Chilly Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Thanks for the serious post, but I am not buying that Dean is banking on these trends. Just listening to his speeches is evidence of that. After the 2004 election, the Democrats thought that that reason why they lost is because they were not bitter and hateful enough. They also felt that the public was too stupid (their words). Quotes from Democrats after the election support this. Dean is working on the first part, with increasing the bitter, hateful rhetoric in an attempt to "energize his base." The problem is that it is not working. The base has lost momentum and Dean is incapable of raising the money that his predecessor has been able to raise. Some of this is the result of the Democratic Party being split. Currently, there are different factions within the party and some of them are working to marginalize Dean (Pelosi and Reid come to mind). It all comes back to the real reason why the Democrats have been losing, IMO. That is the fact that they really stand for nothing but "Bush Bad" and "Bush stole the 2000 election." This will not get seats in Congress. This makes you lose seats in Congress and that has been proven at the polls. Until the Democratic Party learns this valuable lesson, they will continue to lose seats in Congress in 2006. Honestly, the Democrats have shown me nothing to prove that they are going to pick up seats in Congress in 2006. As I said, they need to stand for something and right now, they do not stand for anything. The extremists are running the Party and all they are trying to do is take the opposite opinion from whatever the Republicans propose. The public may not like what the Republicans propose, but they are still getting more out of them than they are the Democrats. The Democrats need to propose solutions, not just "the Republicans proposed this, so therefore it is bad" stuff. They need to get their azzes in gear before it is too late for 2006. Right now, they are spiraling out of control and show no signs of trying to fix the problem. 350993[/snapback] The reason why I say that Dean is banking on those trends is because that the trends show that the country is getting more polarized. As this happens, bitter, hateful politics increase, people get more passionate with a side, and the base grows quite larger. I'd also say while he can be crazy at times and have a Dean moment, he still is a fairly smart man and does understand politics. I disagree with you about the democrats only standing for "Bush bad". Going back to that Pew research report, its obvious each side has made their stances clear on the biggest and most partisan issue right now. Republicans prefer military action, Democrats prefer diplomatic action, and the public is choosing sides based upon this. The amazing thing, though, is that just not being the Republicans might work out for the Dems in 2006. With Bush's approval ratings extremely low, Tom DeLay's problems and the almost-demise of the fillibuster in judicial nominees, which the majority of Americans were against, current polls are showing that the majority of people would rather have a Democratic controlled congress in 2006. http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm Dean's trying to play on this fact. He even opens the speech up by saying that they should send DeLay out to campaign for them.
EC-Bills Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 The only positive thing I can say about Dean so far is that there is never a dull moment... I would much rather hear about constructive ideas and how to bring people together as opposed to the divisive rhetoric that you get with both sides.
JimBob2232 Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 current polls are showing that the majority of people would rather have a Democratic controlled congress in 2006. http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm Aint going to happen. Democrats need to gain 16 seats in the house to take control. That is ALOT of seats. There will probably be only 25-30 seats that are even up for grabs. They would need to take nearly all of those to take over the house. In the senate, there are 33 seats up for election. 17 Democrat seats, 15 Republican seats and one democratic leaning independant. There will be 4 open seats (2 dem, 1 rep and 1 ind) due to retirement. (TN, VT, MD & MN) Of the 14 republican seats with incumbants running, 11 appear safe. Santorum(PA), Chafee(RI) and Conrad Burns (MT) are the only ones in play at the moment. Of the 15 democrat seats with incumbants running 11 appear safe (assume corzine is safe in NJ). Nelson (FL), Nelson (Neb), Stabenow (MI), Cantwell(WA) are in play. So, the bottom line is that there are 11 senate seats that are in play. The republicans currently control 4 of them. The democrats currently control 7 of them (including the one independent seat) The current senate makeup is 55-44-1. Removing these 11 seats in play, the makeup is 51-38-0. Even if democrats win ALL ELEVEN of those races, the senate makeup will be 51-49. Key assumptions made in this post: This is assuming that Corzine will not run for governor in NJ, Byrd and Kennedy will not retire. Hillary will win NY. On the republican side, Lott will not retire, Hutchinson will not run for Gov, Snowe will win the maine primary. Bottom line, the house and senate will remain in republican hands in 2006. Even scarier for the democrats is the strong possiblity the republicans pick up a seat or two in the senate.
Chilly Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Aint going to happen. Democrats need to gain 16 seats in the house to take control. That is ALOT of seats. There will probably be only 25-30 seats that are even up for grabs. They would need to take nearly all of those to take over the house. In the senate, there are 33 seats up for election. 17 Democrat seats, 15 Republican seats and one democratic leaning independant. There will be 4 open seats (2 dem, 1 rep and 1 ind) due to retirement. (TN, VT, MD & MN) Of the 14 republican seats with incumbants running, 11 appear safe. Santorum(PA), Chafee(RI) and Conrad Burns (MT) are the only ones in play at the moment. Of the 15 democrat seats with incumbants running 11 appear safe (assume corzine is safe in NJ). Nelson (FL), Nelson (Neb), Stabenow (MI), Cantwell(WA) are in play. So, the bottom line is that there are 11 senate seats that are in play. The republicans currently control 4 of them. The democrats currently control 7 of them (including the one independent seat) The current senate makeup is 55-44-1. Removing these 11 seats in play, the makeup is 51-38-0. Even if democrats win ALL ELEVEN of those races, the senate makeup will be 51-49. Key assumptions made in this post: This is assuming that Corzine will not run for governor in NJ, Byrd and Kennedy will not retire. Hillary will win NY. On the republican side, Lott will not retire, Hutchinson will not run for Gov, Snowe will win the maine primary. Bottom line, the house and senate will remain in republican hands in 2006. Even scarier for the democrats is the strong possiblity the republicans pick up a seat or two in the senate. 351071[/snapback] My point was that the democrats will probably make some progress in 2006 in congress just for not being republicans.
JimBob2232 Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 My point was that the democrats will probably make some progress in 2006 in congress just for not being republicans. And my point is that for the democrats to make progress in the senate they need to take 8 of 11 available seats. House races are too hard to predict at this juncture.
Chilly Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 And my point is that for the democrats to make progress in the senate they need to take 8 of 11 available seats. House races are too hard to predict at this juncture. 351092[/snapback] Yeah I know.
/dev/null Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Damn, I don't even have those here in the midwest. Figures. Everything "cool" always starts out in California and makes its way east... 351047[/snapback] we have those in virginia too, just not in the 12 pack. lousy republicans! maybe i'm wrong and its not the republicans. maybe if there was a Hot Pockets Subs ® car in NASCAR, then they'd sell the 12 packs in Red America
UConn James Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 Thanks for the serious post, but I am not buying that Dean is banking on these trends. Just listening to his speeches is evidence of that. After the 2004 election, the Democrats thought that that reason why they lost is because they were not bitter and hateful enough. They also felt that the public was too stupid (their words). Quotes from Democrats after the election support this. Dean is working on the first part, with increasing the bitter, hateful rhetoric in an attempt to "energize his base." The problem is that it is not working. The base has lost momentum and Dean is incapable of raising the money that his predecessor has been able to raise. Some of this is the result of the Democratic Party being split. Currently, there are different factions within the party and some of them are working to marginalize Dean (Pelosi and Reid come to mind). It all comes back to the real reason why the Democrats have been losing, IMO. That is the fact that they really stand for nothing but "Bush Bad" and "Bush stole the 2000 election." This will not get seats in Congress. This makes you lose seats in Congress and that has been proven at the polls. Until the Democratic Party learns this valuable lesson, they will continue to lose seats in Congress in 2006. Honestly, the Democrats have shown me nothing to prove that they are going to pick up seats in Congress in 2006. As I said, they need to stand for something and right now, they do not stand for anything. The extremists are running the Party and all they are trying to do is take the opposite opinion from whatever the Republicans propose. The public may not like what the Republicans propose, but they are still getting more out of them than they are the Democrats. The Democrats need to propose solutions, not just "the Republicans proposed this, so therefore it is bad" stuff. They need to get their azzes in gear before it is too late for 2006. Right now, they are spiraling out of control and show no signs of trying to fix the problem. 350993[/snapback] In the linked story: "And though criticism of government is growing among all Democrats, they express far less frustration and cynicism about the political system than Republicans and independents did in 1994." So-called 'bitterness' loses elections? Says who? To respond to BlueFire's assertion, I think #2 follows from #1. Dems need to place quality candidates in every race and not just run Joe Schmoe b/c they think they have no chance in that district. That line of thought is self-fulfilling and the reason why the re-election rate is so high. Candidates aren't made from a cookie-cutter; who knows where the next really good leader will come from (tho it would help if the Right wouldn't shoot them b/c they can't compete). The way you view what a party is doing is colored from where you sit on your own spectrum. Ken, I think it's safe to say you're right of center. For a lot of Dems, not taking drastic action on SS is an appropriate solution. Not legislating morality is an appropriate thing. Making the tax code on a progressive scale in who uses the things that federal funding pays for (ie, IBM has more of a stake in interstate highways, national security, etc. than Joe Schmoe) is something that should be done. I don't go along with some of this, but the alternative is worse.... You're not going to vote for the Dem candidate. Why would they tailor their goals to the right to attract a few independents when it would altogether alienate their core? Fund-raising will come when it's crunch time. And if it doesn't come, that doesn't mean much. Dems won a lot of elections when they were out-banked 2-1. Raising money doesn't do much when people disagree with your policy. The thing is getting out the vote.
KRC Posted June 4, 2005 Author Posted June 4, 2005 The way you view what a party is doing is colored from where you sit on your own spectrum. Ken, I think it's safe to say you're right of center. For a lot of Dems, not taking drastic action on SS is an appropriate solution. Not legislating morality is an appropriate thing. Making the tax code on a progressive scale in who uses the things that federal funding pays for (ie, IBM has more of a stake in interstate highways, national security, etc. than Joe Schmoe) is something that should be done. I don't go along with some of this, but the alternative is worse.... You're not going to vote for the Dem candidate. Why would they tailor their goals to the right to attract a few independents when it would altogether alienate their core? 351135[/snapback] People know that SS is failing. They want something done. Taking no action means that they are happy with a program destined to fail. The polls I have seen show that people want something done. The disagreement is in how it is to be done. People see that the Democrats want to do nothing on SS (all attack but no plan of their own). They want to obstruct up or down votes on judicial nominees (but when their nominee was up, they demanded up or down votes). They attack DeLay for his travel stuff, but as soon as it came out that people like Pelosi did the same thing, the attacks suddenly became more quiet. The Democrats need to stop obstructing things and attacking people for doing the same thing that they are doing, and start to actually propose solutions to problems. I disagree with you about them providing solutions. There is no question I am right of center. My beliefs are between conservative (old school conservative, not the crap they have now) and Libertarian. Chances are that I would not vote for a Democrat, because of the difference of opinion on social issues. They can still win me over with the right candidate, but I have not seen anyone on the national level that even comes close. Local level is a different story, and I have voted for Dems on that level because they were the best candidate.
Chilly Posted June 4, 2005 Posted June 4, 2005 People know that SS is failing. They want something done. Taking no action means that they are happy with a program destined to fail. The polls I have seen show that people want something done. The disagreement is in how it is to be done. People see that the Democrats want to do nothing on SS (all attack but no plan of their own). They want to obstruct up or down votes on judicial nominees (but when their nominee was up, they demanded up or down votes). Must not have been looking at the polls on the judicial nominees. A strong majority of Americans viewed the Republicans as damaging due to wanting to end the fillibuster. They attack DeLay for his travel stuff, but as soon as it came out that people like Pelosi did the same thing, the attacks suddenly became more quiet. The Democrats need to stop obstructing things and attacking people for doing the same thing that they are doing, and start to actually propose solutions to problems. I disagree with you about them providing solutions.351157[/snapback] The problem is that the solution for Democrats is that there isn't a problem. I believe there is a problem, but I'd prefer the Republicans (or Democrats if they were in power) do nothing unitl they figure out a plan that isn't going to and divide the country as much as this President's plan is (I would like something done, but only if its done right).
KRC Posted June 4, 2005 Author Posted June 4, 2005 Must not have been looking at the polls on the judicial nominees. A strong majority of Americans viewed the Republicans as damaging due to wanting to end the fillibuster.The problem is that the solution for Democrats is that there isn't a problem. I believe there is a problem, but I'd prefer the Republicans (or Democrats if they were in power) do nothing unitl they figure out a plan that isn't going to and divide the country as much as this President's plan is (I would like something done, but only if its done right). 351173[/snapback] Funny, the polls I saw did not show that the Republicns were damaging because they wanted to actually have a vote. The President didn't actually present an official plan for SS. That is the problem. The Democrats have been saying "the President's plan will starve people over 70," "the President's plan will steal money from xyz." The problem is that is is all lies, since the President didn't actually present a plan. Is that the way you want people to solve problems? It sounds like the Democrats are the ones dividing the country regarding SS. Opposing a plan before it is even submitted. Way to solve a problem.
EC-Bills Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 Funny, the polls I saw did not show that the Republicns were damaging because they wanted to actually have a vote. Well that's the beauty of polls, you can usually find one to fit your needs. The President didn't actually present an official plan for SS. That is the problem. The Democrats have been saying "the President's plan will starve people over 70," "the President's plan will steal money from xyz." The problem is that is is all lies, since the President didn't actually present a plan. Is that the way you want people to solve problems? It sounds like the Democrats are the ones dividing the country regarding SS. Opposing a plan before it is even submitted. Way to solve a problem. 351244[/snapback] To me, the problem is that Bush didn't present an *official plan*. But that didn't stop him from acting like there was one initially and touting it until it started to get shredded. Then the story became, I am open to ideas and trying to turn the tables on those who opposed it. To further muddy things up, Bush then parades around the country with pseudo town-hall style meetings acting like he does have a plan. I also agree that instead of coming up with a solution of their own, the dems prefer to piss in the wind on this matter.
EC-Bills Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 Must not have been looking at the polls on the judicial nominees. A strong majority of Americans viewed the Republicans as damaging due to wanting to end the fillibuster.The problem is that the solution for Democrats is that there isn't a problem. I believe there is a problem, but I'd prefer the Republicans (or Democrats if they were in power) do nothing unitl they figure out a plan that isn't going to and divide the country as much as this President's plan is (I would like something done, but only if its done right). 351173[/snapback] That would be nice, but in this day and age of polarization, I don't see something constructive being done. Instead of doing something for the people both sides seem to be too interested in seeing who has the biggest johnson.
Wacka Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 Funny, the polls I saw did not show that the Republicns were damaging because they wanted to actually have a vote. The President didn't actually present an official plan for SS. That is the problem. The Democrats have been saying "the President's plan will starve people over 70," "the President's plan will steal money from xyz." The problem is that is is all lies, since the President didn't actually present a plan. Is that the way you want people to solve problems? It sounds like the Democrats are the ones dividing the country regarding SS. Opposing a plan before it is even submitted. Way to solve a problem. 351244[/snapback] Same thing with Iraq. They kepp saying Bush has done it wrong, but have not come up with a single idea for doing it differently.
Chilly Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 Funny, the polls I saw did not show that the Republicns were damaging because they wanted to actually have a vote. The President didn't actually present an official plan for SS. That is the problem. The Democrats have been saying "the President's plan will starve people over 70," "the President's plan will steal money from xyz." The problem is that is is all lies, since the President didn't actually present a plan. Is that the way you want people to solve problems? It sounds like the Democrats are the ones dividing the country regarding SS. Opposing a plan before it is even submitted. Way to solve a problem. 351244[/snapback] My point was that both sides are looked on as equally stupid by the public. To think that one side was more damaging then the other is not a fair view of the issue. I'd have to say the same about Social Security. You are right - the President has not made an official proposal. He HAS, however, gone on National TV and talked about his proposal, toured the country for 30 places in 30 days to try and gather support for his proposal. What is Bush going to do at that gathering, go "Hi I have an idea for Social Security that includes private accounts, support it because I think its cool"? He's going to outline most of his plan and see if people like it. In fact, if you just go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-s...alsecurity.html it expalins the president's plan pretty well. Sure, its not an official proposal, but its pretty damn close, and enough of a propsal to start analyzing it. Just because something's not officially submitted doesn't mean it can't be debated. Well that's the beauty of polls, you can usually find one to fit your needs.To me, the problem is that Bush didn't present an *official plan*. But that didn't stop him from acting like there was one initially and touting it until it started to get shredded. Then the story became, I am open to ideas and trying to turn the tables on those who opposed it. To further muddy things up, Bush then parades around the country with pseudo town-hall style meetings acting like he does have a plan. I also agree that instead of coming up with a solution of their own, the dems prefer to piss in the wind on this matter. 351277[/snapback] Agreed. Although I think its less of the Dems wanting to piss in the wind as it is smoke weed and be like "nahh, everything is fine with Social Security" That would be nice, but in this day and age of polarization, I don't see something constructive being done. Instead of doing something for the people both sides seem to be too interested in seeing who has the biggest johnson. 351278[/snapback] Agreed as well.
/dev/null Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 Same thing with Iraq. They kepp saying Bush has done it wrong, but have not come up with a single idea for doing it differently. 351488[/snapback] the only idea the modern democratic party has is to scare voters so they don't see the democrats have no other ideas do i think bush's proposal will work? no, it needs work. but so do all initial proposals. the democrats should counter with their ideas other than Bush Bad! then both sides look at all the options and go with what looks to be the best at least thats how the legislative process was described to me in elementary school but that was so long ago and in a different era. long before Nosepick! Flightsuit! Haliburton! DING! Ham N Cheese Hotpockets ®
KRC Posted June 5, 2005 Author Posted June 5, 2005 My point was that both sides are looked on as equally stupid by the public. Which is why I am not a member of either party. I'd have to say the same about Social Security. You are right - the President has not made an official proposal. He HAS, however, gone on National TV and talked about his proposal, toured the country for 30 places in 30 days to try and gather support for his proposal. What is Bush going to do at that gathering, go "Hi I have an idea for Social Security that includes private accounts, support it because I think its cool"? He's going to outline most of his plan and see if people like it. In fact, if you just go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-s...alsecurity.html it expalins the president's plan pretty well. Sure, its not an official proposal, but its pretty damn close, and enough of a propsal to start analyzing it. Just because something's not officially submitted doesn't mean it can't be debated. 351504[/snapback] I agree. Just because it is not an official proposal, doesn't mean it can't be debated. The problem is that it is not a debate. It is "Bush's plan will starve old people." In order to have a debate, you need to have both sides proposing plans. All I saw was one side proposing, while the other side was bitching. Tough to find a compromise in that environment. Of course, the Dems would probably just filibuster it anyway, so debate is a waste of time.
UConn James Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 I agree. Just because it is not an official proposal, doesn't mean it can't be debated. The problem is that it is not a debate. It is "Bush's plan will starve old people." In order to have a debate, you need to have both sides proposing plans. All I saw was one side proposing, while the other side was bitching. Tough to find a compromise in that environment. Of course, the Dems would probably just filibuster it anyway, so debate is a waste of time. 351633[/snapback] The Dems have said they won't debate until private accounts are taken off of the table, b/c implementing them will cost $2T, which in this admin means it will cost $10T. I don't know, on one level it's akin to a parent saying that a kid can't get a car unless he gets a job first. They are trying to get it through that there are other, more palatable ways to resolve the problems SS faces. The majority of Americans seem to agree with them. This is not to say I support their stance on SS, the biggest boondoggle money-shuffle of all time. I don't know why they won't go to the table and just not agree to anything that has private accounts, but then again it would just waste everyone's time as long as private accounts are the Nos. 1, 2 and 3 proposals from the other side. Just trying to point out that just b/c we're not hearing much in the mainstream establishment lapdog press, this isn't necessarily a case of nothing being done. I would wager there is a lot of preliminary backchannel talking going on.
Chilly Posted June 5, 2005 Posted June 5, 2005 Which is why I am not a member of either party. Haha. I only stay registered a republican and not an independent because I believe the most important vote is the primaries. Lots of times its the primaries that determine an election and I want to have a stake in it. I agree. Just because it is not an official proposal, doesn't mean it can't be debated. The problem is that it is not a debate. It is "Bush's plan will starve old people." In order to have a debate, you need to have both sides proposing plans. All I saw was one side proposing, while the other side was bitching. Tough to find a compromise in that environment. Of course, the Dems would probably just filibuster it anyway, so debate is a waste of time. 351633[/snapback] I think that there is a debate - its just not a very good one cause of what the Dems are saying. Their plan is "There shouldn't be a plan cause nothing's wrong with Social Security". They don't like saying it very often, though, because most of the public doesn't agree with this and realizes there is a problem.
JimBob2232 Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 The Dems have said they won't debate until private accounts are taken off of the table, b/c implementing them will cost $2T, which in this admin means it will cost $10T. I don't know, on one level it's akin to a parent saying that a kid can't get a car unless he gets a job first. They are trying to get it through that there are other, more palatable ways to resolve the problems SS faces. The majority of Americans seem to agree with them. I dont understand why the dems are SO against individual social security accounts. There is no explaination other than "Bush proposed it so we are against it". Here is a quote from president clinton while he was in office President Clinton: “f You Don’t Do Anything, One Of Two Things Will Happen. Either It Will Go Broke And You Won’t Ever Get It, Or If We Wait Too Long To Fix It, The Burden On Society…Will Lower Your Income And Lower Your Ability To Take Care Of Your Children To A Degree That Most Of Us Who Are You Parents Think Would Be Horribly Wrong And Unfair To You And Unfair To The Future Prospects Of The United States.” (President Bill Clinton, Remarks At Georgetown University On Social Security, Washington, DC, 2/9/98) Of course he did nothing about it...but he acknowleged it was a problem. He ran on it being a problem. It was a problem for 8 years while he was there. Now Bush is in office, and suddenly its NOT a problem? Exactly what happened that made the problem go away? Nothing. Except the democrats cant give bush credit for solving the problem because then he wins. And everything democrats (and republicans..) do is predicated upon winning and not on what is best for the country. Sad. Individual Social Security accounts are the PERFECT solution. The ONLY downside is the short term cost of implementing them, so those recieving benefits continue to recieve them. They should be arguing on how best to implement private accounts and not whether to have them at all. There are 3 options. Privatize and solve the problem permanently. Raise the retirement age. Raise Taxes. Perhaps a combination of all 3 would work to alleviate the problem. Raise the age to 67.5, raise taxes a percent or so, and create private accounts. I dont know. People smarter than me should be working on this. But the bottom line is that private accounts are the ONLY solution with a lasting impact.
Recommended Posts