I guess this is just a toss off pit before I hit the sack, but does anyone else get the feeling that despite Iraq, illegal wiretapping, the economy, Katrina, etc., the Democrats are going to suck it at the next elections? Make an effort damnit! Eh, could be the diet coke talking, but what the hey.
Even if they can’t mount much of an effort in November, I think they’re basically guaranteed to gain seats in the House and the Senate. The Republicans have been running the show for several years now, the electorate seems dissatisfied with the results, and the GOP can’t blame anybody else for it.
Iraq and wiretapping don’t really effect 99% of everyone in real terms. They’re more of toy issues for people to argue about based on “ethical right”–which most people don’t really care about so long as they have a job and their kids are doing well in school.
And I don’t know what “despite the economy” means. Outside of oil prices, so far as I was aware things have gone from internet burst+9/11+Enron and Family based major unemployment and a generally gloomy future to modern-day run of the mill everything is hunky-dorey… Did something happen recently to change that?
And Katrina, well besides mostly only effecting Louisianaers, I think most of the blame has been shifted off of the Federal government and onto the local and state ones.
Mostly, it will come down to being given real options for people to vote for if the Democrats want a chance.
Wow - I disagree with everything that came before this sentence in your post, but you nevertheless come to the correct conclusion. Eventually, meek Democrats are going to have to make way for those unafraid to stand for a position. For the upcoming elections, however, the Democrats don’t have to do much of anything. The Republicans have made their own gravy, and are going to lose seats simply for the corruption that they have cultivated. They are struggling with recruitment, fund-raising, and retirements within their ranks. However, if the Democrats are going to re-establish themselves for the long term, they better start thinking about being leaders rather than simperers.
The Democratic Party right now has a bad case of Gladys Kravitz syndrome.
They are convinced that there are some seriously fucked up things going on next door, but they can’t get most folks to believe what they’ve seen because they think they are stark raving nuts.
Most people realize both parties are corrupt, and both turn even more corrupt when in power.
So with any luck that will lead to a successful third party sometime before pigs fly out of my ass.
I think they will do better than any previous election during Bush’s administration but I also think they will do far less than what they have the potential to do. I have nothing to support this theory other than the fact that democrats have just plain not been very impressive when it actually comes to get elected in the last few years.
To me, this is a rather bizarre thing to say. I interpret it as saying “there’s nothing fucked up going on” in the way the government is being run. Can that possibly be right? If it is, wouldn’t Bush be polling at a greater than 36% approval rating?
And I’m not saying that Democrats are necessarily better – though personally, I can’t see them being any worse. Who is nuttier – the one who points out how bad things are or the one who isn’t even willing to consider (or admit) it?
I think the Dems are going to have to demonstrate that they have a better way to get things done. A solid plan that shows their plan of attack and some thought through procedures.
It’s easy to point a finger and say “You Republicans messed up this and that. Srewed up these and those.” But they are going to have to have a solid answer when asked “Well, how are you going to do it differently? Show me how you are going to make it work.”
If they are relying on taking control by default (pick us cause the other guys suck) I think they’re going to bite it.
If they present a strategy (pick us cause we’re going to get it done by doing X, Y, and Z and here’s how it’s going to work) using specifics rather than political double-talk maybe they’ll have a chance.
In my area, the Dems couldn’t get elected unless no Republican ran. It’s pretty simple–if there isn’t an R by your name, you ain’t getting elected. Many years there isn’t even a Dem on the ballot for the local positions because everybody knows there isn’t a chance in hell of winning. Shit, we consistently send Doc Hastings back to DC and he hasn’t done jack shit for our state or the locals–and now that he’s head of the House ethics committee, you can be sure that no Republicans will ever be censured because he is a party yes man.
I’m consistently amazed at the idiocy of my neighbors. The Republicans sell them out year after year and they still go back for more. Of course, the Dems would probably do the same; I think people prefer to go with the devil they know.
My kindgom for a viable third party!!!
Amen.
A lot of working stiffs like me are hurting because of what the Republicans have done over the last five to ten years. I’m particularly disgusted that Bush doesn’t even much pretend that he’s trying to control public debt and illegal immigration. But as long as the Democrats remain the party of Michael Moore and Al Sharpton, I’ll always find it very difficult to vote for their candidates.
I think nobody knows the answer yet, but it could be coming. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton was a practically unheard of governor who took the party by storm with a positive message of “we can do better”. I think right now we’re looking at the same old party hacks and not seeing anything we can get behind. We need to look beyond the usual suspects and get some fresh blood in there.
Yes. Wages for working stiffs like me have remained essentially stagnant for a long time. Consequently our purchasing power and standards of living are declining.
My pet theory is the Democrats will start winning, and winning big, when they decide to drop one issue that often mobilizes people to go to the polls and vote against them. IMO, this issue is gun control. When the Democratic Party will drop its (IMO) misguided backing of an (IMO) very unwise and stupid cause, then they will start getting the lead over Republicans in many close races.
What would have happened in 1994 if the Democrats would not have passed what was, in effect, an “ugly gun ban”, that really did nothing whatsoever for the cause, and had no real impact on any crime at all? There would have been no “Republican Revolution”, for one thing. I can’t find a cite here from work, but IIRC there was a statistical study once that showed strongly pro-gun Democrats beating Republicans in races fairly soundly, almost no matter how “left” their other politics were. And yet, the Democrats keep clinging to a primarily elitist and typically highly hypocritcal and dishonest East and West-coast “ideal” of Gun Control, despite the cost, and as a result they are unable to affect change in the ways that can really help America - the economy, the environment, social programs, health care, world relations, and equal rights and respect for all.
Some say “but we can’t compromise a core platform plank!” and I say “mule muffins”. EVERY party changes, evolves, re-thinks, regroups, and modifies their approach. And not just because they want to win, but because Real Life is dynamic and changing, and Real Issues the same. It’s a core platform plank now - was it always? Is it right? Is clinging to this one plank worth sending the whole ship down? Is it even the right cause? From what one would read on this Board, some would say “absolutely”, but then, the SDMB culture, both for better and for worse, is so far removed from Real Life it’s like looking into a mirror-world at times.
Mrs. and Mr. average American see a Democrat on TV say “I WILL TAKE GUNS OFF OUR STREETS” and what they imagine is Janet Reno brought out of retirement to lead the National Guard on house-to-house no-knock sweeps for guns. They see police chiefs pushing for sweeping bans of guns, while police unions go on strike, leveraging the helplessness of the disarmed populace to force them to pay them off, like Italian bandit gangs of the late Middle Ages. Some see these things as true, even if they are not true in most all cases.
But some people do want to focus on banning a tool, even if that tool is mostly (admittedly) designed to kill other people, rather than pointing the blame directly on the people. Who, really, is shooting who, most often? Why is that? What can be done? Is there always some level of tragedy that is the inevitable price for the right of self-defense? Is that price worth it (IMO, absolutely).
Most Democrats I know IRL here in the Midwest treat Gun Control like most Republicans I know IRL here in the Midwest treat the Religious Right - it’s an “evil” in their party that they don’t like, but which they feel like they must accept.
Anyone wants to “debate” my Gun Control points, go ahead, I’m not going to on this message board. In fact, I’m not going to debate my opinion, period. The above is IMO as befits a Pit thread. Take it at face value, or not. If you disagree, think of me as the Simpsons’ crazy cat lady screeching in the alleyway and move on.
I’m saying that the Democrats would do a better job of convincing Americans that there are problems if they didn’t act so nuts from time to time.
Public debt, the biggest reason I will not vote for any candidate without a platform on controlling the fucking spending.
As for illegal immigrants, I cannot remember an election where anyone wanted to alienate the Latino vote by using it as a talking point.
Find me a candidate that is anti-big government, pro pre-emptive strikes, pro-choice (in everything from abortion to gay marriage it is your life not theres), and I will vote for them, regardless of party.
Yes I realize pro pre-emptive strikes will raise ire, but that’s the way I feel. If you can take out a minor threat before it becomes a massive threat, do it, if done right it saves money and lives.
Yes, leaders need to inspire confidence. A large part of the reason that Gore and Kerry lost is that the personas they projected were utterly uninspiring. Whatever else Bush Jr. did wrong, at least he managed to project an image that connected with the man in the street.
It’s an uncomfortable truth, but generally speaking leadership does involve some degree of charlatanry, even it it’s only projecting an air of great confidence that you don’t really feel when you’re delivering a speech or making promises you know you’ll never have to keep.
Or as long as a proportion of the population keeps mindlessly buying into the scare techniques of the right (e.g. Michael Moore and Al Sharpton are boogiemen who somehow represent the Democrats). Start thinking for yourself.
I heard an apt description of the situation; with all the problems the Republicans are facing, the Democrats have the wind at their backs. Now if they could only find a sail to run up the mast!
I don’t think it is too late however; the much touted “Contract for America” that launched the Republican revolution in 1994 was not announced until seven months before the November election. We still have time if the party can rally and agree on a meaningful platform.
I cannot take it at face value or think of you as the CCL.
I think that Gun Control issue is important to a lot of people but not all. There are large segments voting republican over Abortion issues and Gay Rights.
The Democrats need to make hay over the War, Corruption, Jobs going overseas, a soft economy where the lower classes and middle class are not yet reaping the rewards of an improving economy. I would like them to fight for Clean Air & Water too, but this might not be a smart election platform. Dropping the Gun issue would help but it would not be a panacea either. The NRA would still distrust the Democrats being in power.
Jim