A Message to All Republicans Here...yes, I'm back for the next 24 hours only...

[Nym90]

Agree Mark and it works vice-versa for me now Bush has won, I never hated the guy in the first place, I've always said politicans get a bad rap and both Kerry and Bush where decent men despite my feeling that Kerry would have been a better president  

Ben,

Well said. Believe me, I was NEVER referring to you when I talked about some posters on this forum. In fact, I have often mentioned you as an example of the way decent people on both sides can have legitmate disagreements and still treat each other with respect. It used to be that with MOST people in this nation, but the Left has gone haywire the past several years, and it's not just a few crazies, but a strong, vocal minority of the Party who has increased their influence in a big way the past four years.

Thanks Mark, then again what would you expect from a Blue-Dawg, Kerry losing didn't hurt as much as John, Carson and Knowles losing, for me at least.

Good point. Even conservative Democrats lost in a lot of these Senate races. Our Senate losses, at least, can't be blamed on being too liberal.

[Nym90]

Ben,

Of course you are 100% correct. Moderate to conservative Democrats (Carson, John, etc...) in the South have to carry the national Democratic Party around their necks in any race. One of the big rallying cries of Republicans in the South has been to tell Conservative Democrats that if they vote in a Democratic rep, no matter how Conservative they might be, that rep's first vote will be for Speaker Nancy Pelosi...or Senator Tom Daschle. This is a VERY effective and impactful statement.

On an interesting note, I have been fascinated by the last few responses from you and Nym. Here we have two Democrats who are really not all that far apart on substantive policy beliefs, yet you reach two incredibly diverse conclusions about what actually took place in the South.

In my opinion, you have a classic example of the difference between a legitimate centrist Democrat (you) who is open to positive AND negative views of your party, and Nym, who despite his seemingly moderate views would march off the cliff, drinking his cool-aid, with the Left Wing of your party.

Actually, I have posted in other areas that the Dems need to moderate their cultural and foreign policy stances. So no, I don't fit your characterization at all.

I was merely pointing out that in Senate races, the problem wasn't that Democratic candidates for the Senate were too liberal. Is that a true statement or a false statement? If Chris John is too liberal for Louisiana, and Brad Carson is too liberal for Oklahoma, then we really are in more trouble in this nation than I thought....

I was implying that I agree with Ben, and that the problem wasn't candidates for the Senate that were too liberal, but rather endemic of a national problem of perception. I guess I should have been more clear about that.

I will agree that Kerry was too liberal (although the degree to which he was was distorted, but in politics, perception is reality, so it really doesn't matter how liberal he actually was, only how he was perceived), though he still came pretty close to winning despite having zero charisma, so I don't believe that a liberal can't win. However, it is certainly more difficult for a liberal to win, and easier for a moderate.

Even more important than ideology, however, was the perception that Kerry doesn't stand for anything. If he had appeared more principled, he would have probably won, despite his views. I think that a principled liberal could be respected for it and still get votes from moderates, especially if they were charismatic enough to explain what liberalism REALLY means.

A principled moderate is even better, however. Someone who was moderate and had strong principles and was charismatic would be the perfect candidate.

So the bottom line is that ideology matters, but it isn't everything. It's only one of several factors that swing voters look at when deciding how to vote.

The same goes for the GOP, too. A moderate is a better choice than a conservative, all else being equal, but a principled conservative can get votes from moderates who respect their honesty and the fact that they have strong principles, even if they disagree with many of them.

[Nym90]

Like it or not, among Republicans and Independents of the moderate to conservative bent, Michael Moore is now the symbol of your party more than any actual party leader...and mainstream Dems made that possible by refusing to repudiate Moore and his vile lies.

I'm not really sure if repudiating Moore would help.  I've repudiated liberals who are on the extreme end of things many times and tons of conservatives still claim that they represent every liberal in existence every single time they open their mouth.  I don't really know what else I can do.

That said, I do personally feel that the Democratic Party needs to shift itself in from the left.  Nominating someone like Bill Richardson instead of Dennis Kucinich would be a good start.  Whether we like it or not, those in the left wing of the Democratic Party probably believe a lot of things that the large majority of Americans don't and probably won't help the Democratic Party's image if nominated as our candidate for president.

We shouldn't just be "GOP Lite", though.  It's possible to be a moderate Democrat and still definitely be a Democrat.  I personally think the main thing we need to do is shake our image of being a directionless party that attracts tons of extreme leftists from the lunatic fringe and do our best to establish what we really stand for, which is probably something that Americans can be much more agreeable towards than what they currently think we stand for.

That said, however, if we do nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich, I'm not going anywhere.  I don't identify with the Democratic Party to win elections; I do so because I agree with its platform more than any other party's.

Excellent post. The Democratic Party doesn't need to lurch far to the right; the election was close, after all, so we don't need to make massive changes in order to win. And if we go too far to the right, we'll lose the base, which is an essential part of the party and necessary to have in order to win. Both parties need their base, and neither can afford to abandon them.

What we mostly need is a slightly more moderate position on cultural and foreign policy issues, so that it is clear to the American people that we stand on the side of social responsibility and firmly and absolutely against terrorism, and are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat it.

Make it clear that on both social issues and foreign policy, we agree with the Republicans on the problems confronting America, but we merely disagree on the solutions to those problems. We already do believe this, so it's not like we have to make massive changes, but we have to repudiate the hateful elements of the party that make it seem as though we do not stand for these things.

For example, on the issue of abortion, Democrats should stress that we want as few abortions as possible, but that we don't feel that throwing people in prison is the most effective way to reduce abortion. "Safe, legal, and rare" should be our slogan here. Make it clear that we acknowledge the problem, and that we want the same solution as the Republicans, but that we disagree on tactics; make it clear that it is more of an economic problem, and that we will stress solutions that require responsibility and that reward it with economic upward mobility.

I think a big part of the problem is that many swing voters perceive the Democrats as not even being willing to acknowledge that problems exist in some areas (as I said, social irresponsibility, and combatting terrorism). Obviously if someone can't admit that there even is a problem, they can't find a solution. Democrats must do our best to emphasize that we do feel that while we support social freedom, it must be accompanied by responsibility, and that while we firmly oppose terrorism with every fiber of our being, we feel that America should not have to, and in fact does not have to, bear the entire burden in both costs and lives for defeating it.

In a similar fashion, America needs to convince our allies on foreign policy that we view them as allies, not as enemies, in the war on terror, and moderate our foreign policy so that it is not so heavily biased towards corporate interests; in other words, so that we support democracy EVERYWHERE, and oppose all dictators. But that's for another thread.

So yes, we need to move toward the middle somewhat, and nominate a pragmatic yet principled moderate who can connect with the American people on a personal level. Someone who people feel cares about them and their needs, and genuinely puts America's interests first, ahead of ideology.

[Nym90]

Like it or not, among Republicans and Independents of the moderate to conservative bent, Michael Moore is now the symbol of your party more than any actual party leader...and mainstream Dems made that possible by refusing to repudiate Moore and his vile lies.

I'm not really sure if repudiating Moore would help.  I've repudiated liberals who are on the extreme end of things many times and tons of conservatives still claim that they represent every liberal in existence every single time they open their mouth.  I don't really know what else I can do.

That said, I do personally feel that the Democratic Party needs to shift itself in from the left.  Nominating someone like Bill Richardson instead of Dennis Kucinich would be a good start.  Whether we like it or not, those in the left wing of the Democratic Party probably believe a lot of things that the large majority of Americans don't and probably won't help the Democratic Party's image if nominated as our candidate for president.

We shouldn't just be "GOP Lite", though.  It's possible to be a moderate Democrat and still definitely be a Democrat.  I personally think the main thing we need to do is shake our image of being a directionless party that attracts tons of extreme leftists from the lunatic fringe and do our best to establish what we really stand for, which is probably something that Americans can be much more agreeable towards than what they currently think we stand for.

That said, however, if we do nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich, I'm not going anywhere.  I don't identify with the Democratic Party to win elections; I do so because I agree with its platform more than any other party's.

Excellent post. The Democratic Party doesn't need to lurch far to the right; the election was close, after all, so we don't need to make massive changes in order to win. And if we go too far to the right, we'll lose the base, which is an essential part of the party and necessary to have in order to win. Both parties need their base, and neither can afford to abandon them.

What we mostly need is a slightly more moderate position on cultural and foreign policy issues, so that it is clear to the American people that we stand on the side of social responsibility and firmly and absolutely against terrorism, and are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat it.

Make it clear that on both social issues and foreign policy, we agree with the Republicans on the problems confronting America, but we merely disagree on the solutions to those problems. We already do believe this, so it's not like we have to make massive changes, but we have to repudiate the hateful elements of the party that make it seem as though we do not stand for these things.

For example, on the issue of abortion, Democrats should stress that we want as few abortions as possible, but that we don't feel that throwing people in prison is the most effective way to reduce abortion. "Safe, legal, and rare" should be our slogan here. Make it clear that we acknowledge the problem, and that we want the same solution as the Republicans, but that we disagree on tactics; make it clear that it is more of an economic problem, and that we will stress solutions that require responsibility and that reward it with economic upward mobility.

I think a big part of the problem is that many swing voters perceive the Democrats as not even being willing to acknowledge that problems exist in some areas (as I said, social irresponsibility, and combatting terrorism). Obviously if someone can't admit that there even is a problem, they can't find a solution. Democrats must do our best to emphasize that we do feel that while we support social freedom, it must be accompanied by responsibility, and that while we firmly oppose terrorism with every fiber of our being, we feel that America should not have to, and in fact does not have to, bear the entire burden in both costs and lives for defeating it.

In a similar fashion, America needs to convince our allies on foreign policy that we view them as allies, not as enemies, in the war on terror, and moderate our foreign policy so that it is not so heavily biased towards corporate interests; in other words, so that we support democracy EVERYWHERE, and oppose all dictators. But that's for another thread.

So yes, we need to move toward the middle somewhat, and nominate a pragmatic yet principled moderate who can connect with the American people on a personal level. Someone who people feel cares about them and their needs, and genuinely puts America's interests first, ahead of ideology.

You've aready started to lose your base.  Hispanics, blacks, union members, jews, women and the elderly.  What do they have in common?  All groups that Bush improved with in 2004 over 2000.  You are hemmoraging your base because your party advocates cultural values that these people find abhorrent.  Moving rightward on social issues may irritate the educated professionals who are the Democrats fastest growing contingent, but it will save you the groups that still make up the bulk of your voters.  It's only the white, educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, scientists, academicians, teachers, and highly educated government employees) who agree with the far left on social issues.

I've got a story for you guys.  A female friend of mine (no, not like that) was cleaning up her apartment last night and I was over there and she has some flower vases sitting around taking up space.  She doesn't have much free time, but she'd like some flowers for the vase.  So today, I got buy some nice flowers for her apartment and bring them over.  Her and her roomate are there, and one of the friends, a loony lefter, who lives in their apartment complex.

The loony lefter asks me if I'm happy about the election, knowing I'm a Republican.  I say, "Of course".  She snidely asks if I think she should have her right to choose taken away.  I snippily, and quickly respond, "Yes."  She then asks my friend (who I just got flowers for without being prompted by anyone to do that) "How she can be friends with someone who doesn't support women's rights."  Loony asks if I'm unhappy about prop 71 passing (the stem cell bond in CA).  I say I'm happy about it, because I support stem cell research.  She points out, in a condescending fashion, that she wouldn't think I'd support stem cell research because it isn't "Christ like."  She has no idea what my religious beliefs are, and dutifully pointed out that I am not a Christian nor am I justifying my abortion or stem cell views on any kind of religious basis.  I oppose abortion because it devalues the individual and support stem cell research because none of the embryos involved will ever be allowed to fully develop anyway, and opposiing this research is akin to oposing organ donor programs.

Loony seemed not to care that my old boss, Congressman Duke Cunningham, is a very pro-life Republican and is one of the best advocates for stem cell research in the House, nor does she care that Orrin Hatch, another pro-life Republican is one of the Senate's top spokespeople for this research.  Nor does she care that George Bush, not Bill Clinton, was the first President to approve federal funds for stem cell research.

She claims that there is no secular justification for being pro-life, and that it is all religious extremism, even though my very existence proves her point wrong.  She then leaves the room.

So, in short.  Don't be friends with pro-lifers because they hate women, the only justification for being pro-life is radical Christian fundamentalism (any orthodox Jews in the house?), and supporting stem cell research is incompatible with being pro-life (someone should tell the President that, I guess).

Do any Democrats wonder why we shallacked you on Tuesday?  The level of vitriol and condescention rubs people in middle America wrong.  Most Democrats detest middle America.  Well, on Tuesday, middle America let the Democrats know the feeling is mutual.

I'm sorry to hear of your bad experience. I agree that we need to moderate those stances, and I helped explain why.

You are completely wrong that most Democrats detest middle America, however. Heck, I am pretty much the personification of middle America myself in a lot of ways in my personal life, and I live in middle America. That's totally false; people like myself, Gabu, Beet, Lunar, Ben and the like are the true heart and soul of the party, but we've allowed ourselves to be defined by our extremists. That girl does not in any way, shape, or form represent the REAL Democratic party. But the misperception is as much our fault as it is anyone else's. The buck stops here; I'm not going to go blaming everyone else for our party's inaccurate view in the eyes of middle America. I believe that the morally right thing to do is to take responsibility for the misperception and do all that we can do to defeat it without caving on our core principles, which we most certainly do not have to do because our core values are American values.

The Republicans had the same problem in the early 90's. The GOP was in more desperate straits after the 1992 election than the Dems are now; their Presidential candidate got 37% of the vote and 168 EVs, and they held only 43 seats in the Senate and 176 in the House. They managed to turn around the misperception that they were suffering from; if we can do the same, we can make a comeback too.

[Nym90]

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe it is different where you live than where I live, but I have encountered very few middle America hating Democrats. Of course, I live in middle America, but yet my area is Democratic, so I guess people up here haven't gotten the message yet that Democrats hate them.

If Democrats hated middle America so much, Kerry wouldn't have won Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois, and come very close in Ohio and Iowa.

Unless the people in these states are just stupid and haven't been properly "educated" yet as to what Democrats are really about.

Sure, there are middle America hating Democrats, but there are just as many Republicans who hate the Northeast and West Coast with a passion. A lot of Republicans from the South believe that we should saw California off and let it float out to sea, and that everything north of Pennsylvania should be nuked. Are they the majority within the party? Of course not.

[Nym90]

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

So? If I moved all of 50 kilometers to Port Angeles, I would certainly join the Democratic Party. I don't see what the big difference is being a few kilometers north of the border.

I don't claim to speak for the majority of Democrats now and I wouldn't claim to speak for the majority of Democrats if I was born and raised in America. I am who I am and I speak for myself. However, I don't see how my being Canadian invalidates my input. Are we really that different?

Canadian political culture is different than American.  Even ifyou moved, you'd still not have grown up in the American political culture and would still be more Candian than American.

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Maybe it is different where you live than where I live, but I have encountered very few middle America hating Democrats. Of course, I live in middle America, but yet my area is Democratic, so I guess people up here haven't gotten the message yet that Democrats hate them.

If Democrats hated middle America so much, Kerry wouldn't have won Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois, and come very close in Ohio and Iowa.

Unless the people in these states are just stupid and haven't been properly "educated" yet as to what Democrats are really about.

Sure, there are middle America hating Democrats, but there are just as many Republicans who hate the Northeast and West Coast with a passion. A lot of Republicans from the South believe that we should saw California off and let it float out to sea, and that everything north of Pennsylvania should be nuked. Are they the majority within the party? Of course not.

Middle America is not red states, its red counties and precints.  Kerry won Michigan because of Detroit, which has a heavy black population, and the surrounding areas which are heavily union.  These groups are not representative of the intellectual firepower behind the Democrats, just the voting power (see my earlier post about the Democrats and their base).  Take Wisconsin for example.  Its a blue state, but if you go to Madison and then to Green Bay, you find two very different Americas.

When I say this tuff about Democrats hating middle America, I'm not talking about the voting base of the party.  They're too stupid to have independent thoughts anyway, as is the base of the Republican Party.  I'm talking about the intellectual base of the party.  The editorial boards of most newspapers, most network newsooms, college campuses, Hollywood, upper income areas of major urban centers, and the like.

Just look at Maureen Dowd, Thomas Friedman, and Paul Krugman and their most recent NYT columns, and then tell me they don't hate middle America.  Its right there in print for all to read.  This isn't conjecture, and its not something reasonable people can disagree about.  The intellectual elite of your party has exlicitly stated their hatred of middle America.

Gabu,

You aren't a Democrat, you're a Canadian who identifies with the Democratic Party on ideology when it comes to US elections.

Nym,

Most Democrats do detest adn condescend to middle America.  You may or may not realize this, but you are not a good example of the average Democrat.

I'm from middle America, and I sure as hell don't. The people you hear me trashing most are upper class yuppies who live in the cancerous pit that is suburbia.

You also are not a real Democrat.  You are a self-avowed Marxist who votes democrat because you don't like wasting your vote on the candidate that is closest to you ideologically.

Am I a real Democrat?

No, you're a facsist who has believes in social and economic laissez faire, and for now thinks that social laissez faire and the destruction of organized religion takes first priority.  Until a few weeks ago, you even had a blue avatar.

Ok, well that's very different from saying that most Democrats hate middle America. The voting base of the party has very different opinions, views, and ideas than the intellectual elite.

The same thing happened in reverse in 1996. Many conservative commentators said America was stupid for reelecting Bill Clinton. Even Bob Dole himself started getting this way near the end of the campaign, proclaiming "Where's the outrage, America?" at the end of many rants about scandals and the like. The implication clearly being that Americans were stupid to vote for Clinton.

Intellectual elites are entitled to their opinions as well as anyone else, but they aren't a majority of Democrats.

You can't just ignore the opinions of urban areas, unions, blacks etc. and discount Democratic victories that occur because of huge victories among these demographics. You'd best be careful, it sounds like you are close to expressing the same hate towards these groups that you are criticizing Democrats for showing towards GOP leaning groups.

The voting base of the party has much more power than the intellectual base, and that's true of the GOP as well. And they do have independent thoughts; many blacks and union members are socially conservative, yet they still vote for Democrats, for example.  Many people in upper income urban areas are economically conservative but still vote Democratic. It's not that they agree with Democrats on everything, but they agree with them on the issues that are most important to them.

Likewise with Republicans, there are many who have independent thoughts and ideas, but they agree with the GOP on the issues that matter most to them.

These folks aren't just voting monolithically; sure, some of them are, but most of them have thought about the issues, and that's led them to become the base of one party or another.

And Kerry didn't just win Michigan because of the metro Detroit vote; even having won it, he still could have lost the state if he had done worse outstate. He managed to get enough votes from voters in rural areas to win, even though he didn't carry most of those rural areas. You're mistakenly assuming that a candidate wins only through the strength of the areas in which he wins a majority; Kerry sufficiently reduced the GOP margin in their strongest areas enough to win, and that's just as important as running up a large margin in the areas that he did win. A vote is a vote is a vote.

[Nym90]

I'm not expressing any hate towards the voting base of the Democratic party, I'm the one pointing out that they don't have the animosity towards middle America the elites have.

True, and I commend you for that.

Looking back I think I did misread a bit, you actually insulted both bases, but I still don't think that either party base is necessarily stupid.