Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[A18]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

What do you mean by "moderate"? The "moderates" gave us this war. Time for the liberals to tap into the 61% who disapproves of Bush on the war. I hope "moderate" doesn't mean pro-war? What exactly do you mean by "moderate"? If you look at Kerry, you'll realize he's fairly moderate.

I understand that America isn't all that liberal, but if we move to the right, that's certainly not going to help things. We have to build up the left and not demonize them. The Republicans were in much worse shape than us in 1964, and now they have right-wingers controling the country. Ignoring the the liberals, and running bland pro-war "moderates" will only lead to the untimely death of the Democratic party.

[Virginian87]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

Even though you and I are of different parties, I've gotta agree with you there.  I can't argue with this guy.  He's stuck in the '60s, living the Great Society fantasy.

[TheresNoMoney]

No one every said Boxer is a moderate. She's a liberal that consistently votes in the best interests of working Americans, which makes her one of my favorite Senators.

She also is one of our only Senators with backbone.

[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.

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.

That's funny.  Both Fox and CNN both covered the inconsistancies in their statements.  hehehe . . . care to try again?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

Even though you and I are of different parties, I've gotta agree with you there.  I can't argue with this guy.  He's stuck in the '60s, living the Great Society fantasy.

Don't you see that the "moderate" Democrats have no spine and don't stand for anything?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

I'll admit she's liberal, but she's not the crazy extremist that Al was arguing. If you think that the media is liberally biased, you're as blind as a bat. Even the NY Times was pro-war.

[Virginian87]

No one every said Boxer is a moderate. She's a liberal that consistently votes in the best interests of working Americans, which makes her one of my favorite Senators.

She also is one of our only Senators with backbone.

Hey, I don't have a problem with her economic views.  I'm trying to convince jfern (in vain it seems) that moderates are not bland people.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

That's funny.  Both Fox and CNN both covered the inconsistancies in their statements.  hehehe . . . care to try again?

They certainly didn't spend much of the time covering them. If the media wasn't conservatively biased, they would have ignored these clowns or just spent a little time pointing out how they had no evidence. Kerry finally released all of his military records (he released far more during the 2004 campaign than Bush), and we see conclusively that they were wrong.

[MODU]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

Even though you and I are of different parties, I've gotta agree with you there.  I can't argue with this guy.  He's stuck in the '60s, living the Great Society fantasy.

Don't you see that the "moderate" Democrats have no spine and don't stand for anything?

Clinton was spineless?  Well, he did marry Killary, so that might be true.  hahaha

[Virginian87]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

Even though you and I are of different parties, I've gotta agree with you there.  I can't argue with this guy.  He's stuck in the '60s, living the Great Society fantasy.

Don't you see that the "moderate" Democrats have no spine and don't stand for anything?

Clinton was spineless?  Well, he did marry Killary, so that might be true.  hahaha

Good one.

[A18]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

I'll admit she's liberal, but she's not the crazy extremist that Al was arguing. If you think that the media is liberally biased, you're as blind as a bat. Even the NY Times was pro-war.

Actually, polls show that three out of four journalists self-identify as liberals.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

I'll admit she's liberal, but she's not the crazy extremist that Al was arguing. If you think that the media is liberally biased, you're as blind as a bat. Even the NY Times was pro-war.

Actually, polls show that three out of four journalists self-identify as liberals.

The people who own the media don't. And TV tends to be far more conservative than some small town indie newspapers. If you weight everyone in the media business by their influence, you'll see that it's still conservatively biased. Your 3 out of 4 figure sounds a bit out of date or wrong, anyways.

[TheresNoMoney]

Hey, I don't have a problem with her economic views.  I'm trying to convince jfern (in vain it seems) that moderates are not bland people.

Some are, some aren't. The problem with moderates (I'm talking moderate Washington Democrats here, not ordinary citizens), is that often they have few real principles and are controlled by corporate interests (like Republicans). These moderates have voted for many of the economic policies that have destroyed America's manufacturing base and helped ship our jobs to other countries.

These moderates often chase a "center" that is constantly moving rightwards (as the Republicans move right). This has given them the perception as being spineless, unprincipled politicians. The better thing to do would be to hold their ground and show more backbone. You don't see Republicans ever chasing the center, they consistently move further rightward. Moving rightward with them is not a good idea.

I have absolutely no problem with being socially centrist, but I think the reason many Democrats don't respect moderate, DLC Democrats is because they often sell out America's middle class to corporate interests and don't show a lot of consistency in their positions.

[A18]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

I'll admit she's liberal, but she's not the crazy extremist that Al was arguing. If you think that the media is liberally biased, you're as blind as a bat. Even the NY Times was pro-war.

Actually, polls show that three out of four journalists self-identify as liberals.

The people who own the media don't. And TV tends to be far more conservative than some small town indie newspapers. If you weight everyone in the media business by their influence, you'll see that it's still conservatively biased. Your 3 out of 4 figure sounds a bit out of date or wrong, anyways.

I'm talking about journalists for the major television networks. The CEOs don't write the stories, I'm sorry.

[TheresNoMoney]

[I'm talking about journalists for the major television networks. The CEOs don't write the stories, I'm sorry.

They control the agenda.

[MODU]

Hey, I don't have a problem with her economic views.  I'm trying to convince jfern (in vain it seems) that moderates are not bland people.

These moderates often chase a "center" that is constantly moving rightwards (as the Republicans move right). This has given them the perception as being spineless, unprincipled politicians. The better thing to do would be to hold their ground and show more backbone. You don't see Republicans ever chasing the center, they consistently move further rightward. Moving rightward with them is not a good idea.

True, but there is a real center which gets ignored by the DNC.  It's either liberal or populist, and not "center."  And those of us in the center get turned off by partisan rhetoric and tune out of the political process.  If the party spent less time trying to give in to every little group wanting a handout and spent more time trying to listen to us in the center, you'd see the pendulum swing back to the left.  This is what the Republicans have done, and are being successful at it.

[Virginian87]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

I'll admit she's liberal, but she's not the crazy extremist that Al was arguing. If you think that the media is liberally biased, you're as blind as a bat. Even the NY Times was pro-war.

Actually, polls show that three out of four journalists self-identify as liberals.

The people who own the media don't. And TV tends to be far more conservative than some small town indie newspapers. If you weight everyone in the media business by their influence, you'll see that it's still conservatively biased. Your 3 out of 4 figure sounds a bit out of date or wrong, anyways.

You want a topic to argue over bias?  How about talk radio?

[KEmperor]

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.

The problem is that the core values of the Democratic Party right now ARE the affuent liberal leftists'.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hey, I don't have a problem with her economic views.  I'm trying to convince jfern (in vain it seems) that moderates are not bland people.

These moderates often chase a "center" that is constantly moving rightwards (as the Republicans move right). This has given them the perception as being spineless, unprincipled politicians. The better thing to do would be to hold their ground and show more backbone. You don't see Republicans ever chasing the center, they consistently move further rightward. Moving rightward with them is not a good idea.

True, but there is a real center which gets ignored by the DNC.  It's either liberal or populist, and not "center."  And those of us in the center get turned off by partisan rhetoric and tune out of the political process.  If the party spent less time trying to give in to every little group wanting a handout and spent more time trying to listen to us in the center, you'd see the pendulum swing back to the left.  This is what the Republicans have done, and are being successful at it.

Umm, Kerry spent a lot of the 2004 campaign reaching out to moderates, whom he did quite well with. The only problem is that there's more conservatives than liberals, thanks to the ineptitude of the Democratic party in fighting the idelogical wars. Bush really just concentrated on turning out the religious right.

[A18]

Alright, again. http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/bushversuskerry.asp

[TheresNoMoney]

If the party spent less time trying to give in to every little group wanting a handout and spent more time trying to listen to us in the center, you'd see the pendulum swing back to the left.  This is what the Republicans have done, and are being successful at it.

Just curious, how have Republicans listened to people in the center?

[○∙◄☻¥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.

The problem is that the core values of the Democratic Party right now ARE the affuent liberal leftists'.

What? The Democratic party has done plenty of non-liberal things lately. Quite a lot of Democrats voted for the war and the bankruptcy bill.

[A18]

You want a topic to argue over bias?  How about talk radio?

Talk radio doesn't pretend to be unbiased. The objection is not to liberal networks, but rather the concealment.

Free speech must not be infringed, either way.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Alright, again. http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/bushversuskerry.asp

Are you trying to argue that the fact that most of the media said that Kerry won the first debate is proof that they're liberally biased. Bush got housed in that debate.