Democrats in trouble??

[charrison]

The democrats have controlled much of politics over the past 70 or so years. For many of those 70 they control house/senate and the office of President. This week the republicans took control of these for the first time in 70 years. Over the past 10 years the republicans have become a much a stronger party. They have taken and held the house, and have regained the house. Plus over the past 10 years republican have taken 1000s of seats away from democrats in state houses. Far more democrats the federal level have switched to the republican party, than vice versa.

If the party listens to it liberal leadership and moves to left, I can only see them losing the moderates.
If the party moves back towards the right, I would see this only adding seats to republicans and the far left moving to the green party. It seems the Democratic party could be in serious trouble.


What is the democrats message?
Is the growing wealth of minorites adding the problem of the democrats?
Will they realize that their pandering to the far liberal left is hurting them?


If the democratic party were to suddenly disappear, I could easily see the republicans taking the democratic moderates and a rise to national power of the libertarian party.


Or maybe I am reading too much into this weeks events.

 

[shiner]

The Democrats are not it trouble....yet. The are reading Tuesday's election all wrong though. For some reason they don't want to admit that Tuesday was an ideological defeat. It was. Now they are most likely going to lurch back to the left and be controlled by the base that came into being in the 60's and are firm believers in "The Great Society" concept. If that happens and they swing hard back to the left the 2004 elections are going to be TRULY ugly for them. As a whole the voting populace is firmly in the moderate range with slight leanings to the right. That's why Clinton was so successful. He was a slimeball but he knew that running as a centrist is what mattered and what the people wanted to see. The Democrats in control now seem to have forgotten that and are about to drive another nail into their coffin.

 

[Desslok]

If you think the mainstream "D's" are bad. You should come down to New Mexico! They still think he New Deal is going on! To top that off a few years ago they were caught giving people money for food if they voted a certain way, what killed me was the fact that men got 10 dollars and women got 5.

I thought the "D's" were the one pushing for equal rights??

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Desslok
If you think the mainstream "D's" are bad. You should come down to New Mexico! They still think he New Deal is going on! To top that off a few years ago they were caught giving people money for food if they voted a certain way, what killed me was the fact that men got 10 dollars and women got 5.

I thought the "D's" were the one pushing for equal rights??

Women eat less.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Desslok
If you think the mainstream "D's" are bad. You should come down to New Mexico! They still think he New Deal is going on! To top that off a few years ago they were caught giving people money for food if they voted a certain way, what killed me was the fact that men got 10 dollars and women got 5.

I thought the "D's" were the one pushing for equal rights??

Women eat less.

Well . . . unless they're named Rosie or Oprah.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The Democrats are not it trouble....yet. The are reading Tuesday's election all wrong though. For some reason they don't want to admit that Tuesday was an ideological defeat. It was. Now they are most likely going to lurch back to the left and be controlled by the base that came into being in the 60's and are firm believers in "The Great Society" concept. If that happens and they swing hard back to the left the 2004 elections are going to be TRULY ugly for them. As a whole the voting populace is firmly in the moderate range with slight leanings to the right. That's why Clinton was so successful. He was a slimeball but he knew that running as a centrist is what mattered and what the people wanted to see. The Democrats in control now seem to have forgotten that and are about to drive another nail into their coffin.

I personaly would like to the leadership take the hard left turn. That would probably be the best thing they could do for this country.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Hardly. They just lack leadership.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: charrison
The democrats have controlled much of politics over the past 70 or so years. For many of those 70 they control house/senate and the office of President. This week the republicans took control of these for the first time in 70 years. Over the past 10 years the republicans have become a much a stronger party. They have taken and held the house, and have regained the house. Plus over the past 10 years republican have taken 1000s of seats away from democrats in state houses. Far more democrats the federal level have switched to the republican party, than vice versa.

If the party listens to it liberal leadership and moves to left, I can only see them losing the moderates.
If the party moves back towards the right, I would see this only adding seats to republicans and the far left moving to the green party. It seems the Democratic party could be in serious trouble.


What is the democrats message?
Is the growing wealth of minorites adding the problem of the democrats?
Will they realize that their pandering to the far liberal left is hurting them?


If the democratic party were to suddenly disappear, I could easily see the republicans taking the democratic moderates and a rise to national power of the libertarian party.


Or maybe I am reading too much into this weeks events.

Hahahahahahah, Hohohohoo, heeeheeheeee, gurgle, vomit and crawl back into my chair.

Your statement about the Libertarian party rising to national power overpowered me........heeeheee. Yeah, right.

Now let me wipe the beer off my monitor.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The Democrats are not it trouble....yet. The are reading Tuesday's election all wrong though. For some reason they don't want to admit that Tuesday was an ideological defeat. It was. Now they are most likely going to lurch back to the left and be controlled by the base that came into being in the 60's and are firm believers in "The Great Society" concept. If that happens and they swing hard back to the left the 2004 elections are going to be TRULY ugly for them. As a whole the voting populace is firmly in the moderate range with slight leanings to the right. That's why Clinton was so successful. He was a slimeball but he knew that running as a centrist is what mattered and what the people wanted to see. The Democrats in control now seem to have forgotten that and are about to drive another nail into their coffin.

I was watching CNN last night and someone on there was saying they needed to take the Democrates more to the left and more liberal now. That is why they lost, because they had too many centrists. LOL

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The Democrats are not it trouble....yet. The are reading Tuesday's election all wrong though. For some reason they don't want to admit that Tuesday was an ideological defeat. It was. Now they are most likely going to lurch back to the left and be controlled by the base that came into being in the 60's and are firm believers in "The Great Society" concept. If that happens and they swing hard back to the left the 2004 elections are going to be TRULY ugly for them. As a whole the voting populace is firmly in the moderate range with slight leanings to the right. That's why Clinton was so successful. He was a slimeball but he knew that running as a centrist is what mattered and what the people wanted to see. The Democrats in control now seem to have forgotten that and are about to drive another nail into their coffin.

I personaly would like to the leadership take the hard left turn. That would probably be the best thing they could do for this country.

I hope you mean that by doing that they would destroy themselves.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: shinerburke
The Democrats are not it trouble....yet. The are reading Tuesday's election all wrong though. For some reason they don't want to admit that Tuesday was an ideological defeat. It was. Now they are most likely going to lurch back to the left and be controlled by the base that came into being in the 60's and are firm believers in "The Great Society" concept. If that happens and they swing hard back to the left the 2004 elections are going to be TRULY ugly for them. As a whole the voting populace is firmly in the moderate range with slight leanings to the right. That's why Clinton was so successful. He was a slimeball but he knew that running as a centrist is what mattered and what the people wanted to see. The Democrats in control now seem to have forgotten that and are about to drive another nail into their coffin.

I personaly would like to the leadership take the hard left turn. That would probably be the best thing they could do for this country.

I hope you mean that by doing that they would destroy themselves.

You read that correctly.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: charrison
The democrats have controlled much of politics over the past 70 or so years. For many of those 70 they control house/senate and the office of President. This week the republicans took control of these for the first time in 70 years. Over the past 10 years the republicans have become a much a stronger party. They have taken and held the house, and have regained the house. Plus over the past 10 years republican have taken 1000s of seats away from democrats in state houses. Far more democrats the federal level have switched to the republican party, than vice versa.

If the party listens to it liberal leadership and moves to left, I can only see them losing the moderates.
If the party moves back towards the right, I would see this only adding seats to republicans and the far left moving to the green party. It seems the Democratic party could be in serious trouble.


What is the democrats message?
Is the growing wealth of minorites adding the problem of the democrats?
Will they realize that their pandering to the far liberal left is hurting them?


If the democratic party were to suddenly disappear, I could easily see the republicans taking the democratic moderates and a rise to national power of the libertarian party.


Or maybe I am reading too much into this weeks events.

Hahahahahahah, Hohohohoo, heeeheeheeee, gurgle, vomit and crawl back into my chair.

Your statement about the Libertarian party rising to national power overpowered me........heeeheee. Yeah, right.

Now let me wipe the beer off my monitor.

That would only be in somewhat unlikely event of a complete and overnight collapse(read whigs) of the Democratic party.

 

[glenn1]

Hahahahahahah, Hohohohoo, heeeheeheeee, gurgle, vomit and crawl back into my chair.

Your statement about the Libertarian party rising to national power overpowered me........heeeheee. Yeah, right.

Now let me wipe the beer off my monitor.

It's possible, even if it's not immediately probable. The dominance of the (D) and (R) parties isn't guaranteed forever. The Federalists, Whigs, Bull Moose, and plenty of other dominant parties have come and gone in the last couple of centuries.

 

[XMan]

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.

 

[tweakmm]

it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

Yeah, we have not had a majority elected president in about 12 years now...

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

What will last longer, the Florida election or Clinton's famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" line?

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tweakmm
it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

Yeah, we have not had a majority elected president in about 12 years now...

are you sure? I thought that the last president to win because of electorial votes was earlier this century

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: tweakmm
it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

What will last longer, the Florida election or Clinton's famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" line?

I never said anything about florida. I think it's a shame that the supreme court is the one deciding who the president is but I never mentioned that. It is a fact that Gore won the majority vote

 

[Red Dawn]

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.

The problem is those are the individuals who are indentified with the Democratic party. Bush is no Ronald Reagan but he also isn't a venom spewing Bob Dornan either. His down to earth style makes him easier to relate to for the average American.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tweakmm
it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

Yeah, we have not had a majority elected president in about 12 years now...

are you sure? I thought that the last president to win because of electorial votes was earlier this century

Clinton received the most votes, but Perot prevented him from getting >50%.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: tweakmm
it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

What will last longer, the Florida election or Clinton's famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" line?

I never said anything about florida. I think it's a shame that the supreme court is the one deciding who the president is but I never mentioned that. It is a fact that Gore won the majority vote

When will you and the people like you realize that the Electoral College worked just as it was supposed to? Quit saying the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election. That's false and only Democrat apologists still spout that crap. If you want to talk about a Supreme Court trying to steal an election for someone just look at what the Florida Supreme Court did in 2000. They outright ignored and broke Florida election laws in trying to give the election to Gore.

One more time for everyone in the peanut gallery.....Gore lost, get over it.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: tweakmm
it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

What will last longer, the Florida election or Clinton's famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" line?

I never said anything about florida. I think it's a shame that the supreme court is the one deciding who the president is but I never mentioned that. It is a fact that Gore won the majority vote

When will you and the people like you realize that the Electoral College worked just as it was supposed to?

It's working exactly like it's supposed to, and that's just the problem

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tweakmm
it's easy to become president when the majortity doesn't even elect the position

Yeah, we have not had a majority elected president in about 12 years now...

are you sure? I thought that the last president to win because of electorial votes was earlier this century

neither bush nor clinton received the majority vote. They both however won via electorial college.

 

[glenn1]

are you sure? I thought that the last president to win because of electorial votes was earlier this century.

I think he's talking about a majority of the popular vote, rather than a plurality. Neither of Clinton's wins were majorities, and i won't even get into the 2000 elections, as i'm sure Moonbeam will handle that chore for me.

The last President to win with a solid true majority was Bush rev.1 in 1988, with 53.4% of the popular vote.