Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[Democratic Hawk]

Lets just say, I'm with Al and Virginia87 on this one. Democrats, like myself, who are actually interested in seeing the party win again. A bit of common sense and pragmatism can go a long way towards attaining our goals and values - or, at least, keeping those of our opponents well and truly in check

I've talked at length about the Democratic Party and its future, and its past mistakes, many times - till I'm, literally, blue in the face and, frankly, when it comes to our left-liberal colleagues I feel like I'm p*ssing in the wind. In fact, sometimes, I think it might be easier were I attempting to move the GOP from the clutches of the Religious Right and that's saying something!

It makes my blood boil when moderate Democrats apply their common sense, and face facts, only to be derided as Republican-lites or DINOs. When are liberals going to get it into their thick heads that they are a very much a cultural minority across swathes of America and are, thus, always going to struggle against Republicans in small town and rural America

As long as the Democratic Party continues to lose ground by selecting inappropriate candidates to challenge the GOP in congressional elections, for example, you don't select a liberal Democrat to run against a conservative Republican in a marginal conservative district), I don't see the party heading in an ascendant direction, any time soon

The Democratic Party needs to big-up economic issues and moderate its social liberalism - because the latter simply doesn't wash in 'mainstream' America, where they need are going to have to compete with the GOP before they can even start making electoral progress. Furthermore, demographic (especially, geographical) trends are not exactly moving in the party's favour

Liberal Democrats need to realise that common sense, pragmatic, moderate/centrist Democrats are surely preferable to conservative Republicans, in hock to the Religious Right

Democratic leaders ought to be of the 'heartland' ilk rather than the peripheral (i.e. people who have a proven record of reaching out across party lines and the ideological spectrum). Is that so difficult to understand?

Hell, the national party is so out of touch with the South, I’m beginning to think that even Robert E Lee would struggle, while Sherman would coast home

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Time to tell the "moderates" to go  themselves, and run a liberal, so we can tap into that 61%.

Once again you're making exactly the same mistake the Anti War Left made over Vietnam

Never a truer statement said, Al

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

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?

No, they just don't stand for what you stand for Jfern. I'd be very much a moderate Democrat and I've have supported the war in Iraq; however, like some leading moderates, I'd have certainly criticised Bush and his administration for errors made in the planning of, execution of, and aftermath of, which is why Evan Bayh didn't vote to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State

Moderate Democrats, unlike those on the liberal-left, has learnt from past mistakes. I, surely, don't need to remind you that the GOP has won 7 of the last 10 presidential elections; and much is down to the fact that the Democratic Party is perceived as being weak on national security and defence

I'm sorry but the party of Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson has allowed the Republicans to sieze the inititiative on foreign policy and, in doing so, has allowed Republican presidents to realise their vision. The Republicans once upon a time never had one, it was the Democrats who were the more ardent players in international policy - not any more and it has cost the party dear at the polls. I'm certainly not proposing that Democrats becoming ideological neo-cons, but for Heaven's we can at least be pragmatic realists

So, if moderate Democrats are, as you say, 'spineless' please explain where I, and other moderate Forum  Democrats fit in? You know, those of us, who actually want to see the party back as the driving force in US politics

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Al, Dave, and I have repeated the same thing to him at least eight times over the last six pages.  What do you have to do to get through to this guy?

Yeah, jfern, let's build a bridge to nowhere.  That argument, and the one about the 1972 presidential election being a good thing, made completely no sense.

Only you know, only Jfern could say that 1972 wasn't too bad. It was an unmitigated disaster as Al's map (courtesy of Dave) shows. It was dreadful. The anti-Vietnam War brigade didn't have do the Democrats some good

Yes, the Democrats did control the Senate and the House but the Democratic Party was not a homogenous unit. Many of those senators and representatives were, as Al correctly points out, were 'Boll Weevils' (conservative southern Democrats who frequently aligned themselves with conservative Republicans on rollcall votes, especially on social issues). That said, I dare say there were significantly more 'Gipsy Moths' back then too, which would have partially offset that - but what has happened since? Liberal Republicans are fewer in number and as the 'Boll Weevils' have retired their hitherto safe Democratic districts has either seen them be replaced by conservative Republicans or restructured, with demographic trends working against the Democratic Party. So from your point of view, Jfern, that was probably a good thing!

In 1972, Democrats handily outnumbered Republicans among the electorate at large; while, today, they are more or less level pegging at around 37%

In 2004, five Southern Democrats retired from the US Senate. Only John Edwards of North Carolina was in trouble. John Breaux, Bob Graham and Fritz Hollings would have almost certainly been re-elected; while in Georgia, Zell Miller would have been challenged in the Democratic primary but would have won re-election had it been his wish with the GOP maybe giving him a clear run

As thing stands, the number of conservative Democrats from the South in the House sit at around 8. If the Democratic Party are to retake the House, then they are going to have to field moderate conservative, or at least, centrist candidates to even compete with the GOP. The great strength of the Democratic Party was its diversity but now its liberal, with moderates and populists seeming to be a diminishing number. 28 Democratic Senators are liberal, 12 are populists, 2 are centrists with Ben Nelson of  Nebraska been possibly the only one who could be described as conservative. That said the GOP senators are possibly even less diverse (49 of them being conservative). The liberal-conservative polarisation is always going to benefit the GOP

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

1972 wasn't so bad

I beg to differ:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh please... the Democrats only held both due to the fact that rather a lot of incumbents distanced themselves from McGovern (quite a few even endorsed Nixon).
Voting for a Dixiecrat is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern. Voting for an Appalachian populist is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern. Voting for an old fashioned New Deal blue collar liberal is not the same as voting for someone like McGovern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More Americans died in Vietnam under Nixon's leadership than LBJ's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You make some very good points Al - but on Jfern's last one, I'm minded to agree that comparing Bush with Nixon is an insult to Nixon. I could have voted for Nixon but not Bush

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Jfern,

Yes, I support the war. Saddam had to go. I look at it this way. We either remove him or Islamic radicals would remove him (it was only a matter of time). Saddam used biological and chemical warfare in the past and, obviously, had the technology. What if al-Qaeda et al ever got their hands on those things. I can see the carnage now on the streets of London, NY and LA and it's not a pretty sight

True, things haven't as yet worked out as well as I would have liked it but in the long-run I'm optimistic. Spreading democracy is the way forward. It is a fact that democracies are less likely wage war and hence not to be a threat to international security

The poll numbers you quote don't mean a thing - unless you are expecting the anti-war majority to embrace some liberal-dove of a Democratic candidate in 2008 - as they did McGovern in 1972. The Democratic Party didn't half do well there! Just because folk disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, it doesn't follow that they'd necessarily vote Democrat in 2006 or 2008

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

As I said, public disapproval of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean that those voters are going to necessarily flock to the Democrats in 2006 or 2008. Iraq is not the only issue

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

"Hot-button" social issues will be nowhere near as important in 2008 as they were in 2004. These issues have already peaked. People are starting to care about real issues that affect everyday life and not social issues that are purely used to distract voters.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Rove is certain to have some hot button social issue on state ballots come 2008 to galvanise the GOP base. I only hope this time the American electorate aren't suckers

To the 26 of the 28 poorest states, who voted for Bush in 2004.  Vote conservative on state ballot social issues if you must - but don't vote against your own economic interests

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

What makes you think that the very same issues that have helped Republicans gain such power as they now have will not continue to be emphasised to ensure their hold on power, especially as long as Democrats continue to give the perception that they are in the thrall of their far left single-issue advocacy groups?  Have you even read the article and the study that I provided the link to at the beginning of this thread?  It doesn't matter, Scoonie, how much we try to emphasise aspects of our platform to appeal to populist Americans -as long as we don't address their concerns regarding our stances on social issues, they will continue to vote Republican as they nearly always have since Reagan first won the presidency.  

I agree, Frodo. While, I'll complement Scoonie on his economic populism what he needs to realise is that economic populism alone is a hard sell, especially in the South and increasingly in the Midwest, where social issues tend to be at the forefront of many voters' concerns. Hell, if we're going to be populists (preferably moderate) than the Democratic Party has got to be exactly that, which would mean trending populist on social issues as well as economic

When 26 of the 28 states with the lowest average personal income voted Republican in 2004, something is wrong. Look at what's happening: 32% of Oklahoma Democrats, 30% of West Virginian Democrats, 28% of Kentucky Democrats and 21% of Louisiana Democrats voted Republican in 2004. I don't think I need spell it out any further. The GOP manages to keep its fundamentalist and libertarian wings together (I don't know how) but the Democrats, they are having great difficulty in retaining its traditional blue-collar base and are struggling throughout most of rural America

Once when I described that the Democratic Party had become confined to the periphery of America (i.e. the Northeast, upper Midwest and Pacific Coast), I was accused of disrespecting the base of the Democratic Party. In hindsight, I don't think I went far enough in my description because even there, generally-speaking, the party''s confined most notably to urban counties

The Democratic Party is a shadow of its former self and I'm in agreement with you that much of this is down to its left-wing single advocacy groups, who seem to hijack the party's agenda and in doing so give the perception that they are the Democratic Party

Being opposed to abortion (as a matter of choice), being opposed to gay marriage, being pro-Second Amendment ... etc, are not extreme right wing positions - and Democrats, who hold those positions deserve better than being smeared as DINOs, Republican-lites or Republocrats

When I think have what's happened to the Democratic Party from the late 1960s onwards, it makes my blood boil but, one day, when I visit the White House, I'll look fondly upon the portraits of Presidents McGovern, Mondale and Dukasis and recall what their administrations did for the American people

The simple fact of the matter is if you don't win, then you don't govern, which means you can't do anything and if the GOP gain any ground in 2006, then the Democratic Party might as well throw in the towel

Rant over

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

The GOP manages to keep its fundamentalist and libertarian wings together (I don't know how)

then you're as clueless as the Democrats are.  Red's a good color for you.

still, it's a nice rant.  I like to read such visceral posts.  Like to make 'em too. 

It was a rather tongue-in-cheek comment on my part that one. Still, something of political conundrum on social issues anyway

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

[troll]I forgot how many times I have said this and how many different boards I have said this on, but if the elitist Northern/Pacific Democrats want to keep ignoring what Southern/Midwestern Democrats want, then that's their problem. Just stop complaining about losing elections and losing voters already. If you can't stand being called "loony left" then quit acting like these people are either way too socially conservative or ignorant fools who worship religious-right crazies. Obviously you elitist Northern/Pacific Democrats aren't going accept that Democrats from other areas don't like your "loony left" beliefs though. Wanting the party to become more moderate doesn't equal wanting to pander to the religious right, so I don't get this hyper-partisan conspiracy nightmarish BS about the Democratic populists here wanting to kill the party, turn it into Republican-lite, blah blah blah.

Boxer is a bitch, too.[/troll]

Never mind, I won't write more because I have to go to work now, and I will get the usual "You're an extremist!!!!" BS from jferniebaby who never got it into his thick Bezerkley skull that I am merely using my PC score here for Atlasia purposes only and not for real-life (in real-life I am still an Independent), the usual "Boxer isn't bad!!! you are stupid!!!!" from whoever else, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

There's this one inconvient fact to your stupid argument, Gore and Kerry won most of the electoral votes in the midwest.

Very true, but where is safe with the exception of Illinois. Clinton won the whole lot bar Indiana

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

When 26 of the 28 states with the lowest average personal income voted Republican in 2004, something is wrong. Look at what's happening: 32% of Oklahoma Democrats, 30% of West Virginian Democrats, 28% of Kentucky Democrats and 21% of Louisiana Democrats voted Republican in 2004. I don't think I need spell it out any further. The GOP manages to keep its fundamentalist and libertarian wings together (I don't know how) but the Democrats, they are having great difficulty in retaining its traditional blue-collar base and are struggling throughout most of rural America

The south has a lot of DINOs. Usually only Nader supporters make a big deal about that.

To get that them off the hook, I guess

Dave