Poll: Dems Lead Republicans on Every Major Issue

I guess that all you Democrats need to do is keep up the pressure against Bush, and run someone who is really in touch with the American People. Someone like Hillary?

I'm absolutely certain that if you guys take control of the Federal Government you will do your best, and Republicans will be a truly loyal opposition. On the other hand, the Democratic Party was pretty sure that both Gore and Kerry would easily defeat a greedy warmongering idiot whose main concern is said to be world conquest dominated by radical Christians.

Theres many a slip 'twix the cup and lip, but don' t let that stop you from counting all the chickens who you expect to hatch.

Asherman I respect your intelligence and I mean that, so tell me, just exactly how did we elect this warmongering idiot twice? Because he represent the greedy war mongering idiots that make up a slim majority of the population perhaps? that would seem to be the most logical explanation.....

Surely the question is, "who can full America's nuts out of the fire?" Can the democrats? can the republicans? And if not them, then who?

1. The Democrats ran Gore and Kerry against him. Neither Democratic candidate had the voter appeal that Bush has. All three are rich boys, but Bush seems to have been better able to communicate a "common touch".

2. The first term election might have gone either way, and Bush was the fortunate heir to a strong Republican legacy created by Reagan and his father.

3. During times when the nation is at war, the electorate are reluctant to change executive leadership. 9/11 angered Americans deeply, and they wanted strong retaliatory action. Bush gave them what they wanted, and drove the Taliban and Saddam from power. At the time of the last election the casualty counts were lower, and it still appeared to many that the troops might be finished within a few years. There is a very strong and "old fashioned" climate of patriotism in the country. Denunciations of US policy and American motivations to continue the war on terror by Democratic partisans did not, and does not sit well with most voters. There is still a very large number of veterans in the country who understand something about the military and war. These voting veterans compare the casualty rates with what we've experienced in the past and are not persuaded that the military is being mishandled ... even though Democratic Partisans claim otherwise.

4. The Democratic "strategy" of taking every opportunity to malign the President, I think backfired. Many of the attacks were, and remain, so partisan and wacky that the electorate chose to show their personal faith in the country and its military by re-electing Bush. Far fewer Americans buy into the notion that Bush and the Republican Party are "warmongering idiots" than many in the Democratic Party choose to believe. Cheering on the enemy while calling the voter's military sons and daughters storm troopers sure didn't win many votes, did it? How many people do you know who would vote for a political party that continually calls you a stupid dupe?

5. Though the Democratic Party insists that things in America are going to hell in a hand-basket, most Americans don't agree with that assessment. In pocket book issues, most voters feel that they personally are doing alright given the circumstances. Change equates to risk, and the risk that radical changes in policies might go wrong is just enough to go with the status quo. The Democrats have depended far too much on the Chicken Little strategy. Probably no one in the country isn't just a bit anxious that government security measures might go too far in eroding our civil liberties. That unease is however balanced by the acceptance that airport hassles will make it harder for terrorists to target aircraft. Most of the electorate are pleased to see that the administration is taking firm action against individuals implicated in terrorist plots.

There are five reasons that I believe Bush won two Presidential elections.

I further believe that if the Democratic Party wants to regain the White House, it needs to seriously change its strategy.

1. Select a Presidential ticket that has broad appeal in the American Heartland, but may not be particularly popular in New York, Los Angles, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. Those venues carry a lot of weight in Presidential elections and they are relatively easy to campaign in. On the other hand, there are far more votes scattered in between the two urban coasts. Demographically, the country side remains older and more conservative than the cities ... and older, conservative voters are far more likely to vote.

2. The Democratic Party needs to reassert its own legacy without directly using it to batter the opposition. Emphasize FDR's willingness to lead an economically shattered nation into a war that took millions of lives. Put Truman, the Common Man, back in the picture acting decisively to drop the bomb, fire Macarthur, and defend the ROK from invasion. JFK was popular because he was perceived to have real "class", and Americans like their Presidents to be "Royal". Contrasting a Democratic candidates superiority over Bush (who won't even be running) would be a mistake. Remind the voters of how race relations changed for the better during their administrations. Get Carter and Clinton on the campaign trail to support your candidate. Less advertising and more baby kissing.

3. The Democratic Party needs to stop fostering the idea that if they are elected our soldiers will be home for Christmas. That isn't likely to happen and the voters know it. The country is so deeply committed to the current policies that any radical change would potentially be deadly, and voters don't like risk. If you say you are going to stop the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, then you had better have a damn good alternative plan to offer... and whatever plan you offer, it has to be persuasive to all those folks who are currently being called dupes, stupid, and afraid. I don't believe that asking Americans to support a candidate or policy in the interest of internationalism is likely to get many votes. Americans hated the League of Nations and wouldn't follow Wilson's pleading, and the U.N. just isn't that popular today in Topeka, or in Little Rock, or Greenville.

4. Democrats have to learn apparently that one can strongly oppose an administration's policies without slandering the opposition. The balance between the two primary parties isn't all that great, so to be elected a Party can only win by appealing to cross-over voters. Voters who supported Bush in the last election aren't likely going to suddenly become enthusiastic supporters of a Party that has tastelessly attacked the candidate they supported in the past. This goes once more to the failure of the Democratic Party and its partisans to be respectful and civil to those elected by the Republican Party. No one expects that all personal attacks will cease, but until the Democratic Party reduces the level of its personal insults they aren't likely to gain many "soft" votes.

5. If you want to win votes in an American elections, you best find a whole lot of good, positive things to say about the United States, and conversely you had certainly don't want the voter to think you are siding with the enemy. The Democrats should stress evolution and progress, not deterioration and gloom. Present the voters with real solutions, and not just rhetoric. Politicians are presumed to be full of hot air and empty promises, so that politician who is perceived to have substantive proposals will get a fair hearing and maybe some votes. To say the Bush administration was all wrong, terrible, criminal etc., and offer nothing more than change is a losing proposition. Why should the voters elect your candidate who is likely to be no more honest, wise, etc. etc. than every other Presidential candidate since before 1800?

Even though I'm a conservative Republican, I do not want the Democratic Party to continue on the path it has been going for decades. The country needs a strong opposition party to that in power. Between 1865 and the election of Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats only won Presidential Office twice, both times with Grover Cleveland an immensely popular man whose policies weren't much different than that of Republicans. Hell, Wilson only managed to win when Teddy bolted the Party and founded the Bull Moose. That extended period of GOP dominance did not serve the country terribly well.

I expect to see more Democrats in Congress after this coming election, but I don't see the election as being a referendum on the Bush Administrations policies, nor will an increase in Democratic seats probably help much during the coming Presidential campaign. If the Democrats do take control of the legislature, it could hurt them as much later as help them. Be careful of what you wish for.

Yeah - hell Asherman if we're lucky, the Democrats will stay in the minority in both houses, the GOP will hold the white house in 2008, and the Republicans will continue to build power until they permanently marginalize the opposition, and we have a virtual one-party system.

That'd be great, huh?

I'm quite sincere in my hope that the Democratic Party can get its act together soon. The country needs a strong Party in loyal opposition. It is one of the less regarded elements providing checks and balances to the system. In the first 30 years or so of our political history it was an article of faith to both the Federalists and Democratic/Republicans that their Party alone was fit to govern perpetually. The necessity of a two Parties to form a stable system was an idea that only evolved later, but it is no less important to the continuation of our system of government.



I fully expect the Republican Party to do everything it legally can to increase its power to implement programs and policies commensurate with its political philosophy. I expect the same from the Democrats, and am saddened by their recent political ineptitude. From my perspective it would be catastrophic to the nation for ANY Party to continue indefinitely in office.

Democrats stay in minority in 2006 - Yep, great.

GOP holds the White House in 2008 - Yep, great.

The rest is up to the Democrats. They can't be marginalized without their cooperation.

Re: Poll: Dems Lead Republicans on Every Major Issue


Now there's a real winner of a tandem!! Two outfits we could all trust for news, no doubt!!!

I really thought by now Dean and the Dems would have put together some cohesive theme for the Dem party.

Here they are staring another cycle in the face with nothing.

I think I've heard Dean say its not their job to propose policies when they are not in power. Their job is to criticize Republicans to defeat them first.

Ahem.

So, why the hell would anyone elect them if they have no idea what they'd do if they got elected...?

<headache>



Insane!

Asherman et al, before you talk any further about Gore not having the "voter appeal" that Bush does, remember please that Gore in fact got a HALF MILLION VOTES MORE THAN BUSH DID.

Gore didn't have enough votes, and not in the right places, to win the election. As I said before, the election was very close but the Gore campaign was a failure in the end.

Beats me. I don't know. Ask Howard Dean.


Agreed.

I think it is wise for the opposition not to propose as their ideas will be stolen. Besides they are not running the show.

Hmmm....what is the US system re such things?


Here, both parties sometimes announce policy platforms in driblets during the last year or so of a government's life (they have variable lives here) - but generally it all comes in a rush once an election is announced.


The opposition sometimes announces complex stuff early, so the electorate get to understand it - but this, indeed, allows governments to copy it (while making it sound different) or put a lot of time and money into making it sound like a really bad idea.

Because what is insane is remaining in the car when it becomes obvious the driver intends to drive it off the cliff.

Besides, it is not true that the Dems don't have a plan. In point of fact, the Dems have had a plan all along, but the Republicans are committed to not listening.

Here is the outline of the plan:

1) Realize the front in the War on Terror is Afghanistan, not Iraq. Revise our "time-unlimited" committment to Iraq, and work on a timetable for withdrawal. The Iraqi forces have had years to get their act together-we can't stay there forever taking the brunt of the fighting while the people we are supposed to be fighting for take little "baby steps" to defend their own government.

2) End the tax breaks for the wealthy that are causing record deficits and driving the national debt into crisis proportions. We had the budget going into surplus before Bush took over-we can do it again once we have a Congress and later a President committed to fiscal sanity. Despite what the Republicans try to tell you, it CAN be done-because we did it before!

3) Reaffirm our committment to the Social Security system, and trashcan, (I'm using the polite word), any and all of the Republican crackpot "reforms" which have been coming down the pike since 2001. These "reforms" are not really reforms-they are gambits to break the system which, if instituted, will so bollix up the works that Social Security will never be able to function properly again.

Remember that the father of social Security is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the patron saint of the modern Democratic Party, and that Social Security worked for as long as the Democrats controlled Congress. The Republicans seemingly went along with Social Security because it became political suicide to oppose it, but once they gained the political upper hand look what they tried to do to it. If you want Social Security to continue in anything like it's present form, you need a Democratic Congress and Senate to protect it from the Republicans and their "reforms".

4) Stop shilly-shallying around pretending that man-made emissions have nothing to do with Global Warming, and institute reforms to try to cut CO2 emissions. The Republicans have been saying such will wreck the economy, but take a look at what they did to the budget and are trying to do to Social Security and ask yourself, "What do Republicans know about the economy"? The polar ice caps are melting, shipping companies are already applying to establish shipping lanes which presently are blocked by glaciers but which will be clear water in a few years. How long can we afford to wait to get started doing something?

According to Keltiwizard the Democratic platform consists of:

1. Set a definite date for removal of all U.S. forces from Iraq, and stick to it no matter what the consequences are.

2. Increase taxes and cut spending ... presumably military spending would take the biggest hit.

3. Make no reforms to the Social Security System, even though in its current state it will fail within the lifetime of todays voters.

4. Adopt strict Federal controls over all industries, business, and private activities that produce greenhouse gasess. There doesn't seem to be any concern about the chaos that would result by trying to turning the clock back to the mid-19th century, or earlier.

Looks like a prescription for disaster to me.

1. The violence in Iraq would intensify knowing that the U.S. will not not respond. Those working to create a free and open Iraq will be left holding the bag, and will either be murdered or join the enemy. The Radical Islamic Movement will celebrate victory calling it the "Vietnam" of the 21st century and the first step to world domination. "Freedom Fighters" will fan out around the world eager to attack the West and the U.S. with renewed hope of victory. Iran will seize leadership in the region and blackmail other governments to adopt policies detrimental to the West.

2. Who are the "wealthy"? Those who earn six figures and up already pay the lions share of the taxes in real terms. How would you like to be paying 30% or more of your income in taxes, while some of the population pay nothing. Some Democrats would favor "tax" rebates (!) even for those who pay zero taxes to begin with. This is a continuation of the philosophy that "wealth" equals "evil", and poverty is a virtue. Redistribution of the wealth in some vain and ideological effort to make everyone equal is doomed to failure.

Would taxing the "wealthy" balance the budget? Not on your life. The debt can only be decreased by cutting spending and/or increasing tax revenues faster than the debt increases. What has caused the national debt? Is it because the "wealthy" few only pay a few million each year, or is because the many pay little or nothing? What parts of the Federal budget do the Democrats propose cutting? Certainly not any of their own pork barrel, or favorite social engineering programs. In the discretionary budget the military get the lions share, do you really want the military budget to be slashed during a time when the nation is under attack by a determined foe? What part of the military budget would the Democrats like to cut? Fewer soldiers at lower pay? Less sophisticated weapons, even though they save lives? How about cutting the Navy down to coastal patrol boats since the U.S. would no longer be able to project power outside of CONUS?

The claim that the Clinton Administration was responsible for the last "surpluses" isn't exactly true. It is true that during the Clinton Administration the tax and spending programs of the Reagan and Bush years peaked out, but those trends were already underway when Clinton was elected. It is the Republican Party that has shown the greatest budgetary responsiblity since responsibility since the election of Eisenhower.

3 By failing to reform Social Security, the Democrats would doom the system. As the population ages there are fewer and fewer workers contributing to enhanced payments to more and more retirees. To make that work the social security taxes have been climbing for decades. What began as a system where many workers paid a small, almost nominal, tax to support a small number of old and crippled retirees, has become a monster. The system's reserves that was supposed to fund the system secure from budgetary raids by Congress, has been repeatedly raided to bailout other programs and shortfalls. The system left without any reforms will not be able to deliver on its promises to young workers who are today paying significant taxes just to keep it afloat a little longer. The Democrats like to talk as if they are concerned for the poor, but they are more interested in their flawed ideology than the real welfare of the People.

4. Any attempts to turn back the clock on the Industrial Revolution is both doomed to failure, and risks serious economic disaster for all Americans. How can the vast and complex American economy be suddenly thrown into reverse? We have over the past couple of hindered years become dependent on the products of the Industrial Revolution, and it has been a Revolution powered by petro-chemicals. To significantly reduce emissions would require us to shut off the power switch. Transportation would grind to a halt. An agriculture dependent upon fertilizers would be ruined. The chemical industry would be shut down, and plastics might become as valuable as precious metals. Do the Democrats propose that we shift from petro-chemicals to energy created by atomic power in the next four years? It takes decades just to get approval for atomic power plant design, and then the cost in time and resource before power is actually generated takes more years. In the meantime, our cities would come to a standstill. Unemployment would reach levels not seen since the height of the Great Depression.

But, the Democrats would like us to buy into their basic Chicken Little political platform on the chance that after one or two Democratic administrations the world will be transformed into another Eden. Return America to an isolationist past, and the Radical Islamic Movement will become ecumenical and peaceful. Redistribute the wealth so that every person will contribute what they are able, and be fully entitled to have as much as everyone else. The "wealthy" will be humbled and the virtuous poor will dominate society. It will be a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Safety net of Social Security and Medicare will disappear, and the aged and inform will be even worse off than they were in 1933. The American economy will be in ruins, and the nation will will become a second or third rate power.

Is this nightmare likely to happen if the Democratic Party wins the White House? No it is not. There's a great deal of difference between saying nice things that might get them a vote, and actually doing anything. Clinton promised that he would reform medical care and everyone would be fully covered. Hillary made it her great project and bombed big time. The actuality is that the only improvements we've seen in lowering the costs have come during a Republican administration. We need to regard all campaign rhetoric of both Parties with caution and doubt. Once in office the emphasis changes from winning votes in key States to dealing with the dirty business of governing the country and keeping it secure. Almost any Democrat elected to the Presidency will put the nation's welfare above hewing to an unrealistic Party Platform. No Democratic President is going to knowingly increase unemployment, or cut the legs out from under the most productive parts of the ecomomy. No politician is going to anger all the old and sick who have come to depend on Social Security by not taking steps to secure its future. The idea that a modern complex industrial economy can be quickly shut down is so silly that it just isn't going to happen... no matter which political party is in power.

Finally, the Democratic Platform above will not be enacted because the Republican Party will fight to the death to retain out national well-being.