Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[Virginian87]

They wouldn't need a party if they actually intended to support them. My guess is they would instead have other people 'support' them.

Who supports them then?  The Republican Party certainly DOES NOT support them.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Virginian87]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

People need to shut up about Zell Miller. No the party did not leave him. He went nuts and turned to far the far right. Look at this ratings the last years in the Senate. He got almost perfect ones from all the right wing nutjob PACs and consistently voted with Trent Lott and Rick Santorum. If getting people like him back is what the Democrats should do then we might as well have a one party system.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Virginian87]

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.

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[TheresNoMoney]

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

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The best thing to do is grow our media base to compete with the right-wing media.

Of course, Bill Clinton is also to blame for his media deregulation bill in the 90's which led to much media consolidation of power.

[A18]

Statistically, Fox isn't biased towards Republicans. Actually, in 2004 Fox tilted slightly left based on the ratio of positive/negative stories dealing with Bush and Kerry.

CNN and CBS were in the 3:1- 4:1 range, so obviously Fox looks conservative in contrast.

And of course, since Scoonie and jfern think Boxer is moderate, obviously anything that isn't total left-wing dribble will be seen as "right-wing" to them.

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[MODU]

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).

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[Virginian87]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[MODU]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥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?

[MODU]

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.

[Virginian87]

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.

Al and I are not saying that 61% of those people be ignored.  You need to understand how the right-wing propaganda machine works.  You come out as militantly anti-war and dovish, they will call you "un-American"  and "anti-military."  In the '70s people began to equate the dove perspective with the hippy counterculture, and began to liken the elections to a battle between hippies and the establishment.  I was against the war, but if we're there now I damn will support the troops.  

I don't want Democrats to be considered wimps anymore.  Frankly, I'm tired of it.  If we move towards the center on some social issues and stop trying to relive the Great Scoiety than maybe we can start winning again.  But we need some people in the party to be more flexible and open to change than to be so damn stubborn.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to tell us to fuc& ourselves, please do so instead of leaving a space between the words.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

Al and I are not saying that 61% of those people be ignored.  You need to understand how the right-wing propaganda machine works.  You come out as militantly anti-war and dovish, they will call you "un-American"  and "anti-military."  In the '70s people began to equate the dove perspective with the hippy counterculture, and began to liken the elections to a battle between hippies and the establishment.  I was against the war, but if we're there now I damn will support the troops. 

I don't want Democrats to be considered wimps anymore.  Frankly, I'm tired of it.  If we move towards the center on some social issues and stop trying to relive the Great Scoiety than maybe we can start winning again.  But we need some people in the party to be more flexible and open to change than to be so damn stubborn.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to tell us to fuc& ourselves, please do so instead of leaving a space between the words.

Let's see, you can either do nothing and lose elections because you stand for absolutely nothing, or you can things, and have the right-wingers attack you. You seem to be advocating the first. I advocate the second.

[Virginian87]

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.

Al and I are not saying that 61% of those people be ignored.  You need to understand how the right-wing propaganda machine works.  You come out as militantly anti-war and dovish, they will call you "un-American"  and "anti-military."  In the '70s people began to equate the dove perspective with the hippy counterculture, and began to liken the elections to a battle between hippies and the establishment.  I was against the war, but if we're there now I damn will support the troops. 

I don't want Democrats to be considered wimps anymore.  Frankly, I'm tired of it.  If we move towards the center on some social issues and stop trying to relive the Great Scoiety than maybe we can start winning again.  But we need some people in the party to be more flexible and open to change than to be so damn stubborn.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to tell us to fuc& ourselves, please do so instead of leaving a space between the words.

Let's see, you can either do nothing and lose elections because you stand for absolutely nothing, or you can things, and have the right-wingers attack you. You seem to be advocating the first. I advocate the second.

I'm NOT saying we should stand for nothing.  We need to DEVELOP new alternatives to Republican ideas.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND?  That's what this is all about.  We've lost touch with the electorate because they THINK we stand for nothing.  That's the problem.  A moderate candidate CAN stand for something.  We just need to offer up new alternatives.

I don't know how to drag you out of this dream-world.  We wouldn't have this problem losing elections if the party stopped trying to be more liberal socially.  America is not as liberal as the rest of the world.  The majority of Americans are not as liberal as Californians.  You MUST understand this if you want to win.