How long will it take for the Democrats to recover?

[Kodratos]

Okay, Bush won a clean, clear victory. It's undisputable. There is no plausible way he can lose Ohio. I have believed for some time that whichever party lost this election would be completely ravaged.

The GOP has built thier entire platform around George W. Bush. If he had lost the election the only core left would be the christian-right. But he has won and it looks like things will probably return to normal in the Republican Party. Bush doesn't have to jump through hoops for the radical-evangelicals anymore. I don't think the party was seriously damaged by the redneckization of the GOP since 9/11, but it will definately leave a bruise. We can't continue with that direction, but we certainly shouldn't moderate ourselves and move to the Arnold/Giuliani wing. That wouldn't be good for the party for several reasons. That would split the party wide open. We should pursue center-conservative policies in line with people like Bill Owens, Tim Pawlenty, John McCain, etc. In other words I think we need to become a party of the west, not of the south as we are at the moment.

The Democrats built thier entire platform as an opposition to George W. Bush. Next general election they need to find an entirely new ideology. In two years at the midterms I don't think that any victories by Democrats will mean anything, unless  of course we see a 1994esque shift. The Michael Moore wing is gone. They will be there but the party won't listen to them, at least if they want to become mainstream again. It's hard to say where they will turn. Will they go to a pre-1972 Democratic party, a 1972-1992 Democratic Party, or a 1992-2000 Democratic Party? It's hard to see them going to the pre-72 party, there are just too many social-liberals out there for that to happen. So it's basically between the 72-92 Democrats and the 90's Dems. Who will become the new party leaders? Edwards and Kerry have no real shot of attaining anything of note for the rest of thier political lives. Edwards WILL NOT run in 2008. He would have been out of the senate for four years and is too liberal and too closely connected with this embarrasing period in the Democrat's history. Hillary, and I'm dead serious, could try to take the party in her direction. I think a run is possible for Hillary Clinton in 2008. I can't see her winning that, and it would put the Dems out in the cold for at least four more years. But then they would be running against an incumbent where they could try to use the same strategy they used this year.

[dazzleman]

Every time a party loses an election, people speculate about the demise of the party.

I don't think the Democratic Party is going anywhere.  I think that both parties have to make continuous adjustments in order to position themselves to win elections, and I expect both the Republicans and Democrats to do this.

Republicans need to reach out more beyond their southern base, and pick up more social moderates.  The worst setback for the GOP has been the loss of some suburban areas that used to be solidly Republican.  This has given the Democrats a lock on states like New York, California, Illinois and Connecticut, states that used to at least be swing states.

The Democrats' biggest problem in my opinion is that they have an angry base that many Americans actually fear.  That was fully in evidence this time, with people like Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, George Soros, moveon.org and those types, who project intolerance, hate and the presumption of intellectual and moral superiority over those who don't agree with their views.  This is a huge deterrent to picking up certain types of voters.  Clinton was successful in downplaying this segment of the party, but not in converting it over to a more reasonable point of view.

Since 2000, I see desperation in the behavior of liberals, and it is having the effect of pushing them further out onto the political fringe.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It all depends upon Iraq.  If Iraq is in the same mess as it is now or worse, then I expect that the Dems will retake both Houses in 2006.  If Bush can somehow bring peace and democracy to Iraq, then the GOP will be strong until at least 2010.

[opebo]

The question really is, will the Democratic party hold fast to its enlightened ideals or emulate the intolerance of the GOP in a vain attempt to win religious voters.

It think that would be a clearly pointless strategy, and for me a terrifying one because there would be no major part left that even partially defended individual freedoms.

[Gabu]

I voted until 2008.  We fielded a candidate who was, as I have admitted before, uninspiring, boring, and not a very good campaigner.  Had Clinton been our candidate, Bush would have been screwed.  I think that Kerry's loss is more a reflection of that than of any problems within the Democratic party.  As I said in another topic, this was a wartime election and Bush couldn't even break 300 electoral votes.  It was a victory, but not a landslide.

[dazzleman]

I voted until 2008.  We fielded a candidate who was, as I have admitted before, uninspiring, boring, and not a very good campaigner.  Had Clinton been our candidate, Bush would have been screwed.  I think that Kerry's loss is more a reflection of that than of any problems within the Democratic party.  As I said in another topic, this was a wartime election and Bush couldn't even break 300 electoral votes.  It was a victory, but not a landslide.

Do you mean Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton?  If you're talking about Bill Clinton, you may be right, but I think Hillary would probably have performed worse than Kerry.

Kerry performed pretty well and has nothing to be ashamed about.  Walter Mondale he's not...

[KEmperor]

Depends on if they move a bit more right between now and 2008.

[Gabu]

I voted until 2008.  We fielded a candidate who was, as I have admitted before, uninspiring, boring, and not a very good campaigner.  Had Clinton been our candidate, Bush would have been screwed.  I think that Kerry's loss is more a reflection of that than of any problems within the Democratic party.  As I said in another topic, this was a wartime election and Bush couldn't even break 300 electoral votes.  It was a victory, but not a landslide.

Do you mean Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton?  If you're talking about Bill Clinton, you may be right, but I think Hillary would probably have performed worse than Kerry.

Kerry performed pretty well and has nothing to be ashamed about.  Walter Mondale he's not...

Er, yeah, I meant Bill Clinton.  I forgot that there was another Clinton.

[dazzleman]

I voted until 2008.  We fielded a candidate who was, as I have admitted before, uninspiring, boring, and not a very good campaigner.  Had Clinton been our candidate, Bush would have been screwed.  I think that Kerry's loss is more a reflection of that than of any problems within the Democratic party.  As I said in another topic, this was a wartime election and Bush couldn't even break 300 electoral votes.  It was a victory, but not a landslide.

Do you mean Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton?  If you're talking about Bill Clinton, you may be right, but I think Hillary would probably have performed worse than Kerry.

Kerry performed pretty well and has nothing to be ashamed about.  Walter Mondale he's not...

Er, yeah, I meant Bill Clinton.  I forgot that there was another Clinton.

I wish I could forget about the commandante.  I guess you're not a particular fan of Hillary?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends on if they move a bit more right between now and 2008.

If the Democrats only try to be kinder, gentler Republicans, they'll never win power for long.  Why vote for an imitation when you can have the real thing.  They also can't be simply anti-Republicans either.  The Democrats need to develop a  reasonably coherent idea of what they stand for no matter where they run.  They don't have that at the moment.

[Kodratos]

Depends on if they move a bit more right between now and 2008.

If the Democrats only try to be kinder, gentler Republicans, they'll never win power for long.

They did win power in 92 and 96 by doing exactly that.

[Democratic Hawk]

It depends on who becomes the Democratic Party's standard-bearer in 2008. If they have any sense they'll go for a moderate with proven bi-partisan appeal like Evan Bayh of Indiana, who has held both executive and legislative office. Of course, it depends as to whether such Democratic moderates have presidential aspirations.

The way the gravitas has shifted in US politics to the right, I doubt any liberal can win the Presidency. Only a moderate stands any realistic chance for the Democrats, especially if the Republicans select a strong candidate come 2008. However, Bush's second term may be a calamity and this could serve the Democrats well in 2008.

Dave

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Kodratos, Clinton won in 1992 and in 1996, but I would hardly say that the Democrats did.  The last big swing in party power was in 1994 and was caused in part because Clinton and the Democrats misinterpreted his personal victory in 1992 as a party triumph, which it wasn't.

[MarkDel]

It depends on who becomes the Democratic Party's standard-bearer in 2008. If they have any sense they'll go for a moderate with proven bi-partisan appeal like Evan Bayh of Indiana, who has held both executive and legislative office. Of course, it depends as to whether such Democratic moderates have presidential aspirations.

The way the gravitas has shifted in US politics to the right, I doubt any liberal can win the Presidency. Only a moderate stands any realistic chance for the Democrats, especially if the Republicans select a strong candidate come 2008. However, Bush's second term may be a calamity and this could serve the Democrats well in 2008.

Dave

By 2008, Evan Bayh may be the REPUBLICAN nominee for the Presidency...LOL

The way things are going, moderately conservative Dems like Bayh have little or no place in their party. The left wing of the Dems are now saying that the reason they lost is that Kerry was TOO CONSERVATIVE and they did not fight hard enough.

Maybe we can engineer a trade, we'll give you Lincoln Chafee and a left wing Republican to be named later for Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, deal?

[Nym90]

I can't speak for other liberals, but I personally feel that the party needs to become more moderate on both cultural issues and on foreign policy, but nominate a principled candidate who has a clear record on these issues. We should not run away from the liberal label, but at the same time we need to better educate Americans as to what it means to be a liberal. Being a liberal means, at its core, trusting people, and believing that if given an equal and fair opportunity to succeed, the vast majority of Americans will take advantage of it and make this nation stronger and more prosperous. We believe in equality of economic opportunity for all, and tolerance socially for people with differing views. We believe that America is stronger when we give opportunites to all rather than being beholden to the interests of big business, and allow people to pursue their lives as they see fit as long as they are not causing harm to others. Those values are fundamentally American values: we are the land of opportunity, and a country that believes in social freedom. We've done a horrible job as liberals of stopping conservatives from distorting, twisting, and perverting what liberalism really means.

What we need is someone who can adequately explain what liberalism REALLY is, not the ridiculous caricature of us that conservatives have successfully portrayed.

We need to become more tolerant and accepting of those with conservative social values, and we need to be willing to compromise our stances somewhat on these issues; while we may differ on some fundamental ideas, we have to be willing to meet people half way on these, and not treat social conservatives with disdain.

On foreign policy, we must maintain a strong posture against terrorism, while still explaining that it makes more sense to consider ALL costs of action first before acting unilaterally. We must change the perception of us as being weak on defense; we are not, but we believe in trying to build coalitions so that American taxpayers don't have to bear the full burden of actions that will benefit the entire world.

[dazzleman]

I can't speak for other liberals, but I personally feel that the party needs to become more moderate on both cultural issues and on foreign policy, but nominate a principled candidate who has a clear record on these issues. We should not run away from the liberal label, but at the same time we need to better educate Americans as to what it means to be a liberal. Being a liberal means, at its core, trusting people, and believing that if given an equal and fair opportunity to succeed, the vast majority of Americans will take advantage of it and make this nation stronger and more prosperous. We believe in equality of economic opportunity for all, and tolerance socially for people with differing views. We believe that America is stronger when we give opportunites to all rather than being beholden to the interests of big business, and allow people to pursue their lives as they see fit as long as they are not causing harm to others. Those values are fundamentally American values: we are the land of opportunity, and a country that believes in social freedom. We've done a horrible job as liberals of stopping conservatives from distorting, twisting, and perverting what liberalism really means.

What we need is someone who can adequately explain what liberalism REALLY is, not the ridiculous caricature of us that conservatives have successfully portrayed.

We need to become more tolerant and accepting of those with conservative social values, and we need to be willing to compromise our stances somewhat on these issues; while we may differ on some fundamental ideas, we have to be willing to meet people half way on these, and not treat social conservatives with disdain.

On foreign policy, we must maintain a strong posture against terrorism, while still explaining that it makes more sense to consider ALL costs of action first before acting unilaterally. We must change the perception of us as being weak on defense; we are not, but we believe in trying to build coalitions so that American taxpayers don't have to bear the full burden of actions that will benefit the entire world.

I agree with a lot of what you said.

You should realize that liberals have aided conservatives in caricaturing them.

In New York State, the Medicaid program used to pay for fertilitity treatments for unmarried women on welfare.  That is one of the most absurd things I have heard, that taxpayers who are already bearing the burden of supporting a non-working person should pay for expensive fertility treatments for a woman to have a baby that she can't support and is not in a position to raise properly. 

Liberal New York City lawmakers blocked badly needed parole reform at the state level for many years, meaning that many vicious criminals were released back onto the streets to do more harm.

It took a strong push from a newly elected Republican governor to end these dreadful abuses.

[Beet]

Once again a fantastic post from Nym90. I really feel like you should enter politics someday.

One thing, the fact that Kerry was able to get 55+ million votes and held onto his entire base throughout the entire campaign except for September, despite being a wishy-washy candidate who kept talking about a "plan" but never revealed what it was, agreed with Bush on the war, and whose biggest asset was that he "wasn't Bush", is just a huge testament to the number of people out there who feel that something has gone awry, but have no way to express what that is. This also explains the initially huge response to Howard Dean's reactionary candidacy. Yes, so the so-called "Progressive" ran as a downright reactionary, on everything from taxes to Iraq. His ENTIRE appeal was anger, yet he got more support than any other candidate until people realized he wasn't "electable". To me that says there is a SERIOUS deficit of leadership in the party. The fact that Dean is now being discussed by some for the chair of the DNC would be a joke if it wasn't so frightening.

Dazzleman's point about people like Michael Moore, and Jesse Jackson and what they represent, being part of the problem is a great point.

On the other hand, this is a vast country of 290 million people. One of the conservative favorite strategies in trying to paint us liberals falsely is to single in on the one most egregious possible act committed by a "liberal" in the nation, an act that at least 95% of the American people would not agree with. Then they play that example over and over again, suggesting "look, this is your typical liberal. This is what liberals want to do." There are gazillions of examples of this.

For example, conservatives love to make fun of the school district in Washington that cancelled Halloween celebrations because it would "offend real witches." I'm not sure how many of you heard this story, but it was on Fox, it was on Dennis Miller, it was on the blogs. Not to mention that the real reason for cancelling the Halloween celebration was that it would get in the way of classes, that some students would feel left out, etc. etc. Only after the decision had been made was the statement about offending witches added in as an afterthought. However, That was just a minor little detail. And not to mention that there are 1,000's, if not tens of thousands, of elementary schools in the nation, this was just one school. And not to mention that schools in Georgia now ban any debate over abortion, even when political debates are sponsored by the school, because it is considered "sex education." No... let's focus in one this one school in Washington state, and try to paint this as some giant trend in the nation, that Halloween is now a holiday under siege, that might just disappear if liberals won power. That, and the bible being banned.

Conservatives do this over and over... in a country of 290 million people, some pretty strange things will inevitably happen frequently enough for the news. Cons love to seize on the most extreme, unrepresentative examples, then distort those stories, then try and paint it as an example of the "typical" liberal folly. Then they win elections and pass real legislation that is much farther to the right than most public opinion.

[Democratic Hawk]

It depends on who becomes the Democratic Party's standard-bearer in 2008. If they have any sense they'll go for a moderate with proven bi-partisan appeal like Evan Bayh of Indiana, who has held both executive and legislative office. Of course, it depends as to whether such Democratic moderates have presidential aspirations.

The way the gravitas has shifted in US politics to the right, I doubt any liberal can win the Presidency. Only a moderate stands any realistic chance for the Democrats, especially if the Republicans select a strong candidate come 2008. However, Bush's second term may be a calamity and this could serve the Democrats well in 2008.

Dave

By 2008, Evan Bayh may be the REPUBLICAN nominee for the Presidency...LOL

The way things are going, moderately conservative Dems like Bayh have little or no place in their party. The left wing of the Dems are now saying that the reason they lost is that Kerry was TOO CONSERVATIVE and they did not fight hard enough.

Maybe we can engineer a trade, we'll give you Lincoln Chafee and a left wing Republican to be named later for Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman, deal?

I wouldn't trade Bayh or Lieberman for any Republican

Dave

[A18]

Recover from what?

[© tweed]

Recover from what?

Perpetual losing of elections in mass amounts. 

[opebo]

Recover from what?

Perpetual losing of elections in mass amounts. 

'By small margins' is the accurate observation, not 'mass amounts'.

[© tweed]

Recover from what?

Perpetual losing of elections in mass amounts. 

'By small margins' is the accurate observation, not 'mass amounts'.

By 'mass amounts' I don't necessarily mean the margin of defeat, but rather the amount of elections lost in a relatively short period of time.

[dazzleman]

The political alignment has definitely changed from the 1980s.

Then, Republicans won landslide elections across the board, while Democrats at all times controlled at least one house of Congress, and by a good margin.

Now it seems that Democrats are losing, relatively narrowly, across the board.

Republicans have great vulnerabilities, and surely do not hold an insuperable lead over Democrats.  I certainly would not say that we've entered a period of Republican dominance, similar to the period after the New Deal.

The Democrats need a more positive message.  It seems to me that the Democrats may need to shed some of their base, in an attempt to pick up a much larger number of moderate voters.  The Democrats' base is radioactive, and scares off more voters than it provides.  That is their central problem.