Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

So instead of responding to my point ya just resort to mindless (and, as I've pointed out to you sooooooo many times, innacurate) insults. And you wonder why the national Democrats being associated with people like you is an electoral albatross?

I feel like explaining my point anyway; in the late '60's and early '70's most Americans wanted to end the war in Vietnam and strongly disapproved of the way it was handled. The Anti War Left (who had seized control of the national Democrats) decided that this meant they shared there position on Vietnam... something that could not have been more wrong. The Anti War Left was opposed to the war because they viewed it as immoral, as imperialist etc. They either thought that Ho Chi Minh was a hero or had a neutral opinion of him. They were almost all from comfortable backgrounds, when to college etc. As a result of that very few were sent to Vietnam.
The American mainstream was upset about the causalties (which disproportionatly fell upon blacks and the white working class) and the mishandling of the war. They did not like their dead relatives being described as tools of imperialism or whatever by some counter-culture (and boy did/does the mainstream hate that) hippies who had avoided the same war that there relatives had died in purely due to an accident of birth.
The Anti War Left was able to take control of the national Democrats in 1972 and picked McGovern as Presidential candidate. He articulated the moral outrage of the Anti War left about Vietnam. He got crushed like a bug especially in working class areas.

1972 wasn't so bad, the Senate was 56-42 Democratic, and the House 242-192 Democratic afterwards. Nixon wasn't the one who had started the war, and he was pretty liberal on economic issues. Comparing Nixon to Bush is an insult to Nixon.

[A18]

Wow. I bet all you'd have to do is get creamed in a landslide like in 1972, and all of sudden you would control Congress again.

[Democratic Hawk]

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

Never a truer statement said, Al

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

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?

No, they just don't stand for what you stand for Jfern. I'd be very much a moderate Democrat and I've have supported the war in Iraq; however, like some leading moderates, I'd have certainly criticised Bush and his administration for errors made in the planning of, execution of, and aftermath of, which is why Evan Bayh didn't vote to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State

Moderate Democrats, unlike those on the liberal-left, has learnt from past mistakes. I, surely, don't need to remind you that the GOP has won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections; and much is down to the fact that the Democratic Party is perceived as being weak on national security and defence

I'm sorry but the party of Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson has allowed the Republicans to sieze the inititiative on foreign policy and, in doing so, has allowed Republican presidents to realise their vision. The Republicans once upon a time never had one, it was the Democrats who were the more ardent players in international policy - not any more and it has cost the party dear at the polls. I'm certainly not proposing that Democrats becoming ideological neo-cons, but for Heaven's we can at least be pragmatic realists

So, if moderate Democrats are, as you say, 'spineless' please explain where I, and other moderate Forum  Democrats fit in? You know, those of us, who actually want to see the party back as the driving force in US politics

Dave

[Virginian87]

Al, Dave, and I have repeated the same thing to him at least eight times over the last six pages.  What do you have to do to get through to this guy?

Yeah, jfern, let's build a bridge to nowhere.  That argument, and the one about the 1972 presidential election being a good thing, made completely no sense.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1972 wasn't so bad

I beg to differ:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh please... the Democrats only held both due to the fact that rather a lot of incumbents distanced themselves from McGovern (quite a few even endorsed Nixon).
Voting for a Dixiecrat is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern. Voting for an Appalachian populist is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern. Voting for an old fashioned New Deal blue collar liberal is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More Americans died in Vietnam under Nixon's leadership than LBJ's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MODU]

1972 wasn't so bad

I beg to differ:

YEAH!  I don't see any green counties on that map.  It was a terrible election.  hehehe

[Democratic Hawk]

Al, Dave, and I have repeated the same thing to him at least eight times over the last six pages.  What do you have to do to get through to this guy?

Yeah, jfern, let's build a bridge to nowhere.  That argument, and the one about the 1972 presidential election being a good thing, made completely no sense.

Only you know, only Jfern could say that 1972 wasn't too bad. It was an unmitigated disaster as Al's map (courtesy of Dave) shows. It was dreadful. The anti-Vietnam War brigade didn't have do the Democrats some good

Yes, the Democrats did control the Senate and the House but the Democratic Party was not a homogenous unit. Many of those senators and representatives were, as Al correctly points out, were 'Boll Weevils' (conservative southern Democrats who frequently aligned themselves with conservative Republicans on rollcall votes, especially on social issues). That said, I dare say there were significantly more 'Gipsy Moths' back then too, which would have partially offset that - but what has happened since? Liberal Republicans are fewer in number and as the 'Boll Weevils' have retired their hitherto safe Democratic districts has either seen them be replaced by conservative Republicans or restructured, with demographic trends working against the Democratic Party. So from your point of view, Jfern, that was probably a good thing!

In 1972, Democrats handily outnumbered Republicans among the electorate at large; while, today, they are more or less level pegging at around 37%

In 2004, five Southern Democrats retired from the US Senate. Only John Edwards of North Carolina was in trouble. John Breaux, Bob Graham and Fritz Hollings would have almost certainly been re-elected; while in Georgia, Zell Miller would have been challenged in the Democratic primary but would have won re-election had it been his wish with the GOP maybe giving him a clear run

As thing stands, the number of conservative Democrats from the South in the House sit at around 8. If the Democratic Party are to retake the House, then they are going to have to field moderate conservative, or at least, centrist candidates to even compete with the GOP. The great strength of the Democratic Party was its diversity but now its liberal, with moderates and populists seeming to be a diminishing number. 28 Democratic Senators are liberal, 12 are populists, 2 are centrists with Ben Nelson of  Nebraska been possibly the only one who could be described as conservative. That said the GOP senators are possibly even less diverse (49 of them being conservative). The liberal-conservative polarisation is always going to benefit the GOP

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

1972 wasn't so bad

I beg to differ:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh please... the Democrats only held both due to the fact that rather a lot of incumbents distanced themselves from McGovern (quite a few even endorsed Nixon).
Voting for a Dixiecrat is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern. Voting for an Appalachian populist is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern. Voting for an old fashioned New Deal blue collar liberal is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More Americans died in Vietnam under Nixon's leadership than LBJ's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You make some very good points Al - but on Jfern's last one, I'm minded to agree that comparing Bush with Nixon is an insult to Nixon. I could have voted for Nixon but not Bush

Dave

[Virginian87]

You make some very good points Al - but on Jfern's last one, I'm minded to agree that comparing Bush with Nixon is an insult to Nixon. I could have voted for Nixon but not Bush

Dave

Likewise. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Al, Dave, and I have repeated the same thing to him at least eight times over the last six pages.  What do you have to do to get through to this guy?

Not make silly arguments. Do you support the war? Because the others do, and don't seem to realize that most Americans don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was making fun of the fact that you support a bridge that costs $5 million per person, while telling me I'm too liberal.

[○∙◄☻¥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

Never a truer statement said, Al

Dave

You guys are only offering this "advice" people you're pro-war. Time for the Democratic party to ignore you warmongers and listen to the 61% who disapprove of Bush on the war.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You guys are only offering this "advice" people you're pro-war. Time for the Democratic party to ignore you warmongers and listen to the 61% who disapprove of Bush on the war.

Did you actually read the little piece on the Left's mistakes over Vietnam or not?

[Democratic Hawk]

Jfern,

Yes, I support the war. Saddam had to go. I look at it this way. We either remove him or Islamic radicals would remove him (it was only a matter of time). Saddam used biological and chemical warfare in the past and, obviously, had the technology. What if al-Qaeda et al ever got their hands on those things. I can see the carnage now on the streets of London, NY and LA and it's not a pretty sight

True, things haven't as yet worked out as well as I would have liked it but in the long-run I'm optimistic. Spreading democracy is the way forward. It is a fact that democracies are less likely wage war and hence not to be a threat to international security

The poll numbers you quote don't mean a thing - unless you are expecting the anti-war majority to embrace some liberal-dove of a Democratic candidate in 2008 - as they did McGovern in 1972. The Democratic Party didn't half do well there! Just because folk disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, it doesn't follow that they'd necessarily vote Democrat in 2006 or 2008

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You guys are only offering this "advice" people you're pro-war. Time for the Democratic party to ignore you warmongers and listen to the 61% who disapprove of Bush on the war.

Did you actually read the little piece on the Left's mistakes over Vietnam or not?

We understand the importance of framing now.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern,

Yes, I support the war. Saddam had to go. I look at it this way. We either remove him or Islamic radicals would remove him (it was only a matter of time).

So if the terrorists are threatening to remove Bush, we should remove Bush?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And after he used them, we kept selling him more weapons. Rumsfeld went over to shake his hand. The question was not whether Saddam ever had WMD (which he bought from us, BTW), but whether he had them in 2003. He had admitted to having them in the past.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Al Qaeda is going to invade Iraq just so that they can steal their lack of WMD? Unless you bought into Bush's propaganda efforts it was clear that there was no evidence that they still existed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did you hear about the Baghdad mayor being taken out? That doesn't seem like that much of a democracy.

Anyways, you know damn well that we didn't invade Iraq just to make it be a democracy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This isn't 1972 for a number of reasons. Two important ones are that Nixon didn't start the war, and he was far more liberal than Bush on economic issues. 

[Democratic Hawk]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

[A18]

Bush isn't running for re-election. Nixon didn't start the war, but Eisenhower did.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush isn't running for re-election. Nixon didn't start the war, but Eisenhower did.

Yeah, well, in this case the Republican party started the war. That wasn't true for Nam.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

Yeah, well it's one that we shouldn't comprimise on. I figure the two big issues are going to be Iraq and Republican curroption. Maybe something like like Universal Healthcare, or Republican failure on the war on terror.

[A18]

Doing things you don't like does not qualify as corruption.

Americans support staying in Iraq until the job is done. Most also approve of the intitial decision to go to war.

Eisenhower was a Republican, and the Vietnam War can be easily traced back to him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Doing things you don't like does not qualify as corruption.

Americans support staying in Iraq until the job is done. Most also approve of the intitial decision to go to war.

Eisenhower was a Republican, and the Vietnam War can be easily traced back to him.

Umm, there's plenty of Republican curroption if you would just open your eyes. Of course, you think that inside trading should be legal, so maybe you just don't care about curroption.

As for your claim that the war started under Eisenhower, if that's true, we'd better watch out since we've had far more deaths in these 29 months than under the 1st 29 months of the Vietnam War. What were there, 2 American deaths during that period?

[WMS]

As thing stands, the number of conservative Democrats from the South in the House sit at around 8. If the Democratic Party are to retake the House, then they are going to have to field moderate conservative, or at least, centrist candidates to even compete with the GOP. The great strength of the Democratic Party was its diversity but now its liberal, with moderates and populists seeming to be a diminishing number. 28 Democratic Senators are liberal, 12 are populists, 2 are centrists with Ben Nelson of  Nebraska been possibly the only one who could be described as conservative. That said the GOP senators are possibly even less diverse (49 of them being conservative). The liberal-conservative polarisation is always going to benefit the GOP

Dave

I would be very interested to see which Senators fit which of your categories.

OK, tag-teamed in for a moment by Al, so...

Ferny 'ol boy, you are, once again, missing the forest for the ferns.

Let's explain this with two separate models.

The simpler version: Liberal - Moderate - Conservative breakdown of the voting populace. There are significantly more conservatives than liberals - about a bit over one-third conservatives and about one-fifth liberals. Glaring fact: THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. Neither can the conservatives, but the conservatives need far fewer moderates to pull off a victory than the liberals do. The liberals, in fact, are in the weakest position of all. And yet you think keeping the Democrats as the liberal party will lead to victory. Ooooooookkkkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy, drop the crack pipe.

The more complex version: Liberal - Conservative - Libertarian - Communitarian breakdown of the voting populace. While a really good poll hasn't been done showing the population breakdown (come on, Rasmussen, get to it! ), the conservative and liberal numbers from the previous example likely hold - significantly more conservatives than liberals. Now, once again, THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. The conservatives can probably secure victory by gaining either the communitarians or the libertarians as a bloc, or by getting significant chunks, if not all, of both of those two groups (which they have in fact pulled off in the past decade or two). The liberals, because they are weaker than the conservatives, logically need more of the communitarian and/or libertarian vote to win than the conservatives do. In fact, they really, really, need to grab the entirety of one of those groups to pull off a victory. Now historically, the Democrats used to control both the liberal and communitarian vote, and even some of the conservative vote, whereas the Rockefeller Republicans controlled the libertarian vote (think bullmoose and Walter Mitty here ) and some of the conservative vote (and even some liberals I'd bet). However, around about, oh, say, 1972, the liberals seized control of the Democratic party and managed, through a truly remarkable set of atrocious policies, to alienate the communitarians and the conservatives and the libertarians. Consequently, the Republicans kicked the Democrats' butt in, by number of counties won, the worst defeat of the twentieth century.

A common conclusion of the two models: The Democrats cannot win just with the liberals, and therefore must gain votes from somewhere, either the communitarians or the libertarians {or in the first model the moderates}! The article Frodo posted - go read the PDF, why don't you, there's a lot of good information in it - is proposing to try for the communitarian/moderate bloc which is strongest in the rural areas of many states (although they can of course be found in other places as well) and which used to vote for Democrats. Now you can also argue instead that the Democrats should chase the libertarians - certain Dem posters have suggested just that - but claiming that the Democrats already have enough votes as-is and don't need to reach out to anyone is ignoring reality. Judging by The Almanac of American Politics 2006, the Democrats are in serious danger of becoming a permanent minority party for the next few decades at the rate they are going. Make an alliance or get used to losing.

[A18]

Umm, there's plenty of Republican curroption if you would just open your eyes. Of course, you think that inside trading should be legal, so maybe you just don't care about curroption.

Please produce quotes of me saying insider trading should be legal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Umm, there's plenty of Republican curroption if you would just open your eyes. Of course, you think that inside trading should be legal, so maybe you just don't care about curroption.

Please produce quotes of me saying insider trading should be legal.

My bad, it was Richius.

Anyways, what do you think of all of the Halliburton scandals.