# Did the Democrats Dodge a Bullet? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045 "2004-11-10T17:53:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/21 "2004-11-10T20:09:28Z")
Well, for my 2p as a liberal independent strong on international competence, I would say this: Should Bush / Republicans pull out all the stops and do the following: 1. Improve the economy to the point where we are gaining rather than losing jobs 2. Bring the US back to prominence and trustworthyness in international affairs, and bring our allies back to our side 3. Bring peace to Iraq, allowing the US to retire home in honor and sowing the seeds of Democracy in the ME 4. Attempt to bring peace to the ME, especially bringing Israel back to the negotiating table 5. Not allow any additional terror attacks in the US and capture and prosecute Osama Bin Laden in the next four years, then I would vote for them. I do hold the greater good of the country at heart, well and truly, enough to say that I would vote for them again if they could do all that. Problem is, I don’t really believe that the next 4 will be any better than the last 4, and without the big 3 things Bush and the Republicans had going for them in 2004 (“inherited” problems from Clinton, moral values, and security), they won’t be able to spin their failures quite as well. And without that spin, I think they will loose. It is about perception, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/22 "2004-11-10T20:28:13Z")
If one is a leader, one will take the helm in foul weather as well as fair. A political party whose members honestly believe that their party’s leaders should not be called upon to tackle the big problems in our country is a party that is not deserving of the reins of power. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/23 "2004-11-10T20:32:42Z")
It’s clear from all of this naval gazing that there’s a real problem here for the Democrats. Unlike the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson eras, today the Democrats can only win if the country is doing poorly. How on earth did Democrats ever let this happen to them? Running on America’s misery year after year is a sure fire way to remain a miserable failure. In a generation, the Democrats have lost their lock on state legislatures, the Senate, and the House. A majority of governors are Republicans, a fact that probably will continue for some time. Republicans are doing well at the local level as well. Far better, in fact, than a generation ago. You cannot look at this disturbing trend and be sanguine about it. And, amazingly enough, I have a rooting interest in a strong Democratic Party. I believe the party can strengthen itself by becoming more centrist, and that’s good for all of America. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/24 "2004-11-10T20:51:25Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > :rolleyes: Its this kind of foam that makes me think that the Republicans will be around for a good long time. > > -XT Would you care to provide a more cogent refutation? I’m actually open to alternative views of the situation, at this point, if only to be less depressed about it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/25 "2004-11-10T21:01:52Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > You cannot look at this disturbing trend and be sanguine about it. And, amazingly enough, I have a rooting interest in a strong Democratic Party. I believe the party can strengthen itself by becoming more centrist, and that’s good for all of America. The surest way for the Democratic Party to destroy itself is to become Republican, or Republican-ish. There’s already an ACTUAL Republican Party to vote for – why would anyone with Republican leanings vote for a shoddy imitation when they can vote for the real thing. No, the thing the Dems have to do is define their values, present a strong, consistent and clear defense of those values, and drop all initiatives that aren’t central to those values. That’s why I think gun control may be on the table, but abortion rights will not. What every Dem ought to do for himself or herself is take some time to think about what sort of country they would like America to be – clearly it is not what we would like it to be with the torture-loving, environment-raping Repubs in power – and proceed from that vision, rather than from a politically-oriented attempt to make the Dems more “centrist” (i.e., Republican). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/26 "2004-11-10T21:14:39Z")
We’re not in a multi-party system here, where the parties can be ideologically pure. The Democrats have tried this, effectively chasing everyone out of the party that is pro-life. They did this over the same time period that saw their decline in power. Bob Casey was a tremendously popular, two-term governor of Pennsylvania. Even he was marginalized by the national Democratic party. If he ran today, he’d never make it past the primaries, and his fundraising would be jeopardized right from the start. It makes little difference that he was pro-union and committed to economic fairness. These issues have faded relative to the abortion issue for the activists that control the party from within. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/27 "2004-11-10T21:17:19Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > I’m not so sure about the economy. The skyrocketing debts and deficit are unlikely to even level, much less shrink, while BushCo remains in power, and we can’t count on a 90’s-style tech boom, with associated increases in income and capital-gains tax revenue to bail the Feds out. The economy is definitely showing signs of recovering…disreguarding that is being willfully ignorant of the trend. Certainly the deficit is a major worry…to me as well. Hell, its one of the reasons I didn’t vote for Bush. You are making a categoric statement here that we ‘can’t count on a 90’s-style tech boom’…why? There is absolutely nothing preventing a new economic boom in the next 4 years. The economy simply isn’t in the black state you are trying to paint it as. > [@Loopydude](#): > > Bush’s “Ownership Society” and plans to “privatize” Soc .Sec. strike me as little more than plans to suck out whatever slushy portions can be raided from the federal coffers for TWAT and corporate welfare, and then cut the average citizen loose to fend with whatever scraps remain. Here is the foam. Do you even know ANYTHING about the plan to ‘privatize’ social security? Do you know who originally proposed it? Do you know that Bush hasn’t even decided if this is the plan he will try and push through, only one of several options. Where are you getting that this is going to be some kind of corporate raid by Bush et al on the federal treasury?? Do you REALLY believe that Bush et al (i.e. the government) are going to “cut the average citizen loose to fend with whatever scraps remain.”?? :rolleyes: > [@Loopydude](#): > > Why, grab whatever you can that is left, throw some crumbs the electorate’s way, tell them they are now “empowered”, and pretend whatever comes of it in the future is their fault. More foam with no substance. Its language like this that makes it difficult for people to take the left/Dems seriously. Its worse because you really believe this…with absolutely nothing to back it up but your ‘feelings’. As I said, do you even know ANYTHING about the Presidents proposed fixes to social security? Do you know WHY social security NEEDS to be fixed for that matter? There are a bunch of articles out there on the web about it (though I conceed its difficult to find any that are reasonably non-partisan). However [this](http://www.factcheck.org/article283.html) article on factcheck is a good place to start as it gives some background anyway. Share and enjoy. Basically their analysis seems to be that Bush won’t really do much of anything, that he hasn’t decided anything yet as far as what he WILL end up doing, and that his big plan’s aren’t even his. I agree with most of it. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/28 "2004-11-10T21:17:45Z")
I have to agree with the sentiment that it’s not just about the Democrats winning. I didn’t vote Democratic because I wanted the Democrats to win; I did it because I didn’t like what Bush was doing, and the Democratic platform was much closer to my own ideology. If the Republicans were to stop putting the profits of big business above the protection of the environment, start respecting the principle of separation of church and state, support civil rights for all, worker’s rights, and a progressive tax structure, advocate a reduction in defense spending (especially costly and uneccesary weaponry like tactical nukes), and advocate multilateralism, I might start voting Republican. I don’t really see that happening in the near future, though. And aside from those basic issues, I also think Bush has been a very poor president, so this last election was more about wanting to get rid of Bush than it was about the Democrats “winning”. I don’t really see what’s going to change in the next four years. I mean, honestly, if people can’t see what a lousy president he is by _now_, I just don’t think _further_ screwups are going to make any difference. And honestly, I don’t think it would make or break Kerry if _he_ had won, and hadn’t been able to immediately fix Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/29 "2004-11-10T21:29:54Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > The surest way for the Democratic Party to destroy itself is to become Republican, or Republican-ish. There’s already an ACTUAL Republican Party to vote for – why would anyone with Republican leanings vote for a shoddy imitation when they can vote for the real thing. I agree. They lose a couple elections, and all of a sudden people want to throw in the towel and say “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em.” What everyone is forgetting is that 48% voted Democratic. It’s not like _nobody_ believes in the values the party has stood for, it was a relatively slim majority that didn’t. And before that, Gore got _more_ votes than Bush. If they go chasing after the right, they’re gonna lose their base. And they’re never gonna get the right anyway, because the Republicans already have them locked up. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/30 "2004-11-10T21:39:07Z")
blowero, I don’t think anyone is saying the Dems need to court the right wing vote (they couldn’t get it if they wanted too…the Pub’s have a lock on that). I think people are saying the Dems need to better align themselves with the middle, to become a more centrist oriented party…not just at their convention but ACTUALLY become a centrist party who ACTUALLY addresses middle America instead of playing to the left until its election time then running towards the center. Personally I think the Dems should completely restructure themselves, their over all philosophy and their planks…go Libertarian, become the party of small government and fiscal responsibility, of individual freedom. Instead I see the Dems running further to the left next time. Perhaps that will work for them…IF Bush’s second term is the unmitagated disaster some on this board are predicting. As I said earlier though…what are you going to do if its not? -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/31 "2004-11-10T21:48:51Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > I guess the big objection I have is the idea that the Democrats should be glad they don’t have to clean up all the messes Bush has made in his first 4 years. But of course, if you think Bush has made messes in his first 4 years, think about how big the mess will be in 8 years. OK, so then you’ll be glad the Democrats don’t have to clean up THAT mess, and be happy when a new Republican screw-up is elected in 2008. And when 2012 rolls around, and the country is screwed even further, boy, when the Democrats lose that election you’ll REALLY be happy. > > Backwards thinking. Bush isn’t going to clean up his own messes, someone else is going to have to do that. If the Democrats won’t do it, then no one will do it. Yes. Exactly. You nailed it. That - and the very real possibility that some of Bush’s messes may simply be too big to clean up in another four years - is why I’ve been in a major depression for the past week. _I don’t frickin’ care_ if Bush’s winning another term is good for the Dems’ future or not, _if it might permanently harm the country._ And the world. And I believe that’s where the evidence lies. > [@](#): > > What is the purpose of a political party? To stand aside and watch the country go down the tubes, while you relish the fact that it wasn’t your fault? Why not just dispand the Democratic party and become apolitical if that’s how you feel? > > The purpose of a political party is to elect officials who enact legislation to accomplish some goal. If you aren’t interesting in electing officials or enacting legislation, what good is a political party? A-fuckin’-men. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/32 "2004-11-10T22:06:32Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The economy is definitely showing signs of recovering…disreguarding that is being willfully ignorant of the trend. Certainly the deficit is a major worry…to me as well. Hell, its one of the reasons I didn’t vote for Bush. You are making a categoric statement here that we ‘can’t count on a 90’s-style tech boom’…why? There is absolutely nothing preventing a new economic boom in the next 4 years. The economy simply isn’t in the black state you are trying to paint it as. There’s some cause for optimism, but we don’t even know yet whether the current spike in job creation is due to a general upswing, or is a blip in the wake of one of the worse hurricane seasons in history. [Some claim](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27480-2004Nov5.html) a significant portion of the jobs created in October are related to rebuilding, and could prove ephemeral. At any rate, no president should count on money that isn’t there. If there’s an economic boom in the future great; but if not? There’s simply no compelling reason to expect one of the magnitude of the last one any time soon, so it’s pretty stupid to bank on it. > [@xtisme](#): > > Here is the foam. Do you even know ANYTHING about the plan to ‘privatize’ social security? > -XT I’ve been watching it. Some of the more alarming [signs](http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/socialsecurity/ns05022001.cfm) came what seems like an age ago, but the issue never went away. Here’s another, much more recent [article](http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/04/news/economy/ss_privatization/) on the subject, and the last line doesn’t make me feel all that great. We needn’t throw on a pile of cites. Kerry claimed Bush would throw us a “January Surprise”. Bush claimed it was fear-mongering polemic. Since the privatization issue has been kicking around so long, I doubt very much it will simply vanish; not with Bush, who views a minority win as a “mandate”. A majority win will likely be interpreted as manifest destiny, so I wouldn’t put it past him to try to steamroll the privatization issue as much as possible. Even the best-case-scenerio estimates are pretty grim as far as initial costs, and there’s almost no question of a significant reduction in benefits under even the rosiest forecast. So again, how am I foaming, and, in light of an already gigantic deficit, why should anyone be optimistic about the Chimp’s second term, vis. the economic legacy he will leave? And do we really need to provide all the cites on Bush’s record so far with [corporate welfare](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25407-2004Oct11.html)? A simple google provides a bandwidth-choaking stream of articles and screeds, if you’re curious. So, if not from the private sector, where will all the money for Soc. Sec. reform come from? How are the tax cuts already in place, plus the astronomical deficity, not costing me majorly in this regard? As far as I can tell, the price tag of reform alone could decimate the fund. So, either Bush uses one of the plans he’s considering, and really effs things up for all of us, or he accomplishes nothing, and we’re still stuck with a massive deficit. Have I missed anything here? ---
**Author:** ![nivlac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/3bc359/32.png) [@nivlac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nivlac)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/33 "2004-11-10T22:25:05Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > Really, who would want to take over from Bush? Did we dodge a bullet, only to be Phoenix-like in the next Presidential election? > > So really, could losing this election be good for the Democrats in the long run? Well, that was also the thought in the 2000 elections. Some thought that the winner will really be the loser because he would be inheriting a bad recession. But as it turns out, the recession actually faded and a whole set of new problems arose that gave the incumbent a chance to stay in office. So the answer to your question is almost surely no. It’s always better to be the “in” party, to be the party in power, and to be in a position to effect changes. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/34 "2004-11-11T01:09:58Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Where are you getting that this is going to be some kind of corporate raid by Bush et al on the federal treasury? Seems a natural conclusion, considering that virtually every other one of his policies has been exactly that. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/35 "2004-11-11T03:38:42Z")
We didn’t dodge a bullet - too many of the people we are supposed to represent and defend are taking bullets and will continue to do so as a result of this loss. And we cannot count on people holding Republicans to account since they are in control. They have already been in control for two years. The Republicans are already responsible for where we are right now, and not enough people wanted to hold them accountable. Why should it be different after two more years? I have no faith that people will suddenly open their eyes in 2006. We don’t need to become more centrist or Republican. We already are populist - we just need to figure out why more people don’t see this. We need to figure out why so many people are willing to vote against their own interest in support of the present Republican agenda. Clearly, Bush’s policies favor big corporations and the wealthy. Under his watch, large numbers of people have fallen into poverty, lost health care, and lost wages. Abortions have gone up. What federal tax break middle class taxpayers might have gotten was arguably swamped by increasing taxes and fees at other levels and losses or cuts in services. Why are so many middle class voters in all states, but particularly in “Red” states, supportive of this agenda? Why are so many fiscal conservatives no longer fiscal conservatives (i.e. voting in endorsement of the largest debts and deficits in history while we borrow like crazy and run up interest on the debt at a rate of _$50 billion per month_)? No - we need to be who we are, represent our people strongly and vigorously, and demonstrate that we are not weak. While nearly everything Bush does takes our money (remember, government is for, by and of the people) and gives it to those who do not need it, we are for strengthening American families, American workers and American values. We fight for a strong American economy that benefits us all and gets money flowing again. We fight for the right of every individual American to stand up and be proud of who they are, not to alter our most sacred American document out of bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/36 "2004-11-11T04:42:47Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > It’s clear from all of this naval gazing that there’s a real problem here for the Democrats. Unlike the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson eras, today the Democrats can only win if the country is doing poorly. > > How on earth did Democrats ever let this happen to them? Running on America’s misery year after year is a sure fire way to remain a miserable failure. > > In a generation, the Democrats have lost their lock on state legislatures, the Senate, and the House. A majority of governors are Republicans, a fact that probably will continue for some time. > > Republicans are doing well at the local level as well. Far better, in fact, than a generation ago. > > You cannot look at this disturbing trend and be sanguine about it. And, amazingly enough, I have a rooting interest in a strong Democratic Party. I believe the party can strengthen itself by becoming more centrist, and that’s good for all of America. I have to say, Mr. Moto, I agree. We really need to get our act together. But I am not so sure that it is that we need to be more centrist. What our problem has been is that we have been the party of negativity. But, I don’t think that clinton spoke with negative words. He gave people hope. But the deal is it that Democrats do tend to feed off of human suffering. That is what we want to get rid of. We want to fight for the little guy, and when there are lots of people going through tough times then that plays towards the democrats strength. What needs to happen is something else, though. What we need to do is defenitely work out a positive message. We need a vision for what America SHOULD be, and not what it SHOULDN’T be. As a nation, we are both very much not progressive. Republicans want to turn back the country to some previous period. I think its pretty clear that Republican “values” voters want to protect themselves against the percieved scary changes that the Democrats want. We have to answer that with positive ideas and narratives of where we as a people can go, not by denying the insults. It reminds me of something that Johnson said. Here’s the quote from an article that popped up on google. > [@](#): > > The sheriff told Johnson that he was facing an unexpectedly strong challenger in his re-election bid. Not thinking twice, Johnson told the sheriff to put out the word that his opponent “fucked pigs.” The sheriff responded coolly to the idea, saying that it just wasn’t true. Johnson replied, “So what! Make the son of a bitch deny it!” . That is exactly what has been hapening to democrats for a while now. They call us evil and trecherous, and we have to deny it. We shouldn’t be playing defense the entire time. Democrats should simply be playing offense by playing on the wedge issues that suit our purposes and by providing an new direction for America that is bold, and not defined by Republican ideas. The republicans have gotten a lot of strength because they came in at a time of relative democratic weakness. Afterwards they played to the values voters by using wedge issues to scare the voters. Democrats can run on greed and fairness in our society of the haves and havenots. Republicans will scream “class warfare,” but then what are they doing? Its just a wedge issue, class warfare. They use their own wedge issues. We could scream, “spiritual warfare.” Class warfare is just as valid as any kind of wedge issue. So what do democrats need to do? Pull off the kid gloves, and focus more on what OUR dream is. That’s what Kennedy did. It WAS a time of hope. If we can get a cantidate who can inspire that kind of optimism again, we’ll have no problems, us dmocrats. Its just a question of finding the man who can inspire those kind of people to believe that hope is possible. Saying that we need to be more like the Republicans is true, but we need to make sure that it adheres to our values. Kerry is one of the most liberal senators in the Senate, and he almost won. I don’t think a move to the right is what we need. Kerry’s problem is that nobody knew what he stood for. He gave no easy explanation of what it is he planned on doing for this country other than that he would do the opposite of what Bush did. I happen to think that the ideal cantaidate would be a cross between Howard Dean and John Edwards. Dean has the sharp tounge and the yankee, no nonsense approach to things, while Edwards frames things along values lines and simplifies the issues in such simple terms that it makes things much easier to understand. Its not that middle America can’t understand its that the message has to be simple to sink in. ---
**Author:** ![sixor9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@sixor9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sixor9)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/37 "2004-11-11T04:50:09Z")
No matter what happens, there will always people who can justify the support of their party. Something bad happens? The other party was at fault. Something good? Clearly their party’s policies brought it about. In 4 years, no matter where this country stands, the GOP will still have a HUGE support base and it won’t take much to keep it. I have a friend who swears up and down the tech boom under Clinton was the handy work of Reagan. Bush took credit for no terrorist attacks against this country in the last 3 years, but blamed Clinton for the 9/11 attacks. And people bought it. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/38 "2004-11-11T04:54:16Z")
> [@nivlac](#): > > Well, that was also the thought in the 2000 elections. Some thought that the winner will really be the loser because he would be inheriting a bad recession. But as it turns out, the recession actually faded and a whole set of new problems arose that gave the incumbent a chance to stay in office. So the answer to your question is almost surely no. It’s always better to be the “in” party, to be the party in power, and to be in a position to effect changes. Sorry, but I think you are reading this the wrong way. Firstly, what Democrat wouldn’t want to have won in 2000? That makes no sense. The economy didn’t really start to show signs of downturns till late 2000 anyway. Really which democrat would rather be the minority party? And this time around, its a much different matter to be the majority party or to be the President. Any Democrat you ask would give you the obvious answer that they’d rather be in the Republican’s position. They could obiously not find any advantage to not being in their position. But just having the presidency? Not only would the republicans be out for blood having won the popular vote, they would be constantly denigrating the President. Also it appears to us Democrats that if the Republicans can win with a President that had an approval rating below 50 percent, then we need to do some serious thinking. I believe that if we got into office it would validate these problematic tendencies, which would lead to more long-term problems as a party. We’ve been through this once before with Howard Dean. The Senate Democrats weren’t doing anything that made us real democrats happy. We would have had John Kerry as the head of the Democratic party. And I respect John Kerry a lot, but he wasn’t the visionary type that we need. So who are the big dogs in the Democratic Party now? I’d say Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Kerry, and Edwards. But Kerry and Edwards didn’t win. Neither did Howard Dean, but he got edged out by Kerry’s electability. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/39 "2004-11-11T08:09:59Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > blowero, I don’t think anyone is saying the Dems need to court the right wing vote (they couldn’t get it if they wanted too…the Pub’s have a lock on that). I think people are saying the Dems need to better align themselves with the middle, to become a more centrist oriented party…not just at their convention but ACTUALLY become a centrist party who ACTUALLY addresses middle America instead of playing to the left until its election time then running towards the center. Well that’s just a matter of where you arbitrarily draw the line for the “center”. My point was that it would be a mistake to go after votes that are right of _where the party is_. It’s all a spectrum; it’s not like there’s some clearly delineated spot that is “the center”. Personally, I think they’re _already_ trying to be centrist. If they do it any more, they _will_ be in right-wing territory, which already belongs to the republicans. Left wing would be: Pull out of Iraq immediately, social programs galore, push for legal gay marriage _without_ qualification, strict gun-control, socialized medicine, etc. The Democratic party has tempered it’s position on _all_ these issues. BTW, before you start drooling at a big argument you see coming up, I’m not _espousing_ any of these positions. I’m saying that if the party truly _were_ left-wing, that’s what they would be supporting. But they’re not doing that. But that’s not even the point. The point is that playing more _towards_ the right (or towards the center - which is really saying the same thing, since “center” is still right of “left”) would be a mistake. Let’s not get bogged down in definitions of exactly where the “center” ends and the “right” begins. > [@](#): > > Personally I think the Dems should completely restructure themselves, their over all philosophy and their planks…go Libertarian, become the party of small government and fiscal responsibility, of individual freedom. Instead I see the Dems running further to the left next time. Perhaps that will work for them…IF Bush’s second term is the unmitagated disaster some on this board are predicting. As I said earlier though…what are you going to do if its not? > > -XT Again, though - what’s the point of “winning” if you have to become what you are not in order to do so? That was my whole point - winning is not a goal in and of itself; having the country run the way I think it should be run is the goal. I don’t give a damn about the Democrats winning if they don’t support the things I believe in. We already _have_ a Libertarian party, and last time I checked, they aren’t doing so good. In spite of the fact that Libertarians are WAY over-represented here on the SDMB, most Americans don’t want a libertarian government. For the Democratic party to become the party of “individual freedom” would be a complete 180 from what it has always stood for. The Democratic party is the party of civil rights legislation, social programs, and worker’s rights - government helping those who can’t help themselves. It makes no sense for them to suddenly become the antithesis of that. ---
**Author:** ![Abbie\_Carmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Abbie\_Carmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abbie_Carmichael)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045/40 "2004-11-11T08:18:31Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > So really, could losing this election be good for the Democrats in the long run? Probably not. I think the Dems are going to be out of the White House for at least the next 12 years. There’s a lot of noise being made about nominating Hillary for '08. I pray fervently that you guys do, of course, but as far as the Dems are concerned it would prove that '04 was their golden chance to get back in. If the country wouldn’t vote for Kerry, they sure as hell aren’t going to vote in Hillary no matter how moderate she remakes herself in the next 4 years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-democrats-dodge-a-bullet/274045.md?page=3)