What this election means for the country and the Democratic party

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CptObvious

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Dude, what you're overlooking is that there was no war in 2000 and Bush had tons of support then too. Heck, I dont' think most Americans even like this war anymore but on social issues a slim majority will side with Bush no matter what.

I think 2000 was a different matter. In 2000, many people voted for Bush Jr. because 1) Gore was a lackluster candidate and 2) the Monica-gate scandal had left a bad taste in everyone's mouths (no pun intended) about the presidency. There was a push to get someone with "honor" and "decency" in the White House and personal character became a big issue during the campaign.

I disagree. Look at Genx87's post. He doesn't care how appealing your candidate is. he doesn't care about scandals. he cares about religion.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Negativism is what keeps people from succeeding. Even when the facts dictate that negativism is justified...


Think about that when you are relishing in your failure.

I don't think that was it Ozoned. let's face it the Bush campaign was just as negative. This was about socail issues apparently like abortion and such...

I am not talking about the campaigns. I am referring to what your life will be like 10 years from now if you don't wake up now and smell the roses , so to speak...

Dude, if you want to talk about Infohawk PM me. This thread is about the Democratic party and the future of America.

You are the epitome of the democratic party, and my point sticks...

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

You are the epitome of the democratic party, and my point sticks...

You sir are off topic. PM me if you want to attack me.

 

[miketheidiot]

I actually think that the democrats need to go to the economic left and drop the social issues entirely.

 

[CptObvious]

Also, I don't see the social politics of the South or Midwest as anything new. As far as I know, it's always been overwhelmingly against gay marriage and abortion/stem cell research, etc. and always been pro for legislating morality. It's just been highlighted by the contenders using the hot button topics (such as the flag burning amendment in the past).

I really think it's just America's unwillingness to change presidents during a war, any war.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: FoBoT
maybe the Dems will run a moderate candidate in 2008 instead of Hillary , if they want a chance

I have faith that 2008 will be the first election since 1992 where we can chose between 2 great canidates.

it's going to take the Dems awhile to do some soul searching, though.

My prediction is that we'll see another Republican puppet in 08. I just hope the Democrats spend the next three years searching for a candidate who is likable and honest. Kerry had neither of those. I think a likable, honest Democrat (another JFK?) could easily win in 08.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CptObvious
Also, I don't see the social politics of the South or Midwest as anything new. As far as I know, it's always been overwhelmingly against gay marriage and abortion/stem cell research, etc. and always been pro for legislating morality. It's just been highlighted by the contenders using the hot button topics (such as the flag burning amendment in the past).

I really think it's just America's unwillingness to change presidents during a war, any war.

I'd love to think you're right, but that doesn't explain Congress. Congress has been going Republican for some time and now it's even worse. How does your war theory explain this?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I actually think that the democrats need to go to the economic left and drop the social issues entirely.

I actually think the opposite! They don't care about economic issues no matter how poor they are! I am no libertarian but I think they're our closest allies now and we need to abadon a lot of the economic rhetoric and push freedom of thought and values.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Nah. You guys are dreaming. Start a grass roots campaign? We did that with moveon and such after the last election... The social conservatives did the same thing and beat us at it.

That's part of your problem. To you and the others on the far left, moveon looks like a grass roots movement. To a fence sitter or somebody more central, it looks like rabid partisan politics. That's off putting.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Since the Reps have pulled this one out, I expect their candidates will get the lions share of money next time around, more than this election. We could see the beginning of a one party State.

That is the plan at this point I think.


Regardless, the ONLY reason the Dems lost tonight was because they suckered themselves into pushing forward the gay marriage issue this year. It started in San Francisco, and then in Multnomah county, OR where the commission chairwoman, Diane Linn, pushed the issue through behind closed doors and had the county start issuing gay marriage licenses. And the backlash has been tremendous. Of the 11 states that voted to ban gay marriage, the closest margin was in Oregon where only 57% approved of the ban.
But even more than that, the backlash tagged the Dems as the party that wanted gay marriage, even if their presidential candidate said he did not. While Dems may have been proud of the new voters they were bringing to the polls, the evangelicals and fundamentalists were bringing just as many or more. And the Dems lost some of the vote in traditional strongholds, like many black churchgoers.

It is here that the Dems need to re-think their path. First, in planning. Intentions aside, this was not the year to push the gay marriage issue, if ever. Second, how much longer do the Dems want to associate themselves with these ultra-liberal groups? Or nominate such a liberal candidate? Most of America is actually somewhat moderate, and conservative only in that they want to be able to get a look at change before they make a decision, not have it forced down their throats. If the Dems regroup as a more moderate party, and regulate their liberal factions and agendas to the background, they might have hope in the future.
Otherwise, a one-party fascist regime awaits America, and our last hope was in a bunch of pansy lawyers... :frown:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I actually think that the democrats need to go to the economic left and drop the social issues entirely.

I actually think the opposite! They don't care about economic issues no matter how poor they are! I am no libertarian but I think they're our closest allies now and we need to abadon a lot of the economic rhetoric and push freedom of thought and values.

People did not vote for bush for his economic policy, they voted for his social policy, or more accurately against homosexuallity.

 

[SuperTool]

The Democrats need to go to economicly and socially liberal positions and wait for the country to come to them. It's only a matter of time.
If Roe is overturned: just wait till people get fed up with news of women dying in backalley abortions.
Social progtams: Wait till baby boomers retire and it's time to pay the piper and republicans have to choose between raising taxes and cutting social security.
Iraq: Wait till republicans have to choose between cutting their losses or dragging on.
Bottom line, the Democrats should not come to the American people, the American people should come to the Democrats.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Nah. You guys are dreaming. Start a grass roots campaign? We did that with moveon and such after the last election... The social conservatives did the same thing and beat us at it.

That's part of your problem. To you and the others on the far left, moveon looks like a grass roots movement. To a fence sitter or somebody more central, it looks like rabid partisan politics. That's off putting.

So what kind of Democratic grass roots are you talking about? Grass roots generally means mobilizing your base. You can try to paint a democrat up as a republican as much as you want, but you'll never explain to genx87 that abortion is okay. I'm all ears and obviously I'm just beginning to think about the issue but I don't think anything short of demographic shifts can help the democratic party.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Infohawk


So what kind of Democratic grass roots are you talking about? Grass roots generally means mobilizing your base. You can try to paint a democrat up as a republican as much as you want, but you'll never explain to genx87 that abortion is okay. I'm all ears and obviously I'm just beginning to think about the issue but I don't think anything short of demographic shifts can help the democratic party.

This is exactly my point.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I actually think that the democrats need to go to the economic left and drop the social issues entirely.

I actually think the opposite! They don't care about economic issues no matter how poor they are! I am no libertarian but I think they're our closest allies now and we need to abadon a lot of the economic rhetoric and push freedom of thought and values.

People did not vote for bush for his economic policy, they voted for his social policy, or more accurately against homosexuallity.

I agree completely. That's why I think we should ignore the economic issues to get fiscal conservatives on our side.

 

[Xenon]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The Democrats need to go to economicly and socially liberal positions and wait for the country to come to them. It's only a matter of time.
If Roe is overturned: just wait till people get fed up with news of women dying in backalley abortions.
Social progtams: Wait till baby boomers retire and it's time to pay the piper and republicans have to choose between raising taxes and cutting social security.
Iraq: Wait till republicans have to choose between cutting their losses or dragging on.
Bottom line, the Democrats should not come to the American people, the American people should come to the Democrats.

Great post!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Xenon

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The Democrats need to go to economicly and socially liberal positions and wait for the country to come to them. It's only a matter of time.
If Roe is overturned: just wait till people get fed up with news of women dying in backalley abortions.
Social progtams: Wait till baby boomers retire and it's time to pay the piper and republicans have to choose between raising taxes and cutting social security.
Iraq: Wait till republicans have to choose between cutting their losses or dragging on.
Bottom line, the Democrats should not come to the American people, the American people should come to the Democrats.

Great post!

And the worst advice.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Xenon

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The Democrats need to go to economicly and socially liberal positions and wait for the country to come to them. It's only a matter of time.
If Roe is overturned: just wait till people get fed up with news of women dying in backalley abortions.
Social progtams: Wait till baby boomers retire and it's time to pay the piper and republicans have to choose between raising taxes and cutting social security.
Iraq: Wait till republicans have to choose between cutting their losses or dragging on.
Bottom line, the Democrats should not come to the American people, the American people should come to the Democrats.

Great post!

And the worst advice.

This might be a decent long term strategy but if you want to win any elections in the next 10 or 12 years this will not help. After that, sure, anything can change.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I think it shows that this country is a conservative country, despite what you read in the media. The faith-based middle America still outweighs the fringe lunatics on the coasts.

I knew the Fund A Mental Case Evangelical Whack Jobs would take this narrow victory as a mandate to push their Mythical Beliefs on others.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Rob9874
I think it shows that this country is a conservative country, despite what you read in the media. The faith-based middle America still outweighs the fringe lunatics on the coasts.

I knew the Fund A Mental Case Evangelical Whack Jobs would take this narrow victory as a mandate to push their Mythical Beliefs on others.

It's that tolerance that they're taught to express.



:roll:

 

[Darkhawk28]

For one, the Democrats have to find a way to get some sort of support in the south. With all the economic problems there, you would think there would be a way to appeal to them.

Another thing, Hillary Clinton is NOT the answer.

They are definitely going to have to find a likeable, wasp, southern Democrat (Zell!?!? j/k) to bridge that gap. Plus, they are going to have to find an antithesis to that southern Democrat (Obama) to keep appealing to their normal west coast and northeast strongholds.

With most states falling the same way they did in 2000, the Dems have to take heart that they didn't really lose that much ground.

I'm going to assume that RvW will be overturned now, so as far as that goes, they shouldn't even bring up the RvW issue.

Right now, I cannot think of a candidate that would fit the bill in 2008. I just don't. I was speculating Obama in 2012, but right now, the party needs him. He's young, articulate, can appeal to a VAST range of voting groups and he's likable.

Should be interesting in 2008. If they bring forth the usual nominee slugs (Gephardt, Lieberman, etc.) then it's over before it even starts despite whoever the Republicans bring to the table.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Oh and one more thing, they're going to have to relent more to the center on social issues.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Oh and one more thing, they're going to have to relent more to the center on social issues.

Yup, right now I'm considering that Dems should give up on certain social issues (even though I said the opposite last night). Frankly, I don't think abortion is that important compared to Iraq or long-term economic issues. And as long as blue states can have our own laws and allow abortion there, it's not the end of the world.

 

[r0tt3n1]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
It means you were too goddamn stupid to listen to reason, it means that yelling doesn't actually win an argument, it means you were just plain flat wrong.

It means if you yell & scream enough, people will lie to the pollsters, just like people quit listening to you, just like people lied to the exit pollsters today.

The last time the polls were this wrong, was when the first black governor was elected, people were unwilling to tell the pollsters how they were going to vote.

Anarchist Democrats aren't ever going to cut it.

Democrats need to move more centrist & leave the fringes like you in the dust. The Dems need to burn down the house & build a new one.

This is too goddamn sweet.

If I were of draft age, I'd be real concerned about staying out of the service & the draft right now. We need soldiers to fight in Iran, yes, I said Iran...

Call me troll, whatever, but this is exactly how an awful lot of `conservatives` seem to `think`. They just live for the `I told ya so`, `we ARE better than you` `you are WRONG` hate filled messages that they spew. If they do it (remember cry baby Newt, or the 2000 elctions), its OK, if the raving Liberals do, why its offense against God himself! Such hypocritical blathering...........

[edit] sorry for the rant, there is some very good discussion otherwise in this thread. [/edit]

 

[Ferocious]

Well I seriously doubt Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

A lot of rabid power hungry Republicans do NOT want it overturned.

It would take away a major source of energy from their campaigns.