Rescuing the Democrats

[charrison]

linkage

In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes argues that we have seen the birth of a Republican majority. In 1992, Barnes points out, Republicans held 176 House seats. Today, they hold 229. In 1992, the G.O.P. controlled 8 state legislatures; now it controls 21. In 1992, there were 18 Republican governors; now there are 27.

But the really eye-popping change is in party identification. In Franklin Roosevelt's administration, 49 percent of voters said they were Democrats. But that number has been dropping ever since, and now roughly 32 percent of voters say they are. As Mark Penn, a former Clinton pollster, has observed, "In terms of the percentage of voters who identify themselves as Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal."

The Democratic presidential candidates wending their way through Iowa, New Hampshire and the other primary states are offering theories about the party's decline, and what can be done about it.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes argues that we have seen the birth of a Republican majority. In 1992, Barnes points out, Republicans held 176 House seats. Today, they hold 229. In 1992, the G.O.P. controlled 8 state legislatures; now it controls 21. In 1992, there were 18 Republican governors; now there are 27.

But the really eye-popping change is in party identification. In Franklin Roosevelt's administration, 49 percent of voters said they were Democrats. But that number has been dropping ever since, and now roughly 32 percent of voters say they are. As Mark Penn, a former Clinton pollster, has observed, "In terms of the percentage of voters who identify themselves as Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently in its weakest position since the dawn of the New Deal."

The Democratic presidential candidates wending their way through Iowa, New Hampshire and the other primary states are offering theories about the party's decline, and what can be done about it.

If I remember right, the "angry white men" vote of '94 fixed (or broke, depending upon your perspective) the House.

 

[heartsurgeon]

this is the true legacy of the clinton's to the democrat party

he and hillary are also going to make sure nobody beats Bush in 2004,
because they want to run hillary in 2008.

they hate dean, because dean hates them (dean has stated the first thing he's going to do once he wins the democrat nomination for pres is fire terry mccauliffe)

the dems are going to wallow around until 2008, because the "holders of the purse" of the dems are the clintons, and with them,
its all about bill/hillary all the time..the rest can't organize because they don't have enough money/power to get the troops in line. politics is all about money,
and the clinton's or their cronies control the money of the DNC.

 

[Zebo]

The nation is immoral I expect us fully to move to the selfish leanings of the right financially. And to the left socially which is the only thing keeping dems in power at all.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this is the true legacy of the clinton's to the democrat party

he and hillary are also going to make sure nobody beats Bush in 2004,
because they want to run hillary in 2008.

they hate dean, because dean hates them (dean has stated the first thing he's going to do once he wins the democrat nomination for pres is fire terry mccauliffe)

Kind of hard to hate Clinton if you are going to ask him to help resolve the middle east problem we now have.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/292/nation/Dean_sees_Clinton_as_Mideast_envoy-.shtml">Dean Sees Clinton as Middle East
Envoy</a>

I don't see a more conservative swing in the electorate. The country was evenly divided in the 2000 election and many of the elections in 2002 were very close.
I think the country shifts between the two parties every 25 years or so.
Some major event i.e. Watergate may sour the country against one party but generally if there is an anti-incumbency feeling across the nation, the party in power pays the price.
I think we will get a sense of the anti-incumbent sentiment in the
Mississippi governor's race.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this is the true legacy of the clinton's to the democrat party

he and hillary are also going to make sure nobody beats Bush in 2004,
because they want to run hillary in 2008.

they hate dean, because dean hates them (dean has stated the first thing he's going to do once he wins the democrat nomination for pres is fire terry mccauliffe)

Kind of hard to hate Clinton if you are going to ask him to help resolve the middle east problem we now have.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/292/nation/Dean_sees_Clinton_as_Mideast_envoy-.shtml">Dean Sees Clinton as Middle East
Envoy</a>

I don't see a more conservative swing in the electorate. The country was evenly divided in the 2000 election and many of the elections in 2002 were very close.
I think the country shifts between the two parties every 25 years or so.
Some major event i.e. Watergate may sour the country against one party but generally if there is an anti-incumbency feeling across the nation, the party in power pays the price.
I think we will get a sense of the anti-incumbent sentiment in the
Mississippi governor's race.

linkage

This is the article this op-ed is referencing.

Yet in the recall, Republicans captured 62 percent of the vote. Bush's approval rating was slightly positive (49 to 48 percent), roughly the same as in other states. In the Fox News exit poll, 39 percent of voters identified themselves as Democrats, 37 percent as Republicans--a big GOP gain since last year when the Democratic lead was 7 or 8 points. A solid majority of women voted to recall Davis and elect a Republican. According to the Los Angeles Times exit poll, 41 percent of Latinos voted for a Republican governor--over a Latino Democrat, Cruz Bustamante. California is now competitive.

Democrats insist the recall merely showed anger against incumbents. In fact, it showed California was catching up with a powerful Republican trend over the past decade. In 1992, Democrats captured 51 percent of the total vote in House races to 46 percent for Republicans. By 2002, those numbers had flipped--Republicans 51 percent, Democrats 46 percent. And Republicans have held their House majority over five elections, including two in which Democratic presidential candidates won the popular vote. They won 230 House seats in 1994, 226 in 1996, 223 in 1998, 221 in 2000, and 229 in 2002. They also won Senate control in those elections.

These voting patterns fit Walter Dean Burnham's definition of realignment: "a sudden transformation that turns out to be permanent." Burnham is a University of Texas political scientist, just retired but still the chief theorist of realignment. He is neither a Republican nor a conservative.

The same Republican trend is true for state elections. In 1992, Democrats captured 59 percent of state legislative seats (4,344 to 3,031 for Republicans). Ten years later, Republicans won their first majority (3,684 to 3,626) of state legislators since 1952. In 1992, Democrats controlled the legislatures of 25 states to 8 for Republicans, while the others had split control. Today, Republicans rule 21 legislatures to 16 for Democrats. Governors? Republicans had 18 in 1992, Democrats 30. Today, Republicans hold 27 governorships, Democrats 23.

There is an undeniable shift to the right .

 

[Zebo]

Whats the US senate majority charrison?

 

[kage69]

May Buddha guide us all.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Whats the US senate majority charrison?

Leaning toward the right.

You do realize you cant cross from left to right without going though the middle?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
Whats the US senate majority charrison?

Leaning toward the right.

You do realize you cant cross from left to right without going though the middle?

No I was just wondering what the numerical majority was 52-48 Rep?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo
Whats the US senate majority charrison?

Leaning toward the right.

You do realize you cant cross from left to right without going though the middle?

No I was just wondering what the numerical majority was 52-48 Rep?

actually 52-47-1

For those that are keeping score.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this is the true legacy of the clinton's to the democrat party

he and hillary are also going to make sure nobody beats Bush in 2004,
because they want to run hillary in 2008.

they hate dean, because dean hates them (dean has stated the first thing he's going to do once he wins the democrat nomination for pres is fire terry mccauliffe)

the dems are going to wallow around until 2008, because the "holders of the purse" of the dems are the clintons, and with them,
its all about bill/hillary all the time..the rest can't organize because they don't have enough money/power to get the troops in line. politics is all about money,
and the clinton's or their cronies control the money of the DNC.

This is the most blindly hate-filled post I've read in a while. I can't believe an intelligent person who practices medicine could make it. The Clintons don't have a firm iron fist on the Democratic party - thats just a ridiculous assumption. Of course today they're still important leaders in the party (for obvious reasons), but the Clintons aren't "hoping" the Republican incumbent wins in 2004 just so that Hillary can take the reigns the next cycle. There's no proof to this assertion whatsoever. Its all based on hearsay and direct-mail, so that the opposition party can fundraise even more money. The claim that Dean hates the Clintons and the Clintons hate Dean also has no basis in reality. Absolutely none. The link provided earlier suggests quite the opposite.

As a man who practices medicine, who bases important decisions on fact rather than supposition (and I'm sure you your job well), how can you make such ludicrous claims about the intentions of other people?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this is the true legacy of the clinton's to the democrat party

he and hillary are also going to make sure nobody beats Bush in 2004,
because they want to run hillary in 2008.

they hate dean, because dean hates them (dean has stated the first thing he's going to do once he wins the democrat nomination for pres is fire terry mccauliffe)

the dems are going to wallow around until 2008, because the "holders of the purse" of the dems are the clintons, and with them,
its all about bill/hillary all the time..the rest can't organize because they don't have enough money/power to get the troops in line. politics is all about money,
and the clinton's or their cronies control the money of the DNC.

This is the most blindly hate-filled post I've read in a while. I can't believe an intelligent person who practices medicine could make it. The Clintons don't have a firm iron fist on the Democratic party - thats just a ridiculous assumption. Of course today they're still important leaders in the party (for obvious reasons), but the Clintons aren't "hoping" the Republican incumbent wins in 2004 just so that Hillary can take the reigns the next cycle. There's no proof to this assertion whatsoever. Its all based on hearsay and direct-mail, so that the opposition party can fundraise even more money. The claim that Dean hates the Clintons and the Clintons hate Dean also has no basis in reality. Absolutely none. The link provided earlier suggests quite the opposite.

As a man who practices medicine, who bases important decisions on fact rather than supposition (and I'm sure you your job well), how can you make such ludicrous claims about the intentions of other people?

His post is far from hate-filled. While it is unverifiable - it also isn't out of the question. Bill and Hillary don't want to lose "power" - this much one can reasonably assume since Bill keeps trying to promote his "legacy" and has kept himself in the news. It will be interesting to see how much he campaigns for the eventual nominee though It also isn't out of the question for he and Hillary to be planning ways for her to run for President. It makes it awfully tough for her to do that if a Democrat wins in '04 because she'd have to wait until 2012 unless she ran against an incumbant in '08 (all assuming that a Dem won in '04).

So you see Monsta - his post wasn't THAT far of a stretch but yes was mostly supposition - which to some - even in the mainstream press- have talked about. It's politics - just politics and the Clintons are pure politics(IMO)

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this is the true legacy of the clinton's to the democrat party

he and hillary are also going to make sure nobody beats Bush in 2004,
because they want to run hillary in 2008.

they hate dean, because dean hates them (dean has stated the first thing he's going to do once he wins the democrat nomination for pres is fire terry mccauliffe)

the dems are going to wallow around until 2008, because the "holders of the purse" of the dems are the clintons, and with them,
its all about bill/hillary all the time..the rest can't organize because they don't have enough money/power to get the troops in line. politics is all about money,
and the clinton's or their cronies control the money of the DNC.

This is the most blindly hate-filled post I've read in a while. I can't believe an intelligent person who practices medicine could make it. The Clintons don't have a firm iron fist on the Democratic party - thats just a ridiculous assumption. Of course today they're still important leaders in the party (for obvious reasons), but the Clintons aren't "hoping" the Republican incumbent wins in 2004 just so that Hillary can take the reigns the next cycle. There's no proof to this assertion whatsoever. Its all based on hearsay and direct-mail, so that the opposition party can fundraise even more money. The claim that Dean hates the Clintons and the Clintons hate Dean also has no basis in reality. Absolutely none. The link provided earlier suggests quite the opposite.

As a man who practices medicine, who bases important decisions on fact rather than supposition (and I'm sure you your job well), how can you make such ludicrous claims about the intentions of other people?

His post is far from hate-filled. While it is unverifiable - it also isn't out of the question. Bill and Hillary don't want to lose "power" - this much one can reasonably assume since Bill keeps trying to promote his "legacy" and has kept himself in the news. It will be interesting to see how much he campaigns for the eventual nominee though It also isn't out of the question for he and Hillary to be planning ways for her to run for President. It makes it awfully tough for her to do that if a Democrat wins in '04 because she'd have to wait until 2012 unless she ran against an incumbant in '08 (all assuming that a Dem won in '04).

So you see Monsta - his post wasn't THAT far of a stretch but yes was mostly supposition - which to some - even in the mainstream press- have talked about. It's politics - just politics and the Clintons are pure politics(IMO)

CkG

I still have a problem with the thought that the Democratic party is so beholden to its "power couple". To me, its an ignorant viewpoint taken to easier vilify the other side. I could easily say that the Bush family and their Texas friends control the Republican party, and that Karl Rove is already plotting to bring Jeb into the White House in 2008, but that too is just partisan rhetoric, with no basis in reality.

Look, I've been starting to see how "politics" is played while doing volunteer work for the Dean campaign. I'll admit that some of the things I've witnessed have not sat well with me. I'll freely admit that Dean is a politician through and through and his campaign is purely political. But I still support him and will continue to use what time I can donate to his campaign because I believe it's the right thing to do. Plain and simple. I don't need to hear wildeyed claims about the evil intentions of the Bush family. I just have to look at the current policies of the Administration to realize that I don't want them in there anymore. Not what they're "plans" might be, not even what their ideology is. Its their ideology and not mine. But when their ideology affects their policy in a way I wholeheartedly disagree with, that's when I'll stand up in opposition. Okay I've rambled off point...

So I think one should not vilify the opposition by making wild claims about what they secretly plan to do. Its a cheap tactic used to make it easier to hate. Vilify them based on what they HAVE done and what they've publicly stated they WILL do.

 

[Pennstate]

Why are Republicans the only ones pushing Hilary to run for president?

She has said "NO". get over it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
this is the true legacy of the clinton's to the democrat party

he and hillary are also going to make sure nobody beats Bush in 2004,
because they want to run hillary in 2008.

they hate dean, because dean hates them (dean has stated the first thing he's going to do once he wins the democrat nomination for pres is fire terry mccauliffe)

the dems are going to wallow around until 2008, because the "holders of the purse" of the dems are the clintons, and with them,
its all about bill/hillary all the time..the rest can't organize because they don't have enough money/power to get the troops in line. politics is all about money,
and the clinton's or their cronies control the money of the DNC.

This is the most blindly hate-filled post I've read in a while. I can't believe an intelligent person who practices medicine could make it. The Clintons don't have a firm iron fist on the Democratic party - thats just a ridiculous assumption. Of course today they're still important leaders in the party (for obvious reasons), but the Clintons aren't "hoping" the Republican incumbent wins in 2004 just so that Hillary can take the reigns the next cycle. There's no proof to this assertion whatsoever. Its all based on hearsay and direct-mail, so that the opposition party can fundraise even more money. The claim that Dean hates the Clintons and the Clintons hate Dean also has no basis in reality. Absolutely none. The link provided earlier suggests quite the opposite.

As a man who practices medicine, who bases important decisions on fact rather than supposition (and I'm sure you your job well), how can you make such ludicrous claims about the intentions of other people?

His post is far from hate-filled. While it is unverifiable - it also isn't out of the question. Bill and Hillary don't want to lose "power" - this much one can reasonably assume since Bill keeps trying to promote his "legacy" and has kept himself in the news. It will be interesting to see how much he campaigns for the eventual nominee though It also isn't out of the question for he and Hillary to be planning ways for her to run for President. It makes it awfully tough for her to do that if a Democrat wins in '04 because she'd have to wait until 2012 unless she ran against an incumbant in '08 (all assuming that a Dem won in '04).

So you see Monsta - his post wasn't THAT far of a stretch but yes was mostly supposition - which to some - even in the mainstream press- have talked about. It's politics - just politics and the Clintons are pure politics(IMO)

CkG

I still have a problem with the thought that the Democratic party is so beholden to its "power couple". To me, its an ignorant viewpoint taken to easier vilify the other side. I could easily say that the Bush family and their Texas friends control the Republican party, and that Karl Rove is already plotting to bring Jeb into the White House in 2008, but that too is just partisan rhetoric, with no basis in reality.

Look, I've been starting to see how "politics" is played while doing volunteer work for the Dean campaign. I'll admit that some of the things I've witnessed have not sat well with me. I'll freely admit that Dean is a politician through and through and his campaign is purely political. But I still support him and will continue to use what time I can donate to his campaign because I believe it's the right thing to do. Plain and simple. I don't need to hear wildeyed claims about the evil intentions of the Bush family. I just have to look at the current policies of the Administration to realize that I don't want them in there anymore. Not what they're "plans" might be, not even what their ideology is. Its their ideology and not mine. But when their ideology affects their policy in a way I wholeheartedly disagree with, that's when I'll stand up in opposition. Okay I've rambled off point...

So I think one should not vilify the opposition by making wild claims about what they secretly plan to do. Its a cheap tactic used to make it easier to hate. Vilify them based on what they HAVE done and what they've publicly stated they WILL do.

Ah, but there is a history to the Clinton saga - which gives the story some credence. I understand why you think it is a "cheap tactic" though...you are working for Dean. He isn't what you call a "good freind" of Clinton, but he despirately needs his help if he wishes to stand a chance against Bush. Don't kid yourself - there is alot more going on than we can all see - even you who works for a campaign. No, I'm not going to spew conspiracy crap - but there are "planners" one of whom is Rove(or maybe he's just the vmouth piece for the "others" :Q) and another is Clinton. Both have alot invested in the success of their party and will see to it that things don't go against "the plan".

As you might have gathered, I am firmly in the Bush camp for this next election. While I welcome Dean's challenge(because Bush will trounce him) - I see Dean taking stances which I don't agree with and actually detest so he and those who parrot his(or the parties) stances will never get my vote. So far they have all failed some pretty big ones.

It'll be interesting to see how Clinton handles himself throught this campaign - especially if Dean gets the nod.

Oh...and one more thing...WTF do the Democrats need Hillary to come and give the keynote address at the Jefferson-Jackson day dinner? The dinner is one of the premier events for Democrat candidates before January's caucuses here in Iowa. Wouldn't you think that they would draw enough enthusiam by just having the candidates there? Why a big shot like Hillary who will most likely overshadow the candidates? Hmm....definately interesting. Could you see if Dean has an official statement on this? If not - can you ask him?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
Why are Republicans the only ones pushing Hilary to run for president?

She has said "NO". get over it.

I like the name president.

You never know what might happen.

Both are recent Hillary quotes.
I wonder if her "NO" means "maybe"?

Anyway I don't think many Republicans are pushing her to run...well maybe just because it'd be fun to see her get trounced by Bush...but seriously there is quite a lot of Democrats who want her to run. I don't know why though

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

It'll be interesting to see how Clinton handles himself throught this campaign - especially if Dean gets the nod.

Oh...and one more thing...WTF do the Democrats need Hillary to come and give the keynote address at the Jefferson-Jackson day dinner? The dinner is one of the premier events for Democrat candidates before January's caucuses here in Iowa. Wouldn't you think that they would draw enough enthusiam by just having the candidates there? Why a big shot like Hillary who will most likely overshadow the candidates? Hmm....definately interesting. Could you see if Dean has an official statement on this? If not - can you ask him?

These statements and observations just more display the Clinton vilification/fixation I was talking about. Interesting to see what Bill does if Dean gets the nod? Why is that interesting? I've never contemplated it and quite frankly I could care less what he does. Why is Hillary the keynote speaker for an event in Iowa? Again, I really don't care. But I would assume it was because she's a party star, not to overtly "steal thunder" from the Presidential candidates.

It seems like every move the Clintons make is thought to be nothing but a cheap grab at political power. I wouldn't suggest that of the Bushes. I think the President is a good, moral man who just happens to have wrong policies for the economy, foreign affairs, civil rights and liberties, and the environment. I would dare say that if he didn't have bad advisors around him who based their policy decisions on ideology rather than practicality, George W. Bush would be a good President....

 

[heartsurgeon]

This is the most blindly hate-filled post I've read in a while. I can't believe an intelligent person who practices medicine could make it. The Clintons don't have a firm iron fist on the Democratic party - thats just a ridiculous assumption

well you know, i deal in facts.

Terry MacAuliffe is the hand picked appointee of the Clinton's (remember Maynard Jackson wanted the job, but clinton said NO). He is the Chairman of the DNC. He controls who gets money from the DNC for their campaigns...follow the money...

Until Dean figured out how to raise money on the internet effective, Bill Clinton was the single biggest fund raiser in the Democrat party. Still a giant fund raiser..but not for Dean.

Hillary Clinton has a huge PAC with gobs of money she is collecting, and not spending...this has been described as a war chest for a future political campaign..Curiously enough, the 16 administrative staff members of her PAC are are the same 16 people that staffed her campaign committee...just a coincidence i suppose..

Yes indeed, Dean has stated he will replace MacAuliffle as soon as he gets the dem nomination. I suppose that is because he "loves" MacAuliffe. When asked if he was going to have problems at the DNC convention he stated "We are expecting to be attacked there,? Mr. Dean said. ?But I will handle that.?? (9/3/2003) Attacked? by who?

Wesley Clark is the stalking horse for the Clinton's. He is from Arkansas, he was promoted by clinton extensively in the military. His campaign staff has recently been "taken over" by former Clinton associates. Clark is being promoted to suppress Dean's momentum.

these are not "hateful" statements..this is just the sorry truth

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

It'll be interesting to see how Clinton handles himself throught this campaign - especially if Dean gets the nod.

Oh...and one more thing...WTF do the Democrats need Hillary to come and give the keynote address at the Jefferson-Jackson day dinner? The dinner is one of the premier events for Democrat candidates before January's caucuses here in Iowa. Wouldn't you think that they would draw enough enthusiam by just having the candidates there? Why a big shot like Hillary who will most likely overshadow the candidates? Hmm....definately interesting. Could you see if Dean has an official statement on this? If not - can you ask him?

These statements and observations just more display the Clinton vilification/fixation I was talking about. Interesting to see what Bill does if Dean gets the nod? Why is that interesting? I've never contemplated it and quite frankly I could care less what he does. Why is Hillary the keynote speaker for an event in Iowa? Again, I really don't care. But I would assume it was because she's a party star, not to overtly "steal thunder" from the Presidential candidates.

It seems like every move the Clintons make is thought to be nothing but a cheap grab at political power. I wouldn't suggest that of the Bushes. I think the President is a good, moral man who just happens to have wrong policies for the economy, foreign affairs, civil rights and liberties, and the environment. I would dare say that if he didn't have bad advisors around him who based their policy decisions on ideology rather than practicality, George W. Bush would be a good President....

You seem to be seeing the points but fail to see that they are arranged in a pattern - connect the dots
If Hillary is a "star" then why have her come make a speech when it's supposed to be about the Candidates? Don't you think that she'll get more press than they will? Shouldn't the Candidates be the ones who are the "star" attractions?
The Clinton campaigning question is because the Democrat who is the nomonee will need to have Clinton out stumping for them - Democrats love Clinton(for some odd reason) and he has a lot of sway with voters - he gets them excited(again for some odd reason). It's all there you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Well, just for the record - I don't think Dean is an "evil" guy either - he just has all the wrong positions on the economy, foreign affairs, and civil liberties(and rights). - IMO

CkG