specialed Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I usually try and avoid political discourse here, but I'll make an exception this time. If the Dem's actually want to beat GW, the GOP, and the Christian Right they should pull their head out of their collective asses and find a candidate who is not an effete east coast liberal. We need someone who can do some damage in the south, lower midwest, and rangeland west. Someone like Kerry has a snowballs chance in hell of winning any of those states and relying on the outside chance of winning the swing states is ignorantly optimistic at best. Dems need counteract the GOP's pull to the right by finding the center and staying there instead of taking the bait and moving to the left, like the GOP wants them to do. When they do, they won't be able to turn the far right but they'll have a much better shot at the swing states and can gnaw away at the south and the inland west. And now the Dems are talking about Hillary Clinton in 08? Did we learn anything at all from the last two presidential elections? Apparantly not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 thanks for buying into the spin there specialed. the dems need to run an actual campaign - instead of letting bush/rove frame all of the issues ("eastcoast effete liberal" who went to the same schools as Bush) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Frieh Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Don't sweat it... by 2008 George will have declared himself supreme leader of the world and we will be enjoying something like this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Pete, I agree with what you are saying somewhat. The progressive shift of liberals further to the left over time is being done as a means to balance the conservatives shifting further to the right. When you can no longer reach out and touch the fence it leads to problems for you and your attitutes. You have become brainwashed into one viewpoint with an inability to "see" the other side. The land around the fence is foggy. The further you get from it, the harder it is to see it. Is there anybody OUT there? Liberals, conservatives: Come come come back back back to to to the the the fence fence fence. The democrats need to bring to their fore a moderate liberal. He/she doesn't have to be a fence sitter, but should at least be able to touch the fence. That's why I liked Lieberman. McCain would be a moderate conservative on the other side of the fence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonanon Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Iowans chose Kerry. Next stupid theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 From the UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialed Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 Iowa's a swing state and it was close. Ohio and Florida chose Bush. What's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonanon Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Kerry was the moderate. If Democrat's have to be more like Republicans in order to win, then they might as well be Republicans. Republicans suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 The progressive shift of liberals further to the left over time there is no evidence to suggest there has been such a shift, on the contrary since reagan democrats have tried to appeal to the center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 I concur. When Brokaw asked Kerry if he was a liberal in an interview, Kerry hemmed and hawed and never really admitted that he was a liberal. Kerry tried to appeal to as many voters as he could. In contrast, Ted Kennedy said he was a liberal and proud of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 The progressive shift of liberals further to the left over time there is no evidence to suggest there has been such a shift, on the contrary since reagan democrats have tried to appeal to the center. Do you even know where libralism started J_B? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Democrats can never get anywhere by being fake republicans, the fundies will choose the real deal every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Kerry was the moderate. That's right. He WAS a moderate. But he was not a moderate by the time October and November came around. The fac that Bush got re-elected should tell you as much. Pull your heads out of the sand and realize that you are in fact trending more and more left. You can be glad about it, but please at least acknowledge it is happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ireneo_Funes Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Maureen Dowd's got a good editorial in this morning's NY times... The Red Zone Personally, I hate the idea of the Dems shifting further to the right to woo the kind of voters that think that gay marriage and abortion are more important issues than the disaster in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 there is no evidence to suggest there has been such a shift, on the contrary since reagan democrats have tried to appeal to the center. Since the 1994 Republican takeover, the R party has progressively shifted themselves right in policies and actions (compare and contrast Bush 1 and Bush 2 if you don't believe me). They've spread out the democratic party and weakened them (hence the rise of Dean and "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Pull your heads out of the sand and realize that you are in fact trending more and more left. You can be glad about it, but please at least acknowledge it is happening. Name which policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonanon Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 He's still a mod. Hell, Clinton was a Republican, afaic. And you can pound sand, cum stubbins, I've got work to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialed Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 The progressive shift of liberals further to the left over time there is no evidence to suggest there has been such a shift, on the contrary since reagan democrats have tried to appeal to the center. And that's why they were so strong in the 90's (along with Gingrich, et al pushing the GOP too far to the right). The center moves. And unfortunately right now its further right than it has been in the past. If the Dems had fielded a candidate that was a bit more conservative than Kerry (not on social issues like gay marriage or abortion, but on political issues like defense, labor, etc.)and was from the south or the inland west I think we might have gotten the 3% of the votes needed to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Pull your heads out of the sand and realize that you are in fact trending more and more left. You can be glad about it, but please at least acknowledge it is happening. Name which policies. How about gay marriage? How about affirmative action? How about tearing down the 10 commandments and cutting prayer in schools? Would any of these issues been pressed by a majority of dems even 30 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 specialed's right. It's pretty clear that there are a lot of Americans out there who voted for Bush because of his conservative moral agenda. Regardless of whether those people are right, they're still Americans and there are a lot of them. We need a President who will appeal to the religious right and who can turn their moral conviction into a force for good rather than one of oppression, hate, and conformity (as it is now). Bush is not that President, but Clinton was more like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Thirty years ago there were a lot of other pressing issues, Scott. Equal rights for women was rather controversial in its time. Making progress takes time, so progressives have to be patient and be willing to compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 You guys have it all wrong. The terms Liberal and Conservative refer to a person's views on policy. The reason that Bush won and Kerry lost is not because Kerry was too liberal, but because Bush framed his campaign in terms of morals, belief and faith, whereas Kerry spoke in terms of policy only. Americans don't care that much about policy. They really don't give a fuck what the president and congress actually does in terms of policy. What they do care about is his morals. Bush did a better job of convincing people he was morally superior. He did that by keeping a very simple message that was rivetting for the religious masses. Kerry on the other hand spoke about what he would do and everyone's eyes glazed over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Affirmative action? Of course dems pressed. Gay marriage? Not even an issue 30 years ago, but considering the progressive nature of the democratic party (this has become a joke, right?), they would have been the ones to run with it. The dems have swung further to the right, and that's pretty evident over the last 20 years. This was the party strategy after 12 years of reagan/bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 Thirty years ago there were a lot of other pressing issues, Scott. Equal rights for women was rather controversial in its time. Making progress takes time, so progressives have to be patient and be willing to compromise. So you are in fact trending to the left more and more. That was all I was asking. Some conservatives wonder if it will ever stop and then "what next." For a party based on being progressive, what happens when there is no where else to go? Should we enslave the blacks so that you can have something to do? I purpose to serve? All I am saying is that there will come a point where you can't go any farther. Some feel you already have in some respects. Affirmative action type policies are seen as crossing the boundries by many conservatives. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
specialed Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 You guys have it all wrong. The terms Liberal and Conservative refer to a person's views on policy. The reason that Bush won and Kerry lost is not because Kerry was too liberal, but because Bush framed his campaign in terms of morals, belief and faith, whereas Kerry spoke in terms of policy only. Americans don't care that much about policy. They really don't give a fuck what the president and congress actually does in terms of policy. What they do care about is his morals. Bush did a better job of convincing people he was morally superior. He did that by keeping a very simple message that was rivetting for the religious masses. Kerry on the other hand spoke about what he would do and everyone's eyes glazed over. I wouldn't say your wrong. Bush's strongest and staunchest supporters are the religious right. Dem's couldn't (and probably shouldn't) try to attract those guys. What I'm saying is if we give those voters up we need to attract the ones that are just a bit more moderate than them (which Kerry apparantly failed to do). The question that keeps coming up is how to do that without sacrificing the key tenants of the Dem agenda (like freedom to marry, safe / legal abortion, and environmental protection)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.