Instead of a rebound after the 2002 elections, the 2004 elections seems to show the country moving even farther to the right. I’ve heard some say that the Democrats need a leader who will stand for something. For example, Gay Marriage.
My opinion is that this is stupidity. It may sounds like good advice on the SMDB, but we are not representative by a long shot. Any candidate making a pro-gay marriage stand will commit political suicide, guaranteed. Even the most left-leaning parts of the country are anti-gay marriage.
Similarly, according to very recent polls, America is evenly divided over the war in Iraq, so it seems like criticizing it didn’t get Kerry any traction.
As much as I hate to say it, I think the party needs to move rightwards fast, but in a way that distinguishes us from the Republicans. I think either becoming much more libertarian and therefore socially liberal, or big government, but much more socially conservative . We might all think this is stupid, and I do to. But we on the SMDB are not the country, and one thing I’ve learned from yesterday is how far out of the mainstream we really are. I have no doubts that we are right, but change takes time, and no point in losing more elections in the meantime.
Is it coincidence that the last two Democrat winners came from the South? I’m talking personality, not policy, of course. I wonder if these New England types are electable any more.
I saw on CNN that Bush gained Hispanic votes - from 25% last time to 40% this time. I reckon I’d start by analysing the reasons for that if it’s true.
Did anyone in the SMDB really think they were “mainstream” ?
Mainstream elite or educated maybe... but most countries aren't made up of educated and intelligent people. It was pretty common during discussions people pointing out that dopers aren't representative.
I don’t know. I just don’t get it. The economy stinks, the war in Iraq is a mess, Every indicator that I’ve seen shows that we are worse off now than we were when Bush took office, and we still get our asses kicked. As with the OP, I can see several strategies, none of which sound too good.
Go farther to the right.
Stake your claim on the left and don’t be wishy-washy about it.
Redefine what it means to be a Democrat, i.e., the Libertarian approach.
Just give up and let the country drift so far to the right that it falls off the edge.
I dunno. I’m so demoralized right now I’m inclined to go with #4.
But that’s no reason to surrender my principles. Most people believe that UFO’s are piloted by aliens from another world, but I see no reason to abandon reason just so I can conform to the majority. Being in the minority does not automatically mean I am wrong, it just means I must work harder.
Where does the democratic party go from here? Why, to Home Depot of course, to get the materials to build personal underground bio-safe segregated environments.
Kerry came in a very close second. 20% of the folks leaving the voting booth cited “morals” as their primary concern in this election.
What the hell does that mean? From where I stand, Bush has committed several grievous moral faults, from bearing false witness against his neighbor to killing.
It doesn’t mean sexual morals, I don’t think: I’ve heard no news of sexual peccadillos on the side of either candidate.
I suspect it means something along the lines of “clarity of vision.” Kerry may have lost because, rightly or wrongly, the public believes he has no such clarity of vision.
Perhaps this is just hopeful thinking on my part. But I think the Democratic party needs to quit tring to play it safe in elections, by marginalizing those candidates with a clarity of vision in favor of candidates who play politics well.
It seems to be working for the Republicans.
Daniel
Except that the Kerry/Edwards ticket was about as moderate a ticket as you could find out of the list of primary candidates, and it was still too liberal. The SDMB is way to the left of the Democratiic party, so, yeah, I guess we’re pretty far out of the mainstream.
I knew we were in trouble when the exit polls starting mentioning morals as the most important issue. This I take as a code word for homophobia. Gay marriage terrifies the religious right even more than binLaden. Although both candidates oppose gay marriage, and although Kerry and Cheney have precisely the same opinion, for some reason the knuckle-walkers associated a vote for Kerry as a vote for gay marriage.
Where to go? Nominate a western candidate next time. Nominate a non-senator next time. I give you Bill Richardson, the next president.
I’m not convinced that this election was about the issues. I think it was more about conviction, and Bush has the wrong kind for what he deserves, but the right kind to gain power.
Demographically speaking, nominating a minority candidate would not be a bad idea at all. The bigots who would be turned off aren’t voting Democratic anyway, and the minority vote would be huge. Here in Dallas County, Texas, several Republican-held offices were cleared out by a slate of Hispanic Democrats, including (to everyone’s surprise) the office of Sheriff. Don’t know how well that translates to the national level, and of course it depends on the candidate, but I suspect there’s something to be considered there. Let’s lose some of the boring white Senators by the next Iowa causcus.
I agree 100%, that was my main reservation about Kerry in the primaries. Senators are unelectable, because their records are too easily twisted against them.
And a governor to boot, the most electable resume.
I would advise the Democratic Party to sit tight, acknowledge that this narrow defeat was the will of the electorate, and watch Bush’s popularity plummet over the next 4 years: that he only won this by the skin of his teeth after the most horrific attack on America since Pearl Harbour is astonishing in itself.
You might be surprised what the 2008 Democratic Candidate can get away with.
There is a LOT of truth in that, Sentient Meat. Bush squandered away not only the international sympathy after 9/11, but also nearly enough of the domestic patriotic response to lose the election. The next four years, Iraq is truly his mess to clean. FDR did not squeak by in 1944. But then FDR didn’t go after the Swedes in response to Pearl Harbor, either.
