Is anyone happy with the democratic party right now?

[Infohawk]

After the loss last fall, I said the dems had to do one of two things if they wanted to win:

- attract some zealots and preserve economic policies OR
- abandon some minorities and go after fiscal conservatives

Doing one of these could help get a majority. I'm not very surprised they aren't doing either as those are giant shifts and it's a bit unrealistic.

Now, I'd accept if they kept losing until hispanics overwhelm the nascar streak in the next decades IF they had spines and actually were an opposition party.

As it is they just seem to be scared of insulting people. The Republicans have a stranglehold over governmnetn. Might as well be a voice of dissent.

Anyone happy with the dems?

 

[rickn]

I've been disappointed with both parties for quite some time. The dems don't seem to have much momentum. they need to learn how to pander to the fundies

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: rickn
they need to learn how to pander to the fundies

Yup, that or the rich. I'm pragmatic. If you can't have both aspects of your policy put in place might as well try to get one. Personally, I'd prefer if they oppose the fundies and go for the libertarian types. They already have a solid base to work from. Contrary to popular belief republicans are just as big government spenders and dems like clinton are economically conservative in a sound, balance-the-budget-kinda-way.

Edit: Or they could just point out that Bush is a insane liar and I'd at least respect them even if they had no power.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: rickn
they need to learn how to pander to the fundies

Yup, that or the rich. I'm pragmatic. If you can't have both aspects of your policy put in place might as well try to get one. Personally, I'd prefer if they oppose the fundies and go for the libertarian types. They already have a solid base to work from. Contrary to popular belief republicans are just as big government spenders and dems like clinton are economically conservative in a sound, balance-the-budget-kinda-way.

Edit: Or they could just point out that Bush is a insane liar and I'd at least respect them even if they had no power.

or the catholics. lotta of the moderate christians sided with the fundies and Bush doctrine in nov 2004

 

[1EZduzit]

They need to do something different. Hopefully they will figure something out in time for the mid-term elections.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: rickn
they need to learn how to pander to the fundies

Yup, that or the rich. I'm pragmatic. If you can't have both aspects of your policy put in place might as well try to get one. Personally, I'd prefer if they oppose the fundies and go for the libertarian types. They already have a solid base to work from. Contrary to popular belief republicans are just as big government spenders and dems like clinton are economically conservative in a sound, balance-the-budget-kinda-way.

Edit: Or they could just point out that Bush is a insane liar and I'd at least respect them even if they had no power.

or the catholics. lotta of the moderate christians sided with the fundies and Bush doctrine in nov 2004

The only way to get the catholics is to change their stance on abortion.

 

[Infohawk]

Actually Catholics have traditionally been democratic. Lately they've been going to the Republicans, but it's still very even. They aren't a very fertile ground for recruits. I think fiscal conservatives / social liberals who have seen Bush's war budget skyrocket would work if Dems really pushed the end of the new deal.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: rickn
they need to learn how to pander to the fundies

Yup, that or the rich. I'm pragmatic. If you can't have both aspects of your policy put in place might as well try to get one. Personally, I'd prefer if they oppose the fundies and go for the libertarian types. They already have a solid base to work from. Contrary to popular belief republicans are just as big government spenders and dems like clinton are economically conservative in a sound, balance-the-budget-kinda-way.

Edit: Or they could just point out that Bush is a insane liar and I'd at least respect them even if they had no power.

or the catholics. lotta of the moderate christians sided with the fundies and Bush doctrine in nov 2004

The only way to get the catholics is to change their stance on abortion.

it's not just catholics though. hell, my parents go to methodist church, and right before the nov 2004 the preachers wife would make comments like "if you're christian you'll vote for Bush" and that type of mentality echo'd thru many of the more moderate churches across this country.

 

[Steeplerot]

not happy with them either and Kerry was a big dissapointment in most ways that mattered to me, If cali had nader or a decent third party I am sure they would have got mad votes.

Dean is trying it seems but the dims pretty much leave a big something to be desired, we need a third party asap.

the corporate powers that be have smeared their name and the dims pretty much let them
so I do not see the point in them even exsisting, maybe time to reform both parties?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: rickn
they need to learn how to pander to the fundies

Yup, that or the rich. I'm pragmatic. If you can't have both aspects of your policy put in place might as well try to get one. Personally, I'd prefer if they oppose the fundies and go for the libertarian types. They already have a solid base to work from. Contrary to popular belief republicans are just as big government spenders and dems like clinton are economically conservative in a sound, balance-the-budget-kinda-way.

Edit: Or they could just point out that Bush is a insane liar and I'd at least respect them even if they had no power.

or the catholics. lotta of the moderate christians sided with the fundies and Bush doctrine in nov 2004

The only way to get the catholics is to change their stance on abortion.

it's not just catholics though. hell, my parents go to methodist church, and right before the nov 2004 the preachers wife would make comments like "if you're christian you'll vote for Bush" and that type of mentality echo'd thru many of the more moderate churches across this country.

I've suggested this before, but apparently no one listens to it. I think if the Dems would take a different stance of gun control/registration they could pick up a lot of votes in the rural areas. I love to hunt. my whole family loves to hunt and I have 2 brothers who are sick of the Repugs, but won't vote Dem for fear of losing theor guns. Gun control used to be a big issue, but you don't hear much about it anymore.

 

[Steeplerot]

Even most gun control nuts I know could care less about hunting, hell even in Canada they let you have a rifle for that....

your right more people need to be educated about party stances.

Handguns, eeehhh not sure...
automatic assult issue anything -hell no...

problem is keeping that crap out of the country so criminals don't get it.

my opinion is if it's meant to kill a PERSON dead... then it has no use except for a militia..which we don't have anyway....

But I can't see actually outlawing it until the day would come that even cops would not need them against criminals.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: rickn
they need to learn how to pander to the fundies

Yup, that or the rich. I'm pragmatic. If you can't have both aspects of your policy put in place might as well try to get one. Personally, I'd prefer if they oppose the fundies and go for the libertarian types. They already have a solid base to work from. Contrary to popular belief republicans are just as big government spenders and dems like clinton are economically conservative in a sound, balance-the-budget-kinda-way.

Edit: Or they could just point out that Bush is a insane liar and I'd at least respect them even if they had no power.

or the catholics. lotta of the moderate christians sided with the fundies and Bush doctrine in nov 2004

The only way to get the catholics is to change their stance on abortion.

it's not just catholics though. hell, my parents go to methodist church, and right before the nov 2004 the preachers wife would make comments like "if you're christian you'll vote for Bush" and that type of mentality echo'd thru many of the more moderate churches across this country.

I've suggested this before, but apparently no one listens to it. I think if the Dems would take a different stance of gun control/registration they could pick up a lot of votes in the rural areas. I love to hunt. my whole family loves to hunt and I have 2 brothers who are sick of the Repugs, but won't vote Dem for fear of losing theor guns. Gun control used to be a big issue, but you don't hear much about it anymore.

or the dems could promise to give daytime soap viewers primetime tv slots 8pm m-f, that would get them some votes from them old soap broads. I doubt gun control is enough to make up for the votes they lost in 2004

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: rickn
I doubt gun control is enough to make up for the votes they lost in 2004

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all they had to do was pick up one of the little rural red states in either of the last two elections and they would have won.

 

[Infohawk]

Wasn't Howard Dean not in favor of gun control?

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: rickn
I doubt gun control is enough to make up for the votes they lost in 2004

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all they had to do was pick up one of the little rural red states in either of the last two elections and they would have won.

but I think the whole deal with Ohio came down to religion, not guns, and certainly not JOBS. It was about "GOD"

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Even most gun control nuts I know could care less about hunting, hell even in Canada they let you have a rifle for that....

your right more people need to be educated about party stances.

Handguns, eeehhh not sure...
automatic assult issue anything -hell no...

problem is keeping that crap out of the country so criminals don't get it.

my opinion is if it's meant to kill a PERSON dead... then it has no use except for a militia..which we don't have anyway....

But I can't see actually outlawing it until the day would come that even cops would not need them against criminals.

I do get out ocaasionally and I run into a lot of people who moved out of the state. They all tell me the same thing. They miss the hunting!! Hunting is one of the main reasons I never left. That and the fact I love to farm, but if all i had was farming and no hunting... then the world i live in now would be a desolate place.

 

[Steeplerot]

I think Dean is not for gun-control. Not 100% sure though.

 

[ElFenix]

one of the big problems, i think, with the democrats, is that the new deal coalition seems to be fragmenting. traditionally they could count on unions to keep them afloat. well, the anti-gun stance and the pro-environment stance, and clinton's free trade stripe, have really hurt democrats' standing amongst unions. sure, the union bosses still overwhelmingly support democrats, but down at the roots a lot of union members feel left out. the cultural elites that seem to run the democratic party don't converse on the same level as a mine worker in west virginia or an auto plant worker in illinois. environmental regulations typically hurt the industries they work in, drive up their basic cost of living. union workers probably agree more with republicans than democrats on many social issues. if unions crumble, this is a huge blow to the democrats.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Even most gun control nuts I know could care less about hunting, hell even in Canada they let you have a rifle for that....

your right more people need to be educated about party stances.

Handguns, eeehhh not sure...
automatic assult issue anything -hell no...

problem is keeping that crap out of the country so criminals don't get it.

my opinion is if it's meant to kill a PERSON dead... then it has no use except for a militia..which we don't have anyway....

But I can't see actually outlawing it until the day would come that even cops would not need them against criminals.

I do get out ocaasionally and I run into a lot of people who moved out of the state. They all tell me the same thing. They miss the hunting!! Hunting is one of the main reasons I never left. That and the fact I love to farm, but if all i had was farming and no hunting... then the world i live in now would be a desolate place.

Most states have places to hunt though, heck I remember deer all over the place just north of SF. I am sure here in New York you can hunt upstate.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: rickn
I doubt gun control is enough to make up for the votes they lost in 2004

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all they had to do was pick up one of the little rural red states in either of the last two elections and they would have won.

but I think the whole deal with Ohio came down to religion, not guns, and certainly not JOBS. It was about "GOD"

True, but how do the dems get anymore of the religious vote? We need to bring some balance back to this democracy in a very bad way. I just threw the gun control thing out for consideration. It might just be good for a couple of electoral votes. When the Dems were an ultra-liberal party they were after guns. Most of those people are gone. I think it would be a good time for some fence mending.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Even most gun control nuts I know could care less about hunting, hell even in Canada they let you have a rifle for that....

your right more people need to be educated about party stances.

Handguns, eeehhh not sure...
automatic assult issue anything -hell no...

problem is keeping that crap out of the country so criminals don't get it.

my opinion is if it's meant to kill a PERSON dead... then it has no use except for a militia..which we don't have anyway....

But I can't see actually outlawing it until the day would come that even cops would not need them against criminals.

I do get out ocaasionally and I run into a lot of people who moved out of the state. They all tell me the same thing. They miss the hunting!! Hunting is one of the main reasons I never left. That and the fact I love to farm, but if all i had was farming and no hunting... then the world i live in now would be a desolate place.

Most states have places to hunt though, heck I remember deer all over the place just north of SF. I am sure here in New York you can hunt upstate.

You wouldn't believe how much money I make off of pheasant hunters. Well, maybe you would. LOL. From what I'm used to, it looks pretty good. Almost 30% of my income. Hunting is slowly becoming either a rich mans or a landowners game.

 

[Steeplerot]

well, that is one of the ways the rich consolidate wealth, through land accusition. luckily we still have protected areas to hunt and state parks.

Hopefully there is no oil around there :shocked:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
well, that is one of the ways the rich consolidate wealth, through land accusition. luckily we still have protected areas to hunt and state parks.

Hopefully there is no oil around there :shocked:

I'm not rich, just trying to hang onto what little I do have. I still have my freinds and family come hunt with me after the pay hunters are done. The pay hunters don't like to hunt too late into the season. pretty much just the first 2 weeks.. It might get too cold for them, LOL.

I also put a lot of time, effort and expense into developing the land for wildlife/hunting. Pay hunting kind of has a bad rep, but you wouldn't believe the number of people who show up thinking I should just let them run all over the place. Where wee they when I was picking the rocks off the fields? Hmm, that would be spring fishing season. Where were they when i was planting my crops and doing my wildlife food lots? That would be golf season. And so on.

 

[krcat1]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
After the loss last fall, I said the dems had to do one of two things if they wanted to win:

- attract some zealots and preserve economic policies OR
- abandon some minorities and go after fiscal conservatives

Doing one of these could help get a majority. I'm not very surprised they aren't doing either as those are giant shifts and it's a bit unrealistic.

Now, I'd accept if they kept losing until hispanics overwhelm the nascar streak in the next decades IF they had spines and actually were an opposition party.

As it is they just seem to be scared of insulting people. The Republicans have a stranglehold over governmnetn. Might as well be a voice of dissent.

Anyone happy with the dems?

The Dems problem is they are coming out on the right of the Repubs more than they understand.

 

[irwincur]

Considering their base is rapidly dying off (FDR Dems) they are in a bit of trouble. The Demoncrats are really going to have to come up with a new game plan and get away from their age old regurgitated tactics. I mean, really, has their game plan changed at all in the last fifty years.

It is as if the world kept moving and they are content with still arguing about yesterdays problems.