0
   

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:16 pm
Quote:
Alright, it's all over but the shouting. We took a hell of a beating. We need to figure out what went wrong, fix it, then go back and retake the place, state by state, House seat by House seat. We've got 4 years, let's get started.

So, where did we go wrong? We had the money, we had a candidate who, if lackluster, was certainly head and shoulders above Shrub in the credentials and integrity department. And we had a sitting President whose record was a litany of disaster, mistake and misstep. Wha' happened?

You Repubs can go sit down somewhere else and gloat for now. There are other threads for your nonsense. I'm looking only for the comments of Democrats and those interested in maintaining a viable two party system.


The original posting.......... whatever.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:20 pm
Joe--

Lots of titles have Republicans or Democrats in the title. Very few attempt to refuse a group of people participation.

A bad precedent--divisive.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:21 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
The original posting.......... whatever.

Oops ... sorry for intruding. Bye.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:26 pm
Lash wrote:
Joe--

Lots of titles have Republicans or Democrats in the title. Very few attempt to refuse a group of people participation.

A bad precedent--divisive.

So - you're fine with setting up an entire user group, with dozens of threads over the course of months, that specifically debarred the overwhelming majority of A2K liberals because they were considered too intrusive or polarising;

But two threads for Dems and Dem supporters after the elections is "unreasonable", "divisive" and a "bad precedent".

Wow. <shrugs, lets be>
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:30 pm
hey lash, like I said, whatever.

You might consider it for a moment as a matter of respect, or not, you choose.

I lurked all over the Republican threads but didn't stick my thing in, but that's just me.

Whatever.


Joe
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 09:42 pm
The liberals had a user group, too-- so it was equal.
Both were hidden. So, it wasn't divisive.

These are in the open, exclusionist and detrimental. But, the minority went along with it--and have set up one for us. So, things are going along pretty well....so, the Dems set up ANOTHER exclusionist thread... Now, all this borders on funny--until people seriously start carping and bitching about NEEDING a COUPLE of private threads... Have you noticed the polarization? This is like a social experiment gone stupid. Everyone should sort of check to see how they've played in this drama.

Anyway, I'm not arguing against it. I just stumbled in here, thinking this was just another thread. But, you since you asked....

I'm almost never short an opinion.

But, divisive? Yes.
<I have taken note of this thread name, and will defer to the wishes of the thread starter.>

<Foreseeing all manner of exclusive threads, divisions and rancor in our future.>
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 10:25 pm
Lash wrote:
<Foreseeing all manner of exclusive threads, divisions and rancor in our future.>

Nah, chill. Give everyone a week or two and everything will be back to more usual levels of division and rancor.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 10:28 pm
actually I would like to have a thread inclusive of liberals only, no democrats and no republicans.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 10:50 pm
Quote:
Alright, it's all over but the shouting. We took a hell of a beating. We need to figure out what went wrong, fix it, then go back and retake the place, state by state, House seat by House seat. We've got 4 years, let's get started.

So, where did we go wrong? We had the money, we had a candidate who, if lackluster, was certainly head and shoulders above Shrub in the credentials and integrity department. And we had a sitting President whose record was a litany of disaster, mistake and misstep. Wha' happened?

You Repubs can go sit down somewhere else and gloat for now. There are other threads for your nonsense. I'm looking only for the comments of Democrats and those interested in maintaining a viable two party system.


It strikes me that the sentence "I'm looking for the comments of Democrats and those interested in maintaining a viable two party system
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:42 pm
When soulsearching what went wrong and how to win back which voter groups, it might be useful to compare how Kerry actually did compared to Gore among those groups.

Using the 2000 and 2004 exit polls, I made this overview of how he measured up per demographic group.

There's a few confirmations of what we've talked about here: Kerry did worse than Gore among Protestants, Catholics and Jews (and better among the secular and other religions); he did worse than Gore among Latinos and in the South - and he did dramatically worse among those without high school.

There's also a few surprises. The second most notable is that Kerry actually did better than Gore among the lowest income groups, a finding seemingly in contradiction with his losses among the lowest-educated. Perhaps it's thanks to a higher turnout of black and latino voters?

The most notable surprise is that Kerry actually did significantly better than Gore among those living in a small town or in rural areas. Its among city-dwellers that Kerry did worse than Gore!

That I hadnt expected.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:52 pm
dyslexia wrote:
If any party puts up a candidate that is both honest and trusworthy, said party would be commiting political suicide. American voters prefer adept liars every time. The only interesting note about this past election is that the voters picked the least adept liar.



That is complete crap. This is a rank example of why the democrats lost because of the lack of patriotism and respect for the American opinion.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:54 pm
Letty wrote:
You know, dys. My Irish friend once told me that he would rather have a smart crook than an honest dummy in office.

and then there are those who are neither--nor.



It does not take corruption to lead the masses just compassion and sound reason.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2004 11:59 pm
revel wrote:
Where I think we went wrong is underestimating the religious factor.

Where I think we have an uphill battle is pointing out that the religious factor is not really religion at all but a con game that certain political people play to get their agendas across.

We also need to keep pointing just how dangerous it is to slide down into a nation that governs itself by religion. We need to say that by doing that we just become the other side of the coin of other religious nations. We also need to point out how enforcing your religious beliefs takes away from other who do not hold those beliefs and that is not the American way.

Even if it is not a winning thing; it is the right thing to do, in my opinion.


That is what Ralph Nader thinks too.

The religious people are smart and not easily conned they are people who have had it hard in the valley of needs and have triumphed over adversity and they want a life of love and not chaos and not a big party with "Bruce" playing guitar real loud like the dems.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 12:05 am
Larry434 wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
Okay, so what's the thrust here? That we lost merely based on personalities? I find that hard to believe. Maybe I don't want to believe that folks can really be that dim, I don't know. And how does that explain the gains of Repubs in Senate and House races? Or does it?


The Dems lost because of their insisistance on staying with the same failed strategy. It was the message, not the personalities of Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry that led to the serial defeats at every national and most statehouse elections in this decade, IMO.

Different messengers, same message, same result.


Ditto! Kerry should have at first rejected his followers crowding the streets of the major US cities protesting "Democracy" and waving palestinian flags praising jew killers.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 12:14 am
RexRed wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
If any party puts up a candidate that is both honest and trusworthy, said party would be commiting political suicide. American voters prefer adept liars every time. The only interesting note about this past election is that the voters picked the least adept liar.

That is complete crap. This is a rank example of why the democrats lost because of the lack of patriotism and respect for the American opinion.

I dont think Dys is a Democrat ...
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 12:39 am
Nimh, you are one of the perhaps three people who realize that Dys isn't a Democrat. Confused
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 01:07 am
Well, I knew Dys wasn't a Democrat........heck, he's still insisting that Kosinich won.......by a land slide.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 01:08 am
Yeah! Refuge from the old Peace and Freedom Party.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 01:14 am
georgeob1 wrote:
McTag,

Are the beliefs expressed in the letter of the unhappy woman from Cleveland yours as well? Appears to me that she has a somewhat jaundiced view of the country, and of the possibilitires in life as well. (I might feel bad too if I lived in Cleveland.)


No, actually not. I am not a Bush supporter though, but I love and feel a kinship with America which is why I visit A2K and try to follow what is going on. The Republican majority vote is a remarkable one, and one which has to be respected.

I think however there are dark forces at work in America, and all those Stepford-wives christians make me afraid for its future. Kerry had a tough job asking for a change in leadership during a "war", even though the war, it seems to me, was a device started in part to ensure the conservatives increased their hold on the country.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Nov, 2004 01:41 am
Quote:


Quote:
My recommendation to Democrats is not to become more religious. Religion is a personal matter. Nor should Dems move toward Republican positions on matters of personal morality . . . . . My recommendation is that Democrats offer somewhat fewer plans and policies and have more moral conviction.


Quote:


This is an interesting perspective on the question. A platform based on values.........true liberal values......might be much easier to sell than one based on plans and explanations of programs. Many of the American people want to feel righteous. They want to feel comfortable and safe in the belief that they are doing "right." So we could dress up the progressive message in inspiring but simple clothes and see if we could score with this group.

And for the obsessive ones, there could be enough detail to provide security..........That should cover all the bases.

So in other words we could go with the right/wrong thing, but present our values as the right ones. Isn't that what we've been doing? It's called the Culture Wars, isn't it?

I don't know, I'd rather see an electorate that wants to struggle with the complexities and make the solutions their own........but, I suppose that's too much to ask.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/16/2024 at 04:18:57