Do the Democrats need a makeover?

[Guest thebigjig]

Now don't get too excited people... I'm sure you ALL missed me to the point of tears (I'm looking at you Mike) but I'm not sure if I'm here to stay or not, so don't get your hopes up on keeping me around.

 

Apparently, the Democratic message isn't resonating as well as it should be, leading some to speculate that in order to make any kind of gain in culturally conservative america (Jobs?! fuck jobs... we got Jesus), the Democrats will have to retool their image over the next four (or two) years.

 

What can the Democrats do? Is the party dead in the water or is their hope for a significant gain in the next 20 years? Is the loss of Daschle a gift or a significant blow in anything other than the image department?

 

Now there's a thought. Now that Daschle is gone, the Democrats lack a clear leader other than Kerry. Who can they choose to lead the party and to perhaps spearhead an eventual Democratic revolution (or attempt at doing so)?

 

I asked the same question to a friend of mine last night at the local Democratic Party HQs and his response kind of scared me. "Who else but Hillary?"

 

Thoughts?

[franchise632 0]

I think we have to seriously look at Barak Obama. He is the future of the party, in my opinion. Let's see what his 4 yrs in the senate do for him and go from there. I think he would be a very good choice to run very soon.

[Guest thebigjig]

I think we have to seriously look at Barak Obama. He is the future of the party, in my opinion. Let's see what his 4 yrs in the senate do for him and go from there. I think he would be a very good choice to run very soon.

Oh there's no doubt that Obama is the leader of the future, but the Democrats aren't going to rally around him now, nor should they.

 

Here's an interesting question... would the Democrats choose Kerry to replace Daschle?

[Guest Retro Rob]

If Hilary runs, that would make me 2 for 2 in terms of voting against the party I'm registered with.

[Guest Loss]

Hillary Clinton is the answer, to be certain, but the problem is that you have a party that naturally appeals to the minority and the majority's value system is completely different. So of course there are going to be less voters on the Dems side. It's only logical.

 

The only reason I can ever find that Hillary is hated, by the way, is that she's a strong woman who doesn't back down. I have much more respect for her than I do her husband.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, Hillary is hated because she is roughly as honest and trustworthy as Nixon. If she gets elected, some insane scandal is basically a guarantee.

 

The Democratic Party is effectively dead. When the Dems went hardcore anti-war in 1968, it effectively kept them out of the White House until 1992 (Carter only needed a massive Constitutional crisis and a REAL bad opponent to squeak into the WH).

 

People will not trust them with power as they do not seem to realize that.

-=Mike

[teke184 0]

Every political pundit who has weighed in on the Daschle loss says that the new Minority Leader will be Harry Reid of Nevada, who was Daschle's whip.

[Guest thebigjig]

Actually, Hillary is hated because she is roughly as honest and trustworthy as Nixon. If she gets elected, some insane scandal is basically a guarantee.

 

The Democratic Party is effectively dead. When the Dems went hardcore anti-war in 1968, it effectively kept them out of the White House until 1992 (Carter only needed a massive Constitutional crisis and a REAL bad opponent to squeak into the WH).

 

People will not trust them with power as they do not seem to realize that.

                    -=Mike

Declaring the party "dead" is a little bit of a stretch. You act as if the Dems lost in a landslide and they simply didn't despite your predictions. The republicans won the majority and picked up a few seats and kept control and power but they did not sweep the Democrats out.

 

However, the Dems are faced with a dilemma. How can they appeal to the culturally conservative without alienating their base? Can they possibly do this?

 

One answer is clear: They cannot go as far left as the Republicans have right. In order to get anything accomplished, they have to appeal to the center which may be just as hard as anything else.

 

And Hillary is NOT the answer. I admire her sometimes depending on how drunk I am, but she's not trustworthy... and here's the key: She won't appeal to moderates

[Guest Loss]

Hillary was pro-war, pro-Patriot Act and anti-gay marriage. How much more "centered" does she need to be?

[teke184 0]

The Dem party is NOT dead right now.

 

 

However, the longer that Kerry goes without conceding, the more damage it gets from this election.

 

 

They ran their entire platform this year on Anybody But Bush and what did it get? A bigger margin of victory for Bush over Kerry than he had over Gore as well as a Republican gain of 3-5 seats in the US Senate.

 

They're hurting badly from this election BUT they can recover if they head back to the center instead of further to the left.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hillary was pro-war, pro-Patriot Act and anti-gay marriage. How much more "centered" does she need to be?

Hillary has some SERIOUS skeletons. In fact, a nice chunk of Bill's scandals can be laid right at her feet.

 

Travel Office firings, cattle trading scandal, WhiteWater, etc. were her babies.

 

And, much as she is running otherwise presently, she is a liberal. She's pragmatic, but she's unerringly liberal.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

No, the Democrats need a clue. They could've had this election. On a silver platter. What I watched this past year was mistake after mistake that produced someone less appealing than Bush. They were facing an incumbent waging a war some people are questionable on, lots of people lost their jobs, he spends WAY too much money... These are all things that would've played into the hands of a competent candidate. A side of balls wouldn't hurt either. That's why Bush won this election. The Republicans had more balls.

[Guest Loss]

If anything, the Dems are losing support because they're trying to appeal to the same conservatives that the Republicans are. That's useless at this point. The Republican party has also done an effective job of making "liberal" a dirty word when it really isn't.

 

The only chance I see happening of getting the Dems house in order is to challenge the views of the majority and try to persuade people more left, especially moderates, and then hook them to the party at that point.

[Guest Loss]

Heh. Well, considering that I think the Clintons are too conservative, I'm probably not the best person to be having this discussion.

[Guest MikeSC]

Liberal is a "dirty word" because liberalism in America was, pretty much, an unmitigated disaster. We've seen the shitbox that areas the gov't tries to help tend to become.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

If Hillary runs, I'll vote republican. Note that.

[Guest MikeSC]

No, the Democrats need a clue. They could've had this election. On a silver platter. What I watched this past year was mistake after mistake that produced someone less appealing than Bush. They were facing an incumbent waging a war some people are questionable on, lots of people lost their jobs, he spends WAY too much money... These are all things that would've played into the hands of a competent candidate. A side of balls wouldn't hurt either. That's why Bush won this election. The Republicans had more balls.

The Dems made a ton of mistakes.

 

1) John Edwards, as expected, was an utterly useless VP candidate. He brought nothing to the table.

 

2) They do not realize that the int'l community is electoral death. You won't swing people by discussing how the world hates us.

 

3) They run people who are really weak on Bush's weaknesses. A "low spending" Dem would've quite possibly beaten Bush.

 

4) Honestly, they embraced unlikeable people. Terry McAuliffe is one of the most unlikeable people on the planet. Michael Moore is insanely unlikeable. And the behavior of the MSM, fairly or not, really shined badly on Kerry.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Anyone have any links where I can read up on why Hillary Clinton is a horrible person? Because while I'm sure there's more to it, on the surface, it just seems like people don't like the idea of a strong woman running the country, and surely there's more to it than that.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The Democrats have to head more to the center, especially on the war issue. That's where Bush won the election.

 

They also need to be less condescending towards the South. Calling southerners racist homophobic rednecks is a sure fire way to get them to come out in droves against you. This especially seems to have had a big impact on Ohio, Florida, New Mexico & Iowa. If Kerry carried those states, he would be president in a landslide. The Democrats are seen as elitist snobs, and unless they dispell that myth, they won't win enough to take the presidency, let alone congress.

[Guest Loss]

I live in the South and find most here morally disgusting. The best bet is to avoid social issues in the South since, guess what, THE STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE, and appeal to them economically.

[Guest MikeSC]

Anyone have any links where I can read up on why Hillary Clinton is a horrible person? Because while I'm sure there's more to it, on the surface, it just seems like people don't like the idea of a strong woman running the country, and surely there's more to it than that.

You're going to laugh, but Dick Morris' "Rewriting History" gives a long list of Hillary's pros and cons.

 

This is not fear of a strong woman, even if you wish to believe that.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

Liberal is a "dirty word" because liberalism in America was, pretty much, an unmitigated disaster. We've seen the shitbox that areas the gov't tries to help tend to become.

-=Mike

Because we all know the civil rights act was a disaster of gigantic proportions

[Guest MikeSC]

I live in the South and find most here morally disgusting. The best bet is to avoid social issues in the South since, guess what, THE STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE, and appeal to them economically.

Whoa! Unless you want me to paint all gays by the behavior of those assorted douches at "Gay Pride" parades, you might wish to avoid idiotic stereotyping yourself.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Liberal is a "dirty word" because liberalism in America was, pretty much, an unmitigated disaster. We've seen the shitbox that areas the gov't tries to help tend to become.

          -=Mike

Because we all know the civil rights act was a disaster of gigantic proportions

Nah. But welfare was. Public housing was. Bussing was.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Is that a threat or a promise?

[Guest MikeSC]

Is that a threat or a promise?

I'm ignoring you now. You're acting like a child.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I live in the South and find most here morally disgusting. The best bet is to avoid social issues in the South since, guess what, THE STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE, and appeal to them economically.

It doesn't matter! Even if it is true, the Democrats have to act like it isn't or they will have no chance.

 

Another lesson for the Democrats, in 2008 they have to run a candidate that represents the South to have any chance (like Clinton & Carter did). Bill Richardson could be a good choice. The people of the heartland do not trust New Englanders.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

No they don't, because they're not going to appeal to those people on that level. However, even David Allan Coe would vote for someone who put more money in his pocket.

[Guest thebigjig]

I live in the South and find most here morally disgusting. The best bet is to avoid social issues in the South since, guess what, THE STEREOTYPES ARE TRUE, and appeal to them economically.

Whoa! Unless you want me to paint all gays by the behavior of those assorted douches at "Gay Pride" parades, you might wish to avoid idiotic stereotyping yourself.

-=Mike

Strange... coming from someone who likes to stereotypes Democrats and Liberals, lumping them all in the same category and then getting angry when someone else does it in relation to the conservative elements.

 

I also live in the south, and while all southerners do not think alike, I can say with a degree of certainty that the redneck population here outnumbers the redneck population of the northern states. Also, I think it's obvious that the evangelical religious reich won the election for George Bush down here, so to deny their dominant existance is ridiculous. Stereotypes = double edged sword

[Guest Loss]

Is that a threat or a promise?

I'm ignoring you now. You're acting like a child.

-=Mike

At least I won't be left behind. Or maybe I will, if we're talking about the rapture.