Will Democrats finally get a clue?

[BPSCG]

I guess the question I want to ask is whether or not Bush will get a clue from the fact that he only squeaked by, not once but twice, and that that is not a mandate to continue with his extremist policies but rather compromise more.

Um, he won the nationwide popular vote, this time.

Bill Clinton never did that. Would you say he had no mandate either?

 

[Snide]

Um, he won the nationwide popular vote, this time.

Bill Clinton never did that. Would you say he had no mandate either?

I think the point is that Bush won by (apparently) exactly one state both times, so his party is still very close to being fired if he messes up (or, more accurately with my added bias, continues to mess up).

I don't know that he really cares, though.

 

[pgwenthold]

I always considered Clinton pretty centrist, but he was vilified (and still is) as the pinkest of liberals by the right.

While on the other hand, the same people think Bush is a conservative (although the hardcore conservatives most certainly know better)

 

[Snide]

The problem is, the Republicans are much better at painting fairly centerist Dems as liberal, pinko-commie, hippies than the Dems are at painting the right-wing wackos as...well, as right wing wackos.

Well said. Until the Dems can find equl epithats to describe Republicans, the right, etc....until they can somehow make "conservative" sound like a four-letter word, the Republicans will continue to be in power.

It's no small task...it took several years, starting with Nixon, and getting Big Business on board, to accomplish it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think the point is that Bush won by (apparently) exactly one state both times, so his party is still very close to being fired if he messes up (or, more accurately with my added bias, continues to mess up).

I don't know that he really cares, though.

Of course he doesn't. Like all politicians, he's a realist. Winning is what matters. It doesn't matter how close it was.

 

[BPSCG]

The Dems HAVE been moving toward the center since the McGovern disaster (at least thats the conventional wisdom). The Republicans have been moving further to the right since Reagan (again, conventional wisdom).

Gee, you think maybe it might just be barely possible that the country as a whole has shifted to the right? Seems the Dems don't want to admit that, and as long as they stick to that "It's not us, it's them" mindset, they'll continue to lose elections.

I'm a "Chamber of Commerce" type Republican, even though I'm technically unaffiliated; A P.J. O'Rourke type (Although, I seem to drink much less).

It would be hard to drink more.

And I'm p.o.'ed that the "Churchie" Republicans have grabbed hold of the party. Eventually, I'm hoping the party will wake up and realize what freaky, frightening bedfellows they've made.

You're falling into the intellectual trap I've pointed out elsewhere:

1) Bush is religious;
2) Religious fundamentalists and evangelicals love Bush, therefore;
3) Bush is a dangerous religious fundamentalist evangelical.

Rikzilla pointed out (to 1inChrist) that while the fundies may support Bush, Bush is not one of them.

 

[Upchurch]

Um, he won the nationwide popular vote, this time.

He won that by 3% (can't say exactly on the EV yet). In 2000, he lost the PV by 1% and won the EV by 1%. That's hardly a major victory.

For refernece:

• Clinton beat Dole by 9% PV and 40% EV.
• Clinton beat Bush by 6% PV and 37% EV.
• Bush I beat Dukakis by 8% PV and 60% EV.
• Reagan beat Mondale by 18% PV and 95% EV. (THAT was a mandate.)
• Reagan beat Carter by about 9% PV and 80% EV.

and so on.... Bush squeeked by. Both times.

source

 

[pgwenthold]

Um, he won the nationwide popular vote, this time.

Bill Clinton never did that. Would you say he had no mandate either?

Of course, the difference was that the democrats in this election did everything possible to remove any other options from the ballot.

If someone had run independent like John Anderson did in 80 or Ross Perot did in 92, none would have gotten 50%. The democrats did their best to make sure that it was "if not Bush then Kerry." OTOH, just as there were people who were "anyone but Bush" there were plenty of "Bush is bad, but Kerry is even worse."

Put Lieberman in as an idependent candidate. Bush still wins, but doesn't get 50% of the vote.

 

[Jocko]

Liebermann's past support for censorship of music lyrics and television might count against him. Democrats generally have a harder time justifying trampling the First Amendment than Republicans do.

You're kidding, right? The party that invented PC speech has a problem justifying first amendment violations? Hell, they practically INVENTED them.

Want to silence someone you disagree with? Call it hate speech and people will think you're actually defending someone, instead of anally raping their constitutional rights.

 

[Upchurch]

Rikzilla pointed out (to 1inChrist) that while the fundies may support Bush, Bush is not one of them.

Can you support that? I've read quotes (which I'm sure could be drug up, if need be) that indicate otherwise.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Rikzilla pointed out (to 1inChrist) that while the fundies may support Bush, Bush is not one of them.

Interesting. Do you think Bush (or his people) are portraying him as a fundie at times to get the fundie support, or that it's simply peoples' misperceptions?

Personally, I think he reeks of fundie. But then I'm very irreligious. I can't really distinguish between Falwell and Wildmon, or Robertson and the Southern Baptist Convention. From my perspective, they're all equally religious. Observer bias, of course.

 

[merphie]

What makes you think that? Gun control wasn't even one of the big campaign issues this time around.

Yes it was. The Dems just didn't talk about it much. They knew it would hurt them.

 

[Savagemutt]

You're falling into the intellectual trap I've pointed out elsewhere:

1) Bush is religious;
2) Religious fundamentalists and evangelicals love Bush, therefore;
3) Bush is a dangerous religious fundamentalist evangelical.

Rikzilla pointed out (to 1inChrist) that while the fundies may support Bush, Bush is not one of them.

I'll agree with you that we don't know whether Bush is a rabid-eyed, rapture-waiting fundie. But the company he keeps is certainly a valid means of assessing how things may go. After all, he's only going to keep their support if he keeps throwing them fresh meat. And no, I don't think his lame duck status changes that.

 

[Rob Lister]

Repubs move to the middle?!??! Right now they are as far right as I can remember. THey won those new seats in the jesus states. There were extremists being voted in.

I can only reply to you, and those that have expressed opinions close to yours, that if you don't know where the middle is then it is no wonder that you can't seem to move toward it.

I'm not even sure you'll understand my reply but I no of no clearer way to write it. My thread-title implication stands, even though I wrote it simply as a way to garner thread participation: You have no clue. The Middle is not where you think it is.

 

[IXP]

The country is split about 45-45 on the issues. The rest of the population treats the election as a personality contest.

Clinton could have won again if allowed by law. Kerry could not win because he doesn't seem like a "regular guy". Lieberman would have had the same problem. Gephart might have had a chance because he is popular in Missouri.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're kidding, right? The party that invented PC speech has a problem justifying first amendment violations? Hell, they practically INVENTED them.

Want to silence someone you disagree with? Call it hate speech and people will think you're actually defending someone, instead of anally raping their constitutional rights.

"Politically correct" speech, and even that term, were not invented by Democrats. The term was not even, originally, pejorative or meaning quite how we use it, today.

And while it's certainly subject to abuse, there are legitimate philosophical arguments for making distinctions in speech. Take the case in the UK right now: a Jamaican rapper is under investigation for hate speech and inciting violence, because his lyrics are virulently anti-gay and some people came out of his concert and killed someone. Do you think there's no difference between someone saying "I don't like gay people" and someone saying "Kill the queers, shoot them in the head"?

Is complete free reign to say whatever you want really that good? Bear in mind we don't have this in the US, either: you will be prosecuted for making threats, or advocating violent overthrow of the government.

Also note that there are words you are not allowed to say on certain television stations, or at certain times. Or places--my city has ordinances about saying particular words on the boardwalk.

The question is, where do you draw the lines?

 

[mjv]

No they will not finally get a clue.

They are the party of the perpetual cluelessness. So impressed with their own intellectual superiority that they forget to make their case on the issues to the American people. They never lose because they were disorganized or didn't have a clear message or were crippled by a dog of a candidate. They lose because "those Americans in flyover country are stupid".

In 2008, they will most likely nominate yet another Northeastern liberal who will have zero personality, a difficult to defend record, and will be virtually unelectable.

Then they will allow the Republican spin machine roll them over and have its way with them; keeping them constantly off message.

Then they will bitch and whine when they cannot even get their own people out to vote and then desperately manufacture conspiracy theories about why those nasty "Theists" stole the election by getting those "stupid" people to vote for them.

 

[Upchurch]

Um, he won the nationwide popular vote, this time.

Bill Clinton never did that. Would you say he had no mandate either?

Wait a sec. Clinton did win the nationwide popular vote. Twice.

 

[Richard G]

What makes you think that? Gun control wasn't even one of the big campaign issues this time around.

Every gun owner I know voted against Kerry. Gun control cost the Democrats control of Congress (in a landslide) after they passed the AWB, and they have never regained it.

So long as there are Feinsteins, Schumers (he out by the way), Pelosis, and Kerrys wiping their butts with the 2nd Amendment, with the blessing of their party, the Dems will never regain power.

For some reason, they are very slow to understand this.

 

[Number Six]

In 2008, they will most likely nominate yet another Northeastern liberal who will have zero personality, a difficult to defend record, and will be virtually unelectable.

You just described Hilary. Really, I think the Democrats will learn from this election. If a figure as divisive as W can beat them then they're not getting enough of the middle. Theory and reality are two different things. What people should go for is one thing and what they do go for is another and you have to be able to tell the two apart. Most people just aren't ready for stuff like gay marriage and anytime it's a topic in the minds of the public it helps the Republicans.

I don't know who the Democrats are going to nominate in 2008 but it bet it's someone that's not like Kerry or Hilary.