Democrats Criticize Dean Attacks on GOP

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Well, it's the best idea I can come up with. Remember, all it would have taken in 2000 was one small state. The electoral college voted 271 Bush and 267 Gore. If gore would have carried one small state such as SD, ND, or WY, each with 3 electoral votes the tally would have been 268 for Bush and 270 for Gore.

In 2004 it was 286 for Bush and 252 for Kerry. That would have taken 18 electoral votes to change, probably 2 states, but not insurmountable. Remember we were in a war in 2004 and people don't like to change leadership during a war. They were worried about another terrorist attack.

Is it a pipedream?? I don't know, but it's a place to start. What changes can the Dem's make to pick up a key state or several smaller states? Seems to be worth pursuing to me.

They will have to locate 2-3 issues that fall within their party's generally stated current plank on which they can contrast themselves with the Republicans.

On each of those issues they will have to present viable alternatives that are spelled out in detail on how the issue will be addressed and what the results are. No FUD.

Those items will have to stand up to Republican attacks and be able to be differentiated from Republican ideas.

Exactly. I was telling one of the P&N members here that if I made it to the Iowa caucas would do exactly that.

That Dean scream or Swift Boat crap wouldn't be able to work.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
IMHO it's exactly this type of unnecessary elitist rhetoric that cost Dems the margin of moderates that would have given them 2004.

[/quote]

Do you have any evidence that voters were actually concerned about this purported elitism? I recall the polls talking about security and values, but nothing about elitism. Until then it's absurd to suggest this cost them the 2004 election.

 

[fornax]

The stupid Dems can continue to be the sheep and yes-men to Bush's agenda, afraid to be accused of being unpatriotic, or actually stand up and talk like Dean did. If they continue to behave like frightened pussies, they'll see Congress majority and presidency when my Duch
clog blooms.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Do you have any evidence that voters were actually concerned about this purported elitism? I recall the polls talking about security and values, but nothing about elitism. Until then it's absurd to suggest this cost them the 2004 election.

I'd rather not google around for a link that illustrates what I said...

I can tell you from first-hand experience, that "moderate" friends of mine confided to me that they definitely felt put off by the endless elitist anti-Bush/Republican rhetoric in theatres, on television, in the workplace, at bars, etc. etc.

If that's what you call absurdity, fine. I'm sure my personal experience means little to Dems here, which is why I prefaced my original post in this thread with IMHO (in my humble opinion). :beer:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
IMHO it's exactly this type of unnecessary elitist rhetoric that cost Dems the margin of moderates that would have given them 2004.

Do you have any evidence that voters were actually concerned about this purported elitism? I recall the polls talking about security and values, but nothing about elitism. Until then it's absurd to suggest this cost them the 2004 election.[/quote]

Where were you? I heard nothing but endless squeals about Democratic elitism. To a Republican, anybody who can think is an elitist.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Well, it's the best idea I can come up with. Remember, all it would have taken in 2000 was one small state. The electoral college voted 271 Bush and 267 Gore. If gore would have carried one small state such as SD, ND, or WY, each with 3 electoral votes the tally would have been 268 for Bush and 270 for Gore.

In 2004 it was 286 for Bush and 252 for Kerry. That would have taken 18 electoral votes to change, probably 2 states, but not insurmountable. Remember we were in a war in 2004 and people don't like to change leadership during a war. They were worried about another terrorist attack.

Is it a pipedream?? I don't know, but it's a place to start. What changes can the Dem's make to pick up a key state or several smaller states? Seems to be worth pursuing to me.

They will have to locate 2-3 issues that fall within their party's generally stated current plank on which they can contrast themselves with the Republicans.

On each of those issues they will have to present viable alternatives that are spelled out in detail on how the issue will be addressed and what the results are. No FUD.

Those items will have to stand up to Republican attacks and be able to be differentiated from Republican ideas.

Exactly. I was telling one of the P&N members here that if I made it to the Iowa caucas would do exactly that.

That Dean scream or Swift Boat crap wouldn't be able to work.

You will never the the GA vote. The politicians there will back-stab and resort to mud slinging.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: Tom
I'm probably too old to be right, but I don't think the Democrats can succeed by using the tactics of hate, or even if they could that isn't what I want my party to represent.

In the realm of things I think we should do,
1. come up with a reasonable version of a flat tax
2. a public education policy that focuses on students, instead of teacher unions
3. portray ourselves as what we are, the real conservative party, ie, that conserves freedom, justice for all, conserve the land, and our heritage.

In the tradition of Jefferson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton.

I'd vote for that party. Too bad it doesn't exist.

The interesting thing about the future is how different it can be from what we expected.