Who in the GOP is everyone talking about for '08? A bunch of centrists and McCain, that’s who. It remains to be seen what the right wing plans on doing about that, but I guarantee it will be interesting to watch. A Republican nominee in '08 will either have to endorse the ways of Dubya or distance themselves as the new Republican Way. We’ll still be occupiers of Iraq and God knows where else, and this will need to be sold to the people along with the deficits, inflation, high interest rates, and general declines in the standard of living. All things being equal, I think their best shot at '08 is Cheney’s resignation in a few years and the appointment of a centrist VP. Even that can backfire.
The biggest obstacle the Democrats face IMO will be finding a way to get 2% of the electorate to stop getting their information from political ads and bumper stickers. It is to laugh when I hear 48% of the electorate described as irrelevant, especially in time of war.
I honestly don’t know what course of action the Dems should take, but I do know becoming Republicans isn’t the way to go. I feel that it includes educating the voter in some capacity, teaching them to ask questions, that a more informed voter has a bigger voice in the future. Going negative may win the battle, but it will cost us the war as the enviroment it creates will bring this country to it’s knees.
Of course I hold no hope that education would be effective, take a look at the people around you.
I do it because I know that eventually the Democrats are going to win some elections. Even if they represent a viewpoint that most Americans disagree with, they could still easily win elections if the economy tanks or just if the Republicans run a terrible candidate.
I’d rather have a sane and centrist Democrat party than the lunatic fringe one that we have now. That way if by some miracle they actually do come to power they won’t be total socialists.
Plus, if the Dems do ever really change for the better then I would consider voting for them. I do disagree with the republicans often. I’d like to have two choices in an election.
More right wing spin, just like I pointed out. This is how the rightwing smear machine works, criticizing a policy becomes whining.
Who says that you have to point out that things are worse than they are? The Democrats should have pointed out that this administration’s incompetence did damage not only in the War in Iraq by not allocating enough troops to do the job, but to the War on Terror, since it took resources away from hunting real terrorists. They should have frequently pointed out that the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are two different things. They should have pointed out that this administration has condoned and encouraged US troops to torture prisoners - something that no proud American who believes in what this country stands for would ever do.
They should have pointed out the Administration’s unwillingness to give the SEC the necessary funds and oversight to prevent another Enron or Worldcom.
And so on and so forth. Instead, all we heard about was how Kerry served in Vietnam. The dumbasses.
Does it? And what is that clear philosophical direction? And no, don’t come citing some lame rightwing thing like “Democrats hate America and want more big government, blah, blah, blah.” I want something straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
Oh freaking please. Another right wing lie. This is the same NY Times that had to issue an apology for blindly supporting the Administration without double checking any of the assertions it made, and even had reporters making up stories to support the Administration.
The New York Times doesn’t frame squat.
And this sums up the absolute moral bankruptcy of the right. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights take a back seat to their party winning. They don’t oppose prosecuting people for their beliefs, locking people up for the rest of their lives without trial because the Administration can’t find evidence against someone, allowing the FBI to search whoever it wants without judicial oversight, the military torturing prisoners and all sorts of other things more befitting a country run by Saddam Hussein than a country founded on the ideals of freedom and democracy.
Then, if someone stands up against these utterly heinous practices, they tell them to shut up and go with the flow if they want to win. It really just illustrates how much these hypocrites “love” their country and what it stands for. In fact, I say they don’t.
I believe you’re sincere in your desire for a Democratic party that is closer to what you perceive as the center, just as I hope that moderate Republicans can wrest their party from the neocons. I just think you picked a poor example, my first thought on reading the obit was “Joe McCarthy”. That isn’t the sort of person we need to emulate or nominate.
Losing an election does not instantly mean that the party is on the edge of collapse. We lost by less than 3% of the vote, so you can hardly claim a ruinous landslide. However, I am glad that you believe this, and I hope it is a view commonly held among the Right. The gods have a way of rewarding such blind dismissal of one’s opponents.
If it was a single election we were talking about, you may have a point. But since the trend of the past decade or so hasn’t been too hot for Dems in general, you may want to stow the smarm and try to figure out why your party ain’t all that anymore.
But given that it was a key piece of conservative strategy, this advice seems… a little dishonest.
Cite? Because most of the survey evidence shows that they agree with the Democrats on most issues. But they either don’t understand what the Democratic positions are, or think they are radically farther left than they actually are.
The far left? Can you give an example? Most of Kerry’s policy platforms were centrist if not hawkish, for instance. Leftists may make a lot of noise out on the streets, but they generally don’t seem to be setting much policy in the party.
I’m taking the long view, Fear Itself. I’m trying to look at how the party has changed in Judge Cercone’s lifetime.
Democratic control of the House of Representatives used to be absolute. The Republicans now have held the House for ten years.
The Senate likewise was Democratic by a comfortable margin. Today the best the Democrats can manage is a filibuster. Tom Daschle lost his reelection bid - an almost unprecedented loss by a powerful party leader.
Democrats had for years a huge advantage in governorships and state legislature control. This has evaporated as well.
These are not signs of Democratic success, by any objective measure.
And yet, in spite of all that, over 49% of the electorate identified with the most liberal Democrat in the Senate? Methinks you are whistling past the graveyard while looking over your shoulder.
I’ve got bad news for you then Diog: “Friends of Hillary” is already probably the most active exploratory committee out there. And they’re looking to hire people like me. That’s not a good sign. You don’t hire people like me when all you want is to make some noise (not that I’d ever work for her on a national level, where I think she’d sink both herself and others). At the very least, I would think that Hillary would run to lose so that she could get enough national facetime to be heavy in the running for Vice President.
So at the very least, you are starting this bet with Hillary pretty clearly intending to run, from my standpoint.
Not quite. Sorry, Here’s the breakdown:
1979-81 Dem 276 Rep 157
81-83 Dem 243 Rep 192
83-85 Dem 267 Rep 168
85-87 Dem 253 Rep 182
87-89 Dem 258 Rep 177
89-91 Dem 260 Rep 175
91-93 Dem 267 Rep 167 Ind 1
93-95 Dem 258 Rep 176 Ind 1
95-97 Dem 204 Rep 230 Ind 1
97-99 Dem 206 Rep 228 Ind 1
99-01 Dem 211 Rep 222 Ind 1
01-03 Dem 212 Rep 221 Ind 2
03-05 Dem 204 Rep 228 Ind 3
05-07 Dem 201 Rep 231 Ind 3
This collapse of Democratic strength in the House happened well after the civil rights struggles of the 1960s and 1970s.
It was worth it for Democrats to abandon segregation and Jim Crow. This did not cause their collapse in the House in any way.
This attitude is kind of disingenuous, IMO. The election was fairly even; enough to to say that, quite possibly, many of the centerists that voted for Pres. Bush this time around voted for Pres. Clinton, before. Twice.
To me, that indicates that while people are voting over issues, they are voting just as much over The Person. Anecdotally, this jibes with the way I’ve known and heard my parents to vote over the years. For instance, both of my parents have told me that they voted for Truman, Ike, Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan. Our domestic electoral divide took place in the late 80’s, with Mom going Democrat generally and Dad going staunchly Republican. State-wise, they often split their respective votes amongst Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians, all on the same ballot!
Now I know anectdotal evidence isn’t “proof,” but just look at the “red state” of Missouri; the executive cabinet is a mish-mash of both Republican and Democrat. Not every state has such an electoral mechanism to allow this, but I think that, where possible by law, it’s often enought he case to make my point.
People trust People (whether they should or not), and vote accordingly. Party ideals and platforms are all well and good, but when it comes down to it, I don’t think We trust “The Party” as much as We trust The Person.
