?) who would run to the polls to pretect their tiny-minded view of the world, and along the way, vote for that nice man who could be their next door neighbor, if he wasn't ungodly freaking rich and powerful.
November 4, 200420 yr John Kerry was not even close to too far left in this election. It didn't matter what the democrat party was in this election, they were getting the votes of the ABB crowd no matter what.
November 4, 200420 yr If Howard Dean was the candidate, then maybe you could claim they'd gone too far to the left. 'Course if you listened to the Republican noise machine, Kerry was for banning the bible, mandatory abortions, disbanning the military, and free pot for everyone.
November 4, 200420 yr Author the democratic party is too far to the right, that's the problem 608039[/snapback] Maybe according to some people, but they can win elections. The Democrats got killed on tuesday. If they're fine with the Republicans sweeping the south and don't want to be a little less liberal, then they'll never be in power again.
November 4, 200420 yr They favor dispensing with general capitalism in favor of a socialistic hierarchal construct that's found in France and Belgium. You look like you want to have an honest discussion, so why are you starting off with a blatant lie like this?
November 4, 200420 yr Maybe according to some people, but they can win elections. The Democrats got killed on tuesday. If they're fine with the Republicans sweeping the south and don't want to be a little less liberal, then they'll never be in power again. It depends on how the next mid term elections come out. Remember, there are more people in the blue states than the red. If Bush pisses them off enough, the House will be turned over and back under Democrat control. That would put them in a good position to gerrymander the districts again in 2010. You bible-beaters shouldn't get so cocky.
November 5, 200420 yr Remember, there are more people in the blue states than the red. 608226[/snapback] That's not true. Each state's electoral votes are meted out according to population. Bush won the electoral vote. Thus, there are more folks who live in red states than in blue ones.
November 5, 200420 yr What about all the blue counties in red states? I guess they'd still be counted red?
November 5, 200420 yr If everything went proportional this year all it does is degenerate to a kinda coarse grained version of popular vote. Bush still would have won handily. The dems will push for this in the constitutions of all the red states of course - but it won't pass because there won't be a majority. It went down in flames in on one state's ballot already. 608822[/snapback] I'm not doubting that, I'm just playing the devil's advocate. Places like Orange, Dade, Broward, and to a lesser extent Alachua and Leon make up a reasonable portion of the population. Then again, I'd really prefer we had a straight popular vote regardless if it marginalizes po-dunk places like Delaware and Wyoming.
November 5, 200420 yr They favor dispensing with general capitalism in favor of a socialistic hierarchal construct that's found in France and Belgium.? You look like you want to have an honest discussion, so why are you starting off with a blatant lie like this? 608225[/snapback] He started off with it, because its not a lie at all, whether you like it or not. By that basesloaded did not mean that they want all of a sudden for our country to shift to the french system, but what the democrats try to do economically is a step in that direction, and if you deny that you either are in serious denial or know nothing of politics. Which is not to say that the democrats want to go all the way to the socialist level, but there is no doubt that their eocnomic policy is leaning slightly to the socialistic perspective. And basesloadedwalk's analysis of the situation was very well informed, though out, and weighted. Whether or not you agree is different, but disagree using factual bases like he did. Remember that factual evidence exists in other places than the internet so for the sake of intellectuality no one bring up the need for any 'links' to clarify it. Book titles will do better
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.