Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She wouldn't win because she is extreme.

She wouldn't win because Republicans have already demonized her and weak-knee'd Democrats like you buy into it and repeat the spin.

And again, you have no specific information to back up your claim of her being extreme. You just repeat right-wing spin over and over again.

Oh yeah, I'm a weak-kneed Democrat.  I'm a realist.  You're the one that's living a leftist fantasy.  This is not right-wing spin.  It's true that she is significantly farther to the left than most Americans.  Maybe you should pay a visit to the South or the MidWest instead of just believing stereotypes about it.  Seriously, the entire US is not like the northeast and California.  Just keep thinking that and we'll lose elections for the next 30 years too. 

We're not claiming that Boxer would be the most electable Presidential candidate. However, she has done quite well in CA. Al seems hopelessly confused about her, calling her both a far-left extremist and saying that she doesn't stand up for ordinary working class. Both of those are wrong.

I'm slightly more liberal economically than I am socially, so I appreciate her standing up for the working class.  But socially she's very liberal.  That's all I was saying.  Moderates like Al, Ben, and myself want to help the Democratic Party, but it's hard to do if we're labeled as weak-knee'd and accused of being brainwashed with right-wing spin.

Well, anyone who spends more time bashing liberals than Republicans deserves such a label. The question is where your priorities are.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Californians don't seem to care.

Californians are not representative of America as a whole

Neither is almost any other state

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Er... I was just pointing out why she's an extremist...
[/quote]
How is she an extremist?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look... BLACK HELICOPTERS!!!!!!
[/quote]
You're a total fool if you think that FL 2000 wasn't stolen. Do you really believe that Bush won it fair and square?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any Democratic Senator that votes party line on certain issues will get 100% ratings from some Unions. Not impressive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You know I think that coming out against unrestricted Abotion is something that most Americans would approve of.
[/quote]
Quite a lot of Democrats are against unrestricted Abortion. However, it didn't seem to hurt Boxer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NARAL does NOT represent 65% of America. NARAL want abortions on demand at any stage in the pregnancy. That is an extreme (and frankly quite sick) position. Most Americans do not share NARAL's views.
[/quote]

65% of Americans want Roe vs. Wade to be upheld. They fight for that 65%, not the wingnuts like you.
[/quote][/quote]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Heres a good reccomedation for us.

We should go against abortion but be for killing babies.

Hey, it works for the Republicans.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. Why are the needs of the CA working class so incredibly different from those elsewhere? If anything, they're greater in CA, due to a higher cost of living.

There's still a working class in California?

And you accuse the left of being out of touch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

California just loves it's nutters
[/quote]
California is a Democratic-leaning state, so obviously this Republican couldn't have been too crazy right wing. He's definitely more moderate than Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You need to ask? Loony Left=Extreme Left
[/quote]

Define it. What makes someone loony or extreme left? I can tell you right now that if someone who was really extreme left had run for CA Senate, Jones would have won.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

PRO-HILLARYCARE? OH NOES!!!!!

Yeah. I want to be able to work less for other people, and more for myself.

Does anyone actually think Boxer could carry California in a presidential election? Senator and president are two very different jobs.

If the best you can come up with is that she's pro-HillaryCare, she'd win California pretty easily. Why would she run over 20 points worse in a Presidential election, against someone more right-wing than Jones?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither is almost any other state

Not the point, not the point. Some crazy like Boxer winning in California isn't impressive, neither is a crazy like Cornyn winning in Texas

Kerry won CA by only 10 points, and it used to be fairly Republican, most recently going Republican in 1988.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]
Not big into explanations, I see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There were irregularities yes, but not a massive evil conspiracy or anything...
[/quote]
Ever hear of the FL scrub list?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

O.K then, opposite to the GOP line...

[/quote]

A lot of sh**t passes the Senate 100-0.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Funny!
[/quote]
Well you seem to be heavily criticizing the most pro-union Senator.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Keep on dodging the hard things to answer...[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you support Roe vs. Wade, genius?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And you accuse the left of being out of touch.

Sense of humour failure?

As a serious point, there isn't *much* of a working class in California, sure there's poor people but that's not the same at all...

Not the same at all? WTF do you mean by that? The cost of living is much higher here, BTW. How nice of you to ignore the California poor. There are a ton of homeless here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting logic there
[/quote]

What makes you say that Jones is more conservative than Bush?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that it's perfectly fair to call someone who thinks that abortions are great an extremist
[/quote]

I never said they were great, I just said that I'm for a woman's right to choose? Understand the difference?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, but what do *you* think an extremist is?[/quote]

Well, they seem to exist a lot more on other sides of the political compass. If I have to talk about Democratic extremists, I'd have to say Larouche supporters, but I'm not sure if there's even a place on the political compass for them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I've never been to these places in California, but aren't places like Oakland and South Central LA filled to the gills with homeless people?

Yes

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I've never been to these places in California, but aren't places like Oakland and South Central LA filled to the gills with homeless people?

Yes. And it's a big problem. I don't think they can be classed as working class though.

Some of them work. It's just that CA rents and housing values are insane. The federal government fails to take cost of living into consideration.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Apparently, some Democrats have decided to junk jfern's approach and adopt Al's:

Democrats Woo Values Voters

This is just a stunt until some upper-level Democrat apparatchik actually believes that this move is necessary for Democrat electoral survival. Until then, it is yet another frivolous p.r. makeover of the type Al Gore is famous for.

Wait, how does this contradict what I was arguing?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not the same at all? WTF do you mean by that?

Should be obvious... unless you're a Maxist or summet...

Explain why you don't seem to care so much about the CA working class.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't have much to do with whether someone is working class or not

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does have quite a bit to do with how comfortably they can live on $6.50 an hour.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ignoring? No. Avoiding misleading labels? Yes.
[/quote]
What?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say he was. He's much more of a nutter though.
[/quote]
What do you mean by that? He only appears to be out of the mainstream because CA is such a liberal state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Explain that
[/quote]
What more is there to say? I thought that explained it all. John Kerry said that he was personally opposed to abortion, but was for a woman's right to choose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In theory. No difference in practice. But then you support abortion as a form of social darwinism so...
[/quote]
What? I'm more left wing than you economically.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See Blue Rectangle's post

---
Al
[/quote]

Whatever, can you explain what an extremist is? I've asked you several times, and you have been unable to explain. You are a really sh**tty arguer. At least J.J. is more convincing, even when he's 100% wrong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The entire Central Valley is working-class.

Shhh. People don't really work in California.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry won CA by only 10 points, and it used to be fairly Republican, most recently going Republican in 1988.

And?

Boxer won it by 20 points. Do I have to say anything more?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've given a fair few reasons why she's an extremist. You got a memory like a Goldfish or summet?
[/quote]
You reasons for her being an extremist were that she's loony left. Scrap the circular reasoning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Without putting too fine a point on it, if I wanted to steal an election I wouldn't have let it go within MoE like FL was...
[/quote]
That's a silly reason for claiming they didn't steal it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Am I? I rather like most of the rustbelt Senators

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not as liberal as Boxer, although Feingold is pretty close, and Durbin is also pretty liberal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No; it's a classic example of legislating from the bench, has caused untold political divisions, has at it's heart a disgusting principle and the public is largely ignorant about it.
[/quote]

Well, I'm in the 65% that supports it, and you're in the 29% that opposes it. Since the Republican party already opposes it, don't you think it'd make sense for the Democratic party to support it, given those numbers?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The entire Central Valley is working-class.

Most is IIRC. Not checked the stats for that area as much as I'd have liked to really...
I don't supose I need to point out that Boxer did much worse in the Central Valley than along the coast do I?

She ran much better there than Kerry, and won 2 Bush counties there (she also won 3 Bush counties in SoCal).  True, Jones still did well in the area because of people voting against their own economic self interests.

Region
LA County Boxer 68-30 Kerry 63-35
SoCal (no LA) Boxer 52-46 Bush 46-53
Bay Area Boxer 74-24 Kerry 70-27
Coastal Cali Boxer 63-36 Kerry 59-37
Central Valley Jones 43-54 Kerry 37-61

The margin was
10 points better in LA County
13 points better in SoCal
6 points better in Bay Area
5 points better in Costal Cali
13 points better in Central Valley

She won the salad bowl of America, Montery County, 62.4-33.0.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All the "moderates" voted for this stupid war. Bush now has a 61% disapproval rating on the war. Time to tell the "moderates" to go  themselves, and run a liberal, so we can tap into that 61%.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would like to see more economic populism from the Democrats.

We should do more to appeal to the South, but the midwest and southwest are where the more immediate opportunies are.

Byrd is a populist.  Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, and Tim Johnson are other populists in the Senate.  Even Zell Miller was a populist.  Most rural Southerners were Democratic populists.

Byrd and Conrad had the wisdom to vote no on the war.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We shouldn't ignore the South at all, we just shouldn't pander to them if it means going against our core values.

Well if the national Democrats had been bothered to campaign on the Democratic party's core values (as opposed to affluent liberal leftists core values...) it wouldn't be in the trouble it's in down in Dixie.

You hit the nail on the head.  Oh, and Zell Miller was an excellent governor of Georgia and gave a great keynote speech at the 1992 Democratic convention.  I think he's a perfect represntation of what the Democratic Party once was in the South.  I didn't like his speech at the RNC about Democrats arming the military with "spitballs."  But he's right that we have lost touch with the South because we decided to start catering to elite liberals and have become weaker in general on national security. 

On the contrary, AuH20, I think that Democrats will be able to win some Southern states without "fooling" anybody.  You probably mean we'd disguise a very liberal aganda inside a moderate package.  If anybody learned anything after the last election, it's that we need to become tougher on social issues and national security and fight the right wing portrayal of us as whiny liberal wimps without a spine.  We're not anti-religious either, that's another misconception.  I'm sick of right-wing bullies like Sean Hannity characterizing and stereotyping us as a party of atheists.  Somehow we need to convince people that that is simply not true.

Zell Miller criticized LBJ for civil rights. I'm glad that everyone from his wing of the party (except him) left. Good riddance.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All the "moderates" voted for this stupid war. Bush now has a 61% disapproval rating on the war. Time to tell the "moderates" to go  themselves, and run a liberal, so we can tap into that 61%.

I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, but others actually thought there were WMD's there.  Part fo the reason they voted to go to war was so that if Bush actually had been right, they wouldn't face a huge backlash from conservatives and moderates.  I believe this was the case with moderates like Ben Nelson and Bill Nelson, who could have put their political futures in jeopardy. 

Regardless of the war's unpopularity, which we can use to our advantage, a liberal presidential candidate would still get hammered on social issues.  Kerry tried to criticize the Bush Administration's handling of the war, but during the debates Bush just called him a liberal and attacked him on social issues.  It was a poorly-founded argument from Bush, but he still won.  There are many people out there who have grown sick and tired of the administration and the Republican Congress but are afraid to turn to the Democrats because of what they perceive as "a lack of traditional values" and being weak on national sucurity. 

By the way, the content from that last sentence appeared as quoted in yesterday's Washington Post.

What was so liberal about Kerry on social issues?

While he was pro-choice, he said he was personally opposed to abortion.
His view on gay marriage was similar to Bush's, he said he was agianst it, for civil unions. The only difference is that he opposed the Constitutional amendment.
Kerry was obviously not a gun-grabber.

Is there some other social issue I'm not thinking of?

BTW, Bill Nelson (FL Senator) later said voting for the war was a mistake, he only did it because the Bush adminstration had claimed to the US Senate that Saddam could attack the east coast with some WMD he had.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm talking about the perception of Kerry by the electorate.  The GOP successfully painted him to be liberal, and aided by their minions at Fox News and Talk Radio, it worked.

Well, then, maybe we should deal with those perceptions, instead of running a spineless "moderate" who don't stand for anything in response.

Either we run a right-winger, or Fox criticizes us.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, in 2004 Fox tilted slightly left based on the ratio of positive/negative stories dealing with Bush and Kerry.

Say what?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Time to tell the "moderates" to go  themselves, and run a liberal, so we can tap into that 61%.

Once again you're making exactly the same mistake the Anti War Left made over Vietnam

I don't listen to pro-war hacks like you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, in 2004 Fox tilted slightly left based on the ratio of positive/negative stories dealing with Bush and Kerry.

Say what?

Fox outsourced their polling, which did return some left-than-average poll results when compared to the rest of the organizations.  Vorlon can verify that (or you can just go back to the 2004 forums and read them).

A18 and Virginian87 were talking about what Fox says about Democrats, not their outsourced polling firm.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Time to tell the "moderates" to go  themselves, and run a liberal, so we can tap into that 61%.

Once again you're making exactly the same mistake the Anti War Left made over Vietnam

I don't listen to pro-war hacks like you.

Al is not a partisan hack.  He's making a valid point.  We nominated such a candidate in 1972.  Look how well that turned out.

Nixon would have lost if voters had known about his Watergate involvement or having South Korea walk out of the peace talks.

It took much longer for the public to turn against the Vietnam war. The current war might already be more unpopular. Anyways, it's very relevant that Al seems to support this war, so of course he's not going to agree with the 61% of Americans who disapprove of Bush on the war. Al wants that 61% to be ignored. Hopefully the Democratic party tells people like Al to go  themselves.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, in 2004 Fox tilted slightly left based on the ratio of positive/negative stories dealing with Bush and Kerry.

Say what?

Fox outsourced their polling, which did return some left-than-average poll results when compared to the rest of the organizations.  Vorlon can verify that (or you can just go back to the 2004 forums and read them).

A18 and Virginian87 were talking about what Fox says about Democrats, not their outsourced polling firm.

True, but they used the polls in conjunction with what they were discussing about the campaign candidates.

You're blind if you don't see how their coverage is biased in favor of Republicans. Why does exactly how their poll ended up matter?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're blind if you don't see how their coverage is biased in favor of Republicans. Why does exactly how their poll ended up matter?

If you are comparing their coverage agains the coverage of the other news organizations, yes, it was very biased.  However, if you will note, the other news organizations (outside of C-Span) were heavily biased towards the Democrats.  It's all relative.  Looking at Fox's coverage, they were the closest to being "fair" to both sides.

Not the stupid liberal media myth. Why didn't the media point out that the Unfit for Command people were a bunch of scumbag liars, and instead reported non-stop on their allegations,  if the media was so damn liberal? Huh? You lose.