Different Directions of the Democratic Party.....

[War on Want]

I hate saying this but if Obama wins the Democratic Nomination and Presidency we will have a more Liberitarianish Democratic Party, just because of the support his candidacy will bring in to the party.(Independents, Moderate Republicans, and small-L Liberatarians).
If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination and presidency we should keep our normal course somewhat.

Any thoughts on this?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

ROTFL

Libertarianism? Not hardly. Nothing Obama proposes involves less government involvement. From what I have read, everything involves the government in something. What a horribly arrogant statement to assume that this broad coalition will suddenly form behind Obama. "I'm so afraid that Obama will change the Democratic party with all the support he's getting. He's not drawing many more Republicans than the average Democrat and there's no guaranteeing he will in the general. A lot of these Republicans that crossed over did so to have the chance to vote against Hillary. Don't fool yourself into thinking they will do the same in the general.

Obamamaniacs get better and better!

[Alcon]

Now that AHDuke is done with his seizure--

There's a certain level of truth to this.  Obama appeals to well-to-do educated professionals, a group that has been trending toward the Democrats.  He fares poorly among working-class people, a group that has been trending Republican.  With the former comes some more libertarianism; the latter, populism/communitarianism.  Although the upper class are hardly uniformly "libertarian."  That assumption is bullcrap.  But there is some shift.

Does it make much of a practical different?  Not really.  Is it permanent?  Maybe not even past this election.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Is there anything in Obama's legistlative record that indicates he is just your typical tax-and-spend liberal?

If yes, then I doubt libertarians would play an integral role in an Obama coalition.

[War on Want]

Now that AHDuke is done with his seizure--

There's a certain level of truth to this.  Obama appeals to well-to-do educated professionals, a group that has been trending toward the Democrats.  He fares poorly among working-class people, a group that has been trending Republican.  With the former comes some more libertarianism; the latter, populism/communitarianism.  Although the upper class are hardly uniformly "libertarian."  That assumption is bullcrap.  But there is some shift.

Does it make much of a practical different?  Not really.  Is it permanent?  Maybe not even past this election.

I know it is bullcrap, but it is just an idea I heard on another website.

[War on Want]

ROTFL

Libertarianism? Not hardly. Nothing Obama proposes involves less government involvement. From what I have read, everything involves the government in something. What a horribly arrogant statement to assume that this broad coalition will suddenly form behind Obama. "I'm so afraid that Obama will change the Democratic party with all the support he's getting. He's not drawing many more Republicans than the average Democrat and there's no guaranteeing he will in the general. A lot of these Republicans that crossed over did so to have the chance to vote against Hillary. Don't fool yourself into thinking they will do the same in the general.

Obamamaniacs get better and better!

WTF!!! I never said any of this sh**t, and I even said I disliked the Coalition Obama would bring compared to the Clinton Coalition. Seriously get a grip.

[Flying Dog]

HHDUKE99 OBAMA

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What are you talking about? You said you were kind of upset because Obama's candidacy would draw in so many Republicans and Libertarians that it would change the face of the party. What was the point of your post if that's not what you said? Just assuming he'd bring in all that support is arrogant enough. Why would Libertarians and Republicans want a tax and spend, big government liberal in the White House.


In short, you have nothing to worry about. I don't see either group jumping ship to support Obama in large quantities. There will always be crossovers ... McCain will get some Democrats as well, but not enough to change the Democratic party.

[The Hack Hater]

This idea is rather hacknyed to say the least. I can't see anything in Obama's positions that would suggest serious appeal to libertarians. He's just not small-government enough.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

This is totally wrong, you need a time-out.

[Beet]

For the Democratic party to have a direction it'd have to be organized first.

[Padfoot]

I think that if Obama were to win the whole shebang then the Democratic party would definitely she a shift in its constituency whereas a Clinton would essentially keep it the same.  I think Obama has the potential to bring in more white collar middle class types which, if you ask me, is a good thing for the Democratic party.  One of the Democrats' biggest problems is that their rust belt working class contstituency is shrinking and will continue to shrink in the coming years.  There will be no return to the golden days of American manufacturing.

I view it this way; Democrats can go with Hillary Clinton and almost assuredly lose in 2012 by which time shifts in the electoral map will make it nearly impossible for them to win.  Or they can go with Obama who has the potential to expand their base and keep them in power after the imminent reapportionment.  Still skeptical? 

Here's what a Gore+Kerry+Ohio map looks like now:

A 284-254 win for the Democrats.  Well that's not so bad until you look at the next map.

Here's what it is likely to look like in 2012 based off most of the 2007 estimate projections:

A 270-268 Democratic win. yikes!

Even though the Democrats still win the 2012 map those projections aren't 100% accurate.  Georgia could gain another seat at the expense of Pennsylvania or Michigan.  Some projections even have California losing a seat and Florida gaining two instead of one.  Where the line falls for the difference between seat number 435 and being number 436 is very much in flux and Democrats can't afford to gamble like that when they're looking forward to 2012.  They need to expand their base enough to start winning in Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia in this election and they also need to start looking at Texas, Arizona, and the Carolinas for 2016 or even 2012 if they're lucky. 

Bottom line, with current population trends being what they are Democrats need to change their electoral strategy if they want to win elections.  They can't keep relying on the current roster of states that Clinton likes to brag so much about winning.  They need the Obama states in order to keep winning elections.

[opebo]

It is funny when right-wingers claim that the Republican Party is closer to 'libertarianism' than the Democrat.  In their minds 'freedom' is the top tax rate, and nothing else matters - not loss of privacy rights, not torture, nothing.

[they don't love you like i love you]

It is funny when right-wingers claim that the Republican Party is closer to 'libertarianism' than the Democrat.  In their minds 'freedom' is the top tax rate, and nothing else matters - not loss of privacy rights, not torture, nothing.

^^^^^^^^^^