• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Some Soul Searching by the Democratic Leadership

Ed Kilgore, policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council: "We've got a problem that's a little deeper than the failure to get inaugurated, We had tons of money. We had the best organization anybody's ever seen. ... And we had a vulnerable incumbent with a lousy record who deliberately abandoned the political center and who didn't really try to unite the country. So we had a lot of opportunity and still fell short."

"The meta point is this," he said. "Millions and millions of Americans think that cultural threats to themselves and their families and their communities are a really big deal. ... It is a trust issue to these voters, they don't much trust politicians to begin with and they want to know they live in same moral universe. Once you convince them of that.... They want to know you take them seriously."

"I think Democrats suffer from a very strong perception that they don't," he said. "A lot of these voters think they're fighting a cultural battle ever single day for their own children. And if we ignore that or don't act like we take it very seriously or try to tell them that a prescription drug benefit is more important, it really makes them mad. And you know what, it probably should."

Bill Carrick, a seasoned Democratic strategist and adviser to former presidential candidate Richard A. Gephardt: "It's pretty stark when you look at that sea of red on the map," "It's very disheartening for Democrats to have not been competitive in the South and the Great Plains states and the Mountain West."

"Anybody that thinks these problems are of Sen. [John F.] Kerry's creation or exclusive to him," Carrick added, "is either naive or delusional or both. These are party-wide problems."

U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Swissvale: "Republicans in Congress forced legislation to the floor on gay marriage and on the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, and allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse just before the election."

"There we had it two weeks before the election: God, guns and gays,"

Gov. Ed Rendell said he believes many of the discussions in the coming weeks may also focus around repackaging the moral values message -- broadening it beyond abortion and gay marriage -- to other pressing issues.

Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut,: "We Democrats better think long and hard about what happened ... and how our party is going to connect with the hopes and aspirations of the people," "We have lost the ability to connect with people's value systems and we're going to have to work to get that back."

Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader: "We have lost just about everything that we can lose."

Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-North Dakota: "I think that the Democratic party nationally is perceived as being out of step with mainstream values,""I want our party to do a better job of speaking to matters of faith and family."

Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council: "We've got to close the cultural gap."

Rep. Robert Matsui, D-Calif., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: "I don't think there's any question that we did not get the wind, the uplift that we had expected in this campaign,"

Hmmm...


 
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-North Dakota: "I think that the Democratic party nationally is perceived as being out of step with mainstream values,""I want our party to do a better job of speaking to matters of faith and family."

Speaking to matters of faith :thumbsdown:
 
yes the Democratic party has lost touch with the majority of the people...maybe they need to start changing instead of hoping the public will come around to their views.
 
Originally posted by: skace
Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-North Dakota: "I think that the Democratic party nationally is perceived as being out of step with mainstream values,""I want our party to do a better job of speaking to matters of faith and family."

Speaking to matters of faith :thumbsdown:

I've heard this same sentiment regarding the Democratic party and their need to connect to faith more than once now. A few democratic pundits on TV have been saying the same thing. If you feel the Democratic party should not connect themselves to faith, you might have to find another party. They could quite easily take that position once they've realized how the Republican party was able to make the connection turn into more votes.

To DonVito: Don, I didn't mean to respond to this thread - since it is one of hundreds of this nature already. However, there was an opportunity to to interject something that I've withnessed, so I thought I would share it.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 
I was hoping to escape the wrath of Don Vito by posting quotes by the Dem leadership.

Seems like many of the liberals/Democrats in P&N want to stay the course, rather than consider changing. Trying to politely point out that the Dem leadership is changing as we speak.
 
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
I was hoping to escape the wrath of Don Vito by posting quotes by the Dem leadership.

Seems like many of the liberals/Democrats in P&N want to stay the course, rather than consider changing. Trying to politely point out that the Dem leadership is changing as we speak.
They probably don't want to be labeled "flip-floppers." 😀

I agree that it appears to me that a large part of the nation perceives that the Democratic party is seriously out-of-touch with maintream America. Those who truly care about the Democratic ideals and platform should be concerned and be seeking opportunities to remedy this. Those who just want to claim that mainstream America is full of 'inbred-retards' and should be largly ignored are nothing more than elitist hacks who care more about posturing than creating a better nation in which to live. Fortunately, the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party seem to be of the former group, not the latter. As long as it remains this way, there is hope for the country and we all benefit. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: skace
I'm not even a democrat. I just think pampering to faith is the most retarded thing I've ever read.

No one said anything about pampering to faith, but more of showing acknowledgment and respect to those people of faith. I guarantee you that there are many people who view the Democratics party as a bunch of Godless heathens, which is simply not true. The Democrats just need to change their image, not their ideals. A massive PR campaign could help things out a lot. That and shunning the extremist and typically unwarranted endorsements from ultra-liberal celebrities who probably care very little for "middle-America" are in politics simply for the notoriety and fame, or other such selfish reasons. (not the the GOP doesn't have it's share of attention whores - *cough* Toby Keith *cough*).
 
I think this might be necessary because the whole "morals" issue really caught the Dems by surprise. They didn't anticipate it, and I think they are now trying to deal with it. If you notice, Bush harped on moral issues, because the Republicans knew it would be a big deal. Kerry mostly avoided it, and it bit him in the ass.

I don't see the need for across the board changes though, because on Iraq, the economy and many other issues, the Democrats did better than the Republicans.
 
"Anybody that thinks these problems are of Sen. [John F.] Kerry's creation or exclusive to him," Carrick added, "is either naive or delusional or both. These are party-wide problems."


Bout sums it up.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think this might be necessary because the whole "morals" issue really caught the Dems by surprise. They didn't anticipate it, and I think they are now trying to deal with it. If you notice, Bush harped on moral issues, because the Republicans knew it would be a big deal. Kerry mostly avoided it, and it bit him in the ass.

I don't see the need for across the board changes though, because on Iraq, the economy and many other issues, the Democrats did better than the Republicans.

Yep, ideally the Democrats should have had a landslide victory against Bush, given his shortcomings and failures over the last 4 years*. But they managed to underestimate the "middle-America" voters and what they hold ideal. That was a very costly mistake.



* (When I think about Kerry losing to Bush, I can't help but think of that South Park episode where Cartman decided to enter the Special Olympics because he thinks it will be easy to beat all the 'retards,' but gets his ass handed to him by the other contestants. - Petty, I know, but still funny.)
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think this might be necessary because the whole "morals" issue really caught the Dems by surprise. They didn't anticipate it, and I think they are now trying to deal with it. If you notice, Bush harped on moral issues, because the Republicans knew it would be a big deal. Kerry mostly avoided it, and it bit him in the ass.

I don't see the need for across the board changes though, because on Iraq, the economy and many other issues, the Democrats did better than the Republicans.


And honestly, if the war goes to hell, looks about 3/4 of the way there already, there may not be a need to change.
 
Yes all the warhawks still think the war is going relatively well. When they see that even despite our military engagements we have not made significant progress, and when Bush finally backs out of Iraq the damage will have already been done.
 
I know it seems to some people that we're dwelling, but thanks for the quotes. A lot of people think I just pull stuff outta my ass, when if they just wake up and school themselves on current events they will see I'm not alone, and see there is evidence for themselves. Most on this board won't get it, because THEY ARE those bomb throwers who's hurting the Dems.

Anyone who thinks like skace and see it purely as bowing to religion doesn't understand the issue. It's the condescending attitude from the elites -like Susan Sontag, Norman Mailer, and many others including some in P&N- to their "intellectual inferiors" in middle America.They regard traditional American values and attitudes as low and enbarassing. They are nastily derisive about their fellow Americans, especially about how they can't comprehend the deep thoughts of the self-appointed geniuses. They spew the usual complaints of dumb Americans who shop at Walmart, and talk grandly about European societies. That's mainly because over there, such elites are celebrated instead of being laughed at as pretensious buffoons over here.

I am reminded of the cartoon I saw somehere a few months ago, depicting some liberal politician screaming into the phone, "Why can't we get those racist, ignorant, bigots in the Heartland to vote for us!"

 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I know it seems to some people that we're dwelling, but thanks for the quotes. A lot of people think I just pull stuff outta my ass, when if they just wake up and school themselves on current events they will see I'm not alone, and see there is evidence for themselves. Most on this board won't get it, because THEY ARE those bomb throwers who's hurting the Dems.

Anyone who thinks like skace and see it purely as bowing to religion doesn't understand the issue. It's the condescending attitude from the elites -like Susan Sontag, Norman Mailer, and many others including some in P&N- to their "intellectual inferiors" in middle America.They regard traditional American values and attitudes as low and enbarassing. They are nastily derisive about their fellow Americans, especially about how they can't comprehend the deep thoughts of the self-appointed geniuses. They spew the usual complaints of dumb Americans who shop at Walmart, and talk grandly about European societies. That's mainly because over there, such elites are celebrated instead of being laughed at as pretensious buffoons over here.

I am reminded of the cartoon I saw somehere a few months ago, depicting some liberal politician screaming into the phone, "Why can't we get those racist, ignorant, bigots in the Heartland to vote for us!"


"God, Guns and Gays"

The world has a problem here in these days of globalization. The US aspires to rule the world but the US right now is dominated by fearful, aggressive people who know next to nothing about the world. I would argue that the world admires American values. But are the "values" of homophobia, religious fanaticism and military supremacy really the "traditional values" that the US should be proud of? I think not. The values of the Founding Fathers trumps the values of the religious bigots.

 
U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Swissvale: "Republicans in Congress forced legislation to the floor on gay marriage and on the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, and allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse just before the election."

Mike and I grew up two blocks apart and he was a year ahead of me in high school. I'm surprised he is one of the people quoted because he's not generally considered a spokesperson for the Dems. He ran unopposed so he had it easier than most Representatives.

It's interesting to read these quotes from the Democratic leadership. I think it points out that politicians (regardless of party) do not have a clue what the average American thinks and feels. For them to sagely comment now about being disconnected, when just a few days ago they were blissfully ignorant, has me scratching my head.

Politicians lead a very insulated life. They only associate with other politicians, lobbyists, staffers, party hacks and hangers-on and never spend any time with John Q. Public. They try to overcome that by spending big on advertising, hiring consultants, and reacting to polls, when they should be doing things like going to the bar on a Friday night and just talking to people.
 
GrGr, the American people generally don't give a crap about the world (which I think is a generally good thing), much less ruling it. They just want to do their own thing and be left alone. Any "ruling of the world" is by default... it's a natural evolution of our culture spreading.

I think boiling traditional American values down to religious fanaticism and such is a big mistake. If stuff like that has defined us, then why are we a powerful, free, tolerant, and great society? The "homophobes", "racists", and "religious nuts" are the arrogant elitist's boogeymen. Until they take the time and honestly understand the opposition, they will continue to fail in the marketplace of ideas.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
GrGr, the American people generally don't give a crap about the world (which I think is a generally good thing), much less ruling it. They just want to do their own thing and be left alone. Any "ruling of the world" is by default... it's a natural evolution of our culture spreading.

I think boiling traditional American values down to religious fanaticism and such is a big mistake. If stuff like that has defined us, then why are we a powerful, free, tolerant, and great society? The "homophobes", "racists", and "religious nuts" are the arrogant elitist's boogeymen. Until they take the time and honestly understand the opposition, they will continue to fail in the marketplace of ideas.

For someone who seems interested in being viewed as an intellectual, you seem to paint people with a very broad brush. If you would actually read the replies to some of these threads, you would see that a lot of this board understands what happened perfectly. Moral values (ie, gay marriage) matter more than the Democrats thought they would. On other issues, Democrats still did very well. CNN's exit polls gave a big lead to Kerry for people who care mostly about Iraq, the Economy, Health Care and Education. But with 22% of the voters naming Moral Values as their primary concern, annd 80% of those people voting for Bush, Kerry didn't stand a chance.

Most people don't fit into that "arrogant elite" stereotype you keep hauling out, and the Democrats clearly aren't failing in the marketplace of ideas (you were talking about the Democrats, right?). On most issues they beat Bush (Bush won the terrorism vote by a big margin and taxes by a little bit), but they underestimated the importance people would place on Morals, which is something Bush focused on and Kerry didn't. From what I can see, most people understand this, and I expect future Democratic candidates to focus more on moral issues in the future.

Your arguments about arrogant elite calling "traditional American values" religious fanaticism just doesn't hold up when you look at what's going on. Democrats pretty much skated around those issues, to their chagrin, and now they are talking about focusing more on those issues in the future. Seems pretty obvious to me.
 
How can you deny that there's thousands of posts on P&N from people who continually lambast middle America as ignorants, racists, homophobes, fascists, and religious nuts? Rainsford, you need to take a close look at who's your friends and who's your enemies... those people don't do you any favors.

When these people talk about middle America, what they are really saying is "Middle of Nowhere." They see the US like maps of Africa the old explorers used that were blank in the middle- to signify "Terra Incognita," the Unknown Land. The explorers thought cannibals lived there; the elites of today believe a primitive tribe called Americanus Redneckus occupies these strange lands. These natives love guns and often worship an idol name "God". Whenever an elite is forced to venture into middle America it's an excruciating experience, and they escape as soon as possible.

I agree most people don't fit this category, but enough do -including many in here- so that it causes problems and turns others away.

 
The Democrats need to be able to fight on the real issues facing Americans, not cornered and boxed by wedge issues that will always favor the Republicans. If this election were about the issues, Bush would have lost huge.
 
It's not just middle america getting called that. It's the whole country becasue of the twits who were too brain dead to realize what is going down here and keep getting ignorants, racists, homophobes, fascists, and religious nuts elected to represent all of us.
 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
GrGr, the American people generally don't give a crap about the world (which I think is a generally good thing), much less ruling it. They just want to do their own thing and be left alone.

The Bush (Breznyev) Doctrine very powerfully says differently. The US will police the world according to US interests alone and you can join the US or... "If you are not with us you are against us" remember?

The US as the only hyperpower in the world and as the world's leading economic engine cannot afford to "want to be left alone". That time is long since gone. This ignorance of the US "footprint" on the world is dangerous.

Any "ruling of the world" is by default... it's a natural evolution of our culture spreading.

I think this hubristic view is extremely dangerous to the US and to the world.

This "natural" evolution is being helped along by US military presence - over 700 bases in 130 countries. Expect the occasional blowback (like 9/11) now and then.

I think boiling traditional American values down to religious fanaticism and such is a big mistake. If stuff like that has defined us, then why are we a powerful, free, tolerant, and great society? The "homophobes", "racists", and "religious nuts" are the arrogant elitist's boogeymen. Until they take the time and honestly understand the opposition, they will continue to fail in the marketplace of ideas.

First you have to define exactly what "traditional values" mean. I think the term has different meaning to different people. Evangelicals have their own view of what "traditional values" are.

 
Originally posted by: cwjerome
How can you deny that there's thousands of posts on P&N from people who continually lambast middle America as ignorants, racists, homophobes, fascists, and religious nuts? Rainsford, you need to take a close look at who's your friends and who's your enemies... those people don't do you any favors.
Ok, I agree there are a fair amount of those posts...but I also feel it's necessary to point out they don't represent Democrats as a whole any more than the religious nuts represent Republicans as a whole. Negative people are generally more vocal, how often do you see a protest about "we all need to get along?". I'll admit during the election I may have ignored the crap from my own side, but I think now it's important that ALL OF US try to work together and ignore the dumbasses on both sides of the fence. And from what I've seen from a lot of liberals, they realize what went wrong and aren't represented by the people talking about religious fascism. I resent the implication that that kind of behavior is representitive of the liberal ideals, because it's not, certainly not on the leadership level. I do agree that we all need to look at who are friends are, because both sides have people they would be better off without.
When these people talk about middle America, what they are really saying is "Middle of Nowhere." They see the US like maps of Africa the old explorers used that were blank in the middle- to signify "Terra Incognita," the Unknown Land. The explorers thought cannibals lived there; the elites of today believe a primitive tribe called Americanus Redneckus occupies these strange lands. These natives love guns and often worship an idol name "God". Whenever an elite is forced to venture into middle America it's an excruciating experience, and they escape as soon as possible.
Who are these "elites" you keep talking about? Like I said, I think they are a minority. When it comes to social issues, I'm VERY liberal, but that doesn't stop me from getting along fine in Iowa, a good example of "Middle America" if there ever was one. Again, the whole elitist image of the liberals is as silly (and wrong) as the idea of the fascist, religious conservative. I've lived in Iowa and San Francisco. You know what that taught me? Different ideas, same people. Maybe there are some elitist liberals who could use a good dose of Middle American living to see what it's really like. And maybe there are some religious zealot conservatives who need to live in San Fran for a while to see that liberals aren't evil boogeymen.
I agree most people don't fit this category, but enough do -including many in here- so that it causes problems and turns others away.

I'll agree with that. The vocal zealots of both sides are pretty effective at wrecking it for the rest of us. Hopefully the country can get that under control...
 
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Yes all the warhawks still think the war is going relatively well. When they see that even despite our military engagements we have not made significant progress, and when Bush finally backs out of Iraq the damage will have already been done.
And what makes you think its going badly? that 1100 lives were lost? In over 18 months? I can point you to a battle in the South pacific in WWII in which the Marines lost 1100 lives in the first HOUR of an invasion, and the battle was considered a HUGE success, go figure. Find me a single military occupation that went with less casualties per soldier involved than the current occupation and you may have an argument.
 
Back
Top