As to the OP in general, I give. You guys are absolutely right. What the Dems really need to do is run as far left as they can. Run more ‘liberal’ candidates at all levels from the President to dog catcher. I think this is exactly what the party needs to get itself back on track, as I really do feel that the majority of Americans are sympathetic to liberal ideals, liberal economic policies and more liberal social programs. You just need to get over the hump of clueless and misinformed religious fanatics and rich fat cats to break through. Perhaps it will work out for you in 2008. If not, there is 2012 or 2016.
Or, maybe Bush will screw up SO much that this alone will cause the Republicans to fall out of power.
xtisme (and John Mace, etc.): A lot of you conservative / libertarian types who don’t like Bush and the religious Right seem to want the Democrats to basically cave in on the issues where you disagree with them and become your ideal party.
Well, that is fine for you to wish for but I don’t think that you should expect us to automatically buy into your thesis that this is what is best for the Democratic Party. It is clearly best for you folks but it is certainly no best for those of us who subscribe to liberal beliefs on economic issues and not just social ones and it may not be best for the Democratic Party as a whole either.
I realize my own bias and prejudice as far as wishing the Dems would move more in a direction that would include my own thoughts and issues. I don’t necessarily want them to ‘cave in’…just to re-evaluate their stances. To me its pretty appearent that running as a ‘liberal’ or even with a standard ‘liberal’ set of stances is a no win situation except in a few states…and has been an increasingly losing proposition for the Dems for the last few decades. Then only real movement I’ve seen was the Clinton presidency…and that was a MODERATE presidency.
To me, this is appearent by the mere fact that most US politicians don’t want to be BRANDED as a ‘liberal’, even if they patently are ‘liberals’. John Kerry, to me, is a case in point…if he was proud of his record as a liberal, why didn’t he tout the liberal aspects? Why didn’t the DNC focus on liberal type issues, a liberal agenda? Why did Kerry (and the Dems) do their best to appear to be a moderates? Why so much chest beating with the liberal lable for him…and others.
However, as you say, I’m biased…I WANT the Dems to move not necessarily right or left, but to a more Libertarian stance. This colors my own thoughts in debates like this…I freely conceed that. As I said in my last post…I give. The party (the Dems) have to do what they think is best for themselves, and if they (and you) REALLY believe that the best thing they can do is run left so be it. I really hope it works out for you, though obviously I won’t be voting for the party (no loss I’m sure :)).
xtisme: Well, I appreciate your honesty in admitting you have your biases. And, of course, I have mine. But, I don’t think that it is necessarily an issue so much of moving “right” or “left,” as it is being able to present oneself as being a party that has strong convictions and principles that distinguish it from the other one.
And, while it may be true that “liberal” has become a dirty word in American politics, I think there are polls that show that the public nonetheless does look favorably on some fairly progressive policies, especially on the economic side. And, a lot of the “liberal” associations that people associate negatively with seem to be in regards to social issues (and maybe some things like affirmative action).
One study linked to from SDMB prior to the election indicated that a large percentage of Bush supporters mistakenly thought that he held positions that Kerry actually held. (There were Kerry supporters who made similar mistakes, but not so many.)
Never before in the history of this country have so many people voted against an imcumbent President.
In the last fifty years, we have even had a Liberal Republican! (Eisenhower). Now tell me how many Conservative Presidents have won every state but one? That’s what LBJ (very much the Liberal) did in 1964. The Republican candidate, Conservative Senator Barry Goldwater won only his home state of Arizona.
There is a lesson in this: Beware of the great pendulum in the sky.
BTW, for those of you who think elections have always been like this, please consider: John Kennedy and Barry Goldwater had planned to campaign together in 1964 – presenting both sides of the issues to the public at the same time.
I disagreed with Senator Goldwater’s politics, but I admired him as a man. How we got from that kind of ideal to the “invitation only” political gatherings on George Bush’s campaign trail is beyond me. It is a disgrace to the country.
Wow! That sounds a little cabalistic to me, though. A bit too chummy and all that.
[By the way, why was the Woody Allen character, Alvy Singer, supporting Goldwater in Annie Hall? Was this in 1960, when, if I remember right, Goldwater was facing off against Nixon for Republican Presidential nominee? What gives? I never got that political allusion.]
Big deal, he still won. It’s not like incumbent presidents seldom lose. Of the last six sitting presidents who attempted re-election (in Ford’s case, that would be his first election, but he still had whatever advantages incumbents would be expected to have), half lost their re-election race.
There are a couple of other reason why you could make the argument that this was a mandate:
Voter turnout. In this election, you know you got out everyone who gives a damn. Therefore, this was about as good a measure of the popular will as you’re likely to get. Contrast other years with lower turnout, where there were no issues serious enough to get people to vote. In this case, with pretty much everyone out voting, Bush won.
Bush ran on his policies. Everyone knows where he stands on the major issues. His intentions for this term are clear: Stay the course in Iraq, reform Social Security (good luck), tax simplification, increased NASA spending, hard diplomacy abroad. Therefore getting a plurality of votes for that platform gives him a mandate to carry it out.
Kerry, on the other hand, never took a stand. Was he for more troops in Iraq? Did he have a timetable for bringing them home? Would he increase NASA’s funds or cut them? Etc. His ‘nuance’ made it very difficult to tell exactly what he’d do. Therefore, the argument goes that whatever he chooses may or may not have the support of the people.
Um… never before in the history of this country have there been so many people. J’m sure you know that an honest analysis would look at percentages, not absolute numbers. For example, Jimmy Carter got 41% of the vote in 1980, which means 59% of those voting wanted him out.
I don’t think you understand the meaning of that expression.
What an odd response. I asked whether it might make more sense to look at the numbers over the whole term rather than just at the time of the election, and you say “I’m talking about what the state of the economy was at the time of the election.” I know that’s was what you were talking about.
It’s like:
“You’re doing x, shouldn’t you be doing y instead?”
And I’d suggest a refresh at those history books, Zoe.
In 1984, Conservative President Ronald Reagan won every state but Minnesota, the home state of rival Walter Mondale, and of course failed to carry DC’s three electoral votes as well.
And in the example you cite, in 1964, Goldwater won six states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, George, and Louisiana, as well as his home state of Arizona.
And how could you fail to cite Nixon’s landslide victory over McGovern, in which McGovern managed to carry only Massachusetts - not even his home state! - and DC.
I agree with the comment on the landslide victory for Nixon. But the institution of wage and price controls…I’d say Nixon was a liberal Republican in terms of policy but his anti-communist ahem credentials were impeccable.
Actually, he ran on lies and distortions about actual fact and his opponent’s record / what his opponent said.
But, leaving that aside, given that an important component of his victory was provided by the religious Right folks, I expect you to hear you cheering his mandate to overturn Roe v. Wade, discriminate against gays, continue a tough war on drugs, bring religion back into the public schools, teach that evolution is only a “theory” and that other theories like intelligent design are just as valid, …
Or, do you think he only got a mandate for his policies that you support?
jshore, please show that these are all Bush policies.
I haven’t heard much from the administration about ID, evolution, or religion in schools. While they may have been concerns of some conservative voters, I didn’t hear the campaign mention this stuff.
LBJ’s landslide wasn’t quite that overwhelming. Goldwater also won 5 deep south states because of his opposition to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I can’t agree. That’s certainly the purpose of individual politicians, whether they perform that role well or not. But the purpose of parties is to organize political activity and win elections. If they did not perform this role, everybody would just run as an independent.
You can’t serve the people if you don’t win office. Therefore, the prime role of the parties is, quite properly, victory in individual races. And it is in this area the Democrats have been falling short.
You all can comfort yourself in maintaining ideological purity if you wish. That prescription, however, might be bitter medicine when you lose again, and again. Political compromise can be tough to accept, but winning races makes it a bit more tolerable.
Republicans learned a lot from the Bill Clinton era. Pity Democrats haven’t learned some lessons themselves.
To which one need only respond[ol][li]More people voted for him, and [*]It is the first time since 1988 that the winning candidate actually got a majority of the popular vote.[/ol]IOW, not since the 80s, where Bush Sr. was running on the Reagan record, have so many people voted for a President. In every other election between then and now, most people wanted someone else. [/li]
We learned in 2000 that liberals don’t understand the electoral college. Now, in 2004, they apparently don’t understand the concept of “majority vote” either.
But by all means, carry on. If you are sure that yours is a winning strategy for the Dems, by all means carry on.
