0
   

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

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:17 am
dyslexia wrote:
Ski Kansas, you don't need a lift ticket.


... just some snow, a pickup truck, rope, and a long straight road! Very Happy

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Get the weather from tv when you could just look out the window.....

Get your politics from tv when you oould just look at the what's happening.....

Yep...that's Kansas.......


Oh, we look out the window .... but if you knew anything about Kansas -- and it's obvious you don't -- you would understand that our weather changes in a matter of minutes. What appears to be a sunny day in the morning, can become cold and rainy by early afternoon. That's why we have what you call "weather forecasters" to help us make correct decisions regarding what to wear. Someone lacking common sense might just look out the window and think they know what's going on, but they would be woefully ignorant.

Kansans know who they are, and what they stand for. We are predominately conservative. We support Bush, and I suppose you can deal with that, or not. More likely you're going to be upset at that, and accuse us of shooting ourselves in the foot by "voting against our best interests." But I suggest you not get your knowledge of Kansas politics from a book and expect to know what the hell you're talking about.

---

rodeman: So did I.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:18 am
Quote:
As I said, KERRY was a lousy choice. Plain and simple.


I can't agree less, eoe. Just look at the candidate the Repubs had. One regret I have (and it's not the least one either) is that I'll have to look at that Alfred E. Newman, big eared, stupid bobbing head of Bush's for the next four years. Oh........now I'm depressed again.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:19 am
Okay, Lola-- hands BACK on hips!
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:21 am
In my opinion, the Democrats need to return to the technocratic principles espoused in the Clinton years. Republicans have forsaken fiscal discipline, and just as the Neo-cons fled the Democrats for their foreign policy views, there are many moderate fiscal-conservatives that would abandon the Republicans for a responsible Democratic party.

In other words, Democrats need a centrist, pragmatic, and personable candidate with a record of fiscal sanity. My choices would be McGreevey (NJ Gov.), or even better, Mark Warner (VA Gov.). Edwards is a dead-end, and so is Hillary.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:21 am
Lola wrote:
Quote:
As I said, KERRY was a lousy choice. Plain and simple.


I can't agree less, eoe. Just look at the candidate the Repubs had. One regret I have (and it's not the least one either) is that I'll have to look at that Alfred E. Newman, big eared, stupid bobbing head of Bush's for the next four years. Oh........now I'm depressed again.


But look at the bright side: You don't have to look at that Herman Munster/Frankenstein's head of Kerry's.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:21 am
Lola wrote:
Quote:
As I said, KERRY was a lousy choice. Plain and simple.


I can't agree less, eoe. Just look at the candidate the Repubs had. One regret I have (and it's not the least one either) is that I'll have to look at that Alfred E. Newman, big eared, stupid bobbing head of Bush's for the next four years. Oh........now I'm depressed again.


Exactly! It was the message, not the messenger.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:23 am
Actually, now that I think about it, McGreevey and Warner kind of look similar too. Perhaps a Warner-McGreevey clone ticket in 2008.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:28 am
I can only go on what I've heard and talked about with countless others this passed year and Kerry did not WOW anyone that I knew of. We went along with him because we had no choice but no one that I spoke with was excited about him and that was the general attitude.
0 Replies
 
Synonymph
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:29 am
Lola:

http://www.cafepress.com/irregulargoods.12299719

http://irregulartimes.com/
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:35 am
Quote:
Exactly! It was the message, not the messenger.


It was the sales technique, plain and simple. Not that a more charismatic candidate wouldn't have helped. However, I like Kerry's looks. But I prefer my men intelligent. Looks otherwise are incidental to me.

Anyway, we're on to the next time. But I appreciate the fine campaign Kerry ran. We learned a lot about getting out the vote. Now we have to convince more of those voters who don't know much about what's really going on. Kerry and Mary Beth Cahill worked hard. I'm not in the mood to be putting them down.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:41 am
Ehm, you're all gonna hate me for this because its probably gonna be taken as lack of solidarity or bad taste or something, but one big reason why the Dems lost was: John Kerry. I mean, seriously.

On September 21, I posted an article and wrote:

Quote:
Should Kerry indeed, God forbid, lose against Bush, a flush of analysts, commentators and intellectuals will go forth about the psychology of the American people, the unovercomeable divisions of society, etc. I won't. I'll blame him. John F. Kerry.

The commentariat would have all kinds of semi-relevant points here and there, but they would skip the obvious, because this much we can already say now: there's no way in hell this race should have gone as mediocrely as it's gone thus far.

I mean, how in heaven's name can a party that represents half the American electorate, in two consecutive elections not come up with anything better than Al Gore and John Kerry?


I'm still sticking with that - mostly. Few things I've changed my mind about, especially during the debates. John Kerry did good in the debates. Actually, I remember that when I'd just seen 'em, I declared every one of the three a tie, if twice with the edge to Kerry -- it was only later that his victories seemed to loom larger. But he was a very good debater, and I don't think any other Dem primary candidate would have done better, there.

The problem was, still, that although Kerry was an excellent debater, he was a weak communicator. Even in the debates, the last two anyway, while Kerry won all the arguments Bush came off looking more sympathetic - at least to most of the audience.

It drives me absolutely crazy if I see posters like Kristie (sorry Kristie) summarise their reason for voting Bush this time as being that Kerry was basically a lying turd (not her words). But thats what we were faced with. The reality is that in America (and ever more often here, too), people vote for persons as much as programs. Which, considering the ridiculous amount of power concentrated in the one man in the US, is perhaps not even so unreasonable. And Kerry failed to convince, personally. For a lot of reasons I could list, but also for some that I just can't grasp and that exasperate me (the endless repetition, by voters too, of the flip-flop thing). But thats how it is.

Kerry was a weak candidate. TNR ironically pre-commented ("precriminations") who the blame would be divvied out to when the one or the other candidate would lose, doingfirst the Reps, then the Dems, and as the obvious last point in their Dem list they've got Kerry himself:

Quote:
John Kerry. I know what we'll do ... we'll nominate a liberal senator from Massachusetts with a reputation for arrogance and opportunism, a controversial past, and a near-total lack of charisma! It'll be awesome! Whether or not this characterization is entirely fair or accurate, it will be very widely held. If John Kerry loses the presidential election, he will be subject to very harsh criticism before he is relegated to history books as "Dukakis II: The Return." That he came as close as he did will be seen as irrefutable proof that The Emerging Democratic Majority thesis, from Ruy Teixeira and TNR's own John B. Judis, is clearly correct. The Democrats, the story will go, had a very strong hand--a failed president, large private-sector job losses, a profound sense of unease in the country at large--and blew it by nominating a total zero. It won't be easy being John Kerry's ego if the election doesn't go his way.

Somehow, it will recover.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:43 am
Larry434 wrote:
Lola wrote:
Quote:
As I said, KERRY was a lousy choice. Plain and simple.


I can't agree less, eoe. Just look at the candidate the Repubs had. One regret I have (and it's not the least one either) is that I'll have to look at that Alfred E. Newman, big eared, stupid bobbing head of Bush's for the next four years. Oh........now I'm depressed again.


Exactly! It was the message, not the messenger.


It was. And I can give a good historical parallel on this analysis.

In 1935 Germany, one liberal-leaning political party in Stuttghart, headed by Bruno Nichol, campaigned with a platform centered on the idea that Jews were not vermin. It was the wrong message for the time and the place, and went unheeded by most.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:46 am
Here's what Zell Miller says in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Quote:
I tried to tell you . . .

The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today.

To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity.

When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.
0 Replies
 
Jer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:48 am
Question: Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Answer: Educate the masses in America. Dump a bunch of $$ into education.
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:49 am
Much as I hate to say it, I think we're going to have to compromise our principles and beat them at their own game.

As several have said, Democrats need to reclaim the religious vote. The Biblical principals to back us up are plentiful and have not been used.

We need a candidate who appeals to rednecks. We've gotta stop this "smarter-than-you" stuff...it may be true, but it comes across as elitist.

And we've got to start using fear. (Holding my nose here, but...) We need to tap into the middle class fear of losing their jobs to foreign workers. The fear of losing their children in a foreign war. The fear of losing their Social Security. The fear of being financially wiped out by serious illness. Etc.

Obviously, we haven't been playing the game well enough.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:52 am
nimh wrote:
Quote:
Kerry was a weak candidate. TNR ironically pre-commented ("precriminations") who the blame would be divvied out to when the one or the other candidate would lose, doingfirst the Reps, then the Dems, and as the obvious last point in their Dem list they've got Kerry himself:


Then how on earth do you explain the success of George W. Bush?
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:52 am
"And we've got to start using fear. (Holding my nose here, but...) We need to tap into the middle class fear of losing their jobs to foreign workers. The fear of losing their children in a foreign war. The fear of losing their Social Security. The fear of being financially wiped out by serious illness. Etc."

That was the entire message of Gore and Kerry. Repeat that message, no matter the messenger, and you will get the same resuts.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:54 am
Blatham wrote:
Quote:
In 1935 Germany, one liberal-leaning political party in Stuttghart, headed by Bruno Nichol, campaigned with a platform centered on the idea that Jews were not vermin. It was the wrong message for the time and the place, and went unheeded by most.


Damned scary, isn't it?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:56 am
Eva wrote:
Much as I hate to say it, I think we're going to have to compromise our principles and beat them at their own game.

As several have said, Democrats need to reclaim the religious vote. The Biblical principals to back us up are plentiful and have not been used.

We need a candidate who appeals to rednecks. We've gotta stop this "smarter-than-you" stuff...it may be true, but it comes across as elitist.

And we've got to start using fear. (Holding my nose here, but...) We need to tap into the middle class fear of losing their jobs to foreign workers. The fear of losing their children in a foreign war. The fear of losing their Social Security. The fear of being financially wiped out by serious illness. Etc.

Obviously, we haven't been playing the game well enough.


as an oasis of iq points in the intellectual desert of Oklahoma Eva, I assign you the job of hunting up a candidate who can appeal to rednecks from just about anywhere in the state. I will look for a long list on my desk by Monday morning :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2004 11:57 am
Quote:
That was the entire message of Gore and Kerry. Repeat that message, no matter the messenger, and you will get the same resuts.


No Larry, we've got to keep it simple........

And I agree with Eva.
Quote:

We've gotta stop this "smarter-than-you" stuff...it may be true, but it comes across as elitist.


We need to behave as if we're humble in every way. (If that's possible) But if Rove can get the religious fanatics to do it, then we can do it too.
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 0.56 seconds on 07/21/2024 at 03:55:51