Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[Giant Saguaro]

For what it's worth...

The Dems may well make gains in '06, I don't know. But I don't think the Democrats will easily endear themselves for any consistent period of time to the rural poor GOP voters until the Dems understand something. Not know it, but understand it. That's the 'poor and proud' mindset. See, many Dems will go down into the woods in some state in the mid atlantic or southeast and tell them that they're poor and they should vote Democrat, but that's not how to communicate with these people because they don't care. They were poor in the '40s, '60s, and '70s when the Dems ran everything and guess what? They're poor now too. That they're poor isn't something that's happened since 1994, but too many of these Corzine and Dean types don't understand it because they are so far and above these people.

Tell these people they are voting against their economic interests and they'll tell you there's more to life than money. You meet interesting people when you hit the campaign trail and there are more families of, say, five out there raking in 26K a year then a lot would imagine. And a middle class person would think, how can ONE person make it on 26K a year, let alone FIVE PEOPLE? Well, government programs, this, that - they can stand there and tell you everything they qualify for and get in various states, and they don't express a lot of interest in getting out of it (the poverty). And it's not junk stuff, fall-down-and-sue type stuff, which some also do.

As to whether or not the Dems should 'give in' to the 'moral majority' folks, I think cultural issues are the easiest of the Dem's concerns. No, I don't think they have to 'give in,' but backing off on guns, backing off on Ten Commandment assaults, for example (and I would say the ACLU is a real bane to Dems in these regions), and the usual stuff would help greatly. These people might be gullible or even a little naive, but they're not stupid. When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

[Giant Saguaro]

When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

But how do we work around that? That is my position, and that is the position of most sane pro-choicers take. I am not pro-abortion. I strongly disagree with anyone who is. I support making the abortion process smoother and easier on everyone. I feel the GOP's policies don't make that happen. How is that A) such a radical position and B) So complex and hard to understand?

Well, you're attempting to reach people who are mostly pro life in rural areas. Now the first thing they'll bristle at is the concept of a 'safe abortion.' Like a safe execution with the executioner in mind, kinda. There is no such thing - although there is, safe for the person aborting the baby/fetus. The rural pro life people don't see it that way - it's a killing a baby, so it's not 'safe.' Second thing is this all sounds like double talk - and it sounds like double talk at times to me too. It's just a rhetorical strategy for making abortion bother one's conscience a little less.

I had several people in Missouri and a few other places quote this abortion position and then scoff and say, what bullsh*t. How can you be against but for allowing it? That's against it but for it. And they went on. And what I wonder is how many liberals will turn around and say the same about guns - well we personally don't like them, but we're not going to restrict them or control them? Not many at all, which we all know. Not even many Democrats period, let alone libs.

Now what I think is that there's a pretty clear majority against overturning Roe -v- Wade according to polls. Now the Democrats don't have to be for overturning it - in fact, they'll become a third party before they'll be for overturning Roe -v- Wade. Okay. But what would help with these rural voters is, I think, 2 stands: one take a firm stand against partial birth abortions. Opposing that isn't exactly out of the mainstream whatsoever. And the Dems shouldn't follow it up with but... but... but. A string of but statements negates the position taken in the first place, most of the time. Two: parental notifications. Opposing parantal notifications and partial birth abortions make the Dems look like they are FOR abortion in a lot of places. Maybe not to Democrats who rationalize it, but to a lot of these people we're talking about.

The thing that seems interesting to me is that okay, let's say some Dems knock off some of these GOPers in rural conservative areas. If the Dems maintain the status quo they will become very vulnerable incumbents from the word go.

[Giant Saguaro]

When Howard Dean says he isn't pro abortion, he's just pro choice, and being pro choice is more than being pro abortion, and he's not for increasing abortions, just access to them - people suspect they are being lied to and won't trust him or people who sound like him.

Just my take.

But how do we work around that? That is my position, and that is the position of most sane pro-choicers take. I am not pro-abortion. I strongly disagree with anyone who is. I support making the abortion process smoother and easier on everyone. I feel the GOP's policies don't make that happen. How is that A) such a radical position and B) So complex and hard to understand?

Well, you're attempting to reach people who are mostly pro life in rural areas. Now the first thing they'll bristle at is the concept of a 'safe abortion.' Like a safe execution with the executioner in mind, kinda. There is no such thing - although there is, safe for the person aborting the baby/fetus. The rural pro life people don't see it that way - it's a killing a baby, so it's not 'safe.' Second thing is this all sounds like double talk - and it sounds like double talk at times to me too. It's just a rhetorical strategy for making abortion bother one's conscience a little less.

I had several people in Missouri and a few other places quote this abortion position and then scoff and say, what bullsh*t. How can you be against but for allowing it? That's against it but for it. And they went on. And what I wonder is how many liberals will turn around and say the same about guns - well we personally don't like them, but we're not going to restrict them or control them? Not many at all, which we all know. Not even many Democrats period, let alone libs.

Now what I think is that there's a pretty clear majority against overturning Roe -v- Wade according to polls. Now the Democrats don't have to be for overturning it - in fact, they'll become a third party before they'll be for overturning Roe -v- Wade. Okay. But what would help with these rural voters is, I think, 2 stands: one take a firm stand against partial birth abortions. Opposing that isn't exactly out of the mainstream whatsoever. And the Dems shouldn't follow it up with but... but... but. A string of but statements negates the position taken in the first place, most of the time. Two: parental notifications. Opposing parantal notifications and partial birth abortions make the Dems look like they are FOR abortion in a lot of places. Maybe not to Democrats who rationalize it, but to a lot of these people we're talking about.

The thing that seems interesting to me is that okay, let's say some Dems knock off some of these GOPers in rural conservative areas. If the Dems maintain the status quo they will become very vulnerable incumbents from the word go.

Thank you.  That's what I've been trying to tell these liberals like jfern who won't listen to reason.

When I run across the really hardcore types I've gotten to where I *usually* just explain my position and then keep going. They're up to their eyeballs in cultural theory and other similar stuff, so to reason with them is like arguing with Ted Kennedy from your living room while he's on C-Span giving a speech.