Question for Democrats ?

[brerrabbit]

I know, I know not another stinking political thread.

However I have a legitimate question that I would like answered.

A little history. When I was young and still in college I was a Democrat. So much so that I went to my local precinct's cacus and was elected as a delegate to the seventh Senatorial district convention in Texas. From there I was elected to go as a delegate to the Texas State Democratic convention where the delegates to the national convention are chosen. This was 1980 and I was 20 years old and a Democrat. There were many factions within the party and I was a member of the Mod-Con Democrats. (Moderate/conservative) There were also the people on the far left and every where in between. I worked as the driver and scheduler for a candidate for the Democratic State Chairmanship that was selected at that years convention. We visited no less than 11 different groups from farmers, to gays and lesbians, to rural groups, to the Black and Hispanic groups and so on. I remember thinking at the time, "how in the world can the Democratic party agree on anything, much less who to nominate for president" My impression was that the Republicans were so similar that there was little if any dissent in their ranks.

Fast forward to 2004. I now have a professional job and my beliefs and concerns more closley align with the Republican party and I am now a Republican. Any national election will have to be decided based on numbers on party switchers and the Independent vote. A lot of noise was made during this primary season and through the November Election about how far to the left the Democratic party had gone.

Given this scenario do you think the Democrats will pull away from the far left and try to field a candiate that has the ability to appeal to more voters who are more to the center than the left or right.

PS This question was prompted by a story I heard yesterday that said Howard Dean is considering running for the head of the DNC.

 

[missypie]

I wonder that when I see the coverage of the Democratic National Convention on TV every 4 years. They always seem to zoom in on the more unusually dressed delegates, making it look like a convention of the Village People. But it will just take a candidate with charisma - and it will probably need to be a governor so he or she has no congressional record - and the candidate will be elected.

 

[momof2inPA]

Yes, I think the Dems will run a more centrist candidate in the next election, and I also heard the same Dean rumor a few weeks ago.

 

[Island_Lauri]

Originally posted by brerrabbit
Fast forward to 2004. I now have a professional job and my beliefs and concerns more closley align with the Republican party and I am now a Republican. Any national election will have to be decided based on numbers on party switchers and the Independent vote. A lot of noise was made during this primary season and through the November Election about how far to the left the Democratic party had gone.

I am curious and would like to ask a question. What concerns and beliefs do you have now that more closely align with the Repubican party? What exactly is in the Republic Party platform that made you move from being a Democrat to a Republican? Or are you just saying that the Democratic party moved away from you?

 

[VampHeartless]

Actually, according to the election results Kerry pulled WAY more swing voters this election. Unfortunately what won the election for Bush was the fact that he has strong appeal with his base, and he was able to rally more conservatives to the polls than Kerry's base and swing voters combined.

Kudos to Bush's political efforts...it's rare in these times that a politician sticks to his base and still wins.

 

[dennis99ss]

I think the reason Bush was able to pull his base together was his promise to appease the christian right. A relatively easy promise to make, but an extremely difficult one to follow through with. The voting block that put him into office wants gay and abortion to be on the top of his agenda right now. Something that he can attempt to do, but, at the same time, something he has no control over. He may be able to appoint judges, but, as we have seen, judges have a funny way of changing once on the bench. Ask GW 1 and RR about that.

But, with regard the democrats, they do need to be able to put forth a candidate that does a number of things, all of which Kerry did not do in this election. First, the candidate must be proactive, not reactive. The candidate must be in a position to control the debate, not just respond to it. The candidate must have a platform that touches upon suburban and rural america, and not just on the large cities. The candidate must be able to develope a platform based on positive issues, and not be weighted down with negative issues. Finally, the candidate must not allow himself to be opened to attack on emotional issues which will bring out the vote, i.e gay marriage. Just my 2 cents, but, i think any candidate must be able to talk about the economy, and the deficit, which will be an issue in 08, as some economists are prediciting a recession in 06, without the benefit of a lessening effect of low interest mortgages being a safety net. He/she must be able to connect with white, church going people. Pure and simple, if you are going to win the election, you need some of the christian right, the jewish vote, and aarp to go with you. All of that should turn in favor of a democrat in 08, if, there is a candidate that has wide appeal, and not just an appeal to the core party faithful. The real reason Kerry lost is because the party core picked him, and not the party as a whole. Unfortunately, he was annoited by the DNC before the others could get traction.

So, if we have a large deficit, have played with Social security, have allowed health insurance to go into a crisis, and have allowed the middle east, and israel to either loose face or be vulnerable, a good candidate could walk into the job. I don't know who that would be . Edwards, maybe. Clinton, maybe, Obama, probably to young, I do agree with the above poster though, needs to be a governor or ex-gov. and likely one from the south, to tap into the hispanic, christian right and non-union vote

 

[Kendra17]

I hope, completely, that this is the case. I firmly believe that had they not moved so far to the left, that they could have won. It was only the fact, imo, that they were so anti-EVERYTHING Bush, that they lost. I have found that many democrats disagree with me, though.

But, as a nonmember of the Democratic Party, this is what it looks like to me.

 

[Laurajean1014]

Was the votes for Kerry or against President Bush? There is such a love/hate in regards to President Bush.

Dean is very liberal, and so is/was Kerry. It also did not help for the DNP to have a weak candidate, loaded campaign mishaps, contraversal Teresa, a flat right hand man (Edwards), Michael Moore and the Liberal Hollywoods to back the DNP.

All of the above actual helped the RNP and President Bush.

If Hillary wants to run in 2008 that would be a big mistake for the DNP. Do you see her capturing any of the red county areas? Rejoining America?

Who else would be a DNP candidate for 2008?

 

[ByTheSea]

I was a democrat in College, and still a democrat many many years later. What was important to me then is important to me now. Equal rights for all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, including equal pay for woman. Protecting our natural resources and the environment. Education. Protecting a Woman's right to choose. Against war, etc. The only thing that has changed for me is that I pay a heck of a lot more in taxes, but I see that as doing my part, in addition to the contributions I make to the organizations I support.

I've seen others, not many of my friends but some, who made a party change when it started to hit their pocketbook. Way back when I was in college, I used to say I didn't make enough money to align with the republicans. Now I make more than enough but I follow my heart and stick with those ideals that make up my core value system.

In my heart, I don't feel the democratic platform this year was far enough "left." but in practicality I suppose they will lean towards a candidate with a more moderate platform. I just hope they don't have to resort to the republican tactics of running primarly negative advertising and digging up whatever "dirt" they can drum up(or make up, whatever works) I still don't see how this sways so many voters but obviously it works.

 

[BuckNaked]

I just hope they don't have to resort to the republican tactics of running primarly negative advertising and digging up whatever "dirt" they can drum up(or make up, whatever works) I still don't see how this sways so many voters but obviously it works.

They already have resorted to this. Neither campaign had clean hands in this arena...it just happened to work better for one side than for the other.

 

[ByTheSea]

Believe me, I live in a "swing state" and worked in another. I saw all the ad's over and over and over again. There was a lot of negativity and it was not limited to the presidential elections. I believe I read somewhere that Bush campaign ran ad's saying negative things about Kerry approx. 50,000 times -- amounting to 75 percent of Bush's campaign advertising. And Kerry ran negative ads against Bush more like 15,000 times -- or 30 percent of his total.... (but this was not including the last month or so I believe) the numbers were something like that and either way it was too much on both sides in My opinion, but I guess not enough on the democratic side to swing the election.


In my state there was a congressional election, not my district but nearby. I ONLY saw negative ad's from one candidate. Nothing but attacking his opponent, so much so that the liberal and conservative papers wrote about it as being extreme. The opponent had a couple of response ad's but primary took the high road. The high road lost.

I generally prefer not to endorse or vote for a candidate that can't campaign in a postive manner, but I'm guessing next election I won't have a choice, as the only way it appears to win is to take the negative route.

 

[brerrabbit]

Island_Lauri, It was a little of both, I was aligned with the moderate/ conservative wing of the Democratic party and as time progressed I felt that to many members of the party were moving farther to the left. I favor less government as opposed to more and as my pay increased I felt the bigger bite in taxes. I believe that charitable organizations and non governmental agencies are more efficient at offering services for people in need and that the government taking more from taxpayers to provide programs was and is very inefficient. As I matured national saftey and defense became more real to me and I liked where the Republicans stood on the issue. Finally I have grown in my faith and find myself more aligned with some of the social issues. As I have posted on the gay marriage thread I do not support a constitutional amendment banning it but my beliefs lead me to not be in favor of it. In the end I know I have not and will not align with any party completely and in the end politics and choices of candidates come down to the lesser of two evils. My lesser evil just happens to be Republican. But I could see my self at some point actually crossing the line to vote for the right moderate Democrat. I just feel that in the current climate we are polarizing the two parties at the opposite ends of the scales and that is what leads to problems.

And I suppose that it seems to me currently that the Democrats are going far left while the Republicans are actually starting to move a little left themselves. i.e. the California govener, fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Bush's drug plan, a true conservative would never come close to that level of social spending.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by brerrabbit

i thought this article explained it perfectly.

What now, Democrats?
By John Leo

On the morning after the election, newspeople at cable outlets and National Public Radio launched a one-day seminar to educate themselves on the "new" and "surprising" finding that millions of Americans had actually voted on social issues. The seminar was necessary because mainstream media personnel don't spend much time or space covering these issues and don't personally know anybody willing to say they count for much. But exit polls showed that at 22 percent, "moral values" was the biggest issue on the minds of voters, and four fifths of the 22 percent had voted for Bush

The one-day crash project in media self-education went pretty well. By nightfall, "values" seemed to be the noun uttered most frequently on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, and cable news shows blossomed with special segments on "Faith and Values" and "Moral Values."

Democrats tend to overlook or discount social issues. At a dinner party in New York a month ago, a dread moment arrived: Someone asked me to tell the whole table why I was going to vote for President Bush, which is deeply eccentric behavior in these parts. My fellow diners listened with the same polite detachment they would have shown if I were explaining that my hobby is torturing iguanas. I said the Democrats had lost me years ago on the social issues, not just because of the stances themselves but because of the coercion, intolerance, and contempt for dissenters in the party and for ordinary Americans who live in the middle of the country and thus fail to have East Coast or West Coast opinions. I said the last straw came in 1992 when the Clintonites wouldn't allow Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, a strong liberal on nearly every issue but abortion, to speak at their convention. To rub it in, hard-line feminists managed to invite a Republican speaker who was a pro-abortion opponent of Casey's.

Tolerance. Doors were slamming in the Democratic Party. Almost all dissent from elite opinion on social issues gradually became positioned as a human-rights violation of some kind. (On the cable shows last Wednesday, backers of traditional marriage were denounced several times as gay-bashers.) I told my dinner companions the Republican Party is a weak vessel, with lots of movers and shakers who seem to care only about greed, but now, on the broad array of social issues, it is the only game in town.

But what can the Democrats do to attract social-issues voters? They can't sell out their constituency of gays and feminists, Newsday columnist Marie Cocco said on NPR. No, but they can tamp down the extremists like the ones who censored Casey. Maybe (gasp!) they can even allow a few antiabortion Democrats to run for an important office, rather than forcing them all to convert to pro-abortion stands as the price of getting funding and support. Republicans aren't clamoring for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudolph Giuliani to convert.

Democrats might want to tone down the contempt for evangelicals in particular and religious people in general that increasingly flows through their secular-dominated party. This is a very religious nation. If the Democrats aspire to become the majority party, why do they tolerate so much antireligious behavior and expression? They also might have a word with out-of-control adjuncts of the party like People for the American Way, whose mission is apparently to hammer away at religious conservatives, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which is always ready to descend on every 6-year-old who writes a school essay on Jesus or who says, "God bless you" after a sneeze. Do they think religious voters fail to notice?

They might also have second thoughts about the strategy of getting judges to impose solutions that they want but that the voters are unwilling to accept. It is beginning to dawn on many Democrats that John Kerry may have lost the election on Nov. 18, 2003, when Massachusetts's highest court, by a 4-to-3 vote, conjured up a right to gay marriage that nobody else had ever located anywhere in the state Constitution. In a backlash, state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed easily in all 11 states that had them on the ballot last week, including Ohio. Incredibly, Democratic leaders and the media didn't see this coming, though polls keep showing opposition to gay marriage of around 60 percent.

The other thing the Democrats might do is to acquire a copy of Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter With Kansas? and then ignore everything he says. Frank seems to be saying that voters are ignorant to vote on social issues. The book is an argument for a return to the same old-time liberalism that has paralyzed the Democratic Party. Frank has no understanding of why cultural issues are important to so many Americans. The fact is that the Democrats are unlikely to win the presidency again until they do something about the cultural divide.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/041115/opinion/15john.htm