Dean For DNC Chair Thread #2

[Guest MikeSC]

Weren't you supposed to be leaving again anyway?

 

I won't even dignify your post with a response considering there's a page and a half or so of you trying to justify not signing up to serve despite how gung-ho your are.

I decided otherwise.

 

And feel free. Using your logic, if somebody hates crime and isn't a cop, they have no business complaining about crime ever.

 

You are, in short, a fucking idiot.

-=Mike

[Guest Vitamin X]

 

No, he's a far left kook based solely on the asinine things he's said in life.

-=Mike

The irony is crushing......

You don't see me running the RNC --- so you might need a firm grasp of what irony is.

 

And you, of all people, might wish to avoid making such statements.

-=Mike

Not get involved in your typical bickering here, but I just wanted to point out that the use of irony in his statement was correct. Your statement was predicated on him being a far left kook based solely on asinine thing he's said, and he was implying you would be a far right kook based solely on asinine things you've said.

 

Not that I agree or disagree, but I just wanted to point that out.

[Guest MikeSC]

 

No, he's a far left kook based solely on the asinine things he's said in life.

-=Mike

The irony is crushing......

You don't see me running the RNC --- so you might need a firm grasp of what irony is.

 

And you, of all people, might wish to avoid making such statements.

-=Mike

Not get involved in your typical bickering here, but I just wanted to point out that the use of irony in his statement was correct. Your statement was predicated on him being a far left kook based solely on asinine thing he's said, and he was implying you would be a far right kook based solely on asinine things you've said.

 

Not that I agree or disagree, but I just wanted to point that out.

I understand what he's saying.

 

But there's a world of difference between the head of the DNC saying kooky things and a Verizon Wireless employee who posts on a wrestling message board saying kooky things.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

You could become skilled! They offer training, ya know, they don't just throw you out on the battlefield.

 

So your excuses for not signing up to serve in Iraq are that you are not very brave and not a very good person.

 

Judges? *glances over shoulder*

 

We'll accept that answer.

Come on, bigol, we don't want our historic Current Events treaty to unravel!

 

My point is, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting the best skilled people do the job. No, I'm not as brave as our soldiers, who are some of the bravest people in the world. Nor am I as physically cable to perform their job. This is why we don't have a draft, we allow the most skilled and willing to do the tough jobs.

 

I'll agree that Mike goes a little far with his "oh, I'd like to go kill some enemy right now" shtick, and in that case it's pefectly valid to say, "well, go sign up!" but I think you need to understand that it IS possible to support the reasons behind a war without actively participating in it. I think you're missing the point that no one is being "forced" into this. By signing up for military service (especially in the past few years), you know that entails a possibility that you will be participating in armed combat. The people who signed up are fulfilling their obligations and doing so valiantly and serving a cause greater then any of us...

[SuperJerk 0]

Well, it's official.

 

Dean named Democratic Party chief

Former presidential candidate rips Bush's plans for America

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean took the helm of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, vowing, "Today will be the beginning of the re-emergence of the Democratic Party."

 

Dean, 56, won the chairmanship on a voice vote of the 447-member committee after six other candidates dropped out in recent weeks.

 

He immediately laid out his vision for rebuilding a party clobbered in recent elections, leaving it out of power in the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a majority of governorships.

 

"Republicans wandered around in the political wilderness for 40 years before they took back Congress.

 

"But the reason that we lost control is because we forgot why we were entrusted with that control in the first place," Dean said in his acceptance speech.

 

"The American people cannot afford to wait for 40 more years for us to put Washington back to work for them."

 

"It won't take us that long -- not if we stand up for what we believe in, organize at the local level, and recognize that strength does not come from the consultants down. It comes from the grass roots up."

 

Republicans, Dean said, "know the America they want, and...are not afraid to use any means to get there.

 

"But there is something that this administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of -- it is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe: fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought."

 

The former presidential contender, who appeared likely to win the party's nomination before his candidacy fizzled in early 2004, promised to work hard in areas in which the Democratic Party faces major uphill battles.

 

While avoiding the heated, emotional style of his infamous "scream" speech that contributed to his loss of the presidential nomination, Dean, in measured tones, lobbed heavy criticism at the GOP and President Bush's agenda.

 

Referring to Bush's 2006 budget, submitted this week, Dean said, "The Republicans introduced a $2.5 trillion budget that deliberately conceals the cost of their fiscal recklessness."

 

The budget, Dean said, "brings Enron-style accounting to the nation's capital and it demonstrates once again what all Americans are now beginning to see: you cannot trust Republicans with your money."

 

He lashed out at Bush's Social Security plan, which would allow people to place some money earmarked for Social Security into private investment accounts.

 

"We believe that a lifetime of work earns you a retirement of dignity," he said. "We will not let that be put at risk by leaders who continually invent false crises to justify policies that don't work, in this case borrowing from our children, shredding our social safety net in the process."

 

Despite his litany of criticisms, Dean said, "We cannot win if all we are is against the current president and his administration."

 

"The Republicans will not tell Americans what the Democratic agenda is. We will do that," he aid.

 

Dean described his party is a "big tent" that represents the young, the elders, veterans, members of the armed services, and all working Americans "desperate for a government that looks out for them."

 

Dean also vowed to work to help the Democratic Party build a reputation as strong on national security, saying, "There is no reason for Democrats to be defensive on national defense."

 

Some Democrats are nervous that Dean, who has actively opposed the Iraq war from the start, will galvanize Republicans. But others see him as just what the party needs: an outspoken, courageous voice that does not bend to the winds of political change.

 

Dean has proven an ability to build widespread, grass roots support, particularly through the Internet.

 

Many Republican leaders have said they look forward to Dean leading the DNC. Many describe him as an angry, northern liberal -- a symbol of what many argue is "wrong" with the Democratic Party.

 

"I think if (Democrats) have a true death wish, he'd be the perfect guy to go with," former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich told Fox News last month.

 

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

My point is, I don't think there's anything wrong with letting the best skilled people do the job. No, I'm not as brave as our soldiers, who are some of the bravest people in the world. Nor am I as physically cable to perform their job. This is why we don't have a draft, we allow the most skilled and willing to do the tough jobs.

 

I'll agree that Mike goes a little far with his "oh, I'd like to go kill some enemy right now" shtick, and in that case it's pefectly valid to say, "well, go sign up!" but I think you need to understand that it IS possible to support the reasons behind a war without actively participating in it. I think you're missing the point that no one is being "forced" into this. By signing up for military service (especially in the past few years), you know that entails a possibility that you will be participating in armed combat. The people who signed up are fulfilling their obligations and doing so valiantly and serving a cause greater then any of us...

Actually, and I'm not trying to say "WELL JOIN UP ANYWAYS LOL", the Army Reserves offers a lot of non-infantry, non-battlefield jobs that require little bravery. As bigol' said, they do job training as well, and as I'm learning, they give fucking awesome benefits packages to make it worth your while. It's not like the Army is completely devoid of people who don't really want to see an enemy sniper rifle pointing at your forehead.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, it's official.

 

Dean named Democratic Party chief

Former presidential candidate rips Bush's plans for America

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean took the helm of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, vowing, "Today will be the beginning of the re-emergence of the Democratic Party."

 

Dean, 56, won the chairmanship on a voice vote of the 447-member committee after six other candidates dropped out in recent weeks.

 

He immediately laid out his vision for rebuilding a party clobbered in recent elections, leaving it out of power in the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a majority of governorships.

 

"Republicans wandered around in the political wilderness for 40 years before they took back Congress.

 

"But the reason that we lost control is because we forgot why we were entrusted with that control in the first place," Dean said in his acceptance speech.

 

"The American people cannot afford to wait for 40 more years for us to put Washington back to work for them."

 

"It won't take us that long -- not if we stand up for what we believe in, organize at the local level, and recognize that strength does not come from the consultants down. It comes from the grass roots up."

 

Republicans, Dean said, "know the America they want, and...are not afraid to use any means to get there.

 

"But there is something that this administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of -- it is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe: fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought."

 

The former presidential contender, who appeared likely to win the party's nomination before his candidacy fizzled in early 2004, promised to work hard in areas in which the Democratic Party faces major uphill battles.

 

While avoiding the heated, emotional style of his infamous "scream" speech that contributed to his loss of the presidential nomination, Dean, in measured tones, lobbed heavy criticism at the GOP and President Bush's agenda.

 

Referring to Bush's 2006 budget, submitted this week, Dean said, "The Republicans introduced a $2.5 trillion budget that deliberately conceals the cost of their fiscal recklessness."

 

The budget, Dean said, "brings Enron-style accounting to the nation's capital and it demonstrates once again what all Americans are now beginning to see: you cannot trust Republicans with your money."

 

He lashed out at Bush's Social Security plan, which would allow people to place some money earmarked for Social Security into private investment accounts.

 

"We believe that a lifetime of work earns you a retirement of dignity," he said. "We will not let that be put at risk by leaders who continually invent false crises to justify policies that don't work, in this case borrowing from our children, shredding our social safety net in the process."

 

Despite his litany of criticisms, Dean said, "We cannot win if all we are is against the current president and his administration."

 

"The Republicans will not tell Americans what the Democratic agenda is. We will do that," he aid.

 

Dean described his party is a "big tent" that represents the young, the elders, veterans, members of the armed services, and all working Americans "desperate for a government that looks out for them."

 

Dean also vowed to work to help the Democratic Party build a reputation as strong on national security, saying, "There is no reason for Democrats to be defensive on national defense."

 

Some Democrats are nervous that Dean, who has actively opposed the Iraq war from the start, will galvanize Republicans. But others see him as just what the party needs: an outspoken, courageous voice that does not bend to the winds of political change.

 

Dean has proven an ability to build widespread, grass roots support, particularly through the Internet.

 

Many Republican leaders have said they look forward to Dean leading the DNC. Many describe him as an angry, northern liberal -- a symbol of what many argue is "wrong" with the Democratic Party.

 

"I think if (Democrats) have a true death wish, he'd be the perfect guy to go with," former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich told Fox News last month.

 

America needs an opposition party.

 

I don't think the Dems under Dean can even remotely fit the bill.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Are you joking Mike? Are you actually joking? a Deanocratic party might ACTUALLY be an opposition to the Republicans.

 

Currently? Right now? They're not an opposition party, the a CONFORMATION party. Hey. lets find ways to be more like the Republicans. America won't see that as weak, they won't see that as pandering, they won't see that as desperate. Really! Hey, look at us, we're pro-life too!

 

No political group ever fucking won with Me Too.

 

And Mike, why the fuck would any liberal, or democrat, take any advice from YOU?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hey, look at us, we're pro-life too!

I doubt I'll still be alive to see the Democrat leadership say that...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Harry Reid

[EricMM 0]

Hilliary Motherfucking Clinton

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I'm talking about making it a platform of the Party, not some wench saying something to look more appealing to red-state voters...

[EricMM 0]

But that's what they're going to run on. They're saying it now, a year before any serious election, and three years before they next big one.

 

And they won't stop. If they gain control, the DNC will become (become) 2nd fiddle republicrats forevermore.

[Guest MikeSC]

Are you joking Mike? Are you actually joking? a Deanocratic party might ACTUALLY be an opposition to the Republicans.

 

Currently? Right now? They're not an opposition party, the a CONFORMATION party. Hey. lets find ways to be more like the Republicans. America won't see that as weak, they won't see that as pandering, they won't see that as desperate. Really! Hey, look at us, we're pro-life too!

 

No political group ever fucking won with Me Too.

 

And Mike, why the fuck would any liberal, or democrat, take any advice from YOU?

I'm not the one whose party has tried going arch-liberal and moderate and been unable to hit 50% without the benefit of a massive Constitutional crisis in the last 40 years.

 

The Dems have the liberal vote. That is pretty much a guarantee. They need the mainstream voter, and they have not done a great job of that yet.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think you're all operating under the false premise that ideology decides elections.

Edited February 13, 2005 by RobotJerk

[Guest MikeSC]

I think you're all operating under the false premise that issues decide elections.

Robot, if a party finds winning majorities nearly impossible for over 40 years --- even with a politician everybody seems to think is the best ever (yet who could never churn out 50% of the vote) --- the problem they have with issues is the only explanation. It defies logic to assume that a party that only managed to gain a majority due to WaterGate since 1964 has just been besieged by horrible candidates that they happily CHOSE (I was saying Kerry was a horrid candidate way back in April).

 

People like national security --- and for the 2nd time in 40 years, the Dems threw their hat in with anti-war groups, which makes the average American not trust them, whatsoever, with national defense. If people recognized what was happening in the 1990's --- namely, a war was starting --- I do think Clinton would have had huge problems in 1996.

 

But we were all short-sighted.

 

Americans aren't gung-ho about abortion and the Dems refusal to even support banning partial-birth abortion makes any rhetoric they choose to utter about not liking abortion seem a little hollow. Even if some Dems ARE pro-life, they are seldom heard from, shot down by the primary voters, and ignored during the campaign. If somebody is marginally, at best, in support of abortion --- who would they rather side with:

 

A group that would rather outlaw abortion, but is not making a big issue of it

 

OR

 

A group that proclaims to want to see abortion not happy, but will refuse to outlaw even the most barbaric of procedures?

 

At a point, the DNC has to look in the mirror and recognize that the GOP owns them in terms of the issues. And until they change that, their plan to become "meaner and more blood-thirsty" will only fail --- because they've been quite mean and blood-thirsty for years now.

 

If I was the Dems, I'd take the mantle of immigration reform from Bush, since Bush is unwilling to actually do anything. Show SOME sign of ACTUALLY wanting to improve national security through immigration policy.

 

They have a massive opening that should be obvious to them --- and they won't touch it. They will leave it open for whomever the GOP runs (I still think Rice) in 2008.

 

They need to realize that having a party head who says he'll reserve judgment on OBL's guilt in regards to 9/11 to a court of law is not going to look good. It makes the party look like it's not even remotely serious.

 

The Democrats need a lot of help --- and they seem to think that firing up the far left base will do more than simply turn the middle-of-the-road voters away from them.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think you're all operating under the false premise that IDEOLOGY decides elections.

Robot, if a party finds winning majorities nearly impossible for over 40 years --- even with a politician everybody seems to think is the best ever (yet who could never churn out 50% of the vote) --- the problem they have with issues is the only explanation. It defies logic to assume that a party that only managed to gain a majority due to WaterGate since 1964 has just been besieged by horrible candidates that they happily CHOSE (I was saying Kerry was a horrid candidate way back in April).

1) I've revised my original statement to state what I really meant.

 

2) Clinton would have gotten over 50% if it hadn't been a 3-way race. Polls at the time showed Perot cut into both candidate's support.

 

3) If you did an issue by issue poll, the Democrat's would have a better average than the Republicans when it comes to being in the mainstream. Although, I'll admit, the gap is probably narrowing.

 

People like national security --- and for the 2nd time in 40 years, the Dems threw their hat in with anti-war groups, which makes the average American not trust them, whatsoever, with national defense.

 

When the national security debate isn't decided on a careful cross-examination of people's positions, but who looks like less of a pussy, then it ceases to be a real issue and becomes a question of character.

 

I believe that elections are decided not on ideology, but on who looks the most decisive. Enough people vote for personality, rather than policy, to make it the deciding factor in elections.

 

They have a massive opening that should be obvious to them --- and they won't touch it. They will leave it open for whomever the GOP runs (I still think Rice) in 2008.

Frist has it in the bag. I'd almost put money on him being the nominee.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think you're all operating under the false premise that IDEOLOGY decides elections.

Robot, if a party finds winning majorities nearly impossible for over 40 years --- even with a politician everybody seems to think is the best ever (yet who could never churn out 50% of the vote) --- the problem they have with issues is the only explanation. It defies logic to assume that a party that only managed to gain a majority due to WaterGate since 1964 has just been besieged by horrible candidates that they happily CHOSE (I was saying Kerry was a horrid candidate way back in April).

1) I've revised my original statement to state what I really meant.

 

2) Clinton would have gotten over 50% if it hadn't been a 3-way race. Polls at the time showed Perot cut into both candidate's support.

 

I honestly don't think he would have. I don't even think he would have won in 1992 without Perot cutting into Bush. Throughout that campaign, Perot slammed Bush incessantly, not really going after Clinton until the final weeks.

 

And Perot was a decided non-entity in 1996, and Clinton still couldn't pull 50%. The DNC might need to face that there is a chance that they can't hit 50% in a popular vote without some major problem benefitting them.

3) If you did an issue by issue poll, the Democrat's would have a better average than the Republicans when it comes to being in the mainstream.  Although, I'll admit, the gap is probably narrowing.

I'm trying to go issue-by-issue. I don't really think the Dems have any traction with economic issues. National security is not a winner. Social issues they might --- but even then, I think Republicans are more capable of explaining their position than Dems are capable of doing.

 

Just an observation.

People like national security --- and for the 2nd time in 40 years, the Dems threw their hat in with anti-war groups, which makes the average American not trust them, whatsoever, with national defense.

When the national security debate isn't decided on a careful cross-examination of people's positions, but who looks like less of a pussy, then it ceases to be a real issue and becomes a question of character.

Why did Bush beat Kerry on the issue of national security? Because Kerry didn't seem to actually have an idea what to do. All he could say he'd do was "bring in our allies", while many people recognized that our allies wouldn't join regardless. The Dems wished to portray Bush going into Iraq "alone" as being caused by his personality, and that is not a terribly solid idea right there.

 

A lot of Americans still think we lost Vietnam not militarily, but politically. And the Dems have a habit of playing into the belief that they are the party of "cut and run" military strategy.

I believe that elections are decided not on ideology, but on who looks the most decisive.  Enough people vote for personality, rather than policy, to make it the deciding factor in elections. 

Oh, I don't doubt that personality is a big part of the equation. And Dems have run some REAL unlikeable people over the years.

 

But I don't think that if they will sit back and state that the explanation for their problems IS that that they will ever be able to look good on that issue.

 

A party that loses needs to realize THAT they lost. They need to realize it wasn't because of personality, but believe that it was because of their message.

 

In 1964, Goldwater got slaughtered. The Republicans did not blame the voters for being "stupid" (something more than a few libs said in November about Bush voters). They simply recognized that they needed to build up their message slowly. The Nixon years were an unfortunate detour, but they proceeded to make their case and argue for their beliefs for years.

They have a massive opening that should be obvious to them --- and they won't touch it. They will leave it open for whomever the GOP runs (I still think Rice) in 2008.

Frist has it in the bag. I'd almost put money on him being the nominee.

I don't think Frist has "it" that you need to have to win elections. I think Rice has charisma, brains, and might well end riding the Sec. of State term to the White House.

 

Frist could win it --- but right now, I am not expecting it.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think you're all operating under the false premise that IDEOLOGY decides elections.

Robot, if a party finds winning majorities nearly impossible for over 40 years --- even with a politician everybody seems to think is the best ever (yet who could never churn out 50% of the vote) --- the problem they have with issues is the only explanation. It defies logic to assume that a party that only managed to gain a majority due to WaterGate since 1964 has just been besieged by horrible candidates that they happily CHOSE (I was saying Kerry was a horrid candidate way back in April).

1) I've revised my original statement to state what I really meant.

 

2) Clinton would have gotten over 50% if it hadn't been a 3-way race. Polls at the time showed Perot cut into both candidate's support.

 

I honestly don't think he would have. I don't even think he would have won in 1992 without Perot cutting into Bush. Throughout that campaign, Perot slammed Bush incessantly, not really going after Clinton until the final weeks.

 

And Perot was a decided non-entity in 1996, and Clinton still couldn't pull 50%. The DNC might need to face that there is a chance that they can't hit 50% in a popular vote without some major problem benefitting them.

Let me explain why I think that, and then you can tell me why you still think I'm wrong. There was a period during the 1992 election cycle when Perot had dropped out, between the Democratic Convention and October. Clinton's numbers shot WAY up. When Perot reentered the race in October, he went after both candidates' plans in televised informericals. Bush job approval rating was also hovering around 40% at this time, a sure fire sign he wasn't going to be reelected under any circumstances. There were also exit polls that asked people who'd they have voted for if Perot hadn't been running which Clinton won.

 

In 1996, Clinton got more votes than Perot and Dole combined. He was going to win no matter what. Even if every Perot voter cast their ballot for Dole, Clinton still would have won.

 

3) If you did an issue by issue poll, the Democrat's would have a better average than the Republicans when it comes to being in the mainstream.  Although, I'll admit, the gap is probably narrowing.

I'm trying to go issue-by-issue. I don't really think the Dems have any traction with economic issues. National security is not a winner. Social issues they might --- but even then, I think Republicans are more capable of explaining their position than Dems are capable of doing.

Economic issues is anyone's game, as people tend to like whichever party is in power during the good times. Bush's only edge is that he can blame a slow economy on 9/11. If you start talking about stuff like the deficit or trade, he's more vulnerable. He's very vulnerable on taxes, although many are still grateful for their break, if if they don't really think should be getting it.

 

People like national security --- and for the 2nd time in 40 years, the Dems threw their hat in with anti-war groups, which makes the average American not trust them, whatsoever, with national defense.

When the national security debate isn't decided on a careful cross-examination of people's positions, but who looks like less of a pussy, then it ceases to be a real issue and becomes a question of character.

Why did Bush beat Kerry on the issue of national security? Because Kerry didn't seem to actually have an idea what to do. All he could say he'd do was "bring in our allies", while many people recognized that our allies wouldn't join regardless. The Dems wished to portray Bush going into Iraq "alone" as being caused by his personality, and that is not a terribly solid idea right there.

 

Kerry's indecisiveness was made the issue, not the actual policy.

 

Oh, I don't doubt that personality is a big part of the equation. And Dems have run some REAL unlikeable people over the years.

 

In a close election, and this election WAS close, that's enough to give one guy the edge.

 

A party that loses needs to realize THAT they lost. They need to realize it wasn't because of personality, but believe that it was because of their message.  In 1964, Goldwater got slaughtered.

 

Goldwater got slaughter by a 20-point spread. That's a little different than 3. And, let me point out, if you look at the more recent past, Democrats did get more votes than the Republicans in 3 of the last 4 elections.

 

I don't think Frist has "it" that you need to have to win elections. I think Rice has charisma, brains, and might well end riding the Sec. of State term to the White House.

 

Here's my case for Frist:

 

-Won't be a sitting Senator after January of 2007, giving him the freedom to campaign that sitting Senators won't.

-Senate Democrats won't be able to set legislative landmines for him since he'll be out of office when he starts campaigning.

-Close ties to Bush, who is still going to be popular within the party in 3 years.

-As a former medical doctor, seems trustworthy.

-As the Senate leader, he can justly argue he has the most experience to do the job.

-Telegenic as hell.

-Hasn't alienated the religious voters the way Pataki and Guiliani have.

-I doubt Rice even wants the job, but its hard to argue that 4 years as Secretary of State makes you qualified to be president when you look at all of the domestic issues she's never had to deal with professionally (but she's a sure-shot as V.P. if they can talk her into it).

[Guest MikeSC]

I think you're all operating under the false premise that IDEOLOGY decides elections.

Robot, if a party finds winning majorities nearly impossible for over 40 years --- even with a politician everybody seems to think is the best ever (yet who could never churn out 50% of the vote) --- the problem they have with issues is the only explanation. It defies logic to assume that a party that only managed to gain a majority due to WaterGate since 1964 has just been besieged by horrible candidates that they happily CHOSE (I was saying Kerry was a horrid candidate way back in April).

1) I've revised my original statement to state what I really meant.

 

2) Clinton would have gotten over 50% if it hadn't been a 3-way race. Polls at the time showed Perot cut into both candidate's support.

 

I honestly don't think he would have. I don't even think he would have won in 1992 without Perot cutting into Bush. Throughout that campaign, Perot slammed Bush incessantly, not really going after Clinton until the final weeks.

 

And Perot was a decided non-entity in 1996, and Clinton still couldn't pull 50%. The DNC might need to face that there is a chance that they can't hit 50% in a popular vote without some major problem benefitting them.

Let me explain why I think that, and then you can tell me why you still think I'm wrong. There was a period during the 1992 election cycle when Perot had dropped out, between the Democratic Convention and October. Clinton's numbers shot WAY up. When Perot reentered the race in October, he went after both candidates' plans in televised informericals. Bush job approval rating was also hovering around 40% at this time, a sure fire sign he wasn't going to be reelected under any circumstances. There were also exit polls that asked people who'd they have voted for if Perot hadn't been running which Clinton won.

 

 

Bush ran one of the most inept campaigns in recent political history. I have opined, more than once, that he did not even WANT to run in 1992 and did so solely out of a feeling of obligation.

 

And Perot didn't even mention Clinton until the tail end. His beef was always with Bush and Bush was his primary target. He didn't really mention Clinton until his final commercial, when he basically described all of the jobs Clinton "created" in Arkansas as being poultry jobs.

 

In spite of that, Bush made a MASSIVE rally late. He pulled from being rather solidly behind to being in a virtual dead-heat.

 

Then came Walsh's report that unloaded on Bush right before the election. That combined with Perot gave Clinton the win, IMO.

In 1996, Clinton got more votes than Perot and Dole combined.  He was going to win no matter what.  Even if every Perot voter cast their ballot for Dole, Clinton still would have won. 

Dole was never going to beat Clinton. That was obvious. He was an atrocious candidate, had NO plan whatsoever for anything, and managed to make Jack Kemp from perennial darkhouse Republican candidate to non-entity.

 

However, even WITH that and Perot being a non-factor, they did precisely what Clinton did not want to happen --- they didn't give Clinton the majority he so desperately desired.

 

But I don't think Clinton wins in 1992 without Perot and the Walsh report. And if Clinton loses in 1992, he does not run in 1996. And I don't see too many Dems who WERE electable at that point.

3) If you did an issue by issue poll' date=' the Democrat's would have a better average than the Republicans when it comes to being in the mainstream.  Although, I'll admit, the gap is probably narrowing.[/quote']

I'm trying to go issue-by-issue. I don't really think the Dems have any traction with economic issues. National security is not a winner. Social issues they might --- but even then, I think Republicans are more capable of explaining their position than Dems are capable of doing.

Economic issues is anyone's game, as people tend to like whichever party is in power during the good times.

Fighting tax cuts for any reason just isn't good politics.

People like national security --- and for the 2nd time in 40 years, the Dems threw their hat in with anti-war groups, which makes the average American not trust them, whatsoever, with national defense.

When the national security debate isn't decided on a careful cross-examination of people's positions, but who looks like less of a pussy, then it ceases to be a real issue and becomes a question of character.

Why did Bush beat Kerry on the issue of national security? Because Kerry didn't seem to actually have an idea what to do. All he could say he'd do was "bring in our allies", while many people recognized that our allies wouldn't join regardless. The Dems wished to portray Bush going into Iraq "alone" as being caused by his personality, and that is not a terribly solid idea right there.

Kerry's indecisiveness was made the issue, not the actual policy.

The indecisiveness was all you could mention, as his plan changed constantly. It's hard to criticize a plan that, by all appearances, does not exist.

 

What was Kerry proposing? Pulling out of Iraq in as short a time as 6 months or as long as several years down the road. The war in Iraq was a mistake and Bush lied --- but we did the right thing.

 

His entire presentation contradicted itself.

Oh, I don't doubt that personality is a big part of the equation. And Dems have run some REAL unlikeable people over the years.

In a close election, and this election WAS close, that's enough to give one guy the edge.

But WHY did the Dems choose Kerry?

 

Because they thought he was, and this is the word they used, "electable". He could beat Bush. You couldn't miss that --- and it's only after the election that the flaws conservatives always saw in Kerry suddenly became apparent to the left.

 

There is, clearly, an intellectual disconnect between the Dem base and the American people.

A party that loses needs to realize THAT they lost. They need to realize it wasn't because of personality, but believe that it was because of their message.  In 1964, Goldwater got slaughtered.

Goldwater got slaughter by a 20-point spread. That's a little different than 3. And, let me point out, if you look at the more recent past, Democrats did get more votes than the Republicans in 3 of the last 4 elections.

We can argue 2000 --- the erroneous call for Florida before the polls closed had considerable impact nationally, since it was viewed as impossible for Bush to win without Florida.

 

But we have a party that has lost Congress for 10 years. A party that has been losing Congressional elections for a while now, including in 2000 when logic indicates that it should not have happened. A party that does not show any possible signs of regaining Congress --- something they actually expected to do more than once in the past few elections.

 

And we have a party that needed Watergate to barely cross the 50% plateau (Ford nearly beat Carter, in spite of being an inept President).

 

I'm not seeing a lot of reason to have high expectations for the Dems.

I don't think Frist has "it" that you need to have to win elections. I think Rice has charisma, brains, and might well end riding the Sec. of State term to the White House.

 

Here's my case for Frist:

 

-Won't be a sitting Senator after January of 2007, giving him the freedom to campaign that sitting Senators won't.

He needs the publicity, though, and I don't think he can generate it on his own. I happen to like Frist just fine, but I have little hope for him.

-Senate Democrats won't be able to set legislative landmines for him since he'll be out of office when he starts campaigning.

-Close ties to Bush, who is still going to be popular within the party in 3 years.

Closer than Rice? I can't imagine that being the case.

-As a former medical doctor, seems trustworthy.

-As the Senate leader, he can justly argue he has the most experience to do the job.

-Telegenic as hell.

-Hasn't alienated the religious voters the way Pataki and Guiliani have.

Pataki is not really an option. Conservatives don't like Republicans who aren't even remotely conservative. And I think Giuliani, while charismatic, has way too many skeletons to win. His best asset is in endorsing somebody, not in running himself.

-I doubt Rice even wants the job, but its hard to argue that 4 years as Secretary of State makes you qualified to be president when you look at all of the domestic issues she's never had to deal with professionally (but she's a sure-shot as V.P. if they can talk her into it).

The problem is --- and Kerry learned this --- being a Senator seldom gives you a great track record to run on.

Bush's only edge is that he can blame a slow economy on 9/11.  If you start talking about stuff like the deficit or trade, he's more vulnerable.  He's very vulnerable on taxes, although many are still grateful for their break, if if they don't really think should be getting it.

Bush has an economy very much on the rebound. And the economy likely will be purring in 2008. I don't think Bush's tax policy is even remotely a problem.

 

However, his Medicare bill and his spending habits are a major problem.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Are you joking Mike?  Are you actually joking?  a Deanocratic party might ACTUALLY be an opposition to the Republicans.

 

Currently?  Right now?  They're not an opposition party, the a CONFORMATION party.  Hey. lets find ways to be more like the Republicans.  America won't see that as weak, they won't see that as pandering, they won't see that as desperate.  Really!  Hey, look at us, we're pro-life too!

 

No political group ever fucking won with Me Too.

 

And Mike, why the fuck would any liberal, or democrat, take any advice from YOU?

Its called knowing which battles you can win and those which you can't win, and making sure that the latter never happens. The Democrats will never win on national security, so stay away from that issue and focus on the stuff you can win (environment, social issues, economy).

 

The Conservatives are in the same boat up here with regards to healthcare. They should just make some vague comments about needing to decrease wait times and increasing funding and that's it.

[SuperJerk 0]

In spite of that, Bush made a MASSIVE rally late. He pulled from being rather solidly behind to being in a virtual dead-heat.

 

No, it wasn't that close. Bush lost by 6 points.

 

Again:

-Clinton lead by a good margin during the months before the election when Perot wasn't even running, from July-October.

-Bush's approval rating was hovering around 40% for months before the election.

-Perot had a platform that included huge tax increases, spending on social programs, and reduced military spending...hardly the kind of thing that would siphon great numbers of Republicans away from Bush.

-Here a good article I found about it:

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

 

Exit polls showed that Perot’s voters apparently split their preferences between Clinton and Bush nearly equally, although approximately a third of them likely would not have voted without him on the ballot.

 

Perot’s vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush’s victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s – Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257.

 

 

However, even WITH that and Perot being a non-factor, they did precisely what Clinton did not want to happen --- they didn't give Clinton the majority he so desperately desired.

 

Had Perot not been running, the final score would have given Clinton at least 51% of the vote, even if only 1/8th of Perot voters voted for Clinton and 7/8th voted for Dole. If Clinton and Dole been the only two candidate, and all the Perot voters sat home, Clinton would have gotten 54.7%.

 

But we have a party that has lost Congress for 10 years. A party that has been losing Congressional elections for a while now, including in 2000 when logic indicates that it should not have happened. A party that does not show any possible signs of regaining Congress --- something they actually expected to do more than once in the past few elections.

 

The Republicans only gained 4 seats in the House this year. Besides that, they've used their control of various state legislatures, particularly in the South, to gerrymander Democratic districts out of existence. The 10 years of control is also due in part to the fact that incumbents in general get reelected easily. Even in 1994, only one or two Democrats lost their seats. The Republicans owe a lot to the fact that so many Democrats decided to retire before that election.

 

This is not to say that the Democrats don't have an uphill battle, or that they don't have some serious problems to fix. I just don't think that its as dire for them as you are claiming.

 

Bush has an economy very much on the rebound. And the economy likely will be purring in 2008. I don't think Bush's tax policy is even remotely a problem.

 

However, his Medicare bill and his spending habits are a major problem.

 

Bush has adopted the one quality I hate most about the Democrats: the mindset that says the only way to fix a problem is to throw money at it.

 

There's so many factors that'll play into the 2008 race, of course. With 8 years of complete control of the federal government, it will be difficult for the Republicans to claim problems aren't their fault (rightly or wrongly). Inversely, if the economy's good, the deficit is going down, and Iraq's rolling along just fine, the Republicans will get all of the credit.

[Guest MikeSC]

In spite of that' date=' Bush made a MASSIVE rally late. He pulled from being rather solidly behind to being in a virtual dead-heat. [/quote']

 

No, it wasn't that close. Bush lost by 6 points.

 

Again:

-Clinton lead by a good margin during the months before the election when Perot wasn't even running, from July-October.

-Bush's approval rating was hovering around 40% for months before the election.

-Perot had a platform that included huge tax increases, spending on social programs, and reduced military spending...hardly the kind of thing that would siphon great numbers of Republicans away from Bush.

-Here a good article I found about it:

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

 

Exit polls showed that Perot’s voters apparently split their preferences between Clinton and Bush nearly equally, although approximately a third of them likely would not have voted without him on the ballot.

 

Perot’s vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush’s victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s – Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257.

 

 

Honestly, I don't take that site seriously (any site that is "serious" about protecting the right to vote, and deals with OH while ignoring the blatant problems in Washington State.)

 

However, in your defense, I have long heard the canard that Perot dragged votes away from both --- but nobody explains how that's possible. What traditional Democrat issues was Perot championing? Perot's entire thing was the budget, and that was not a major issue for the Dems back then. I, and this is the truth, do not remember Perot championing ANYTHING besides balancing the budget. When he bought commercial time, he only focused on that.

 

I've heard it said --- I just find it illogical.

 

And while Bush ended up losing by 6, it was nearly a dead heat a week before the election. The Walsh report ended up eroding Bush's support and Perot peeled away the marginal Bush voters.

However' date=' even WITH that and Perot being a non-factor, they did precisely what Clinton did not want to happen --- they didn't give Clinton the majority he so desperately desired.[/quote']

Had Perot not been running, the final score would have given Clinton at least 51% of the vote, even if only 1/8th of Perot voters voted for Clinton and 7/8th voted for Dole. If Clinton and Dole been the only two candidate, and all the Perot voters sat home, Clinton would have gotten 54.7%.

That's an unprovable theory. And I'm not huge on hypotheticals. I can only go by what happened --- and the most popular Dem in years pulled fewer votes than Bush has pulled in both of his elections. I'm not convinced that Clinton could have ever pulled a majority.

But we have a party that has lost Congress for 10 years. A party that has been losing Congressional elections for a while now' date=' including in 2000 when logic indicates that it should not have happened. A party that does not show any possible signs of regaining Congress --- something they actually expected to do more than once in the past few elections.[/quote']

The Republicans only gained 4 seats in the House this year. Besides that, they've used their control of various state legislatures, particularly in the South, to gerrymander Democratic districts out of existence.

What they've done is what was done for many years before. Does it not defy logic that Democrats have several seats from TX, when TX is about as Republican as you can get?

 

That was because the Dem legislature in the 90's and 80's drew districts to benefit them.

 

It's inconsistent for the Dems to gripe about the GOP doing the exact thing they did for years.

The 10 years of control is also due in part to the fact that incumbents in general get reelected easily.  Even in 1994, only one or two Democrats lost their seats.  The Republicans owe a lot to the fact that so many Democrats decided to retire before that election.

The Dems decided to not run because they saw what was happening. In 1994, Sasser lost when he was supposed to be a major player. Tom Foley, the Speaker, lost. That takes some serious doing. The GOP had a 54-seat pickup in the House --- it's illogical to assume that it was solely because some Dems retired.

 

What happened in 1994 was an utter repudiation of the Dems --- and they've yet to really come back from that. Even when they get the Senate thanks to Jeffords, they lost it right back in 2002 and have few chances of ever getting it back.

 

In all honesty, I think Clinton did more to help the GOP than the DNC. By a big margin.

This is not to say that the Democrats don't have an uphill battle, or that they don't have some serious problems to fix.  I just don't think that its as dire for them as you are claiming.

Kerry didn't carry MN by a lot. That's a Dem haven. The south is all but written off, and that makes winning an election nigh impossible, especially since the South is still growing and the North is losing population, overall.

Bush has an economy very much on the rebound. And the economy likely will be purring in 2008. I don't think Bush's tax policy is even remotely a problem.

 

However, his Medicare bill and his spending habits are a major problem.

Bush has adopted the one quality I hate most about the Democrats: the mindset that says the only way to fix a problem is to throw money at it.

Oh, I agree --- but I don't see a Dem who can argue that they'd be better about it who can win primaries. I do think some electable Dems are out there --- and I worry that some of them, such as Evan Bayh, will end up becoming unelectable in an attempt to placate the hardcore Dem base.

There's so many factors that'll play into the 2008 race, of course.  With 8 years of complete control of the federal government, it will be difficult for the Republicans to claim problems aren't their fault (rightly or wrongly).  Inversely, if the economy's good, the deficit is going down, and Iraq's rolling along just fine, the Republicans will get all of the credit.

Bush, to his credit, is not afraid of taking heat to fix major problems (see his CIA "purge"). He seems utterly unconcerned about taking heat on some fronts.

 

It's just a shame he seems unwilling to take heat in others (such as in vetoing spending bills).

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I have long heard the canard that Perot dragged votes away from both --- but nobody explains how that's possible.

 

I did explain.

 

That's an unprovable theory.

No its not. I have real numbers and everything! Look at them! I even used a calculator.

 

Does it not defy logic that Democrats have several seats from TX, when TX is about as Republican as you can get?

Not in the cities, its not.

 

In 1994, Sasser lost when he was supposed to be a major player. Tom Foley, the Speaker, lost. That takes some serious doing.

 

What happened in 1994 was an utter repudiation of the Dems

 

Those may have been the only two incumbents who did loose. Foley lost on gun control, and Tennessee's Sasser was facing a challenge from a doctor (Frist) at a time when the Congress was attempting health care reform.

 

That's a pretty strong showing, but only a 12% change. We're not exactly talking New Deal-level landslides here.

 

The south is all but written off

 

Which is a stupid strategy considering how well Democrats still do in southern cities.

[Guest MikeSC]

I have long heard the canard that Perot dragged votes away from both --- but nobody explains how that's possible.

 

I did explain.

 

 

I see you tried to explain. But you seem to discount that the MAJOR thrust of Perot's candidacy was balancing the budget --- which was not a major concern of the Dems.

 

It really doesn't make a lot of sense, honestly.

Does it not defy logic that Democrats have several seats from TX, when TX is about as Republican as you can get?

Not in the cities, its not.

Bush took over 60% of the vote in TX. The Dems SHOULD be "under-represented".

In 1994, Sasser lost when he was supposed to be a major player. Tom Foley, the Speaker, lost. That takes some serious doing.

 

What happened in 1994 was an utter repudiation of the Dems

Those may have been the only two incumbents who did loose. Foley lost on gun control, and Tennessee's Sasser was facing a challenge from a doctor (Frist) at a time when the Congress was attempting health care reform.

Foley lost on more than gun control --- including threatening to sue his voters for passing term limits.

 

And, actually, apparently 34 Dem incumbents lost in 1994.

http://www.fec.gov/finance/new.htm

 

That's pretty bad.

That's a pretty strong showing, but only a 12% change.  We're not exactly talking New Deal-level landslides here.

Bush disproved a theory the Dems always held on to --- that high turnout would kill the GOP's chances.

 

The GOP shot that down.

The south is all but written off

 

Which is a stupid strategy considering how well Democrats still do in southern cities.

They don't do well enough elsewhere right now to make it worth the while. Southerners think the Dems want nothing to do with them --- and they've done little to disprove that.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

It really doesn't make a lot of sense, honestly.

It makes more sense than saying a guy with a 40% approval rating could win a reelection campaign.

 

But you seem to discount that the MAJOR thrust of Perot's candidacy was balancing the budget --- which was not a major concern of the Dems.

 

Which is why they voted for Perot and not the Democrats. The Republicans had shunned them as well, though.

 

Bush took over 60% of the vote in TX.

 

Kerry carried almost 20 counties, though. Not bad.

 

And, actually, apparently 34 Dem incumbents lost in 1994.

 

Beleive it or not, I searched forever trying to find out exactly how many lost. Good show, sir.

 

My crack about the "only 12%" was kind of in jest, by the way. That's actually a pretty big shift.

 

Bush disproved a theory the Dems always held on to --- that high turnout would kill the GOP's chances.

 

The GOP shot that down.

 

True.

 

Southerners think the Dems want nothing to do with them --- and they've done little to disprove that.

 

The fact that Dean wants to court Southerners proves he has more of a brain than the previous party heads.

[Guest MikeSC]

Southerners think the Dems want nothing to do with them --- and they've done little to disprove that.

The fact that Dean wants to court Southerners proves he has more of a brain than the previous party heads.

The way Dean said it during the primaries was fairly insulting. It'd be like me trying to reach out to blacks by discussing how much I hate it when a store refuses my food stamps.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

The way Dean said it during the primaries was fairly insulting. It'd be like me trying to reach out to blacks by discussing how much I hate it when a store refuses my food stamps.

-=Mike

You know, its not like YOUR party's leader is a master orator or something. Geez.

[Guest MikeSC]

The way Dean said it during the primaries was fairly insulting. It'd be like me trying to reach out to blacks by discussing how much I hate it when a store refuses my food stamps.

      -=Mike

You know, its not like YOUR party's leader is a master orator or something. Geez.

No --- but we have Karl Rove.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Which is a stupid strategy considering how well Democrats still do in southern cities.

Doing well in cities isn't the Democrats' problem...