Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[Virginian87]

Well part of the problem is that many on the far left, i.e. jfern, are totally in dreamland when it comes to surveying the political landscape.

I couldn't have put it better myself.  The DLC is pragmatic, and we're trying to help.  If you don't want to listen to us, you can keep losing elections in the South and the Heartland.

[Virginian87]

How the hell are we ever going to make progress if our two major political factions both cater to uneducated, rural voters.  

Recent polls show that Democrats are making good headway with rural voters who are becoming  more concerned with the war and economic issues.

Running pro-gun candidates also helps a lot in rural areas. Paul Hackett kicked ass in the rural counties of Ohio's District 2. I would really like to see the Democratic party reach out to rural voters. We can win them over.

We need to show them that big-business Republicans don't care about rural voters.  Emphasize economics, not social issues.  

The New Democratic Network is a good organization too.

[Virginian87]

In terms of her views compared to most Americans, I would say Boxer is farther to the left than most of the Democrat senators.

[Virginian87]

If Boxer is so wonderful why aren't Democrats clamoring for her to run for President?

Because she wouldn't win. But she'd be a great president.

She wouldn't win because she is extreme.

[Virginian87]

She wouldn't win because she is extreme.

She wouldn't win because Republicans have already demonized her and weak-knee'd Democrats like you buy into it and repeat the spin.

And again, you have no specific information to back up your claim of her being extreme. You just repeat right-wing spin over and over again.

Oh yeah, I'm a weak-kneed Democrat.  I'm a realist.  You're the one that's living a leftist fantasy.  This is not right-wing spin.  It's true that she is significantly farther to the left than most Americans.  Maybe you should pay a visit to the South or the MidWest instead of just believing stereotypes about it.  Seriously, the entire US is not like the northeast and California.  Just keep thinking that and we'll lose elections for the next 30 years too.  

[Virginian87]

She wouldn't win because she is extreme.

She wouldn't win because Republicans have already demonized her and weak-knee'd Democrats like you buy into it and repeat the spin.

And again, you have no specific information to back up your claim of her being extreme. You just repeat right-wing spin over and over again.

Oh yeah, I'm a weak-kneed Democrat.  I'm a realist.  You're the one that's living a leftist fantasy.  This is not right-wing spin.  It's true that she is significantly farther to the left than most Americans.  Maybe you should pay a visit to the South or the MidWest instead of just believing stereotypes about it.  Seriously, the entire US is not like the northeast and California.  Just keep thinking that and we'll lose elections for the next 30 years too. 

We're not claiming that Boxer would be the most electable Presidential candidate. However, she has done quite well in CA. Al seems hopelessly confused about her, calling her both a far-left extremist and saying that she doesn't stand up for ordinary working class. Both of those are wrong.

I'm slightly more liberal economically than I am socially, so I appreciate her standing up for the working class.  But socially she's very liberal.  That's all I was saying.  Moderates like Al, Ben, and myself want to help the Democratic Party, but it's hard to do if we're labeled as weak-knee'd and accused of being brainwashed with right-wing spin.

[Virginian87]

She wouldn't win because she is extreme.

She wouldn't win because Republicans have already demonized her and weak-knee'd Democrats like you buy into it and repeat the spin.

And again, you have no specific information to back up your claim of her being extreme. You just repeat right-wing spin over and over again.

Oh yeah, I'm a weak-kneed Democrat.  I'm a realist.  You're the one that's living a leftist fantasy.  This is not right-wing spin.  It's true that she is significantly farther to the left than most Americans.  Maybe you should pay a visit to the South or the MidWest instead of just believing stereotypes about it.  Seriously, the entire US is not like the northeast and California.  Just keep thinking that and we'll lose elections for the next 30 years too. 

We're not claiming that Boxer would be the most electable Presidential candidate. However, she has done quite well in CA. Al seems hopelessly confused about her, calling her both a far-left extremist and saying that she doesn't stand up for ordinary working class. Both of those are wrong.

I'm slightly more liberal economically than I am socially, so I appreciate her standing up for the working class.  But socially she's very liberal.  That's all I was saying.  Moderates like Al, Ben, and myself want to help the Democratic Party, but it's hard to do if we're labeled as weak-knee'd and accused of being brainwashed with right-wing spin.

Well, anyone who spends more time bashing liberals than Republicans deserves such a label. The question is where your priorities are.

This thread is about the Democrats not the Republicans.  Why should I criticize Republicans in this thread when they have nothing to do with the topic?  I probably don't like the Bush Administration as much as you do.  My priorities lie with Democrats winning.

[Virginian87]

We can support abortions with assault weapons. Are any Southerners on board?

LOL.  AK-47s for everybody!

[Virginian87]

I've never been to these places in California, but aren't places like Oakland and South Central LA filled to the gills with homeless people?

[Virginian87]

Long Beach and Compton are pretty working class. 

[Virginian87]

The entire Central Valley is working-class.

That's right!  The fruit-growers and such.  Not everyone there is a multi-millionaire with a vineyard.

[Virginian87]

The entire Central Valley is working-class.

Most is IIRC. Not checked the stats for that area as much as I'd have liked to really...
I don't supose I need to point out that Boxer did much worse in the Central Valley than along the coast do I?

Shhh. People don't really work in California.

Did I say that? No...

Not everyone there is a multi-millionaire with a vineyard.

And I never said that that was the case

Al, I wasn't accusing you of anything.  I realized a fact of California life.  I know you didn't say that. 

[Virginian87]

Good Post GiantSaguaro.  Sums up some of our problems very nicely.  Though most Democrats aren't elitist, just the ones who are exposed to the media the most are.

[Virginian87]

Good post, Dave.  Then you get Democrats who say that we should get rid of the South, that it's totally worthless and we don't need it, like certain members of this forum.  We just keep trying to help, and nobody wants to listen.

[Virginian87]

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.

[Virginian87]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.