Why can't the democrats field a halfway electable candidate?

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Genx87 is a prime example. He said he would vote for Bush on the abortion issue alone. These people don't care about meh or middle of the road. They will 100% push for their side on social issues.

How is that any different than those who voted against Bush soley because of the Iraq war? People have the right to feel strongly about an issue, and vote accordingly. Even if their position on that issue is based on religion. Why does that invalidate their position?

I keep hearing "Bush won because the religious right came out in droves..." They're Americans aren't they? They have just as much right to base their vote on what is important to them as you do. Are they supposed to stay at home, and only the intellectual atheists allowed to vote?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Well, they did field halfway electable candidate... it was close but no cigar. And yeah I think they could have done better with either Clark or Edwards... but it seems like the Republicans would have won even then.

I doubt that. I think Mursilis is pretty dead on. Bush was weak, but not so weak as that he had no fight in him. Its like they saw his weakness as an opportunity to slip in a normally unviable candidate, then gambled and lost.

This country has a lot of different demographics...you need a centrist to get them all.

You doubt what? That Kerry was halfway electable?

As for needing a centrist, Bush is no centrist. I think the centrist paradigm is on the way out.

I doubt that the reps would have won against clark...maybe even against edwards. (Clark doesn't seem to have a lot of offer on domenstic policy...but neither does Bush.)

As for the centrist thing....who would you vote for: The guy you hate/who screwed up or the guy who's meh?

And if you think Bush's isn't a centrist (or at least trying to portray himself as one)...then you haven't been paying attention to some of the gay marriage banning elections and the like. He's definately to the right, maybe even moreso then most presidents we've had...but there's plenty of extra room on that side of the scale.

I said this in another thread, but I think a lot of democrats are forgetting the role of social conservatives here. Genx87 is a prime example. He said he would vote for Bush on the abortion issue alone. These people don't care about meh or middle of the road. They will 100% push for their side on social issues. And they came out in force and they've been doing it for ten years. I think people that are pushing the status quo explanations are simply going to continue Dem. losses in the future. We have to deal with this huge evangelical population...

Yes, but how big is the evangelical voting bloc? Anyway, it's a moot point - NOW and NARAL will never allow the Dems to field a pro-life candidate for the Presidency. Of the original 9 Dems chasing the nomination last year, not a single one was pro-life. Heck, look at the hue and cry at the 1992 Democratic Convention over allowing Bob Casey to speak - so much for diversity of ideas!

EDIT: And if memory serves, both Jesse Jackson and Al Gore began their political life as pro-lifers, but eventually switched when they discovered being pro-life is political suicide within the Democratic party. At least Clinton had the finesse to say abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". Smart move by him.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Yes, but how big is the evangelical voting bloc?

I've heard there are about 100 million hard-core christians in this country.

 

[Genx87]

The democrats need to drop hollywood like a bad habit. Drop the michael moores, sean penns, and whoopie goldbergs. These people are rabid fanatics that drive off the moderates from the conservative side and possibly even the moderates from the left. So you are left with a fired up base. Whoopie do. You dont win elections with a fired up base.

The presidential election may have been close statistically. But the senate races over the past 10 years have been favoring a republican trend. This is a better sign of what the american people think of the democratic party leaning farther and farther left.

I wonder if Genx87 would vote for Kerry if Bush and Kerry's position on abortion were reversed

In this election it could have been a possibility. But since Kerry is a democrat the likelyhood of this happening is not great. In any other election where the surpreme court judges arent up for grabs. It doesnt mean as much. Thus i would vote more based on other issues.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Genx87
These people are rabid fanatics that drive off the moderates from the conservative side and possibly even the moderates from the left.

The Democrats may have to concede on social issues but it's you hard core christians that are put off by hollywood mainly... I don't see any evidence conservative moderates actually give a crap about hollywood.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Yes, but how big is the evangelical voting bloc?

I've heard there are about 100 million hard-core christians in this country.

Perhaps if you define "hard-core" loosely enough, but I would be surprised if that's accurate.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Yes, but how big is the evangelical voting bloc?

I've heard there are about 100 million hard-core christians in this country.

That number seems a little (actually, a lot) high. I'd like to know how you define 'hard-core', where you get that number, and how these people actually voted (a fair number of Christians are actually Dems based on the 'social justice' issues). I'm not saying you're wrong or right; I'd just like to see the data.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Halfway electable?

Did you not notice how close this race was? Kerry was 95% electable. It was that few percentage that got him.

No, the race may be over, but the battle against Bush's policies is not.

Bush was very weak, and Kerry still lost. If Bush hadn't energized the Left by invading Iraq, it would've been a romp. Likewise, if the Dems hadn't run an elitist Mass. liberal, they'd likely have won by a nice margin. Again, hint to the Dems: The last two Democratic presidents have been Southerners, and generally portrayed themselves as moderates (whether they were is another thread topic). The Kerry pick was just plain dumb.

I think a better question is why can't either party field decent candidates? Most people agree this was a lesser-of-two-evils election.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Yes, but how big is the evangelical voting bloc?

I've heard there are about 100 million hard-core christians in this country.

That number seems a little (actually, a lot) high. I'd like to know how you define 'hard-core', where you get that number, and how these people actually voted (a fair number of Christians are actually Dems based on the 'social justice' issues). I'm not saying you're wrong or right; I'd just like to see the data.

The number is significantly overstated. The actual figure is estimated to be closer to 25 million, and that includes all Evangelicals, not just those of voting age.

I'm constantly amazed at how the intellectual set seems to have a consistent problem with numbers and counts.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I think a better question is why can't either party field decent candidates? Most people agree this was a lesser-of-two-evils election.

A good point...2000 was the same deal.

I have hope that we'll see a McCain versus Clark ticket or something. It'd be nice to have both candidates interest me rather than just voting for which turd I want flushed.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Halfway electable?

Did you not notice how close this race was? Kerry was 95% electable. It was that few percentage that got him.

No, the race may be over, but the battle against Bush's policies is not.

Bush was very weak, and Kerry still lost. If Bush hadn't energized the Left by invading Iraq, it would've been a romp. Likewise, if the Dems hadn't run an elitist Mass. liberal, they'd likely have won by a nice margin. Again, hint to the Dems: The last two Democratic presidents have been Southerners, and generally portrayed themselves as moderates (whether they were is another thread topic). The Kerry pick was just plain dumb.

I think a better question is why can't either party field decent candidates? Most people agree this was a lesser-of-two-evils election.

Don't forget third-party candidates. I've voted off the Dem/Rep reservation in the past, and I'll likely do it again. I wish more people would do likewise.

 

[piasabird]

I think it all boils down to morals.

I dont think most people in America think Kerry has the proper sense of right and wrong to make the right decisions in life. Kerry married for money and some African Americans probably thought he was a bit of a phoney who didnt care where they lived or died. He is a filthy rich white man that makes Bush look like a pauper in comparison.

Kerry is a fake name dropper. He claimed superman was text messaging his phone while he was dying. He also tried to use the daughter of Mr Cheney to make a statement. Not only did he use it but also his son Edwards. Do you really beleive they both referenced Cheney's daughter as a lesbian by accident. Kerry is suppose to be this ultra intelligent mastermind of debating. I dont think so.

He stands up for Partial Birth Abortion. This shows his total disrespect for life.

He is a UN Lover. The UN can not be trusted after the Food-For-Oil program, so why would we even want to trust the UN?

Kerry just seemed too fake, too made up and too impersonal.


I truly think the voters want a return to the center away from ultra liberalism. I think Democrats still are willing to pay some tax if they see it as being used to help people who need help. However, they want a return to basic American Mainstream Values.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Yes, but how big is the evangelical voting bloc?

I've heard there are about 100 million hard-core christians in this country.

That number seems a little (actually, a lot) high. I'd like to know how you define 'hard-core', where you get that number, and how these people actually voted (a fair number of Christians are actually Dems based on the 'social justice' issues). I'm not saying you're wrong or right; I'd just like to see the data.

The number is significantly overstated. The actual figure is estimated to be closer to 25 million, and that includes all Evangelicals, not just those of voting age.

I'm constantly amazed at how the intellectual set seems to have a consistent problem with numbers and counts.

Here is a source for you guys:

In the broadest sense, according to Gallup polls, the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003.[6]

[6] = gallup

Check out Here for the specific gallup cite

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Yes, but how big is the evangelical voting bloc?

I've heard there are about 100 million hard-core christians in this country.

That number seems a little (actually, a lot) high. I'd like to know how you define 'hard-core', where you get that number, and how these people actually voted (a fair number of Christians are actually Dems based on the 'social justice' issues). I'm not saying you're wrong or right; I'd just like to see the data.

The number is significantly overstated. The actual figure is estimated to be closer to 25 million, and that includes all Evangelicals, not just those of voting age.

I'm constantly amazed at how the intellectual set seems to have a consistent problem with numbers and counts.

Here is a source for you guys:

In the broadest sense, according to Gallup polls, the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003.[6]

[6] = gallup

Check out Here for the specific gallup cite

I wouldn't characterize the born-agains as necessarily hard-core. There are many moderate people who consider themselves born again. Evangelicals tend to be more hard-core (but yes, that is a generalization).

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Yes, but how big is the evangelical voting bloc?

I've heard there are about 100 million hard-core christians in this country.

That number seems a little (actually, a lot) high. I'd like to know how you define 'hard-core', where you get that number, and how these people actually voted (a fair number of Christians are actually Dems based on the 'social justice' issues). I'm not saying you're wrong or right; I'd just like to see the data.

The number is significantly overstated. The actual figure is estimated to be closer to 25 million, and that includes all Evangelicals, not just those of voting age.

I'm constantly amazed at how the intellectual set seems to have a consistent problem with numbers and counts.

Here is a source for you guys:

In the broadest sense, according to Gallup polls, the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003.[6]

[6] = gallup

Check out Here for the specific gallup cite

That source is highly misinformed. If you don't know the difference between Evangelical and Born Again, then you have no business discussing the topic. I consider myself born again, but definitely not evangelical.

 

[Gravity]

Dems don't get it. They don't understand that the country doesn't want a radical democrat for president.

They need a moderate (lieberman) or less liberal candidate to get behind.

Perhaps they would have won if they hadn't selected the most liberal senator in the whole gov't.

Also, I think that if Kerry would have resigned his senate seat he would have demonstrated more commitment to the race. As it was he had one foot in the race and the other in his senate door.

Until you can can field a candidate that isn't extreme, you won't win.

Is Hillary extreme? I'll bet you still consider her though.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Here is a source for you guys:

In the broadest sense, according to Gallup polls, the number of persons in the United States who described themselves as either Evangelical or Born-Again between 1976 and 2001 fluctuated between 33 percent and 47 percent with a reasonable estimate being 35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people in 2003.[6]

[6] = gallup

Check out Here for the specific gallup cite

That source is highly misinformed. If you don't know the difference between Evangelical and Born Again, then you have no business discussing the topic. I consider myself born again, but definitely not evangelical.[/quote]

I do know the difference and for the purposes of my arguments there is no difference. IMO both these categories are hard-core christians and that they were behind this election.

And how exactly is the source "highly misinformed?"

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Don't forget third-party candidates. I've voted off the Dem/Rep reservation in the past, and I'll likely do it again. I wish more people would do likewise.

I agree. I have voted for third-party Presidential candidates more often than I've voted for Republicrats. If you want your vote to really matter, in most elections, third-party is the only way to do it.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Don't forget third-party candidates. I've voted off the Dem/Rep reservation in the past, and I'll likely do it again. I wish more people would do likewise.

I agree. I have voted for third-party Presidential candidates more often than I've voted for Republicrats. If you want your vote to really matter, in most elections, third-party is the only way to do it.

No. Check out duverger's law in google and our electoral laws. Again, this election shows that in OUR system 3rd parties don't win. Whenever they have a relative (read puny) success one year the next year they lose dramatically. Compare Nader with 2004 vs. 2000.

Now if you want to change our electoral laws to make third parties viable, I'd be all for it.