Culture Gap Could Keep Democrats From Gaining Seats in 2006

[A18]

Health care is a state issue, constitutionally.

Pew didn't specify how much in taxes.

[WMS]

Twenty-four pages in and thou art there; on minds they feast in this thread's lair.

Sorry, just making an extremely obscure reference displaying my amusement with where this originally salient topic has gone.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Uh, 65% of Americans oppose a government take over of health care, according to Gallup.

Here's the far more reputable Pew poll.

Sorry, but PEW doesn't do its own polls, and while some are pretty good, some are pretty bad.

Tell me who did the poll for PEW.

From the looks of it, its one of the PA frauds.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Uh, 65% of Americans oppose a government take over of health care, according to Gallup.

Here's the far more reputable Pew poll.

Sorry, but PEW doesn't do its own polls, and while some are pretty good, some are pretty bad.

Tell me who did the poll for PEW.

From the looks of it, its one of the PA frauds.

Sample of 2000 from  Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

It seems reasonable. There were some issues that were spectatularly bad for liberals, like 10 commandments, creationism, and limiting malpractice lawsuits.

[Sam Spade]

Princeton Research Survey Associates International also does all the polls for Newsweek, as well as Pew.

[Frodo]

define "loony left". I don't think it's loony to oppose fiddling with the Constitution over crap like gay marriage or the agenda of people like Robertson and Falwell.

'Loony left' comprises such advocacy groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, as well as PETA, among others -at least in the eyes of economically populist Americans whom we would do well to bring back into the fold of the Democratic Party. 

The vast majority of the American people are in favor of some measure of restrictions on the availability of abortion, and most certainly do not react kindly to the presumptuousnes of the judicial branch in seeking to decide such social hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage when they are best left to the state legislatures to decide rather than unelected judges and justices. 

It only makes sense for the Democratic Party to moderate its stances on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, and other issues to better accomodate populists if it wants to have them vote not on such social hot-button issues but on economics. 

Do not mistake moderation for shifting from the far left to the far right.   

[TheresNoMoney]

'Loony left' comprises such advocacy groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood

Oh god. You and your labels.

Planned Parenthood was helped many thousands of girls over the years. They do a very good service.

[Frodo]

'Loony left' comprises such advocacy groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood

Oh god. You and your labels.

Planned Parenthood was helped many thousands of girls over the years. They do a very good service.

Read the rest of my first paragraph. 

[TheresNoMoney]

"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.

"Abortion on demand" is a myth cooked up by the right-wing machine and their media allies.

[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

[Frodo]

"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.

Says who?  What makes you think that people living in swing states like Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylania, Wisconsin, or elsewhere will not have their vote impacted by Republican efforts to emphasise such issues through referendums and initiatives (as happened in 2004)?  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. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you read through the NARAL website, you will see that they do not favor any restrictions whatsoever on the accessibility to abortion, a view completely at odds with the vast majority of the American people.  If Democrats continue to be perceived as being more on the side of NARAL rather than with most Americans on this issue, do not be surprised if we lose yet another presidential election. 

[Everett]

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

[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

Where do I live again?

[Everett]

[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

Where do I live again?

I presume that you represent most Southerners and Midwesterners? Stop your narcissistic delusions that you represent a whole population and that your personal experiences represent the majority of actual happenings (id est, your brilliant ideas on drinking).

[ATFFL]

[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

Where do I live again?

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Minnesota, a.k.a. Fantasyland.  Where all communists are hot strippers and they don't kill innocent civillians, they give them free lapdances.

[phk]

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois all voted for Kerry, with Kerry losing Iowa and Ohio narrowly. Although losing Indiana quite big.

Its simply the South vs the entire country now.

[angus]

For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap

By Dan Balz
Wednesday, August 10, 2005; Page A08

Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party's failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.

Democrats have expressed bewilderment over Republican gains among lower-income, less-educated voters, saying they are voting against their economic self-interest by supporting Republican candidates. But the new Democracy Corps study concludes that cultural issues trump economic issues by a wide margin for many of these voters -- giving the GOP a significant electoral advantage.

 The study is based on focus groups of rural voters in Wisconsin and Arkansas and disaffected supporters of President Bush in Colorado and Kentucky. The good news for Democrats: All the groups expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the country and with the leadership of the president and the GOP-controlled Congress.

Then came the bad news: "As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes -- specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life -- quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level," the study said.

Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. "Most referred to Democrats as 'liberal' on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them 'immoral,' 'morally bankrupt,' or even 'anti-religious,' " according to the Democracy Corps analysis.

Democrats Karl Agne and Stan Greenberg, who conducted the focus group, said Democrats need a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap. At this point, Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans. "No matter how disaffected they are over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home," they said, "a large chunk of white, non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level."

source

And here's the study itself, in PDF format:

THE CULTURAL DIVIDE &
THE CHALLENGE OF WINNING BACK RURAL & RED STATE VOTERS

you really buy this horsesh**t?  heard it on tv.  read it in the paper.  so it must be true.  turn the tube off and think for yourself, man. 

The complications resulting from an overextended empire, the need to circle the wagons and resort to abject nationalism, terrorism and its attendant paranoia, and the general cluelessness, ignorance, and narrow-mindedness of the opposition party is what will guarantee GOP successes for the foreseeable future.  Nobody plays Wrapping oneself up in God and The Flag like the Republicans.  They've been doing this since their first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856 and have been perfecting it since.   The GOP has a lock on nationalism, so don't even try to best them at that.  And come off this "kulturkampf" garbage.  It's Nixon's (very successful) way of taking our minds off important stuff and making the Democrats look petty.  (like they need any help!)  Want a viable opposition party?  Find a charming personality, like you did in 1992, and change the debate to money matters, convince the voters that the GOP is frivolously wasting our nation's treasure (surely that can't be difficult), have the balls to say you're tired of Empire and want to return to The Republic, and you might have a shot.   Waste all your time calculating this geopolitic garbage (well, we need this social issue to win the Upper Midwest, that social issue to win the South, the other social issue to win the Intermontane West, etc.) and you'll continue to lose.

[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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[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.

[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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[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

[AuH2O]

The idea the GOP is factionalized is one of the most hilarious fictions that's made its way into many people's sense of the conventional wisdom. It's so laughably wrong-- and so easily proven statistically and empirically-- that only pure delusion can lead one to that foolish conclusion.

Just to illustrate briefly:

- no mark indicates mainline Republican
- * indicates religious right
- # indicates libertarian
- M is for moderate

These can be combined, of course.


Group 1

Bob Riley-- M*
Mike Huckabee-- M*
Haley Barbour
Jeb Bush
Sonny Perdue
Ernie Fletcher
Mark Sanford-- #
Richard Perry

Group 2

Mitch Daniels
Jodi Rell-- M
Robert Ehrlich-- #
Mitt Romney
Tim Pawlenty
Matt Blunt
George Pataki-- M
Robert Taft
Don Carcieri-- M
James Douglas-- M#

Group 3
Frank H. Murkowski-- M
Arnold A. Schwarzenegger-- M
William F. Owens
Dirk A. Kempthorne-- #
Dave Heineman
Kenny C. Guinn
John Hoeven
Michael Rounds
Jon Huntsman, Jr.



The precise labels are debatable and not meant to be exact. The first group is roughly the South, the second the North and Midwest, and the third the West.

The only clear difference is there are a couple more moderates in the Northeast, and that the Southern moderates are still generally conservative on social issues.

There are also libertarian and moderate Republican Senators from deep red states, i.e. Lindsey Graham, Johnny Isakson, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Dick Lugar, Lisa Murkowski, Ted Stevens, just as Chuck Grassley, Norm Coleman, Pete Domenici, and Rick Santorum are from highly competitive states.

Voter surveys also make it clear that the GOP is quite well unified on a values basis.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Mike Huckabee-- M*

He's a moderate? Game over, you lose.