Bush is a gifted politician

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

Pretty much. And it's not like it would be especially hard for the national Democrats to change that (tell the loony left where to f*** off (publically as well), moderate on social issues, tailor economic etc. positions to fit real voters... and so on and so forth).

That they haven't says something about the people running the national Democrats at the moment. Is it just me or does the following expression come to mind; "astonishingly incompetent"

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

Uh... huh...

[Joe Republic]

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

That's interesting.  I'm moderate on social issues and I oppose starting wars for no good reason.  In fact, I think most people are opposed to that.

In fact, what the hell are you talking about?

[??????????]

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

Pretty much. And it's not like it would be especially hard for the national Democrats to change that (tell the loony left where to f*** off (publically as well), moderate on social issues, tailor economic etc. positions to fit real voters... and so on and so forth).

That they haven't says something about the people running the national Democrats at the moment. Is it just me or does the following expression come to mind; "astonishingly incompetent"

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

JFern = Code for freaking hackish dumbass who thinks 940 heads and 60 Tails is statistically significant.

[Virginian87]

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

Pretty much. And it's not like it would be especially hard for the national Democrats to change that (tell the loony left where to f*** off (publically as well), moderate on social issues, tailor economic etc. positions to fit real voters... and so on and so forth).

That they haven't says something about the people running the national Democrats at the moment. Is it just me or does the following expression come to mind; "astonishingly incompetent"

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

JFern = Code for freaking hackish dumbass who thinks 940 heads and 60 Tails is statistically significant.

HAHAHAHAHA!  Exactly right.  He consistently believes that the real base of the Democratic Party is the crazy liberals of San Franicisco and Los Angeles.  Remember, to jfern, we moderates are "spineless."

As for the topic of this post, replace George W. Bush with Karl Rove and you've got it.

[© tweed]

Are you a complete DINO? It's from SUSA, a reputable polling firm, and Vorlon is not the ultimate authority on whether a polling firm is any good. You'll notice that he has a GOP bias.

....or maybe I hadn't seen SUSA's poll.  Even with them at 41%, I thin Gallup's 45% and rasmussen's 48% are closer to the truth (although Rasmussen's results never seem to vary at all, except for an anti-Bush blip a few days back).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

That's interesting.  I'm moderate on social issues and I oppose starting wars for no good reason.  In fact, I think most people are opposed to that.

In fact, what the hell are you talking about?

The comment was directed at Al, not people who who really are just moderate on social issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

Pretty much. And it's not like it would be especially hard for the national Democrats to change that (tell the loony left where to f*** off (publically as well), moderate on social issues, tailor economic etc. positions to fit real voters... and so on and so forth).

That they haven't says something about the people running the national Democrats at the moment. Is it just me or does the following expression come to mind; "astonishingly incompetent"

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

JFern = Code for freaking hackish dumbass who thinks 940 heads and 60 Tails is statistically significant.

HAHAHAHAHA!  Exactly right.  He consistently believes that the real base of the Democratic Party is the crazy liberals of San Franicisco and Los Angeles.  Remember, to jfern, we moderates are "spineless."

As for the topic of this post, replace George W. Bush with Karl Rove and you've got it.

Are you trying to sound like a complete DINO? Democrats are supposed to be reality based, and accept facts like that 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant.

Who do you think has better ideas? Democrats like Biden, Bayh, and Hillary? Or Democrats like Feingold, Dean, and Schweitzer?

Read what Feingold said, and tell me.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/22/151548/685

[© tweed]

Are you trying to sound like a complete DINO? Democrats are supposed to be reality based, and accept facts like that 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant.

So anyone who doesn't subscribe to your "every poll is accurate even when refuted by people who know 5000x as me about polls" is a complete DINO?

[Hitchabrut]

It would be interesting if Republicans had been walking around with shirts which had pictures of Clinton and said "Not My President"...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Are you trying to sound like a complete DINO? Democrats are supposed to be reality based, and accept facts like that 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant.

So anyone who doesn't subscribe to your "every poll is accurate even when refuted by people who know 5000x as me about polls" is a complete DINO?

Is that even supposed to be an argument? It failed miserably.

[© tweed]

Are you trying to sound like a complete DINO? Democrats are supposed to be reality based, and accept facts like that 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significant.

So anyone who doesn't subscribe to your "every poll is accurate even when refuted by people who know 5000x as me about polls" is a complete DINO?

Is that even supposed to be an argument? It failed miserably.

It's admittedly poorly worded.  But you are accusing everybody here of being a DINO when they refute what you say/have said.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The comment was directed at Al, not people who who really are just moderate on social issues.

Since when have I supported starting wars for no reason?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The comment was directed at Al, not people who who really are just moderate on social issues.

Since when have I supported starting wars for no reason?

Since you supported the war in Iraq. All of the reasons for starting that war are crap. Bush secretly wanted to start a war there years in advance. There's no WMD, no imminent threat. No Al Qaeda connection. The revisionists now claim it was done for human rights. Those are much worse in Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Congo, and tons of other places.

[Virginian87]

"DINO" and "RINO" are two of the dumbest and most misguided terms in politics.  There will always be many different types of people in the parties.  Socially liberal and fiscally conservative Republicans as well as socially conservative and fiscally liberal Democrats have always been around.  Not everyone in the Republican Party is a Christian fundamentalist and not every Democrat is a gay-marriage supporting, pro-choicer.  The diversity of political parties has been around since the beginning.  One cannot expect everyone in a political party to agree to a specific mindset.  

[WMS]

From this thread:

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

I would be very interested to see which Senators fit which of your categories.

OK, tag-teamed in for a moment by Al, so...

Ferny 'ol boy, you are, once again, missing the forest for the ferns.

Let's explain this with two separate models.

The simpler version: Liberal - Moderate - Conservative breakdown of the voting populace. There are significantly more conservatives than liberals - about a bit over one-third conservatives and about one-fifth liberals. Glaring fact: THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. Neither can the conservatives, but the conservatives need far fewer moderates to pull off a victory than the liberals do. The liberals, in fact, are in the weakest position of all. And yet you think keeping the Democrats as the liberal party will lead to victory. Ooooooookkkkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy, drop the crack pipe.

The more complex version: Liberal - Conservative - Libertarian - Communitarian breakdown of the voting populace. While a really good poll hasn't been done showing the population breakdown (come on, Rasmussen, get to it! ), the conservative and liberal numbers from the previous example likely hold - significantly more conservatives than liberals. Now, once again, THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. The conservatives can probably secure victory by gaining either the communitarians or the libertarians as a bloc, or by getting significant chunks, if not all, of both of those two groups (which they have in fact pulled off in the past decade or two). The liberals, because they are weaker than the conservatives, logically need more of the communitarian and/or libertarian vote to win than the conservatives do. In fact, they really, really, need to grab the entirety of one of those groups to pull off a victory. Now historically, the Democrats used to control both the liberal and communitarian vote, and even some of the conservative vote, whereas the Rockefeller Republicans controlled the libertarian vote (think bullmoose and Walter Mitty here ) and some of the conservative vote (and even some liberals I'd bet). However, around about, oh, say, 1972, the liberals seized control of the Democratic party and managed, through a truly remarkable set of atrocious policies, to alienate the communitarians and the conservatives and the libertarians. Consequently, the Republicans kicked the Democrats' butt in, by number of counties won, the worst defeat of the twentieth century.

A common conclusion of the two models: The Democrats cannot win just with the liberals, and therefore must gain votes from somewhere, either the communitarians or the libertarians {or in the first model the moderates}! The article Frodo posted - go read the PDF, why don't you, there's a lot of good information in it - is proposing to try for the communitarian/moderate bloc which is strongest in the rural areas of many states (although they can of course be found in other places as well) and which used to vote for Democrats. Now you can also argue instead that the Democrats should chase the libertarians - certain Dem posters have suggested just that - but claiming that the Democrats already have enough votes as-is and don't need to reach out to anyone is ignoring reality. Judging by The Almanac of American Politics 2006, the Democrats are in serious danger of becoming a permanent minority party for the next few decades at the rate they are going. Make an alliance or get used to losing.

You dodged this the first time around, ferny. Let me quote the part most relevant to the 'look at all the people the Dems will never get' bit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're still alienating every other group on the Political Compass! How the hell do you ever expect to be the majority party!

Still missing the forest for the ferns...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From this thread:

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

I would be very interested to see which Senators fit which of your categories.

OK, tag-teamed in for a moment by Al, so...

Ferny 'ol boy, you are, once again, missing the forest for the ferns.

Let's explain this with two separate models.

The simpler version: Liberal - Moderate - Conservative breakdown of the voting populace. There are significantly more conservatives than liberals - about a bit over one-third conservatives and about one-fifth liberals. Glaring fact: THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. Neither can the conservatives, but the conservatives need far fewer moderates to pull off a victory than the liberals do. The liberals, in fact, are in the weakest position of all. And yet you think keeping the Democrats as the liberal party will lead to victory. Ooooooookkkkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy, drop the crack pipe.

The more complex version: Liberal - Conservative - Libertarian - Communitarian breakdown of the voting populace. While a really good poll hasn't been done showing the population breakdown (come on, Rasmussen, get to it! ), the conservative and liberal numbers from the previous example likely hold - significantly more conservatives than liberals. Now, once again, THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. The conservatives can probably secure victory by gaining either the communitarians or the libertarians as a bloc, or by getting significant chunks, if not all, of both of those two groups (which they have in fact pulled off in the past decade or two). The liberals, because they are weaker than the conservatives, logically need more of the communitarian and/or libertarian vote to win than the conservatives do. In fact, they really, really, need to grab the entirety of one of those groups to pull off a victory. Now historically, the Democrats used to control both the liberal and communitarian vote, and even some of the conservative vote, whereas the Rockefeller Republicans controlled the libertarian vote (think bullmoose and Walter Mitty here ) and some of the conservative vote (and even some liberals I'd bet). However, around about, oh, say, 1972, the liberals seized control of the Democratic party and managed, through a truly remarkable set of atrocious policies, to alienate the communitarians and the conservatives and the libertarians. Consequently, the Republicans kicked the Democrats' butt in, by number of counties won, the worst defeat of the twentieth century.

A common conclusion of the two models: The Democrats cannot win just with the liberals, and therefore must gain votes from somewhere, either the communitarians or the libertarians {or in the first model the moderates}! The article Frodo posted - go read the PDF, why don't you, there's a lot of good information in it - is proposing to try for the communitarian/moderate bloc which is strongest in the rural areas of many states (although they can of course be found in other places as well) and which used to vote for Democrats. Now you can also argue instead that the Democrats should chase the libertarians - certain Dem posters have suggested just that - but claiming that the Democrats already have enough votes as-is and don't need to reach out to anyone is ignoring reality. Judging by The Almanac of American Politics 2006, the Democrats are in serious danger of becoming a permanent minority party for the next few decades at the rate they are going. Make an alliance or get used to losing.

You dodged this the first time around, ferny. Let me quote the part most relevant to the 'look at all the people the Dems will never get' bit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're still alienating every other group on the Political Compass! How the hell do you ever expect to be the majority party!

Still missing the forest for the ferns...

Ummm, try a smaller font. It's hard to alientate all of the communitarians and libertarians at once. I believe most people in the libertarian quadrant voted for Kerry. The right-wing talking point was that Kerry was super liberal, and yet he almost won, and if the election was today, with Bush's 41% approval rating, Kerry would win. Note to A18, Kerry's approval rating is low only because some people disapprove of him for losing to the worst President ever.

[J. J.]

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

Pretty much. And it's not like it would be especially hard for the national Democrats to change that (tell the loony left where to f*** off (publically as well), moderate on social issues, tailor economic etc. positions to fit real voters... and so on and so forth).

That they haven't says something about the people running the national Democrats at the moment. Is it just me or does the following expression come to mind; "astonishingly incompetent"

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

Al, you have understand Jfern.  He's getting his "code" from the same place as guy in A Beautiful Mind got his.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I saw an analysis last week about white southern voters, particularly white males.  It basically said that even if they are unhappy with the Republicans, many have simply ruled out the idea of supporting the Democrats on a national level.  These voters are simply off-limits to the Democratic party.

Pretty much. And it's not like it would be especially hard for the national Democrats to change that (tell the loony left where to f*** off (publically as well), moderate on social issues, tailor economic etc. positions to fit real voters... and so on and so forth).

That they haven't says something about the people running the national Democrats at the moment. Is it just me or does the following expression come to mind; "astonishingly incompetent"

Moderate on social issues = Code for starting wars for no good reason

Al, you have understand Jfern.  He's getting his "code" from the same place as guy in A Beautiful Mind got his.

Whatever you say, 94% insignificant.

[WMS]

From this thread:

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

I would be very interested to see which Senators fit which of your categories.

OK, tag-teamed in for a moment by Al, so...

Ferny 'ol boy, you are, once again, missing the forest for the ferns.

Let's explain this with two separate models.

The simpler version: Liberal - Moderate - Conservative breakdown of the voting populace. There are significantly more conservatives than liberals - about a bit over one-third conservatives and about one-fifth liberals. Glaring fact: THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. Neither can the conservatives, but the conservatives need far fewer moderates to pull off a victory than the liberals do. The liberals, in fact, are in the weakest position of all. And yet you think keeping the Democrats as the liberal party will lead to victory. Ooooooookkkkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy, drop the crack pipe.

The more complex version: Liberal - Conservative - Libertarian - Communitarian breakdown of the voting populace. While a really good poll hasn't been done showing the population breakdown (come on, Rasmussen, get to it! ), the conservative and liberal numbers from the previous example likely hold - significantly more conservatives than liberals. Now, once again, THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. The conservatives can probably secure victory by gaining either the communitarians or the libertarians as a bloc, or by getting significant chunks, if not all, of both of those two groups (which they have in fact pulled off in the past decade or two). The liberals, because they are weaker than the conservatives, logically need more of the communitarian and/or libertarian vote to win than the conservatives do. In fact, they really, really, need to grab the entirety of one of those groups to pull off a victory. Now historically, the Democrats used to control both the liberal and communitarian vote, and even some of the conservative vote, whereas the Rockefeller Republicans controlled the libertarian vote (think bullmoose and Walter Mitty here ) and some of the conservative vote (and even some liberals I'd bet). However, around about, oh, say, 1972, the liberals seized control of the Democratic party and managed, through a truly remarkable set of atrocious policies, to alienate the communitarians and the conservatives and the libertarians. Consequently, the Republicans kicked the Democrats' butt in, by number of counties won, the worst defeat of the twentieth century.

A common conclusion of the two models: The Democrats cannot win just with the liberals, and therefore must gain votes from somewhere, either the communitarians or the libertarians {or in the first model the moderates}! The article Frodo posted - go read the PDF, why don't you, there's a lot of good information in it - is proposing to try for the communitarian/moderate bloc which is strongest in the rural areas of many states (although they can of course be found in other places as well) and which used to vote for Democrats. Now you can also argue instead that the Democrats should chase the libertarians - certain Dem posters have suggested just that - but claiming that the Democrats already have enough votes as-is and don't need to reach out to anyone is ignoring reality. Judging by The Almanac of American Politics 2006, the Democrats are in serious danger of becoming a permanent minority party for the next few decades at the rate they are going. Make an alliance or get used to losing.

You dodged this the first time around, ferny. Let me quote the part most relevant to the 'look at all the people the Dems will never get' bit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're still alienating every other group on the Political Compass! How the hell do you ever expect to be the majority party!

Still missing the forest for the ferns...

Ummm, try a smaller font. It's hard to alientate all of the communitarians and libertarians at once. I believe most people in the libertarian quadrant voted for Kerry. The right-wing talking point was that Kerry was super liberal, and yet he almost won, and if the election was today, with Bush's 41% approval rating, Kerry would win. Note to A18, Kerry's approval rating is low only because some people disapprove of him for losing to the worst President ever.

Got your attention, didn't it?

And yet, the left has done so. If they had done that well amongst the libertarians, then why did KEmperor, AndrewBerger, Erc, Colin Wixted, and the like not vote for Kerry? Did you read Akno's question about this - the one where the libertarian members of the forum pointed out why they're not going Republican? It's a counterpart to the thread I pulled this from, and between the two explains why the Republicans are on the verge of pulling off generational dominance over the Democrats.

Kerry did as well as he did because Bush isn't a very impressive President in a lot of regards...yet Bush is still good enough to win. Don't inflate the power of the left just because the right put up a crappy candidate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Since you supported the war in Iraq.

Except that I didn't. I was more or less neutral. I was very strongly opposed to both the "anti-war" movement and Rumsfeld having anything to do with the war though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that's not true at all. Just because you disagree with someone's views doesn't make those views "crap".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but then it was going to come to a head sooner or later. The situation in Iraq was rather like watching a train crash.
Personally I blame George H.W.Bush for not finishing the job when he could have and should have done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But at the time just about everyone, pro-war or anti-war, thought there was. If you can recall the anti-war arguement was that Blix should continue with the inspections and destroy the weapons rather than the U.S go in to find and destroy the weapons.
I have a copy of a cartoon from the Independent newspaper which clearly shows that the cartoonist and the editor thought there were WMD in Iraq at the time. Kinda ironic bearing in mind there later coverage.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that view was taken by a not insignificant group of people before the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh come on now. Human rights in Saudi Arabia are certainly atrocious but I don't think the late King Fahd ever launched a campaign of genocide against minority groups and I doubt there are hundreds of mass graves outside Riyadh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because something is bad in country x does not mean that something should not be done in country y.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From this thread:

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

I would be very interested to see which Senators fit which of your categories.

OK, tag-teamed in for a moment by Al, so...

Ferny 'ol boy, you are, once again, missing the forest for the ferns.

Let's explain this with two separate models.

The simpler version: Liberal - Moderate - Conservative breakdown of the voting populace. There are significantly more conservatives than liberals - about a bit over one-third conservatives and about one-fifth liberals. Glaring fact: THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. Neither can the conservatives, but the conservatives need far fewer moderates to pull off a victory than the liberals do. The liberals, in fact, are in the weakest position of all. And yet you think keeping the Democrats as the liberal party will lead to victory. Ooooooookkkkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyy, drop the crack pipe.

The more complex version: Liberal - Conservative - Libertarian - Communitarian breakdown of the voting populace. While a really good poll hasn't been done showing the population breakdown (come on, Rasmussen, get to it! ), the conservative and liberal numbers from the previous example likely hold - significantly more conservatives than liberals. Now, once again, THE LIBERALS CANNOT WIN ELECTIONS BY THEMSELVES. The conservatives can probably secure victory by gaining either the communitarians or the libertarians as a bloc, or by getting significant chunks, if not all, of both of those two groups (which they have in fact pulled off in the past decade or two). The liberals, because they are weaker than the conservatives, logically need more of the communitarian and/or libertarian vote to win than the conservatives do. In fact, they really, really, need to grab the entirety of one of those groups to pull off a victory. Now historically, the Democrats used to control both the liberal and communitarian vote, and even some of the conservative vote, whereas the Rockefeller Republicans controlled the libertarian vote (think bullmoose and Walter Mitty here ) and some of the conservative vote (and even some liberals I'd bet). However, around about, oh, say, 1972, the liberals seized control of the Democratic party and managed, through a truly remarkable set of atrocious policies, to alienate the communitarians and the conservatives and the libertarians. Consequently, the Republicans kicked the Democrats' butt in, by number of counties won, the worst defeat of the twentieth century.

A common conclusion of the two models: The Democrats cannot win just with the liberals, and therefore must gain votes from somewhere, either the communitarians or the libertarians {or in the first model the moderates}! The article Frodo posted - go read the PDF, why don't you, there's a lot of good information in it - is proposing to try for the communitarian/moderate bloc which is strongest in the rural areas of many states (although they can of course be found in other places as well) and which used to vote for Democrats. Now you can also argue instead that the Democrats should chase the libertarians - certain Dem posters have suggested just that - but claiming that the Democrats already have enough votes as-is and don't need to reach out to anyone is ignoring reality. Judging by The Almanac of American Politics 2006, the Democrats are in serious danger of becoming a permanent minority party for the next few decades at the rate they are going. Make an alliance or get used to losing.

You dodged this the first time around, ferny. Let me quote the part most relevant to the 'look at all the people the Dems will never get' bit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're still alienating every other group on the Political Compass! How the hell do you ever expect to be the majority party!

Still missing the forest for the ferns...

Ummm, try a smaller font. It's hard to alientate all of the communitarians and libertarians at once. I believe most people in the libertarian quadrant voted for Kerry. The right-wing talking point was that Kerry was super liberal, and yet he almost won, and if the election was today, with Bush's 41% approval rating, Kerry would win. Note to A18, Kerry's approval rating is low only because some people disapprove of him for losing to the worst President ever.

Got your attention, didn't it?

And yet, the left has done so. If they had done that well amongst the libertarians, then why did KEmperor, AndrewBerger, Erc, Colin Wixted, and the like not vote for Kerry? Did you read Akno's question about this - the one where the libertarian members of the forum pointed out why they're not going Republican? It's a counterpart to the thread I pulled this from, and between the two explains why the Republicans are on the verge of pulling off generational dominance over the Democrats.

Kerry did as well as he did because Bush isn't a very impressive President in a lot of regards...yet Bush is still good enough to win. Don't inflate the power of the left just because the right put up a crappy candidate.

Kerry won most people in that quadrant. A few counterexamples doesn't mean sh**t. Kerry did as good as he could with his crappy advisors who for some reason decided that a positive campaign always wins. Kerry should have released 100% of his military documents during the campaign, not 6 months later, but he didn't want people to know he had a bunch of Cs. And another important  up was that Kerry, like most Democrats, didn't learn about framing issues.


I know a couple of libertartians, and last year they decided that the social issues and the war were more important than exactly how much their taxes are, and so they voted Kerry.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Republicans are on the verge of pulling off generational dominance over the Democrats.

I guess it depends how long a generation is, but they already have. It'll be 12 years by 2006. Quite a long time actually.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Republicans are on the verge of pulling off generational dominance over the Democrats.

I guess it depends how long a generation is, but they already have. It'll be 12 years by 2006. Quite a long time actually.

How come you're just counting the gerrymandered House?

[© tweed]

Republicans are on the verge of pulling off generational dominance over the Democrats.

I guess it depends how long a generation is, but they already have. It'll be 12 years by 2006. Quite a long time actually.

How come you're just counting the gerrymandered House?

of course we all know gerrymandering only hurts democrats.