Democrats in trouble??

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: charrison
Judging by the 2 folks that are trying to replace Gephardt*sp* it looks like the democrats have chosen to go left.

I haven't followed the political career of Nancy Pelosi but if what I have read about her in the last couple of days is true she could be the liberal version of Newt Gingrich.

She's a philandering hypocrite?

Worse, she's a liberal. 😉

No, I was confining my comments to her political career ( I know Red, you were too). She is very liberal, as liberal as Newt was conservative. She does represent a stark contrast to the Republicans of course but she also represents a stark contrast to most of her party, just like Newt. It will be interesting to see if she wants to maintain that contrast or move towards the middle.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Hardly. They just lack leadership.

I agree, there's no charismatic Democrat that people are interested. Most of them just come off as dicks and a-holes, like Daschle, the Reverend Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.

Yeah, but completely unlike Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Faldwell, Gary Bower, and the rest of the religious right.

The democratic party is in no sort of real trouble, no matter what some people want to believe. As in the rest of everything else, politics has a natural ebb and tide.

Back in the 80s, no one thought the republicans would ever come close to having a majority in either house. The republicans only have 51 seats in the senate. This is by no means another end of the whig party.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Hardly. They just lack leadership.

I agree, there's no charismatic Democrat that people are interested. Most of them just come off as dicks and a-holes, like Daschle, the Reverend Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.

Yeah, but completely unlike Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Faldwell, Gary Bower, and the rest of the religious right.

The democratic party is in no sort of real trouble, no matter what some people want to believe. As in the rest of everything else, politics has a natural ebb and tide.

Back in the 80s, no one thought the republicans would ever come close to having a majority in either house. The republicans only have 51 seats in the senate. This is by no means another end of the whig party.

this part of the 80's?
97th 1981-1983 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican
98th 1983-1985 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican
99th 1985-1987 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican

The Republican party has been getting stronger over the past 10 or 15 years. This is undeniable. The only seeming to deny it, are the hardcore democrats themselves.

By the time the election is over, it could be 53-54. This is far from a filibuster proof senate, but much work will get done now.

The Democrats if they swing too far to left could very well destroy the party. There are more votes in the middle, than on the ends. However if they swing to middle to get those votes, they very could lose the left wing liberals to the green party.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Hardly. They just lack leadership.

I agree, there's no charismatic Democrat that people are interested. Most of them just come off as dicks and a-holes, like Daschle, the Reverend Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.

Yeah, but completely unlike Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Faldwell, Gary Bower, and the rest of the religious right.

The democratic party is in no sort of real trouble, no matter what some people want to believe. As in the rest of everything else, politics has a natural ebb and tide.

Back in the 80s, no one thought the republicans would ever come close to having a majority in either house. The republicans only have 51 seats in the senate. This is by no means another end of the whig party.

this part of the 80's?
97th 1981-1983 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican
98th 1983-1985 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican
99th 1985-1987 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican

The Republican party has been getting stronger over the past 10 or 15 years. This is undeniable. The only seeming to deny it, are the hardcore democrats themselves.

By the time the election is over, it could be 53-54. This is far from a filibuster proof senate, but much work will get done now.

The Democrats if they swing too far to left could very well destroy the party. There are more votes in the middle, than on the ends. However if they swing to middle to get those votes, they very could lose the left wing liberals to the green party.

On the other hand, if the Republicans swing to far to the right they'll lose the Moderates.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001
Hardly. They just lack leadership.

I agree, there's no charismatic Democrat that people are interested. Most of them just come off as dicks and a-holes, like Daschle, the Reverend Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.

Yeah, but completely unlike Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, Jerry Faldwell, Gary Bower, and the rest of the religious right.

The democratic party is in no sort of real trouble, no matter what some people want to believe. As in the rest of everything else, politics has a natural ebb and tide.

Back in the 80s, no one thought the republicans would ever come close to having a majority in either house. The republicans only have 51 seats in the senate. This is by no means another end of the whig party.

this part of the 80's?
97th 1981-1983 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican
98th 1983-1985 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican
99th 1985-1987 Reagan Republican Democrat Republican

The Republican party has been getting stronger over the past 10 or 15 years. This is undeniable. The only seeming to deny it, are the hardcore democrats themselves.

By the time the election is over, it could be 53-54. This is far from a filibuster proof senate, but much work will get done now.

The Democrats if they swing too far to left could very well destroy the party. There are more votes in the middle, than on the ends. However if they swing to middle to get those votes, they very could lose the left wing liberals to the green party.

On the other hand, if the Republicans swing to far to the right they'll lose the Moderates.

I would agree on that, but I think a good chunk of the republicans sit just right of center.

 

[Moonbeam]

Probably the best way for the Democrats to win is to spotlight and redress the silent class war the rich and privileged have waged on the middle class and the poor for years and years now. The disparity of wealth is obscene. Probably many of the haves, knowing this, would help.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Probably the best way for the Democrats to win is to spotlight and redress the silent class war the rich and privileged have waged on the middle class and the poor for years and years now. The disparity of wealth is obscene. Probably many of the haves, knowing this, would help.

Only problem is, class warfare is not as effective as it used to be. Minorities have been gaining incoming and joining the middle class and the rich.

 

[Moonbeam]

charrison, you are up side down. Class warfare has been profoundly successful. A small percent of the people own almost everything. They spend plenty, though, to make you think like you do, like the threat is from the bottom.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
charrison, you are up side down. Class warfare has been profoundly successful. A small percent of the people own almost everything. They spend plenty, though, to make you think like you do, like the threat is from the bottom.

You are right, the rich own alot. The middle class owns plenty. The middle class has been growing, so class warfare is less effective. Sure the middle class may want more, but for the most part they are content where they are at. And they also realize, it is far easier to work for more, than to wait for the govt to give more to them.

 

[Moonbeam]

it's not about waiting for the government to give us more.

 

[Gnurb]

Bartlett for president '04! He's the democratic leadership we need!

 

[Gnurb]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
charrison, you are up side down. Class warfare has been profoundly successful. A small percent of the people own almost everything. They spend plenty, though, to make you think like you do, like the threat is from the bottom.

You are right, the rich own alot. The middle class owns plenty. The middle class has been growing, so class warfare is less effective. Sure the middle class may want more, but for the most part they are content where they are at. And they also realize, it is far easier to work for more, than to wait for the govt to give more to them.

That's absurd. What middle class person is happy where they are? Who doesn't want more money, power, sex? Inherently why communism fails.

<-Self proclaimed liberal reading Atlas Shrugged. We'll see.

 

[chowderhead]

As a solid Democrat, I am confused by the election results. It was a huge Republican night because they won control of the Senate and retained and added to the House. The surveys before and the exit polls after showed that Republicans were much more motivated to vote .... they were sucessful in getting their base out. Democrats for the most part stayed home.
All the major Senate battles were in states W. Bush won or (Minnesota where Bush was very close to winning) .... the missouri, south Dakota, and Minnesota races were VERY close. All close Republican seats were in states carried by Bush. His campaigning prolly helped push his candidates over the finish line. Still, the results were VERY close - and Bush was the deciding factor. In Georgia, definitely, the nationalization of the Senate race clearly showed that Bush is incredicibly strong in the south - in fact, the Democrat governor was defeated.

You had Democrats winning new Governorships in Tenn, Wyoming, Arizonia, Oklahoma(!), Kansas, and all along the rust belt while retaining California.
You had Republicans winning governors in Mass, Maryland, New York, Hawaii, Vermont and Florida while flipping the 3 governorships in the South - Georgia, Alabama, S. Carolina.

The main point I want to say is that Democrats in the CLOSE races ran as centrist - Cleland, Carnahan and Johnson all prolly voted with the President 60%- 70% of the time. Tax cuts, Iraq, missile defense, education reform, trade authorization, pro-gun rights - everything except for judges and the homeland security issue which would have been resolved. 2 of three (maybe all three) lost. Carnahan by 23,000 votes out of about 2 million that were casted. Bush still recruited people and campaigned hard against them. Why work with the President if he will cut you at your knee?
Mondale ran to the left to carry on the torch for Wellstone and he lost in a close result. Run to the left or campaign in the middle???

Should the Democrats turn to the left or lurch to the center??? I don't know. I do know that Pelosi will be the Republican's Newt Gingrich.
My heart tells me, she will be demonized because she is very liberal. I think she would be a fine Minority leader. I do feel that if the Democrats selected Harold Ford, Jr, it was be VERY exciting. He is smart, articulate and very moderate. He would be a great choice as well.

I would argue that the Democrats must develop a national plan that is a strong alternative to the Republican agenda. Payroll tax reduction, decrease in all spending, balancing the budget, fight for core values such as the environment, civil rights and personal freedoms. Be presistent and be vocal. The Democrats are certainly at a cross-roads. If, we do not make the right decisions and articulate our values into a vision for the future, the national democrats could end up like Californian Republicans - relegated to the also-ran for every major office. It is going to be an interesting 2 years. Good Luck.

 

[Ornery]

GOP's Contract with America

• [*]Fiscal Responsibility
  
  [*]Taking Our Streets Back
  
  [*]Restoring Our National Security
  
  [*]Creating Jobs and More Take-Home Pay
  
  [*]Common Sense Legal Reforms
  
  [*]Encouraging Personal Responsibility
  
  [*]The Citizen Legislature
  
  [*]Restoring the American Dream
  
  [*]Senior Citizens Equity
  
  [*]Reinforcing Family

What would the "Pelosi" Democrat Contract With America look like? How about a "more centrist" Democrat Contract With America? We already saw what happened with Hillary's Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Do ya think "free prescriptions" for seniors will fair any better? Are they going to keep trying to shore up the existing Social Security System? They keep harping about education, but it's the GOP that finally got vouchers rolling. Are the Dems going to fight that direction?

I'd just LOVE to see a ten point Democrat's contract!

 

[Tominator]

The middle class HAS been shrinking, but not because they are joining the ranks of the poor! They are, and in increasing numbers, joining the ranks of the so-called rich.

Opportunity abounds!

Class warfare failed the Democrats in this election and as more voters take advantage of our system and pull themselves up the ladder there will be MORE Republicans. The old 'tax cuts for the rich' argument became stale and fell on deaf ears that knew the truth.

The poor are stuck where they are because of Democrats telling them that without government they cannot make it. There are success stories of poor people finally succeeding in your newspaper everyday. A hand up, not a handout!

Democrat leadership has failed to promote an agenda. The public perceives the President as honest and down to earth and unlike Clinton/Gore is getting things done that they can identify with. The Democrat faithful stayed home because they were hesitant to vote against Bush and what he stands for at least in part.

The Democrats offered nothing to vote for.

Moving left will hurt them in the national elections even more imho.

 

[Moonbeam]

chowderhead, I enjoyed reading your 'thinking out loud' soul searching post. It's not too too often I see somebody in the process of internal self evaluation instead of telling us their own certainty. The questions I wonder about are these. I have a feeling that Bush and company are much more to the right than where they govern from, more or less on the basis that politics is the art of the possible. I wonder if this will not drive us more to the right than where most people wish to go, and if this has not already happened. I vote because I see it as a citizen's duty, but there is nobody really for whom I have any real interest in voting. I see politics mostly as a struggle over crumbs, how much the rich can extract from the middle class in terms of avoiding shouldering their fair share of responsibility. 50% of the population do not vote. They are disenfranchised and that's probably the way the voting majority wants it. Nobody is talking to them, nobody is representing them. I wonder if their interests, their votes are not the natural property of an invigorated left that sought not the votes of the center, but that huge unvoting mass who have no representation.

My personal take is that those fighting over the pie have, in other words, no interest in sharing the pie and are so focused on getting more than their share of it that they have no time to think about how to grow it. Effective lobbying requires money and organization. The swing to the right in the US, isn't it that money controls the lobbyists, and the debate, and the candidates. If so than what our society will produce is an ever shrinking percent of people with more and more wealth.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tominator
The middle class HAS been shrinking, but not because they are joining the ranks of the poor! They are, and in increasing numbers, joining the ranks of the so-called rich.

Opportunity abounds!

Class warfare failed the Democrats in this election and as more voters take advantage of our system and pull themselves up the ladder there will be MORE Republicans. The old 'tax cuts for the rich' argument became stale and fell on deaf ears that knew the truth.

The poor are stuck where they are because of Democrats telling them that without government they cannot make it. There are success stories of poor people finally succeeding in your newspaper everyday. A hand up, not a handout!

Democrat leadership has failed to promote an agenda. The public perceives the President as honest and down to earth and unlike Clinton/Gore is getting things done that they can identify with. The Democrat faithful stayed home because they were hesitant to vote against Bush and what he stands for at least in part.

The Democrats offered nothing to vote for.

Moving left will hurt them in the national elections even more imho.

Is that true, that the Middle Class is Shrinking because vast numbers of them are becoming rich? Can you back that statement up with some proof? That would be very interesting to me if it were true.

 

[Kilgor]

I vote because I see it as a citizen's duty, but there is nobody really for whom I have any real interest in voting. I see politics mostly as a struggle over crumbs, how much the rich can extract from the middle class in terms of avoiding shouldering their fair share of responsibility.

I give my money to most corporations voluntarily to buy things I want or need, the only source of involuntarily extraction of monies from my person is by the Government. So they can give my crumbs to the poor for avoiding their fair share of responsibility. 😉

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tominator
The middle class HAS been shrinking, but not because they are joining the ranks of the poor! They are, and in increasing numbers, joining the ranks of the so-called rich.

Opportunity abounds!

Class warfare failed the Democrats in this election and as more voters take advantage of our system and pull themselves up the ladder there will be MORE Republicans. The old 'tax cuts for the rich' argument became stale and fell on deaf ears that knew the truth.

The poor are stuck where they are because of Democrats telling them that without government they cannot make it. There are success stories of poor people finally succeeding in your newspaper everyday. A hand up, not a handout!

Democrat leadership has failed to promote an agenda. The public perceives the President as honest and down to earth and unlike Clinton/Gore is getting things done that they can identify with. The Democrat faithful stayed home because they were hesitant to vote against Bush and what he stands for at least in part.

The Democrats offered nothing to vote for.

Moving left will hurt them in the national elections even more imho.

Is that true, that the Middle Class is Shrinking because vast numbers of them are becoming rich? Can you back that statement up with some proof? That would be very interesting to me if it were true.

I've never heard this. I think the numbers have stayed close to the same over the last 20 years. Sure people make more money, it's called inflation.

Actually, I've heard that with immigration, Democrats are going to be more and more powerful. Supposedly, it won't be too long (20 years) until Florida and Texas are solid Democrat states.

 

[glenn1]

My personal take is that those fighting over the pie have, in other words, no interest in sharing the pie and are so focused on getting more than their share of it that they have no time to think about how to grow it. Effective lobbying requires money and organization. The swing to the right in the US, isn't it that money controls the lobbyists, and the debate, and the candidates. If so than what our society will produce is an ever shrinking percent of people with more and more wealth.

Moonbeam, you're simply dead wrong about this point, and here's why.

First and foremost, people do not care about your class envy techniques, because they're doing okay regardless of what numbers you provide. You can the American people all the graphs and charts and studies you want, and they won't care.... people care about how THEY are doing, not about how the wealthiest 1% is doing.

Quite simply put, economic growth in this country has been so profound and pervasive that the poorest 1% of our population is better off than 99% of the rest of the planet. No one lacks for any basic necessities in this country, even the tiny minority that fall into this category short-term can easily get their basic needs met by charity organizations.

Now let's go back to your example of the middle class. Give me one, single, solitary example of a deprivation that the middle class suffers in comparison to the rich. The average middle class family has a couple hundred thousand dollar home, two or three cars, three or four TVs, a computer or two... what do they NOT have the rich do that would make them so angry? Do you think they care that Bill Gates can afford the 70" plasma screen HDTV, when they can only afford the 53" model?


That's why your class baiting techniques don't work. You're going around telling everyone how badly the rich are getting ahead at their expense, and they know full well that they're doing fine... they'd hope to continue doing better of course, but the average middle class person in this country is not upset with his economic situation.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tominator
The middle class HAS been shrinking, but not because they are joining the ranks of the poor! They are, and in increasing numbers, joining the ranks of the so-called rich.

Opportunity abounds!

Class warfare failed the Democrats in this election and as more voters take advantage of our system and pull themselves up the ladder there will be MORE Republicans. The old 'tax cuts for the rich' argument became stale and fell on deaf ears that knew the truth.

The poor are stuck where they are because of Democrats telling them that without government they cannot make it. There are success stories of poor people finally succeeding in your newspaper everyday. A hand up, not a handout!

Democrat leadership has failed to promote an agenda. The public perceives the President as honest and down to earth and unlike Clinton/Gore is getting things done that they can identify with. The Democrat faithful stayed home because they were hesitant to vote against Bush and what he stands for at least in part.

The Democrats offered nothing to vote for.

Moving left will hurt them in the national elections even more imho.

Is that true, that the Middle Class is Shrinking because vast numbers of them are becoming rich? Can you back that statement up with some proof? That would be very interesting to me if it were true.

I've never heard this. I think the numbers have stayed close to the same over the last 20 years. Sure people make more money, it's called inflation.

Actually, I've heard that with immigration, Democrats are going to be more and more powerful. Supposedly, it won't be too long (20 years) until Florida and Texas are solid Democrat states.

Isn't the vast Majorit of Immigrants in Florida Cuban? If that's the case then Flrida won't become Democrat because the Republicans have the Cuban in their hip pocket. The main reason why we don't normalize relations with Cuba is because of the political clout of the Cuban American's in Florida.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Tominator
The poor are stuck where they are because of Democrats telling them that without government they cannot make it. There are success stories of poor people finally succeeding in your newspaper everyday. A hand up, not a handout!

Which one of the many unemployeed people are you talking about?

Democrat leadership has failed to promote an agenda. The public perceives the President as honest and down to earth and unlike Clinton/Gore is getting things done that they can identify with. The Democrat faithful stayed home because they were hesitant to vote against Bush and what he stands for at least in part.

The Democrats offered nothing to vote for.

Moving left will hurt them in the national elections even more imho.

I agree that the Democratic message was less than optimal this year. The public does identify with the president as a regular guy, but I disagree that they think he gets things done.

The election was not about ideology or right/left wing politics. This election was about 1 thing, September 11th. The message was that if you stick with Dubbya and the Republicans, you'll be safe.

The Democrat faithful wasn't hesitant about anything. In most of these races, the margin was very small. There was no clear mandate from the people. Many undecided voters chose Republican because they are scared of losing their lives and families. The Republicans projected a better picture of security, which is easy when one of your guys controls the military.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tominator
The middle class HAS been shrinking, but not because they are joining the ranks of the poor! They are, and in increasing numbers, joining the ranks of the so-called rich.

Opportunity abounds!

Class warfare failed the Democrats in this election and as more voters take advantage of our system and pull themselves up the ladder there will be MORE Republicans. The old 'tax cuts for the rich' argument became stale and fell on deaf ears that knew the truth.

The poor are stuck where they are because of Democrats telling them that without government they cannot make it. There are success stories of poor people finally succeeding in your newspaper everyday. A hand up, not a handout!

Democrat leadership has failed to promote an agenda. The public perceives the President as honest and down to earth and unlike Clinton/Gore is getting things done that they can identify with. The Democrat faithful stayed home because they were hesitant to vote against Bush and what he stands for at least in part.

The Democrats offered nothing to vote for.

Moving left will hurt them in the national elections even more imho.

Is that true, that the Middle Class is Shrinking because vast numbers of them are becoming rich? Can you back that statement up with some proof? That would be very interesting to me if it were true.

I've never heard this. I think the numbers have stayed close to the same over the last 20 years. Sure people make more money, it's called inflation.

Actually, I've heard that with immigration, Democrats are going to be more and more powerful. Supposedly, it won't be too long (20 years) until Florida and Texas are solid Democrat states.

Isn't the vast Majorit of Immigrants in Florida Cuban? If that's the case then Flrida won't become Democrat because the Republicans have the Cuban in their hip pocket. The main reason why we don't normalize relations with Cuba is because of the political clout of the Cuban American's in Florida.

Miami has a strong cuban group, but there are also a lot of hatians, jamaicans, and even mexicans. Not all cubans vote republican.

Stats

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Tominator
The middle class HAS been shrinking, but not because they are joining the ranks of the poor! They are, and in increasing numbers, joining the ranks of the so-called rich.

Opportunity abounds!

Class warfare failed the Democrats in this election and as more voters take advantage of our system and pull themselves up the ladder there will be MORE Republicans. The old 'tax cuts for the rich' argument became stale and fell on deaf ears that knew the truth.

The poor are stuck where they are because of Democrats telling them that without government they cannot make it. There are success stories of poor people finally succeeding in your newspaper everyday. A hand up, not a handout!

Democrat leadership has failed to promote an agenda. The public perceives the President as honest and down to earth and unlike Clinton/Gore is getting things done that they can identify with. The Democrat faithful stayed home because they were hesitant to vote against Bush and what he stands for at least in part.

The Democrats offered nothing to vote for.

Moving left will hurt them in the national elections even more imho.

Is that true, that the Middle Class is Shrinking because vast numbers of them are becoming rich? Can you back that statement up with some proof? That would be very interesting to me if it were true.

There are some stats at the heritage foundation that during the 80's the bottom 1/5 was more likely to join the ranks of the top 1/5, than to stay in the bottom 1/5.

I do not know of anything more current.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Tominator
The poor are stuck where they are because of Democrats telling them that without government they cannot make it. There are success stories of poor people finally succeeding in your newspaper everyday. A hand up, not a handout!

Which one of the many unemployeed people are you talking about?

Democrat leadership has failed to promote an agenda. The public perceives the President as honest and down to earth and unlike Clinton/Gore is getting things done that they can identify with. The Democrat faithful stayed home because they were hesitant to vote against Bush and what he stands for at least in part.

The Democrats offered nothing to vote for.

Moving left will hurt them in the national elections even more imho.

I agree that the Democratic message was less than optimal this year. The public does identify with the president as a regular guy, but I disagree that they think he gets things done.

The election was not about ideology or right/left wing politics. This election was about 1 thing, September 11th. The message was that if you stick with Dubbya and the Republicans, you'll be safe.

The Democrat faithful wasn't hesitant about anything. In most of these races, the margin was very small. There was no clear mandate from the people. Many undecided voters chose Republican because they are scared of losing their lives and families. The Republicans projected a better picture of security, which is easy when one of your guys controls the military.

So you are content to beleive that this election was only about 9/11. How do manage to forget the fact that the DNC has been slipping in power in state/local elections for the past 15 years?

The Georgia legislature just fell to republican hands due to defections. This may become a popular trend if the swing to the left is too hard.