If Warner gets the nomination, what red states are in play?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Dems only need to win a big state like Florida or Ohio. However, with Warner that wont happen because he basically constitutes 2008's John Edwards.

Hey why not run them both? Maybe they can get some sort of weird regional advantage and win both their home states of VA and NC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And Feingold is an arrogant jewish version of John Kerry w/ an even more liberal voting record that will get torn to shreds.  No, wait, Russ Feingold will be the Howard Dean of 2008.  The far left will love him and jump on his bandwagon, but he will finish a dissapointing 3rd or 4th in Iowa and be forced out of the race.  All the extreme liberals will pout and cry.  Vow to stay home on general election day.  Call foul on the DLC for pushing their candidate through the primaries.  Booo HOoo Hooo.

Very true.  I'm increasingly of the opinion that Feingold is unelectable. But if he doesn't get the nomination, the far left will throw a fit and vote Green.

Democrats don't win elections by mindlessly bashing their base. People like Lieberman do the Democratic party more harm than good. Look at the Republican party. Do you see them trashing their conservative base? Do you see them talking about how they have to run a liberal? No. That's why they win.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Very true.  I'm increasingly of the opinion that Feingold is unelectable. But if he doesn't get the nomination, the far left will throw a fit and vote Green.

Democrats don't win elections by mindlessly bashing their base. People like Lieberman do the Democratic party more harm than good. Look at the Republican party. Do you see them trashing their conservative base? Do you see them talking about how they have to run a liberal? No. That's why they win.

Maybe if the Democrats did bash "their base" (you know, the "loyal" Dems who voted for Nader), then they would actually win elections. f**ck the left wingers. They should start their own little party, and let the smart Democrats handle things.

You're an idiot. By bashing the base and saying we need to move more conservative, you're basically saying that liberalism is wrong and being conservative is the way to go. Voters will then agree, and vote for the Republican over the Republican-lite.

If you want to have the Democrats keep losing elections, you can keep following this formula. If, however, you'd like to see Democrats win some elections, then you have to learn about framing. The Republicans are fairly good at framing, and moderate Democrats tend to be awful.

George Lakoff has written some good books on framing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, liberalism is wrong. It's certainly not right for winning elections.

Oh, but you say the Democrats need to move left to win. Yes, because McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry were such excellent candidates, LOL. Why don't you get the f**ck out of the party and become a Green? They're a much better fit for your type.

Kerry wasn't a liberal, and he got 59 million votes. Do you have a g point? Get the  out of the party? Wow, you really must enjoy losing.  you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, you're an idiot. "Kerry wasn't a liberal", LOL.

Legitimate rankings showed him ranking as the 20-something most liberal Senator. He voted for the Iraq war.

And you didn't address the fact that as liberal as you say he was, he still got 59 million votes. Aside from Bush 2004, no one comes even close to those numbers.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Haha, I see I've upset Birkenstock Boy. I already responded to this message, but this added part is just too good. Go cry somewhere else.

You're just an idiot who enjoys helping the Democratic party lose.  If you were at all concerned about what the Republican party is doing to America, you'd turn your guns on them, and learn about the framing of issues. As it is, you're hurting the Democratic party.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice response. I can see why you're upset, though: Being called on your idiocy must hurt. Sorry, but someone had to come out and say it.

You're the idiot if you have any problem with the right-wing Republicans running this country.

On the other hand, if you enjoy having them control the entire federal government, keep up this stupid bashing of liberals.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How hard is this to understand:

If you spend all of your time bashing liberal Democrats when right-wing Republicans run this country, you're basically supporting right-wing Republicans.

I think you don't give a sh**t that they control this country, and so you have no useful advice for the Democratic party, since we don't take advice from people who want us to lose.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats don't win elections by mindlessly bashing their base. People like Lieberman do the Democratic party more harm than good. Look at the Republican party. Do you see them trashing their conservative base? Do you see them talking about how they have to run a liberal? No. That's why they win.

Have you paid no attention to such Republicans as Linc Chafee,  Christie Todd-Whitman, Chris Sheays?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They're a dying breed. Whitman doesn't hold an elected position. Shays and Chaffee have name/incumbency advantages, and that doesn't stop them from being very vulnerable in 2006. Also, I don't see them bashing conservatives non-stop. 

Chaffee still voted for Rice, Gonzales, and the bankruptcy bill, so he's still definitely a Republican. He's not giving ammo to the anti-right-wing there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I want left wing Democrats to lose, definitely. I want sane, moderate Democrats- Warner, Bayh, Bredesen- to win. They won't get a shot at the nomination with extremists like you in the party.

People like you have ruined the Democratic Party. So, once again: become a Green. Why deny yourself ideological purity?

Liberals actualyl like Warner. Bayh has some major strikes against him, the Iraq war, and the Bankruptcy bill. Who know's maybe he'll still end up the nominee, but those will hurt him.  I don't know much about Bredesen.

Anyways, if you think this is about how right/left a given candidate is, you're mistaken.

Dean is more conservative than Kerry and more popular with the base.
Reid is more conservative than Daschle and more popular with the base.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

George Lakoff has written some good books on framing.

I agree that framing is a big part of winning elections, but certian issues cannot be "framed" into winning issues.  Gay marriage aka "Equal Rights for All Americans"... Partial birth abortions aka "Womens reproductive rights." Gun-Controll aka "Gun Safety" etc...  People are dumb, but not that dumb.  They can see right through the bullsh**t.

If the Democrats can get back to their populist roots. They will be winning elections in no time.  Check out your buddy Brian Schweitzer.  Read up on his campaign.  He gets it.

Who ran for President who was for gay marriage ro partial birth abortions? You seem to totally be mis-understanding what I'm staying. Schweitzer is opposed to gay marriage, but opposes the anti-gay marriage constituional amendment, just like Kerry, and just like Dean.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Who ran for President who was for gay marriage ro partial birth abortions? You seem to totally be mis-understanding what I'm staying. Schweitzer is opposed to gay marriage, but opposes the anti-gay marriage constituional amendment, just like Kerry, and just like Dean.

I was using examples to explain that re-framing our issues alone is not going to magically place a Democrat in the White House as you implied earlier.  The voters will see right through the BS.

Reframing does not mean lying about ones positions. It means about marketing ones positions successfully. The Democrats often use language that helps the Republicans. You're somehow implying that Democratic ideas are unwinnable. That's bullsh**t. 60% of America supports single payer health care (too left-wing a position for Kerry or Dean).  67% support both eliminating the SS cap of 90k, and cutting SS benefits to the rich. You'll find similar support on the environment, and many other issues.

You're nuts if you think that oppsing the Iraq war and that bankruptcy bill makes you some sort of liberal extremist. Plenty of conservatives oppose both of those.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now, I'm not a Democrat, but since when was the "base" of the party those on the left end of the spectrum? The more your party panders to your "base," you lose your true base: Union workers, blue-collar workers, and other hard-working Americans. It's no coincidence Kerry lost West Virginia by double digits, and he lost Ohio.  Please, please, abandon your base. Your "base" will thank you for it, and so will I. I like winning elections.

So opposing the bankruptcy bill is pandering to your base, since the banktupcy bill can't hurt hard-working blue collar union workers? Thanks for missing the point.

Those hard working blue collar union workers are going to have to pay higher taxes in the future to pay for war in Iraq.  Maybe they even lost a son there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So opposing the bankruptcy bill is pandering to your base, since the banktupcy bill can't hurt hard-working blue collar union workers? Thanks for missing the point.

Thats a winning issue supported by most if not all democrats.  We're talking about issues that only satisfy the extreme liberal base.  Gay Marriage, Partial Birth Abortion, Gun Control, Pussy Foreign Policy, etc...

Ummm, you're totally wrong. Many Democrats including Bayh and Biden voted for the bill.

But let's humor you and talk about the issues that I was not discussing. Bob was calling me a left-wing extremist for opposing the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq war and not these issues.

Gay marriage - Dean and Kerry both opposed gay marriages, but did not support a constitutional amendment that would result in MA marriage licenses being revoked

Partial Birth Abortion - the ban made no exceptions for if the woman's life was in danger, and it's quite rarre anyways.

Gun control - Neither Dean nor Kerry called for new gun laws. They called for enforcement of existing laws. Dean has an A rating from the NRA, and Kerry has been going hunting for a long time.

Pussy Foreign Policy - Bush ignored the 8/06/01 memo. Both Dean and Kerry supported going after Al Qaeda in Afganistan. Really, any President, Dean, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, whoever, would have favored going after Al Qaeda in a war on terrorism. Dean favors taking a hard line against Saudi Arabia, which is where most of the hijackers and OBL came from. Dean and Kerry favor securing nukes in the former USSR. Kerry said he's not opposed to pre-emptive attacks if there's an actual threat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bob was calling me a left-wing extremist for opposing the bankruptcy bill and the Iraq war and not these issues.

WTF? Where did I say anything like that?

Bayh voted for both of those. Do you support any Democrats who oppose those?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You didn't answer my question. Where did I call you a left wing extremist for opposing those? Those issues were not raised at all.

If you're going to try to argue, at least do so logically.

Ok, you're right that you didn't say that. I was talking about Bayh  voting for those in a different thread, and somehow I assumed you meant that moving to the right meant being pro-Iraq war and bankruptcy bill.