How Democrats can win?

[twl1973]

An article about a report that talks about how the Democrats can win in the current political climate. I haven't read the report but the suggestions seem to be on target.

“Democrats must seize the opportunity to offer compelling alternatives to current Republican policies concerning homeland defense and the ultimate nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.”

A very good point as the Democrats don't seem to have anything going for them in terms of foreign policy besides, "Bush lied."

“show tolerance and common sense on hot-button social issues." Democrats “could continue to support the core of Roe v. Wade while dropping their intransigence on questions such as parental notification and partial birth abortion. They could oppose court-imposed gay marriage while favoring decent legal treatment for gay couples and insisting that this is a matter for the people of the several states -- not the U.S. Constitution or the judiciary -- to resolve.”

By not making an end run around the people and going to the courts, Democrats could attract a lot of moderates in this manner.

Third, they recommend that Democrats adopt a more free trade position (“an economic policy that embraces global competition”) while at the same time providing a social safety net for people who lose their jobs in the process.

Which would alienate the unions to no end. But would that be such a bad thing in the long run as the unions don't have the political power that they had in the past.

The authors posit that the last three losing Democratic Presidential candidates (Dukakis, Gore and Kerry) tended to talk primarily to highly educated upscale professionals who make up a significant part of the liberal base of the Democratic Party, rather than to less well educated working class voters who are also necessary for victory.

This speaks for itself. The last Democrat to win was Clinton who did appeal outside of the liberal elite. Compare Clinton to Kerry in terms of being "with the people" and you can see that Kerry looked to be out of his element.

Will the Democrats actually take some of these to heart? I don't know but from losing the last couple presidential elections they might be willing to try in some way, shape, or form.

[The Cid]

I guess my hope is that the Democrats keep going really far to the left and Republicans keep going extremely far to the right and creating dissent in their own parties. This kind of entropic political theory is how I can truly wish for Other Parties to surface.

[adciv]

I remember a quote I cam across from someones signature.

One Democrat in 25 years. He was the most conservative of them all. So why are all the rest moving further left?

The authors also trace another alarming trend for Democrats -- a significant decline in support among married women. Republican support among married women went from 40 percent in 1992 to 55 percent in 2004.

Probably because most women who vote Liberal aren't getting maried.

A couple of other intersting things I have read, partly humor, partly serious.

Republican Statement:
America Good
Low Taxes Good (High Taxes Bad)
Personal Responsibility Good

Democrat Statement:
America Sometimes Good but Usually Bad
High Taxes Good (Low Taxes Bad)
Personal Responsibility Bad

Another one:
Michael Moore has become everything Democrats say you can't trust. A Rich White Fat Man.

A few more along those lines, but it should serve to give you a good idea. Best way to find out what people don't like is to look at the humor writen about them. Watch Jay Leno for one. Prickly City Another It's been a while since I heard much about the democrats, other than Sheehan's comment about Occupied New Orleans.

[mikehendo]

Republican Statement:
America Good
Low Taxes Good (High Taxes Bad)
Personal Responsibility Good

Democrat Statement:
America Sometimes Good but Usually Bad
High Taxes Good (Low Taxes Bad)
Personal Responsibility Bad

If only it were that simple.
The personal responsibility argument is faulty for one. It isnt so much that they are saying that responsibility is good or not; it is the context in which either of the parties support personal responsibility.

Its times like this when I remember why I rarely come into this section..

[harpua7859]

[quote="adciv";p="553758"]Michael Moore has become everything Democrats say you can't trust. A Rich White Fat Man.[/quote]

Yes, but he's not a democrat. he is blatantly against BOTH parties. he just gets more material from the red side of the coin.

But at least both parties can hate im equally now.

[Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste]

Similar to what The Cid says, but conversely, if the Democratic party would become more 'moderate' over time, for example doing things like "compromising" on creationism being taught in schools by supporting intelligent design, what they would gain in moderate votes would possibly be lost in votes more to the left to third parties.

I haven't watched Moore's movies, but he stole one of the names for them from Ray Bradbury's book, who has stated that he wants a renaming of the movie or an apology for using his book for political purposes, and Ray Bradbury has not gotten either. That kind of thing alone is terrible.

[StruckingFuggle]

I don't think it's that terrible. He created a cultural reference / landmark that is VERY coddamn political to begin with - he should expect people of all sorts to reference it.

[naval_aviator_2040]

[quote="twl1973";p="553569"]

Third, they recommend that Democrats adopt a more free trade position (“an economic policy that embraces global competition”) while at the same time providing a social safety net for people who lose their jobs in the process.

Which would alienate the unions to no end. But would that be such a bad thing in the long run as the unions don't have the political power that they had in the past.
[/quote]

no but they can still urge their members to vote a certain way or organize strikes to put pressure on buisiness leaders. maybe not as effectively as they used to but I wouldn't count them out of the fight quite yet.

[The Cid]

(Excuse the drift off-topic...actually...IS it off-topic?)
Great Adam Smith's Ghost!

Somebody out there figured out that Michael Moore is making money from these movies! To me, that's why I can't trust the man. He is not a journalist, he is a sensationalist. I'm not debating his facts. I'm debating his methods.

A journalist works for a news organization. The journalist's job and his desire are the same: report the news so that the public can know the facts. (Whether or not "journalists" today are DOING this is irrelevant, I'm talking about the objective of the industry as it was designed.)

Do you pay for NPR? I don't. Yet, I often use NPR to discern some news. Did Woodward and Bernstein collect royalties for every copy of the Post that sold when they reported Watergate? For that matter, did Mr. Felt? Of course not. Nor were they looking to sell their stories to the highest bidder.

So maybe Michael Moore does, in fact, have information that he believes can bring down President Bush, and he might even want every voter to be informed. But DAMNED if he isn't charging us ten bucks to give us such essential information by Election Day.

I'm sorry, I can't trust someone like that.

[Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste]

What did conservatives do in the time between Clinton being elected and the time when campaigns began that is different from what is being done between the time Bush got elected and the time when campaigns begin? I intend this not as a sentence trying to make a point, but as more of an inquiring one.

[StruckingFuggle]

... *boggle* Wait, Cid, does that mean that you think he has credible factual information?

[twl1973]

[quote="Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste";p="553827"]What did conservatives do in the time between Clinton being elected and the time when campaigns began that is different from what is being done between the time Bush got elected and the time when campaigns begin? I intend this not as a sentence trying to make a point, but as more of an inquiring one.[/quote]

I was listening to NPR and they actually talked about this. The Republicans put out in 1994, six weeks before the election, the Contract with America that laid out what they would do if elected. This put out for the American people what the Republicans stood for and gave the American people a specific thing to vote for. Now the Republicans didn't implement some of it but it was a refreshingly simple and effective idea.

[The Cid]

Actually StruckingFuggle, I've only seen Roger and Me. I never really paid too much mind to Moore. So I don't know what his information says or how true it is. I just know that if he thinks he can bring down President Bush, he's certainly making the average citizen pay him admission to share his knowledge.

[adciv]

[quote="twl1973";p="553872"][quote="Tasty Biscuit Toothpaste";p="553827"]What did conservatives do in the time between Clinton being elected and the time when campaigns began that is different from what is being done between the time Bush got elected and the time when campaigns begin? I intend this not as a sentence trying to make a point, but as more of an inquiring one.[/quote]

I was listening to NPR and they actually talked about this. The Republicans put out in 1994, six weeks before the election, the Contract with America that laid out what they would do if elected. This put out for the American people what the Republicans stood for and gave the American people a specific thing to vote for. Now the Republicans didn't implement some of it but it was a refreshingly simple and effective idea.[/quote]

Not having watched the Democratic National Committee primarys last year, I can not testify to this myself. However, I have been told that they would tell one group one thing, then go to another and say the exact opposite thing in order to get votes. In other words, some people that watched them decided that they couldn't be trusted / were saying anything to get elected.

edit: One more quick thing. They can help get rid of the Marriage Penalty Tax. That would help.

[elroy]

Will the national debt/foreign debt/budget deficit be an issue ? If so, I can see the republicans winning, again. People don't want to hear they'll have to raise taxes considerably to pay these. They want to hear everything is ok, there's nothing to worry about and they should go back to whatever they were doing.