Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[MODU]

Good article, thanks for posting it.  It's something that both of the two parties need to pay close attention to if they want to grow their bases.

As far as the Democrats themselves go, I stated before the election that the DNC was facing a major split within their own party.  You have the hard-core left faction and the moderate/populist faction at odds with each other.  Why the DNC chose to turn away from the progress Clinton made with moving the party to the middle, I don't know, but that is where a large segment of their base is still currently residing, and the Republicans are taking advantage of that on the local levels.  

The Republicans, on the other hand, need to ensure they don't get too full of themselves (like the Democrats did in the past) and take their supporters for granted.  That doesn't mean they have to give them every perk in the book, but they do need to listen to what their more fiscally conservative supporters are saying.

[MODU]

Al, looks like you are feeling the love today.  

[MODU]

She has 100% ratings from every liberal group out there, and you think this is the direction your party needs to go in?  Good.

Wasn't he trying to prove that Boxer is not an extremist?

hahaha . . . that's what I was thinking. 

[MODU]

The problem in two-party politics is that the parties a) tend to regress to the mean and b) must build constituencies representing roughly half the voting population.

You cannot add without subtracting. Adding Southernerns means losing someone.

Now you know why I advocate a third-party so heavily.    Need to force the old two-dominat parties to look outside of their party and to the public as a whole to meet their needs. 

[MODU]

Actually, in 2004 Fox tilted slightly left based on the ratio of positive/negative stories dealing with Bush and Kerry.

Say what?

Fox outsourced their polling, which did return some left-than-average poll results when compared to the rest of the organizations.  Vorlon can verify that (or you can just go back to the 2004 forums and read them).

[MODU]

Actually, in 2004 Fox tilted slightly left based on the ratio of positive/negative stories dealing with Bush and Kerry.

Say what?

Fox outsourced their polling, which did return some left-than-average poll results when compared to the rest of the organizations.  Vorlon can verify that (or you can just go back to the 2004 forums and read them).

A18 and Virginian87 were talking about what Fox says about Democrats, not their outsourced polling firm.

True, but they used the polls in conjunction with what they were discussing about the campaign candidates.

[MODU]

You're blind if you don't see how their coverage is biased in favor of Republicans. Why does exactly how their poll ended up matter?

If you are comparing their coverage agains the coverage of the other news organizations, yes, it was very biased.  However, if you will note, the other news organizations (outside of C-Span) were heavily biased towards the Democrats.  It's all relative.  Looking at Fox's coverage, they were the closest to being "fair" to both sides.

[MODU]

You're blind if you don't see how their coverage is biased in favor of Republicans. Why does exactly how their poll ended up matter?

If you are comparing their coverage agains the coverage of the other news organizations, yes, it was very biased.  However, if you will note, the other news organizations (outside of C-Span) were heavily biased towards the Democrats.  It's all relative.  Looking at Fox's coverage, they were the closest to being "fair" to both sides.

Not the stupid liberal media myth. Why didn't the media point out that the Unfit for Command people were a bunch of scumbag liars, and instead reported non-stop on their allegations,  if the media was so damn liberal? Huh? You lose.

That's funny.  Both Fox and CNN both covered the inconsistancies in their statements.  hehehe . . . care to try again?

[MODU]

Here's another study: http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/debateeffect/positive%20versus%20negative.asp

I'm sorry, people who think Boxer is a moderate are completely unqualified to identify "bias" in the media.

Even though you and I are of different parties, I've gotta agree with you there.  I can't argue with this guy.  He's stuck in the '60s, living the Great Society fantasy.

Don't you see that the "moderate" Democrats have no spine and don't stand for anything?

Clinton was spineless?  Well, he did marry Killary, so that might be true.  hahaha

[MODU]

Hey, I don't have a problem with her economic views.  I'm trying to convince jfern (in vain it seems) that moderates are not bland people.

These moderates often chase a "center" that is constantly moving rightwards (as the Republicans move right). This has given them the perception as being spineless, unprincipled politicians. The better thing to do would be to hold their ground and show more backbone. You don't see Republicans ever chasing the center, they consistently move further rightward. Moving rightward with them is not a good idea.

True, but there is a real center which gets ignored by the DNC.  It's either liberal or populist, and not "center."  And those of us in the center get turned off by partisan rhetoric and tune out of the political process.  If the party spent less time trying to give in to every little group wanting a handout and spent more time trying to listen to us in the center, you'd see the pendulum swing back to the left.  This is what the Republicans have done, and are being successful at it.

[MODU]

If the party spent less time trying to give in to every little group wanting a handout and spent more time trying to listen to us in the center, you'd see the pendulum swing back to the left.  This is what the Republicans have done, and are being successful at it.

Just curious, how have Republicans listened to people in the center?

Less taxes, more security, trying to make progress towards resolving Social Security, large funding for alternative energy, etc.

[MODU]

Less taxes

Scraps for the middle class and huge cuts for the wealthy, leading to largest deficit in history and financial crisis in state governments (where many states have had to increase taxes as a result)

Not tax cuts, I said less taxes.  I pay less in local and federal taxes, though I pay more in state taxes, and that's only after Warner hijacked the assembly and made the pass a tax increase that wasn't necessary.[qute]

more security

Debateable. The war has helped to recruit thousands of new terrorists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, it is debatable, but that doesn't mean I don't feel more safe now that we have stepped up security.  A perfect example is a guy being arrested in Oklahoma this week for trying to carry an IED aboard a plane.  Would that have been caught without the increase in national security?  Possibly, but I doubt it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you mean dismantle Social Security.
[/quote]

No, I mean resolving it.  Instead of trying to push it off or put a bandaid on it, we are now finally taking a serious look at it's purpose and how to make it worth while.  Personally, I won't need Social Security, so I wish they would put in a provision to allow people to opt out.  Also, the private accounts were voluntary, and the proposal limited it to 3% (something that is often forgotten in the debate), so it won't have dismantled the program.  What is required is changes to make it a need-based system, rather than an automatic entitlement plan.  Just like paying for insurance, you don't get money back if you don't have an accident.  The same should be with Social Security.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What types of alternative energy? The energy bill was mainly a way to give away billions to large oil companies and did nothing to help decrease demand.
[/quote]

Yet, it also set aside funding for continuing research into alternative energy.  Also, the $388Bill funding bill for hydrogen research was signed years ago which was separate from the recent energy bill.

[MODU]

1972 wasn't so bad

I beg to differ:

YEAH!  I don't see any green counties on that map.  It was a terrible election.  hehehe

[MODU]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

[MODU]

I think Kerry was on the moderate side of the issue by not wanting to take away people's valid marriage licenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately, that's not the moderate view.  The moderate view is unions, not marriage.  The liberal view is marriage and the conservative view is no unions or marriage.

Kerry said he was opposed to gay marriage, however he said it should be up to the states, and so opposed that Constitutional amendment to revoke marriage licenses. A plurality oppose the amendment. Yet again you're asking the Democrat to choose the right-wing losing position. What a bunch of bullsh**t. Us Democrats will take the winning liberal positions over the losing conservative positions. You don't like that? Then go screw yourself.

And a majority oppose gay marriage in general.  I can play that game too, little man.  And it's funny how you think I'm asking you to chose the conservative position, when you are telling me I can screw myself if I don't chose yours.  Kinda self-rightous of you, don't ya think?  Funny how your winning liberal position is losing in Democratic states.  Maybe you should stop and think that just because you favor something doesn't mean it's the "winning" position.

[MODU]

I'm against gay marriage, but for civil unions.  CarlHayden is right in that this is the position favored my several other Americans.  It is yet another position that Dems should adopt in the near future. 

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

[MODU]

Careful, there.  I think jfern is about to insult us on how this is an unwinnable strategy and how we're "spineless moderates."

hehehe . . . well, I've been called worse.

[MODU]

Go for, and win the civil union battle.  Then, once that is resolved, they can try to take on the gay marriage battle.  It's an effective, long-term strategy. 

I agree with you, but the religious wingnuts see civil unions being the same thing as marriage. Battling for civil unions would be just as hard as gay marriage.

hahaha . . . yes, that is true.  Of course, you'd also have to get by some of us moderates who agree with that view too.  But, I think it would be an easier sell across the country that trying to leap right into gay marriage.  You've seen the side effects of these mayors and judges who have tried to make it legal on their own.  Now you have states across the country voting and passing laws to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[MODU]

Kerry said he was against gay marriage, fool.

We know Kerry speaks from both sides of his mouth.  Most politicians do.  While Kerry was saying he was against gay marriage, he was backing the politicians and their efforts to make gay marriage legal.  It's the ol' Potomac two-step son.  But, you can keep repeating yourself if it makes you feel better.

[MODU]

Hint, does the Republican party win by moving to the center? Time for you to learn some lessons from them.

Hmmmm . . . that's still flawed.  You need to look more closely as to why they won.  Most of the challengers the Republicans faced were further away from the center than they were or failed to meet the needs of the voting population.  I would think that if you want to increase the number of Democratic politicians in office, you would want to move where the voters are, win their votes, get your party people in office, and then work back towards the left, rather than jump to the left, expect the voters to follow you, and then complain about being the minority party when the Republicans win again.

[MODU]

Hint, does the Republican party win by moving to the center? Time for you to learn some lessons from them.

Hmmmm . . . that's still flawed.  You need to look more closely as to why they won.  Most of the challengers the Republicans faced were further away from the center than they were or failed to meet the needs of the voting population.  I would think that if you want to increase the number of Democratic politicians in office, you would want to move where the voters are, win their votes, get your party people in office, and then work back towards the left, rather than jump to the left, expect the voters to follow you, and then complain about being the minority party when the Republicans win again.

I've stopped paying attention to him, MODU.  Let him live his dream.

hehehe . . . though I have tried in the past, I can't seem to give up hope on him. 

[MODU]

Most of the issues are on the side of the Democrats. Increasing minimum wage has 86-12 support. Kerry was actually on the losing side of the socialized medicine issue, by opposing it. Basically the Democratic party is center on most issues, left of center on a few issues, right of center on a few issues. In contrast, the Republican party doesn't seem too concerned about polls when they choose the 12% side.

That's because the 12% know that increasing the minimum wage will hurt the economy, which is why the people do not vote directly in the government.