The Official DM Democrat wound licker thread (all welcome)

[Epitome22]

Ouch



If I hadn't hardened up my spirit from watching the Mavs lose the last few years that would have smarted alot more.

The worst is that it's a confusing sense of pain. You're not sure if your party needs to regroup and shift direction or just regather the troops and strike again. A Goldwater in 64 esque thrashing would have sent a solid indicator that things need to change. And a much narrower victory would have reaffirmed that we were still on the right path. But this is somewhere in the middle. You see a 51-48 margin and it isn't much but it certainly feels much worse than it is.

The common political narrative here is that liberal democrats are out of touch with middle americans they see as flyover country. That they need to reaffirm american values and move more to the center. But I look at some of these races and just shake my head. Inez Tennenbaum, a southern style democrat loses to Jim DeMint, Brad Carson, another moderate pro-life anti gay marriage southern democrat, loses to James Coburn. Daniel Mongiardo, Betty Castor and Tom Dashle, each lose nailbiters, some by margins less than one half of one percent. Enough to drive you insane.

My guess is that we are more on the right path than we think we are on the grassroots level, but major changes need to be made in upper management. Apparantly Terry Mcauliffe is on his way out and as far as I'm concerned, good riddance. Howard Dean has effectively distanced himself from any virtue he once had and the DNC would be wise to distance themselves from him. Even though I'm sad to see Tom Dashle gone, a new senate minority leader is probably for the best.


Their is always a silver lining. The Democrats picked up many state legislative seats nationwide and are now mostly even with republicans. In our own state house, Democrats gained 9 seats, the first time Texas Democrats gained seats in the Texas House in 32 years. We did lose 4 valuable congressional seats in Texas but Chet Edwards was able to hold off Arlene wohlgemuth and the Texas GOP machine. It will be a lonely fight for him. And in an era where state amendments against gay marriage are popping up everywhere, Lupe Valdez, became the first female mexican american lesbian sheriff of Dallas County.

Though we lost seats in the house and senate. We did recieve some fresh new blood. Ken Salazar rose up to defeat beer man Pete Coors in a mostly republican state and Barack Obama, the future of the democratic party, trounced the thoroughly unelectable Alan Keyes to become the first African American senator from Illinois.

I can't believe they're already talking about Hilary Clinton and John Edwards possibly running in 2008. Can they just save us the embarassment and call that election for the Republicans?

Oh well,

til 2006. Keep hope alive.

[dude1394]

Agreed McCauliffe has been awful. Imo he's brought in the michael moore wing of the party and it looks irrational. Ever since he bacame head of the party it's been on a steady decline in the house, senate, governorships. I'm not sure about the party overall.

The party of clinton has been a losing one for about 10 years now.

[Drbio]

By 2006, you will be full of hope. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

I found a neat picture on the internet. If any of you dems wish to use it, please feel free. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/img]

[sturm und drang]

I think we need to identify the next generation of charasmatic Democratic leaders who are passionate and have strong beliefs and values. I think Bush's weaknesses led us down a primrose path of just being "not Bush." It was hubris to think we could win on such a negative-space platform.

The silver lining, I think, is that I think Bush will do a mediocre job for the next four years. If we select a stronger candidate in 2008, the nation will be ready to embrace change. Our collective attention span problems indicate to me that there's almost an inevitable political shift after eight years...

The Lupe Valdez stor, by the way, is amazing. What an incredible upset. And I couldn't be happier that Chet "Too Liberal for Texas" Edwards was elected. Wohlgemuth – and her campaign – was an embarrassment.

[u2sarajevo]

sturm.... I keep hearing from Democrats that 2008 will be Hillary's year. I think that would be a mistake. I think it would be smart to hang your hat on Obama. His personality seems dynamic. Although, I admit, I know little about him. But he sure did become an overnight star at the Convention.

[dude1394]

It seems that another democratic politician who's life ambition was to be president has just been dissappointed by the straight-talking texan. All of you dems who only want to be president let me give you a hint..

- Go run a company somewhere.
- Be a governor
- FAIL at something
- Get some real-life experience outside of washington DC. Which voted like 90-7 kerry, that sorta tells you something doesn't it budda'....

Maybe then you'll be perceived as someone who isn't just a politician.

[Max Power]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
I think we need to identify the next generation of charasmatic Democratic leaders who are passionate and have strong beliefs and values.

Statements like this is why the Democratic party is losing ground in America. You are looking for a leader to OVERCOME the stigma of being Democratic. It works every once in awhile but you need to have a PARTY that can connect with the American voter. What happens if the Democrats run a charasmatic leader against similar Republican leader? Reagan vs Clinton would be a landslide for the Republicans.

Good lord, Bush was very beatable - there were TONS of anti-Bush votes in the election. A sizable percentage of Kerry's votes were anti-Bush and the Democrats can't count on that voter base in future elections. The only connection the Democrats made with the American voter this year was the fact that they were the alternative to Bush.

[sturm und drang]

That's exactly what I'm saying, Max Power. The Democrats shaped their entire campaign around being the not-Bush party. We need to better define – and communicate – what we're all about. And the ultimate manifestation of that, of course, is your figurehead presidential candidate.

Kerry was basically positioned as the not-Bush, and this was a reflection of the positioning of the party itself in this election year.

I've said for months that if Kerry lost to Bush - easily the most "beatable" incumbent since Carter – the party would have to do some serious soul-searching. I just hope the result of this is a dedication to embracing what we stand for, not what we don't.

[dude1394]

I don't think the dems know what they are about, except pandering.

[Evilmav2]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I don't think the dems know what they are about, except pandering.

Entitled elitistism and intellectual dishonesty are qualities that come to mind, but I don't know if these new leftist heirs to the old Party of Democracy's venerable mantle would want to admit to that...

[madape]

It will be interesting to see how the Democrats react to this mutilation. When they were kicked in the crotch in 2002, they chose to appoint wacko leftist freaks to leadership in congress and in higher positions within the party. They allowed themselvees to be taken over by the Howard Dean/Michael Moore/Moveon.org crowd and moderates like Leiberman and Gephart were basically told that they had no place in the party anymore. What I see so far from Democrats is not an admission that the party has veered so far to the left that they have rendered themselves unelectable. Instead, what I hear is cries for MORE political activism.. If that's the course they choose, this party is deader than a doornail. A NEW two party system will emerge when the libertarians and social conservatives start feuding within the Republican party.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: sturm und drang
I think we need to identify the next generation of charasmatic Democratic leaders who are passionate and have strong beliefs and values. I think Bush's weaknesses led us down a primrose path of just being "not Bush." It was hubris to think we could win on such a negative-space platform.

The silver lining, I think, is that I think Bush will do a mediocre job for the next four years. If we select a stronger candidate in 2008, the nation will be ready to embrace change. Our collective attention span problems indicate to me that there's almost an inevitable political shift after eight years...

The Lupe Valdez stor, by the way, is amazing. What an incredible upset. And I couldn't be happier that Chet "Too Liberal for Texas" Edwards was elected. Wohlgemuth – and her campaign – was an embarrassment.

Like I said. I think the main problems are in the upper arena. The Dem chair seat has been incompetent for far too long. John Kerry, if he wasn't unelectable before, made himself so before his campaign was over. In the senate races, we had 3 races that were 1% margins or less and none of them broke our way. In the house, the Texas redistricting really hurt us, knocking off 4 of the 'Texas 5' otherwise we did ok in the house races. We made gains in state legislatures and picked up 9 Texas house seats. The first time we picked up state seats in 32 years.

and yes, Lupe Valdez was a great story in an otherwise lousy night. As was Chet Edwards holding off Arlene wolhgumuth and her 'Texans for a Republican monopoly' backers.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: u2sarajevo
sturm.... I keep hearing from Democrats that 2008 will be Hillary's year. I think that would be a mistake. I think it would be smart to hang your hat on Obama. His personality seems dynamic. Although, I admit, I know little about him. But he sure did become an overnight star at the Convention.

Ideally you would want someone with more experience at the national level but if no alternatives pop up, Obama may be on the short list for national office in 08.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: dude1394
It seems that another democratic politician who's life ambition was to be president has just been dissappointed by the straight-talking texan. All of you dems who only want to be president let me give you a hint..

- Go run a company somewhere.

Plenty of Democratic politicians are retired businessmen.

- Be a governor

Good point. 4 of the last 5 presidents (2 dem, 2 rep) have been Governors.

- FAIL at something

???

- Get some real-life experience outside of washington DC. Which voted like 90-7 kerry, that sorta tells you something doesn't it budda'....

Uhh yah, that the population of the District of Columbia is almost 90% African American.

Maybe then you'll be perceived as someone who isn't just a politician.[/quote]

I appreciate the advice but you don't characterize the party very accurately.

[Epitome22]

Originally posted by: Max Power

Statements like this is why the Democratic party is losing ground in America. You are looking for a leader to OVERCOME the stigma of being Democratic. It works every once in awhile but you need to have a PARTY that can connect with the American voter. What happens if the Democrats run a charasmatic leader against similar Republican leader? Reagan vs Clinton would be a landslide for the Republicans.

Good lord, Bush was very beatable - there were TONS of anti-Bush votes in the election. A sizable percentage of Kerry's votes were anti-Bush and the Democrats can't count on that voter base in future elections. The only connection the Democrats made with the American voter this year was the fact that they were the alternative to Bush.

Bad upper management, terrible candidate and bad campaign aside, I can't really fault the Democrats for what they did. The common simplistic political narrative is that the Democrats are too 'left' and are elitists out of touch with the middle american moral values voter. This implies as if there is a factory in massachussets where they pump out liberal democrats in a lab somewhere and then send them off to various parts of the country to run for various offices. That couldn't be further from the truth. Most of the democrats running for election in the south, are moderate and fairly religious. Inex Tennenbaum, Brad Carson etc. The problem is not moving closer to the 'center'. Most of these Democrats are already in the center. But for the most part you have moderate, religious southern 'new' democrats (of the Clinton/Lieberman variety) going up against Republican hard line conservatives and not just being beaten, but trounced.

With the exception of more moderate states like Florida, Missouri and Virginia, the Democrats would be smart not to use up too many resources in the old south and instead concentrate on strengthening their base in the industrial mid-west into Missouri, expand their northeastern base into democrat trending Ohio and Virginia, and start making serious plays in the southwest, the future base of Democrat politics. Bill Richardson and the progressive Salazar brothers are key to a southwestern Democratic majority.

[chumdawg]

You heard it here first. As the Dems start thinking about '08, they better get ready to run against Jeb Bush.

[Drbio]

Early repub favorites have to be Rudy Giulliani, Jeb Bush, Colin Powell

[Rhylan]

Originally posted by: sturm und drangAnd I couldn't be happier that Chet "Too Liberal for Texas" Edwards was elected. Wohlgemuth – and her campaign – was an embarrassment.

Maybe Doc can provide a little more hard info since he's a permanent resident of Chet's constituency and I just grew up there.. but what kept me from voting for Chet when I was registered in Hamilton was simple... he campaigns on being a moderate, "traditional-values" Democrat, then gets to Washington and votes the party line on almost everything.. especially on economic issues. Doc, am I mistaken on this?

[Evilmav2]

Here's what DNC mastermind Terry McAuliffe has to say about the future of the Democratic Party:


"This party is stronger than its ever been. We're in the best financial shape we've ever been. We now have, unlike four years ago, millions and millions of new supporters of this party. We're debt-free for the first time ever and were beginning to build towards 2008."
-Terry McAuliffe, 03/11/04

[Lvubun1]

I think that kinda sums it up. If you look at the county electoral map its a sea of red, if you didn't know better you would say Bush won by 30 million votes not by 3. Of course, the explaination is, alot of the red squares were places like Yourmoma, Misssissippi, population 19. Home of the 4th largest water well, three cops, two post offices, one stop light. While the blue squares were places, well where people actually live, New York, LA, Chicago, Las Vegas, Detroit, etc. I'm not sure if Dems will win another national election, this election didn't turn out the way it did cause of Iraq, jobs, education, etc. Look at the exit polls, it all came down to morals. The "Science? We don' need nos steenkin' science! We has the bible!" "Hey their! i donts care if it is her own body" "Those sinful smelly fa.....I mean gheys aren't gonna run around getting married, raping my sons or whatever else those sub-humans do!" crowd.

Dems if they want to win again, have two choices, number one to morally-wise, appeal to what a majority of the people feel. Or wait it out, most people who voted simply for morals in those red states, have old school, long time morals and they aren't changing. For the most part this country is becoming more open-minded when it comes to gays, science etc. Especially among younger people because they are going to school with homosexuals, know people who have had abortions etc. only 17% of young people voted, but as those open minded(or sinful, it depends) people grow-up, they are alot more likely to vote and chances are most will vote democrat. In closing, I'm just so glad its over, i'm just in politics overdrive mode. Now things can go back to normal, W can go back to vacationing at the Ranch for weeks at time, all those record phone calls and campaign mailings can stop, and all the Michael Moore's, Sean Hannity's, Ann Coulter's, and Al Frankin's can get off my damn TV.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Lvubun1


I think that kinda sums it up. If you look at the county electoral map its a sea of red, if you didn't know better you would say Bush won by 30 million votes not by 3. Of course, the explaination is, alot of the red squares were places like Yourmoma, Misssissippi, population 19. Home of the 4th largest water well, three cops, two post offices, one stop light. While the blue squares were places, well where people actually live, New York, LA, Chicago, Las Vegas, Detroit, etc. I'm not sure if Dems will win another national election, this election didn't turn out the way it did cause of Iraq, jobs, education, etc. Look at the exit polls, it all came down to morals. The "Science? We don' need nos steenkin' science! We has the bible!" "Hey their! i donts care if it is her own body" "Those sinful smelly fa.....I mean gheys aren't gonna run around getting married, raping my sons or whatever else those sub-humans do!" crowd.

Dems if they want to win again, have two choices, number one to morally-wise, appeal to what a majority of the people feel. Or wait it out, most people who voted simply for morals in those red states, have old school, long time morals and they aren't changing. For the most part this country is becoming more open-minded when it comes to gays, science etc. Especially among younger people because they are going to school with homosexuals, know people who have had abortions etc. only 17% of young people voted, but as those open minded(or sinful, it depends) people grow-up, they are alot more likely to vote and chances are most will vote democrat. In closing, I'm just so glad its over, i'm just in politics overdrive mode. Now things can go back to normal, W can go back to vacationing at the Ranch for weeks at time, all those record phone calls and campaign mailings can stop, and all the Michael Moore's, Sean Hannity's, Ann Coulter's, and Al Frankin's can get off my damn TV.

It's this kind of elitist, arrogant attitude that has sent the Democratic party in a downward spiral.

I've read a number of different Democratic/liberal websites following the election to see what the reaction would be. And invariably, the reaction is similar to what Lvubun said. "If it weren't for those damn homophobic, illiterate, inbred, redneck right-wing fascist zealots, we'd have won this election. But hey, that's okay, we just have to get more 'progressive' and things will go our way."

You need to wake up to reality. It's not that the people who voted to elect George Bush are stupid, bigoted, or intolerant. They simply have a different worldview than you do.

I'll leave you with a speech that I found cut and pasted on another site:

I tried to tell you . . . -Zell Miller
Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom
Published on: 11/04/04

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.

This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.

This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.

But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America. Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.

Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.

A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South. When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years. The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today. To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity. When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.

And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.

And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.

And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.

Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.

— Zell Miller is Georgia's Democratic U.S. senator.

[mercury_rev]

The MSM are going to spin this election as a mandate for Christianity. Their biggest argument outside of anecdotal evidence is that exit polls showed 22% of Bush supporters held that moral values were their most important reason for choosing W. These polls kept separate the War on Terror and the Iraq War, which sort of stacks the deck against those who see the two as aspects of the same strategy. I don't have the other numbers with me, but if they combined the WoT and Iraq percentages, surely the sum would surpass moral values. I'm not saying cultural conservatives didn't play a big part, but these polls parse the issues somewhat arbitrarily.

Besides, we all know how "accurate" exit polls are.

But even if I'm wrong about the above, I agree with your point, kg_veteran. Many Dems have exhibited an unbelievable arrogance toward their fellow citizens. It's ironic that their myopic assumption that Bush supporters are all ignorant, provinicial, Bible-thumping, cousin' kissin', possum-eating, toothless hicks shows an ignorance far more profound then whatever caricatures they attribute to red counties. Apparently "every vote should count" doesn't matter if many votes don't reflect their cosmopolitan bubble. That sounds like a major case of sour grapes and nothing more.

And sorry, just because someone lives in a major metropolitan area doesn't make that person an informed sophisticate. There are more than a few urbanites who vote Dem and can't even name a member of Bush's Cabinet. There are many who vote Dem because...well....that's what you do if you live in the city. There are many who vote Dem because Dems promise to give them more stuff.

I'm not saying the GOP doesn't pander. And there are many Dems who are good people and not elitist. But this stuffed-shirt holier-than-thou haughtiness is not going to help Dems rescue their party from the far left. And as long as enough Dems remain myopic and bitter, they won't be able to comprehend how many of Bush's votes came from well-read social liberals who prefer his way of handling the threat of terrorism. These kinds of Dems are going to lick their wounds raw.

[Lvubun1]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

It's this kind of elitist, arrogant attitude that has sent the Democratic party in a downward spiral.

I've read a number of different Democratic/liberal websites following the election to see what the reaction would be. And invariably, the reaction is similar to what Lvubun said. "If it weren't for those damn homophobic, illiterate, inbred, redneck right-wing fascist zealots, we'd have won this election. But hey, that's okay, we just have to get more 'progressive' and things will go our way."

You need to wake up to reality. It's not that the people who voted to elect George Bush are stupid, bigoted, or intolerant. They simply have a different worldview than you do.
.

[/quote]

Their is alot of reasons why the Dems lost, don't have the time to get into them now. I never said everybody who voted for W, did just for reasons I mentioned earlier, but you cannot deny the fact that morals, were a huge factor in why people voted for the President. The most important issues among voters was "Moral Values" with 22% Jobs was next with 20%, people who felt that Moral values was their most important issue voted 80% for Bush. How can you deny that morals weren't the deciding factor in this election.

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov. 3 - Proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in many of the 11 states where the measures appeared on the ballot on Tuesday, political analysts say, providing crucial assistance to Republican candidates including President Bush in Ohio and Senator Jim Bunning in Kentucky.

In Ohio, for instance, political analysts credit the ballot measure with increasing turnout in Republican bastions in the south and west, while also pushing swing voters in the Appalachian region of the southeast toward Mr. Bush. The president's extra-strong showing in those areas compensated for an extraordinarily large Democratic turnout in Cleveland and in Columbus, propelling him to a 136,000-vote victory.

"I'd be naïve if I didn't say it helped," said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. "And it helped most in what we refer to as the Bible Belt area of southeastern and southwestern Ohio, where we had the largest percentage increase in support for the president."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/po...ign/04gay.html

Not as a whole, cause alot of people voted for W for other reasons, but those aforementioned 22% in my opinion are, stupid, bigoted and intolerant. I realize, its alot more flashy if W won because of important issues like the Economy and Iraq, but he didn't, he won because of the stupid, bigoted, and intolerant came out in all their stupid, bigoted, and intolerant glory.

Example, South Carolina Senate race, they voted overwhelming for a person Jim Demitt who said "Openly gay teachers shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools" he followed that up with "Unwed mothers are unfit to stand in front of a classroom" And the reason they voted for him? You got it, morals. Maybe in the "reality" you think I need to wake up to, thats not stupid, bigoted and intolerant, therefore I will elect to stay in mine.

[chumdawg]

What kind of person suggests that "moral values" aren't a good thing to be concerned about? We do all have some sort of morals we are guided by, don't we?

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
What kind of person suggests that "moral values" aren't a good thing to be concerned about? We do all have some sort of morals we are guided by, don't we?

Nope. Not some people.

[u2sarajevo]

So lvubun, I vote Republican because of moral issues (almost exclusively). So do I fall into this "Science? We don' need nos steenkin' science! We has the bible!" "Hey their! i donts care if it is her own body" "Those sinful smelly fa.....I mean gheys aren't gonna run around getting married, raping my sons or whatever else those sub-humans do!" crowd?

Are you truly that shallow?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Lvubun1
I'm not sure if Dems will win another national election, this election didn't turn out the way it did cause of Iraq, jobs, education, etc. Look at the exit polls, it all came down to morals. The "Science? We don' need nos steenkin' science! We has the bible!" "Hey their! i donts care if it is her own body" "Those sinful smelly fa.....I mean gheys aren't gonna run around getting married, raping my sons or whatever else those sub-humans do!" crowd.

Lvubun1, that's probably closer to picking at a wound rather than licking a wound. This attitude has helped create the Dem's problems in the first place, and your expression of it would probably offend a great majority of both major parties.

I think a lot of people did vote Rep. because of moral issues, but if Bush had been wishy-washy (at best) on the war on terror throughout the campaign, tried to paint a recovering economy as a disaster, and all but embraced nut-cases like Michael Moore, he would have lost.

[kg_veteran]

Lvubun - You pretty much made my point for me. You assume that if someone believes in "traditional morals" (a very vague term) that they are stupid, bigoted, and intolerant. One of the real problems the Democratic party has at this point is that it has become stupid, bigoted, and intolerant.

Stupid enough to think it could win a national election without the South or the Midwest.

Bigoted enough to think that "evangelicals" and "religious" people are inferior.

Intolerant enough to reject those people because they just aren't intellectual or progressive enough.

[Rhylan]

The number one problem that the Democratic party has to solve to fix their problems is a simple statement that they've been taking as unquestionable truth since the 1960's:

Progressive ideas are better, because they're progressive.

There's no pressure within the left half party to prove that an idea is good or that a program works. If it's progressive, it's best, and if you disagree, you're ignorant.

Oh well.. they're reaping the "benefits" of that attitude now.

[Mavdog]

As Samuel Clements said over a century ago, in applying it to the Democratic Party, "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated".

The party was not able to beat an incumbent, and when the US has been at war that has never happened. This, and the republicans ability t get their base out and vote, are the reasons for the results of this election. This was accomplished by a multitude of factors, the least of which was any platform issues of the democratic party. There was not a single state where the democrat candidate was upset by a republican based on the party banner that they ran under.

Long and short, the democratic party has to nominate a candidate next time who will be successful in rallying the base, presenting a reason for their getting the individual voters loyalty, and they will be successful. This candidate was not able to energise the base of the party sufficiently to overcome the incumbency and the war. Even with these weights against him., Kerry received just 3 million votes less out of about 120 million cast. That shows a party which can win.

Kerry didn't run a campaign that seperated him from Bush and presented a compelling reason for a voter to cast their ballot for him and against an incumbent in a time of war. That will not be an issue next time out.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Rhylan

Maybe Doc can provide a little more hard info since he's a permanent resident of Chet's constituency and I just grew up there.. but what kept me from voting for Chet when I was registered in Hamilton was simple... he campaigns on being a moderate, "traditional-values" Democrat, then gets to Washington and votes the party line on almost everything.. especially on economic issues. Doc, am I mistaken on this?

You are not mistaken. He throws a vote or two our way to ensure that he has campaign material, but he is a party liner for the most part.

[Road Rage]

Stupid enough to think it could win a national election without the South or the Midwest.

Bigoted enough to think that "evangelicals" and "religious" people are inferior.

Intolerant enough to reject those people because they just aren't intellectual or progressive enough

Hoorah for Luvbun1 on her liberal hat trick!

[Hitman]

Everyone who voted for Bush is not an ignorant, bigoted redneck. There are many educated and worldy people, many of whom are my friends, who voted for this guy.

But if there were no ignorant, bigoted rednecks in this country,

then Bush would not have won this election.

Because

a) There are a lot of ignorant, bigoted rednecks in this country.

Does anyone care to argue that?

and

b) Bigoted, ignorant rednecks voted for Bush.

[dude1394]

Here's a VOTER baby!!! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

bust
------------------
BUSH OR BUST
To comply with polling rules, woman strips down to bra to cast vote
Saturday, November 06, 2004
By Sheila Grissett

Debbie Dupeire was so intent on helping to re-elect the president Tuesday that she shucked her Bush-Cheney T-shirt and voted in her bra after being told that state election law prohibits displaying a candidate's name in a polling place.

"I really thought it was OK to wear my shirt. I didn't go there to cause trouble," said the 38-year-old makeup artist from Jefferson.

Dupeire said she was worried that she would lose the chance to vote if she left to change her shirt after signing the voter's book; the commissioner in the busy polling place might not remember her, or might be away from the booth on break when she returned.

So Dupeire pulled off the offending red-white-and-blue shirt and marched into the booth at Deckbar Elementary School clad in her white sports bra, exercise pants and flip-flops.

Jefferson's Registrar of Voters Dennis DiMarco confirmed Friday that electioneering laws ban the display of candidates' names within 500 feet of a polling place. DiMarco said he wishes someone had seen Dupeire's shirt as soon as she came in, so corrective action could have been taken immediately.

But veteran poll commissioner Dorothy Angelico said the T-shirt wasn't spotted sooner because she and other commissioners were overwhelmed by the number of voters in the crowded space they share with two other precincts.

"I'm 80 years old . . . and I've never seen anything like it," Angelico said Friday, still chuckling about Dupeire's quick decision to get down to basics and vote. "It happened so fast, I don't think my husband and the other male commissioner even saw it happen," said Angelico, one of two female commissioners who broke the news to Dupeire.

Dupeire said she understood the request and is not angry about the incident, but thinks that Jefferson Parish might need more poll workers.

"I'd been in line wearing the shirt for 15 minutes, and no one said anything until I was about to vote," said Dupeire, who said she always votes. "Had they told me before I signed the book, I would have gone out and turned my shirt wrong-side out. But I wasn't going to leave after signing because I would have had no proof that I hadn't voted. I just did the fastest thing I could do to vote."

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Hitman
Everyone who voted for Bush is not an ignorant, bigoted redneck. There are many educated and worldy people, many of whom are my friends, who voted for this guy.

But if there were no ignorant, bigoted rednecks in this country,

then Bush would not have won this election.

Because

a) There are a lot of ignorant, bigoted rednecks in this country.

Does anyone care to argue that?

and

b) Bigoted, ignorant rednecks voted for Bush.

Of course on the flip side if there were no ignorant pampered socialists in this country then kerry wouldn't have come close.

[vinnieponte]

4 more years to make everything worse than he has the past 4. I remmember when the 2000 election happened and he would never stop saying " I'm a uniter not a divider " and how ironic when the united states is divided more so than before he came aboard! Just about half of us americans don't want him, that means something is wrong with this man. Now I accept the defeat as there really isnt anything we now can do. We need to get use to more wars, more religious laws, and more fear from now on. Congrats

[dude1394]

Actually a larger percentage of americans WANT him than do not want him. More so than in 2000. I would offer that there is something wrong with the people who do NOT want him, since they are in the distinct minority.

Oh...and you are most welcome, thanks for the congrats.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Actually a larger percentage of americans WANT him than do not want him. More so than in 2000. I would offer that there is something wrong with the people who do NOT want him, since they are in the distinct minority.

It is accurate to say that a larger percentage of the voters want Bush than those who didn't. As far as the rest of Americans, that is unknown.

There have been many instances in history where the minority have been shown to be correct while the majority was found to be in error. History will be the judge on who is ultimately right or wrong, and that determination won't be made for several years.

[vinnieponte]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Actually a larger percentage of americans WANT him than do not want him. More so than in 2000. I would offer that there is something wrong with the people who do NOT want him, since they are in the distinct minority.

Oh...and you are most welcome, thanks for the congrats.

dude, you never took me up on my pm offer. Anytime you're ready, just name it [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]