What must the democrats do to win?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by MattAlland, Dec 9, 2004.

  1. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Yes, that's the problem Democrats face: Republicans sleep easy even after all the horrific things they do. How can we save the country without selling our souls too?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Welcome to Sciforums. Always glad to see another conservative around here.


    I thought Democrats didn't believe in superstitous nonsense like souls?
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    I second that.

    No, we just don't believe in making people believe in souls.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. FreeMason Registered Senior Member

    You have to be the most mis-informed person I've met.

    1) The corruption you speak of, both happend in this Century during Democratic Administrations (taken advantage of during, encouraged by). Enron, for instance, committed most of its acts during the Clinton Administration. Corporate Corruption was rampant during the Wilson and Roosevelt Administrations.

    2) There has been no moral advancement from the left, gay marriages out of greed (because they sure as hell don't give a shit about the Government recognizing their marriage, except the money it gives them), is not a moral advancement. Also, Democrats had something to do with the Civil Rights Movement? If history is correct, it were the Democrats who fought for Slavery to the death.

    3) Corporations do not seek to make unsafe products//pollute the world. The consumers are just moronic, because of the media. Fix the problem by fixing the media, i.e. censorship. Make smart consumers by ending commercialism.

    Corporations benefited mostly under Republican Administrations, benefiting our Economy, Roosevelt fixed the Depression in one year, in 1942, when he started taking money from the people and giving it to the Corporations.

    This idea of taking money from corporations and giving it to the people doesn't work, go live in Cuba...
  8. nbachris2788 Registered Senior Member

    Back when the election was still on, I saw a segment on TV where an elderly man griped on TV about the extremes of the nation's political scene, between the outrageously leftist Democrats and ludicrously rightist Republicans. Incredibly, he said he would probably vote for Nader because he thought the former Green candidate was a more moderate voice.

    Therein lies the Democrats' problem. They're seen as too extreme by the centrists, and too tame by the leftists. What exactly is their base of support? The Republicans have their repugnant "Christians" (a complete shame and sham to the religion) and shady businessmen. Democrats traditionally had labour, women, and minorities. However, terrorism is scaring moms into Republicanism, NAFTA is turning off labour, and gay marriage is spooking the minorities. One could dream of the youth becoming the base, but c'mon, where did Dean and Kerry get with that? Nowhere! So it seems that the Democrats are buoyed by a flim-flam of reluctant/lukewarm mercenaries, while the Republicans have a strong base consisting of evangelical white Christians, and Southerners.

    The Dems can trump the economy all they want, but Bush has officially made this into a war time, and in a war time. If the Republicans can scare and trick people into thinking that old Saddam can threaten America to a point where should he continue to exist, there will not be an America to have jobs in, people will fall for the same hook again.
  9. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member


    Here's an article from the New Left Review, another post-mortem of the election featuring the regurgitated musings from Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas? Frank finds it odd that so many of the working poor in Kansas vote GOP when the GOP is royally screwing them. Here's a rather pithy quote from the article (which is in turn quoting Frank)
    Pure crap. I lean comfortably to the left. I think Bush is just about the crappiest president we could ever hope to have. But I'm also a pragmatist, and here's the crux of the matter as I see it:

    The Democrats claim to be for the working man, but blabbing about it doesn't make it so. What great plans, what likely solutions to the problems that ordinary Americans face, do they have to offer? None, actually.

    Kerry was justly guffawed at for his "plan, plan, I have a plan" blather. He had no plan - Democrats never do. Don't bother bringing up Clinton; he was about as liberal as Coolidge. A lot of his ideas were great, a lot of them worked, but very few were about helping the working poor. Obviously, I am simplifying, but if you add up the total of what Democrats in Congress and at the local level have done for the working class, undoubtedly it would be marginally better than what the Republicans have done. How could it not be?

    Bush won because he and the GOP in general have a better, more consistent sales pitch. They praise Jesus, harp on the glories of laissez-faire capitalism, nod vaguely in the direction of anti-abortion and, well, that's about it. The Democratic Party chirps about "nuance," but their idea of nuance is beige. Not quite so exciting as the GOP's Red, White, and Blue. It is not what you say that matters, be it raising the minimum wage or providing millions of uninsured Americans with access to healthcare, it is how you say it. If you use down-home, folksy language to advocate policies that increase inequality, widen holes in an already threadbare safety net and pour benefits the richest few vastly disproportionately to everyone else, you are not seen as an “elitist.” If, however, you advocate polices which address such social issues in clear and articulate English (in, heaven forbid, an East Coast accent), you are.

    Democrats have a mighty poor pitch and are getting called on it in the worst way: it is called losing elections.

    :m: Peace.
  10. Undecided Banned Banned

    Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas?

    I wanna get that book!

    I agree with you goofy but to an extent, the country has shifted to the right as well. The right in the US now is more reactionary then ever, and there is a real possilibity that abortion could be deemed illegal by 30 states should RoevWade be overturned. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that the Democratic leadership were/are seriously considering actually reversing their stance on this issue to gain some political points in Kansas. The problem in the US is that people who are most likely to suffer because of Bush are voting for him because they don't have great education, I read an economist article on education in the US and meritocracy, and the situation is grim, especially the way that schools are funded in the US (here all schools receive the same amount of funding). Its becoming an education gap that is translating into a income gap, and as a result a political gap. More affluent state's can afford better education, as a result most cote for the Democrats in most years (save Reagan). Its a corrleation to be sure but one that seems to be right. There is a ignorance gap in the US and its determining the future of world.
  11. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    While the Democrats were facing some obstacles prior to 9-11, the big crash came after that date. George Bush carefully used post 9-11 fear to his advantage in order to push both the Iraq debacle and take control of both the Senate and the House.

    If any of you remember, the elections prior to the war basically contained one theme. Security. Unlike his father before him, Bush travelled throughout the country accussing the Democrats of "unpatriotism" and being weak on "Security" prior to his build up to war. Historically, the Democrats had to support a president "during a time of war" and faced political annihilation by voting no to the future invasion.
    In other words, he used the war to his political advantage, something his father rightfully declined to do. The Democrats eventually lost control of both the House and the Senate based on this theme.

    No event has been more friendly to a politician than 9-11 has been to Bush, and the president has used the prevailing fear to his great advantage. There would have been no Iraq war without this tragedy. All the Democrats have do is sit and wait, until the 2008 election. By then it should be apparent what a disaster the occupation was, with either a withdrawl or an obvious stagnation of the situation. The American support for the war is already beginning to fade, in four years it should have eroded almost completely. At this point the Democrats can go on the offensive, and would be wise to choose a candidate that was against the war in the first place. If McCain somehow wins the Republican primary, then the Democrats have little hope of reattaining the White House. The Senate and House, however, will still remain open.

    Will the Democrats do anything different about the burgeoning social security and medicare issues plus the tremendous amount of accumulated debt threatening those institutions? Unlikely, unless America becomes desperate enough to allow extreme measures to occur, and not the usual politics. More than likely, a poorer class of Americans will begin to develop created by a cocktail of both a huge amount of immigration from poverty stricken nations and the inevitable decline of the Social Security system and its safeguards. Will the United States still be a strong nation in the world? More than likely yes. Will it be the dominant power it once was. Probably no.
  12. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    The ACLU has always defended religious liberty.

    ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages

    what a hypocrite dumbass
  13. Undecided Banned Banned

    Some Democrats have already voiced joy with the victory of GWB because they believe that rationally the country after four more years of a dead ended Iraq occupation (which the economist gives a very vivid account of how the US is losing the war there), possible inflation due to the pressures of rising budget deficits, rising commodity prices, and a lower dollar, the eventual increase of taxes that would bring their levels over Clintonian levels of taxation, debt from ever stronger foreign creditors, and Social Security with the added mix of Medicare, the US is doomed if it does not reorganize ASAP to fix all these anomalies, and tax cuts are the anthemia to American prestige. If the American ppl have a brain…2008 will have to be the year of fixing.
  14. Beryl WWAD What Would Athelwulf Do? Registered Senior Member

    1. Not have a presidential candidate like Kerry. A number of us think he would have been as bad as Bush, and therefore didn't (or wouldn't, for those who are too young to vote) vote for him.

    Similar to 1, 2. Stop drifting toward the right wing in an attempt to get support from that way. They'll probably support their own candidates anyhow, and meanwhile much of the left wing is deciding that it's stupid to vote for someone who tries to appeal to the people you disagree with most.

    3. Next time a Democrat is campaigning for President, they should speak in support of a runoff system. That will make people who support Nader or another third-party candidate more likely to vote Democratic that election, because it'll still be supporting their candidate (although indirectly). However, should this candidate talk about it and then never try to do anything for it, they probably would (and certainly should) lose a ton of support, so most of all they should attempt to actually stick by what they say.
  15. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    On #1, I thought Kerry was a great candidate. He was no Clinton, but Clinton was the best in my lifetime. Kerry ran circles around Bush in the leadership dept. I don't think the problem was Kerry so much as the marketing of Kerry. The Republicans not only had a lot of people convinced that he was wishy-washy, but they also had them convinced that the decorated veteran was a traitor. The Democrats need to do way better on countering the lies.

    On #2, drifting to the right is the only choice for the Democrats, as the left is a minority.

    On #3, I agree, except I'd build the runoff in to the single election, like Australia does. Otherwise the Republicans will use the first election to determine how much money they need to assure a win in the runoff. The Republicans can always pump in more money than the Democrats because they are willing to sell off the country like Bush is now doing.
  16. Maddad Time is a Weighty Problem Registered Senior Member

    The democrats will win another presidential election. They will once again be in control of congress. They could get there sooner though if they made some campaign adjustments.

    Give voters a reason to vote for them; give less focus to reasons to vote against the opponent. Point out the reasons to be proud to be an American, democrat or republican. While we all wish that our government would do some things differently, you feel better about yourself and your party if you feel good about who you are. This will translate in votes.
  17. nbachris2788 Registered Senior Member

    Firstly, I thought Kerry was a very good candidate. Sure, the Democrats could've used another Clinton (which Kerry definitely wasn't), but I would've much rather had John Kerry than Howard Dean, Al Gore, or Hillary Clinton. Out of the bunch, he was the best. Everyone regurgitated the line about how aloof and cold he was ("aloof and cold" being Republicanspeak for "Northeastern"), but especially in the debates, he was charismatic and knowledgeable. In the primaries, I was a big fan of his and people just kept repeating to themselves "he's a flipflopper, he's too aloof, he's too patrician" until they fooled themselves into believing it.

    Secondly, the left is smart enough to rally when a president like Bush comes up. Nader was a non-factor in 2004, except maybe in Iowa or something, I don't know the stats. It's the "values" people in the center that are the suckers who keep falling for the God, line and sinker over and over again. Of course, the Democrats can never hope to out-religion the Republicans, because after all, people like Kerry want to ban the Bible (or ban Bush, same thing in Republicanspeak). Kerry did not lose 2004 because of Green voters or disillusioned progressives. He lost because the middle was afraid and wanted Bush to protect them. He lost in crucial states like centrist Ohio, Florida, and the Southwest. Since the Democrats have all but abandoned the moronic South, they can't afford to lose an inch in those "values" states, but they did. I'm not advocating a big shift to the right for the Democrats, because it'll defeat the purpose of being the Democrats in the first place, but adopting an angrier and leftier platform will do little to win 2004. Where is the phantom leftist bloc?

    Thirdly, neither of the two major parties will endorse instant run-off voting because while it may benefit them in the short term, it will gradually empower third parties, introducing a foreign entity in the powerful two-party system. Naturally, neither party wants that.
  18. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Good post. There won't be a run-off anytime soon, but I think it'll be there eventually. If the two parties did what benefits only them, then the country would be in much poorer shape than it is. Eventually a run-off system will prevail because it will capture votes for either party to endorse it. It's too bad that today's voters don't realize how much better off they'd be were there more viable competition for their favor.
  19. nbachris2788 Registered Senior Member

    Politics is a lot like capitalism: the more competition there is, the better off the consumer (voter) is.
  20. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    I know, and don't you hate how elitist and exclusive they are? Oh. . . wait.

    Translation: I watch Fox News and read books by Ann Coulter as my exclusive sources of news and politics, and as such am not entirely sure who is responsible for what and what are genuinely contested issues in this world.

    Translation: We don't want those "Freedom Nazis" like the ACLU telling us we can't force our religion on public institutions. [Ok, he's probably not THAT well informed, or coherent, but it was better than re-iterating that he only listens to pundant's assessments of issues and as such likely believes the ACLU's main goal is to ban the bible]

    This one is too vague and loaded to have a direct translation, but I'm guessing it probably means that he would very much like it if schools restrained their teaching about homosexuals to what sort of knots you aught to use when tieing one to a fence post to beat him to death, as opposed to some liberal hippy crap about not giving a shit and moving on with your life.

    Only if you don't bother to take your head out of your ass and listen to what's really going on out there. This sort of stubborn attitude and complete disinterest in the actual messages and goals of the democratic party and liberals in general is part of the problem that the Democrats need to overcome. The right has the people pretty well indoctrinated, someone's going to have to figure out how to quit trying to talk over each other and take the time to listen.
  21. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Where the hell were you for eight years of Bill Clinton?! The guy was practically a republican. I'd say that you, sir are the one who seems to be holding onto old ideas about the democratic party. Then again it may be that from the sources you get your news from all you know is that slick Willy got head in the oval office. . . what wonderful lessons in politics your pundants give you.
  22. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Woah crap! speaking of being misinformed, I'm not sure you've got much room to talk! First off, what money does the democratic party get from same-sex marriage? You think this is an issue of greed? You're sorely mistaken, this is an issue of equal protection under the law and of social acceptance. It's about homosexual Americans finally being able to live in a country where they aren't governed by a body that ostracizes penalizes and seeks to harm them just as much as many of their fellow citizens do! It's about taking a stance to say "Ok, you're people, too, now let's just get over this whole fucking non-issue of who you want to date!" Being able to file income taxes jointly (which often comes out to loosing money in many cases) has extremely little to do with it outside the fact that it represents equal footing with our fellow citizens.

    As for slavery, you're making antiquated political affiliations. It would be a bit like republicans trying to gain props for civil rights because Lincoln was a Republican, you just can't do it, we're not talking about the same ideologies or political identities anymore. You're thinking of the "southern democrats" the conservative wing of the democratic party, people like Zell Miller, who, oh yeah, are now republicans
  23. nbachris2788 Registered Senior Member

    And which party do those Confederate flag-wavers support today?
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2005

Share This Page