Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

Why can't you discuss an issue without getting nasty?

I got sick of being told that the Democrats should take losing conservative positions over winning liberal positions.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Agnus gets it right. It's not the Democrat's positions that are the problem, it's their communication that is the problem. They need to learn how to frame the issues. The Republicans are very good at it. Kerry couldn't do it to save his life.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I got sick of being told that the Democrats should take losing conservative positions over winning liberal positions.

Gay marriage may be a winning issue in the San Francisco Bay area, but it's not a winning issue too many other places.  Even liberal Oregon passed a constitution amendment banning gay marriage in 2004 with a pretty large margin (though not as lopsided as some other states).

Both parties need to evolve constantly in order to remain viable.  There's nothing wrong with making suggestions.  The main battle in politics is always between staying true to a strong base, which is invariably unable to deliver a general election victory on its own, and reaching out to those who are not part of the base.  In reaching out beyond the base, there is always the tension between what's necessary to bring in more voters, and not making the base feel betrayed.

Both parties have actual or potential base problems, and outside circumstances generally dictate which party can walk the tighrope and win, and which party can't.  Times of peace and prosperity seem to favor the Democrats, as their base becomes more quiescent and doesn't repel as many swing voters.  During those times, moderates become more disturbed by certain elements of the Democratic base.  But during more troubled times, the Democratic base becomes very loud and strident, and scares off moderates.  At the same time, the Republican base becomes less threatening to moderates, since the dominant issues go beyond the base's favorite issues, and the base's favorite issues therefore decline in importance.

Let's get this clear.

Kerry and Bush AGREED that gay marriage is bad
Kerry and Bush AGREED that civil unions should be allowed
On the one thing that they differed on, the Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Kerry sided with 47% of America, and Bush with 45%.

Ignoring people's misconceptions of Kerry's position (which is weird, because it's actually Bush that changed his position here, he suddenly became pro-gay union), it'd be pretty tough to argue that Bush somehow has the more popular position here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, somewhere between 54% and 57% of American adults now favor the constitutional amendment, according to Gallup polling data.

No  one has polled for a while, but this Boston Globe poll was more recent. Before you attack the Boston Globe, remember that Gallup doesn't have that great a record.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think you're jumping ahead dazzleman.  doing something, in fact, republicans do well.  you didn't actually come out and say, for example, in your penultimate post in this thread that the DNC favors gay marriage, but it's there, in between the lines.  In fact, neither the DNC nor the RNC nor do most americans favor marriage rights for gays (although personally I feel strongly that they should be allowed to marry), but anyone reading your post would assume that the dems favor gay marriage but the GOP does not.  Even though you can honestly claim never to have said that explicitly!!!  Now do you get my point?

I think you're reading a little too much into the post.  Jfern and Modu were discussing gay marriage, and that's why I brought it up.  I realize that the Democratic party doesn't officially support it.  I was just using it as an example of a liberal position that is not a winning one, at least not at this time.

Kerry's position on gay marriage is strange, because he favors a constitutional amendment against it in Massachusetts, but not at the federal level.

For me, the issue is not gay marriage but judicial activism.  If you know that sooner or later a liberal judge is going to force gay marriage down the public's throat, and you oppose a constitutional amendment to prevent it, then you are de facto in support of gay marriage, but leaving it up to others to bring it about.  This is not the way government is supposed to function.

I don't think a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage should be needed.  If the courts were serving their proper role, we wouldn't even be talking about it.  I think the issue should be decided in the legislatures of the states, without interference from the courts.

It sounds like you agree completely with Kerry on gay marriage.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

And a majority oppose gay marriage in general.  I can play that game too, little man.  And it's funny how you think I'm asking you to chose the conservative position, when you are telling me I can screw myself if I don't chose yours.  Kinda self-rightous of you, don't ya think?  Funny how your winning liberal position is losing in Democratic states.  Maybe you should stop and think that just because you favor something doesn't mean it's the "winning" position.

Kerry said he opposed gay marriage. There were a lot of people like him who are against gay marriage AND against the federal Constitutional amendment to ban it.

You're telling me that his being against the amendment, which a plurality are against, means that he's some sort of liberal extremist? What a crock of sh**t.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh, the May Gallup says otherwise.

I was using the latest poll, which was a Boston Globe poll.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gallup is more reputable. What date?

Later in May. From the 2004 election, we saw that Gallup was all over the place, and not very reputable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gustaf and Dazzleman, all clear.  I don't think we have fundamental disagreement here.  (Though we might argue over some finer points, in particular Gustaf's unsupportable assignment to republicans and democrats of their respective positions, but as I said before it's due to a failure to understand what really defines these parties, and the assumption that the average voter really goes around worrying about issues such as these.)

In short, if you'd remove their clothes and external stimuli, and the respective elements dragging them apart, you might just be surprised at how similar the real, naked, honest-to-god positions of Kerry and Bush are when it comes to stuff like butt-piracy.  In fact, if you go back to when this first became an issue, back in February 2004, and listen to the original un-prepped and unaided press conferences of both candidates on the issue of homomarriage (or union, call it whatever you like), their statements were completely interchangeable.  And this is the sort of history that is conveniently forgotten, or ignored, by every Democrat and Republican out there.

That's what I was saying. Bush and Kerry differered only on the Constitutional amendment, and maybe adoption (somewhere claimed that Bush was against gays adopting).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

With respect to 'gay marriage,' I see the critical distinction between TOLERANCE (Civil Unions) and ENDORSEMENT ('gay marriage').

If the Democrats would simply advocate Civil Unions, they would have no problems with the electorate, but when they advocate 'gay marriage" they are antagonizing much of the electorate.

I tend to agree.  It's not a matter of discrimination.  It is simply that same sex couples don't meet the definition of marriage, and there's no reason to change a definition that is thousands of years old just to placate a small minority.

It's funny how the marriage issue has come full circle.  Thirty years ago, heterosexual couples were rejecting marriage because it was just a "piece of paper."  Now, gay couple want to get married, ostensibly for the financial and tax benefits that marriage gives.

I don't think the reasons for advocating gay marriage are solid.  And with the institution of marriage having been under relentless assault in the past generation, this is just a step too far. 

The gay marriage debate is essentially about selfishness, just as the whole abortion debate is also.  I should have the RIGHT to do this because I WANT to.  That's really what it is.  That's not what marriage is really supposed to be about.

I think we should leave it at civil unions.

When did Kerry advocate gay marriage?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Actually, jfern and dazzleman, that's an interesting point.  And it goes to the heart of what I'm claiming Gustaf (and many others) either don't understand or choose not to.  Neither Kerry nor Bush advocate gay marriage.  Nor do either of them oppose gay rights.  In fact, their initial positions were almost exactly the same.  (now, of course, Bush is under such serious pressure he ocassionally makes noises about "codifying" marriage in order to placate interest groups, and Kerry, during the campaign, nearly tripped over himself every time it came up.  But hell, don't blame it on those two candidates for looking so foolish.  That's gotta suck having to placate so many interest groups.  Truth is their feelings on the issue are the same, neither of them have philosophical problems with same sex unions and neither is comfortable with gay marriage.  In fact, me, Gustaf, the Dutch, and a tiny fraction of the population of Canada and Massuchetts favor gay marriage.  And no one in India or China do.  It's really only a small subset of the world population that favor Gay marriage.  Not even migrendel, our resident moralizer, favors gay marriage.  By his own admission.  So assigning that position to the democrats is every bit as silly as assigning the position of homophobia to the average republican.  And every bit as unethical.)

Just a reality check. 

I never claimed that in 2005 or 2008 that coming out in favor of gay marriage helps you politically many places. It may help in San Francisco. Democrats tend to not like to do the right thing if it's doing poorly in the opinion polls.

I find it strange that migrendel doesn't favor gay marriage. How did he get such an extreme political compass score without favoring it? I would have though anyone around my social score would be pro-gay marriage, let alone those near bandit.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

Careful, there.  I think jfern is about to insult us on how this is an unwinnable strategy and how we're "spineless moderates."

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

Careful, there.  I think jfern is about to insult us on how this is an unwinnable strategy and how we're "spineless moderates."

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

Kerry has his own problems.  Gay marriage was not what cost him the election.  It's not him MODU and I were talking about.  It's the perception of Democrats as a whole. 

And could we stop the name-calling please?  You're acting like an elementary schooler by calling people "idiots" and "fools".

Instead of moving to the right because we're percieved as liberals, perhaps we need to frame things better.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

We know Kerry speaks from both sides of his mouth.  Most politicians do.  While Kerry was saying he was against gay marriage, he was backing the politicians and their efforts to make gay marriage legal.  It's the ol' Potomac two-step son.  But, you can keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better.

What a bunch of utter bullsh**t. Kerry is a moderate. Get your head out of your ass.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

We know Kerry speaks from both sides of his mouth.  Most politicians do.  While Kerry was saying he was against gay marriage, he was backing the politicians and their efforts to make gay marriage legal.  It's the ol' Potomac two-step son.  But, you can keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better.

What a bunch of utter bullsh**t. Kerry is a moderate. Get your head out of your ass.

Do you think Ted Kennedy is moderate too?

Do you have anything useful to say? You seem to have no spine, and are confusing Democrats with a spine with being necessarily liberal. I suppose you hate Senator Reid.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

We know Kerry speaks from both sides of his mouth.  Most politicians do.  While Kerry was saying he was against gay marriage, he was backing the politicians and their efforts to make gay marriage legal.  It's the ol' Potomac two-step son.  But, you can keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better.

What a bunch of utter bullsh**t. Kerry is a moderate. Get your head out of your ass.

Just like Barbara Boxer.

Barbara Boxer is the most liberal current Senator, and she set a record for the most votes ever for one candidate in a non-national election. Now, do you have a point?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

John Kerry:
--supports public funding of abortion

So did Clinton

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So do Senators Hatch and Frist, and it passed in California

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The numbers are moving against capital punishment, so it's not as an extreme a position as 15 years ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dean had an A from the NRA, and no one cared

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say he was the dead center on abortion. It's one of the few issues that he's left of center on. There are others like socialized medicine where he's far to the right, since 65% want single payer, and he opposes it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's had some inconsistant statements on this. However, his opponent was the master flip flopper.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On gay marriage he's pretty close the the center. On abortion he is left of center, but remember that Roe vs. Wade has 65%-29% support. Gun control doesn't seem like so much of a left/right issue. He talked some about his religious beliefs in speeches.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I doubt most Americans support paying 25% in payroll taxes alone, as they would under single-payer health care.

Countries with single-payer spend far less on health care than the US, and have longer life expectancies.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

We know Kerry speaks from both sides of his mouth.  Most politicians do.  While Kerry was saying he was against gay marriage, he was backing the politicians and their efforts to make gay marriage legal.  It's the ol' Potomac two-step son.  But, you can keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better.

What a bunch of utter bullsh**t. Kerry is a moderate. Get your head out of your ass.

Do you think Ted Kennedy is moderate too?

Do you have anything useful to say? You seem to have no spine, and are confusing Democrats with a spine with being necessarily liberal. I suppose you hate Senator Reid.

Senator Reid is a pretty good leader in the Senate.
You know, I think you're the one with nothing constructive to say, since you doggedly pursue the same argument over and over ("spineless moderate! spineless moderate!").  It's no wonder you don't display your age.  You probably don't want people to know you're in fifth or sixth grade.

I'm surprised that you like someone so non spineless. You seem to    think that the Democratic party should move further to the right.  Do you support the war? The bankruptcy bill?

Hint, does the Republican party win by moving to the center? Time for you to learn some lessons from them.

All, I want is for the Democratic party to win, which it can't do when hijacked by spineless "moderates" who can't oppose the Republican agenda, because if you oppose Bush, you're "some crazy liberal".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hint, does the Republican party win by moving to the center? Time for you to learn some lessons from them.

Hmmmm . . . that's still flawed.  You need to look more closely as to why they won.  Most of the challengers the Republicans faced were further away from the center than they were or failed to meet the needs of the voting population.  I would think that if you want to increase the number of Democratic politicians in office, you would want to move where the voters are, win their votes, get your party people in office, and then work back towards the left, rather than jump to the left, expect the voters to follow you, and then complain about being the minority party when the Republicans win again.

Most of the issues are on the side of the Democrats. Increasing minimum wage has 86-12 support. Kerry was actually on the losing side of the socialized medicine issue, by opposing it. Basically the Democratic party is center on most issues, left of center on a few issues, right of center on a few issues. In contrast, the Republican party doesn't seem too concerned about polls when they choose the 12% side.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh, 65% of Americans oppose a government take over of health care, according to Gallup.

Here's the far more reputable Pew poll.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gallup is more reputable than Pew, and unlike Pew, actually asked the question you're talking about.

So I slightly misremembered it. I once saw some poll that did have high support for single payer healthcare, but in any case, Democrats should fight for the 65% who want universal health care.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh, 65% of Americans oppose a government take over of health care, according to Gallup.

Here's the far more reputable Pew poll.

Sorry, but PEW doesn't do its own polls, and while some are pretty good, some are pretty bad.

Tell me who did the poll for PEW.

From the looks of it, its one of the PA frauds.

Sample of 2000 from  Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

It seems reasonable. There were some issues that were spectatularly bad for liberals, like 10 commandments, creationism, and limiting malpractice lawsuits.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[troll]I forgot how many times I have said this and how many different boards I have said this on, but if the elitist Northern/Pacific Democrats want to keep ignoring what Southern/Midwestern Democrats want, then that's their problem. Just stop complaining about losing elections and losing voters already. If you can't stand being called "loony left" then quit acting like these people are either way too socially conservative or ignorant fools who worship religious-right crazies. Obviously you elitist Northern/Pacific Democrats aren't going accept that Democrats from other areas don't like your "loony left" beliefs though. Wanting the party to become more moderate doesn't equal wanting to pander to the religious right, so I don't get this hyper-partisan conspiracy nightmarish BS about the Democratic populists here wanting to kill the party, turn it into Republican-lite, blah blah blah.

Boxer is a bitch, too.[/troll]

Never mind, I won't write more because I have to go to work now, and I will get the usual "You're an extremist!!!!" BS from jferniebaby who never got it into his thick Bezerkley skull that I am merely using my PC score here for Atlasia purposes only and not for real-life (in real-life I am still an Independent), the usual "Boxer isn't bad!!! you are stupid!!!!" from whoever else, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

There's this one inconvient fact to your stupid argument, Gore and Kerry won most of the electoral votes in the midwest.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When 26 of the 28 states with the lowest average personal income voted Republican in 2004, something is wrong. Look at what's happening: 32% of Oklahoma Democrats, 30% of West Virginian Democrats, 28% of Kentucky Democrats and 21% of Louisiana Democrats voted Republican in 2004. I don't think I need spell it out any further. The GOP manages to keep its fundamentalist and libertarian wings together (I don't know how) but the Democrats, they are having great difficulty in retaining its traditional blue-collar base and are struggling throughout most of rural America

The south has a lot of DINOs. Usually only Nader supporters make a big deal about that.