I hope the dems learned.....

[Beet]

If they want to win there going to have to get someting except the fringes of the map!! There going to have to stop with some of there crazy ideas, Because Places like Ohio, Florida, Texas, Arizona.... the Carolinas and Virginia's will not go for some of these moral Lack of values the modern Democrat has! It will just not happen.

I agree eversole. If this election showed one thing, it is that the Democrats have a values deficit... actually, it that has always been known by many people, but the "values" issue was never coming up more than around 4th or 5th place as the most important issue in polls... until the exit polls this year, there it was discovered to be the top issue. Also, a fact that had also been known before, but that was not widely recognized... people who list moral values as the #1 issue repeatedly go 80% Republican.

In my view, "liberal" values are summed up in my signature, but its undoubted that the party as a whole has completely lost the values issue under McAuliffe (it is absolutely amazing he did not resign after 2002) and Daschle. In that sense it is the silver lining to Daschle's loss, but only if Reid or Dodd turn out better, which there is no reason to believe so far.

[Beet]

I agree that the Democrats need to get rid of their "bad moral values" viewpoint with some good spinning. However, some of your states are odd choices. Ohio and Florida are obviously capable of switching over. As for the others - I agree.

well, they went for Bush both times......... as for Clinton he is about 75% less lliberal than kerry, and Somewhat less than gore. And even with Clintons Extreme Lack of Morals, He was just a person everbody liked, Myself included.

They went for Bush both times, but Florida went for Bush by about 500 votes at most. That's hardly a solid win.

I don't think this pertains to any regions, other than the west and northeast being somewhat less likely to determine based on this, but I agree it is a problem nationwide. There's no lack of morals, really, it's just perceived lack of morals. After all, if you asked me who is more moral, Bush or Kerry, I'd probably have to say that I don't really know. Bush had problems early on, but he seems to have recovered from them. Both of them are somewhat vulgar. And they're both politicians, which is a major hit.

Again, it's perceived.

I don't think it's necessarily about Bush or Kerry per se. People's perceptions of one candidate vs the other probably tend to balance out. People suspected Kerry didn't always say what he thought, but they also suspected Bush may have exaggerated the case for war. The real issue with "moral values" is not personal integrity but issues and positions. People think of Republicans as the more moral party, and the Democrats as the party of atheists and secularists. Of which there is some truth, but most Democrats are Christians, actually an overwhelming majority are. So yes it's partially perceptions but there is also some basis on issues. The biggest conservative advantage comes from which issues are emphasized (abortion, gay marriage, over poverty, inclusiveness) and the light they are shed in (the argument for abortion rights, for example, is always framed in a relativistic standpoint, and the position is always a hardline defense of Roe, which seems pretty indefensible with modern technology about the late term fetus).

[Beet]

Please stop playing games.

Kerry is a liberal (at least in the current meaning of the word).

The Americans for Democratic Action and the American Conservative Union agree on this point.

True, but he would not have governed as a liberal, and even if he wanted to, he would be unable to.

[Beet]

Carl- Yes. However it is obviously designed as a stepping stone to substantial erosions of abortion rights. I think that is the main fear.

zachman- you hit the nail onthe head with the last sentence. Reducing the amount of abortions is something that both sides can agree to. The only question is how. So far the only proposals put forth to reduce the number have been curtailing rights. But there have been few proposals to support poor mothers. For example, offering paid maternity leave, or free child care access. These would certainly attack the biggest reason by far that women get abortions, according to the studies that have been done.

John- I think Clark might have been better, but in his few public appearances, he was really quite a weak speaker. Having politics as a new career can be something risky as well, as DeMint learned this year. I'm not sure he would have been able to connect with voters any better than Kerry and he probably would not have been as good a debater, and more prone to gaffes. Overall yes though, he might have been better. It's really impossible to say. But I don't think he had a much better chance at winning. Perhaps none of them did, and Dean was the real choice.

[Beet]

John- I think Clark might have been better, but in his few public appearances, he was really quite a weak speaker. Having politics as a new career can be something risky as well, as DeMint learned this year. I'm not sure he would have been able to connect with voters any better than Kerry and he probably would not have been as good a debater, and more prone to gaffes. Overall yes though, he might have been better. It's really impossible to say. But I don't think he had a much better chance at winning. Perhaps none of them did, and Dean was the real choice.

I was still a moderate liberal during the initial Democratic primaries. It rather pissed me off that Iowa pretty much decided who the nominee was for the rest of the nation - if the results hadn't been released New Hampshire and other primaries would have gone much differently.

Me too, I guess it was better than the AFSCME/SEIU endorsement deciding the nominee, as looked possible in late December, but definitely I would have liked to see Edwards & Clark survive longer. After Iowa the primary process as basically finished... btw, why did you go from moderate liberal to libertarian?