The End of the Democrats?

[finknottle]

Hypothetical question:

 

It will be stunning if the Democrats manage to lose this election - they have absolutely everything in there favor. And yet...

 

Suppose they manage to blow it. What happens to the party afterwards? I'm thinking it depends on the candidate.

 

 

If Clinton gets the nomination and loses, it will be the usual sort of recriminations: she was too divisive, the democrats have bad luck, we'll get it next time. Maybe the lesson is you don't tick off an important constituincy (the african-american vote), and you work harder to register the hispanic vote. In other words, same as the last few elections, no real change in course.

 

But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, it would likely be due to the defection of the moderate and conservative Clinton supporters. The perceived shift to the left could signal to the remaining moderates there's no future to the Democratic Party - they may see it's loss as the inevitable result of being taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's.

 

Thoughts?

[ieatcrayonz]

taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's.

 

Thoughts?

Are those code words for "aging hippies"? God I hate hippies.

[finknottle]

Are those code words for "aging hippies"? God I hate hippies.

 

Nah. Chomsky-style academics.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Hypothetical question:

 

It will be stunning if the Democrats manage to lose this election - they have absolutely everything in there favor. And yet...

 

Suppose they manage to blow it. What happens to the party afterwards? I'm thinking it depends on the candidate.

 

 

If Clinton gets the nomination and loses, it will be the usual sort of recriminations: she was too divisive, the democrats have bad luck, we'll get it next time. Maybe the lesson is you don't tick off an important constituincy (the african-american vote), and you work harder to register the hispanic vote. In other words, same as the last few elections, no real change in course.

 

But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, it would likely be due to the defection of the moderate and conservative Clinton supporters. The perceived shift to the left could signal to the remaining moderates there's no future to the Democratic Party - they may see it's loss as the inevitable result of being taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's.

 

Thoughts?

 

Spoken like a true Clinton supporter. She has NO CHANCE of winning the nomination unless she steals it.

 

Yeah, and you're right if Clinton loses, it will be the death of Democracy and the end of life as we know it.

 

It's such a pathetic argument. Hillary was all but given the nomination at the start. She then went on to lose something like 11 states in a row and has no chance of winning the nomination anymore. But now it's all about trying to right a wrong by giving her the nomination because...well...just because. I just wish she and her supporters would STFU.

 

That's my thoughts.

[/dev/null]

God I hate hippies.

Me too.

 

They're always trying to save the planet, but all they ever really do is smoke pot and smell bad. I wanna kick 'em square in the nutz

/Cartman

[Albany,n.y.]

Hypothetical question:

 

It will be stunning if the Democrats manage to lose this election - they have absolutely everything in there favor. And yet...

 

Suppose they manage to blow it. What happens to the party afterwards? I'm thinking it depends on the candidate.

 

 

If Clinton gets the nomination and loses, it will be the usual sort of recriminations: she was too divisive, the democrats have bad luck, we'll get it next time. Maybe the lesson is you don't tick off an important constituincy (the african-american vote), and you work harder to register the hispanic vote. In other words, same as the last few elections, no real change in course.

 

But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, it would likely be due to the defection of the moderate and conservative Clinton supporters. The perceived shift to the left could signal to the remaining moderates there's no future to the Democratic Party - they may see it's loss as the inevitable result of being taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's.

 

Thoughts?

As long as the Republican party sucks up to the radical right wingers, moderates will look to the Democrats as an option. The problem is the Democrats are too far left and the Republicans are too far right-so moderates usually decide by the candidates involved & don't care about what letter they have after their name.

[Lakesider]

No matter what happens, puhleeeeeze don't let anything happen to the Democratic Party! It is the party that simply loves to collect arrogant, crude, un-truthful candidates...and we need them all together so they are easier to identify....

[Chef Jim]

It is the party that simply loves to collect arrogant, crude, un-truthful candidates...

 

I hardly think this is a characteristic that the Dems have a monopoly on.

[/dev/null]

I hardly think this is a characteristic that the Dems have a monopoly on.

I agree. Attracting Asshats seems to be a bipartisan effort

[finknottle]

Spoken like a true Clinton supporter. She has NO CHANCE of winning the nomination unless she steals it.

 

Sorry to step on partisan toes!

 

And it's not intended to be an argument for Clinton. I'm just speculating on how the blame-game goes within the party if the nominated candidate loses the general election - I should have realized that including Obama in such a scenario would be interperated by his supporters and the media as an unfair, politics-as-usual attack.

 

Your "thoughts" have nothing to do with the question. If it makes you more comfortable, let's assume it is impossible for Obama to lose the general election and instead focus only on Clinton. If somehow she is given the nomination at the convention and goes on to lose, what happens within the party? Will it be shrugged off like the last few losses, or bring about a shift in party strategy?

[Andrew in CA]

Nah. Chomsky-style academics.

Chomsky and his ilk are no fans of Obama. They see him as the lesser of 3 evils, but they are certainly not fans. But, I do see your point in that Obama is attracting way more college students and grads than Clinton, while she brings in the much discussed "Reagan Democrats"- which is a notable and interesting divide. I doubt, though, that the party would dissolve if Obama lost (though it probably should- this is the biggest Dem layup since 1976. Though McCain is a formidable opponent, you've got to think that with all the new voter registration for the Dems and the war and the recession it shouldn't be too difficult for either Dem candidate). I think our mindset is much too settled on R or D to have anyone abandon the system. Which is a shame, though. I would bet that if you polled people on how they stand on taxation, foreign policy, social issues, etc., you'd find more people agreeing with Libertarians or Progressives than we have now.

What about the other way around? If McCain fails considerably, do you think that moderate or socially liberal republicans that feel their party has been taken over by religious conservatives will split? I bet they will start to think about it. You have Huckabees and Giulianis, both Republicans, but are their policies compatible? Does anyone else feel that it sucks that McCain has to stand down to Pat Robertson now because you have to get the religious right to vote Republican to have a chance to win?

[KD in CA]

Me too.

 

They're always trying to save the planet, but all they ever really do is smoke pot and smell bad. I wanna kick 'em square in the nutz

/Cartman

 

These are what we call the giggling stoners. Pretty common form of hippies, usually found in attics.

 

Best episode ever.

[finknottle]

What about the other way around? If McCain fails considerably, do you think that moderate or socially liberal republicans that feel their party has been taken over by religious conservatives will split? I bet they will start to think about it. You have Huckabees and Giulianis, both Republicans, but are their policies compatible? Does anyone else feel that it sucks that McCain has to stand down to Pat Robertson now because you have to get the religious right to vote Republican to have a chance to win?

 

I was thinking about that too, but I think it is a less compelling question because it lacks the hardening emotions in the Clinton-Obama fight.

 

If McCain wins, everybody is happy on the surface. The Guilaini's and Romney's rejoice in finally having been rid of the meddlesome priest that is the ideological right (both religious and talk radio). But if McCain loses, I think the right gets reinvigorated - they can lay the blame on McCain not being sufficiently conservative. Being out of power and ideological purges go hand-in-hand. But somehow I don't think this means defections.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm just speculating on how the blame-game goes within the party if the nominated candidate loses the general election - I should have realized that including Obama in such a scenario would be interperated by his supporters and the media as an unfair, politics-as-usual attack.

 

If somehow she is given the nomination at the convention and goes on to lose, what happens within the party? Will it be shrugged off like the last few losses, or bring about a shift in party strategy?

Are you kidding? First of all the blame-game for Democrats begins and ends with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and of course Bush. They will never, ever, ever, allow themselves to blame themselves, primarily because it is bad for their collective "self-esteem" and we all know that harming someone's self-esteem is worse than killing them.

 

Honestly, from 1980-today, every time the Democrats lose they blame everybody else but themselves. Case in point: where is the blame for Nader and Michael Moore, who took 95,000 votes away from them in Florida, thereby electing Bush? No, somehow that act of masturbation is not their fault, it's somebody else's? it's Karl Rove's? AUFKM?

 

And what's the worst thing: the worst thing is that they don't seem to realize that it's their bad ideas or bad behavior, like raising the capital gains tax in the middle of a recession(Jimmy Carter and Obama if he wins) or Clinton's bj losing it for Gore, that are the primary reasons they are 2-5 in Presidential elections since 1980, but they continue to blame everybody else, making them look even more ridiculous.

 

I was thinking about that too, but I think it is a less compelling question because it lacks the hardening emotions in the Clinton-Obama fight.

 

If McCain wins, everybody is happy on the surface. The Guilaini's and Romney's rejoice in finally having been rid of the meddlesome priest that is the ideological right (both religious and talk radio). But if McCain loses, I think the right gets reinvigorated - they can lay the blame on McCain not being sufficiently conservative. Being out of power and ideological purges go hand-in-hand. But somehow I don't think this means defections.

I don't think the religious right works the way the ridiculous left works in this regard. The main difference is that the religious right wants to win, while the ridiculous left would rather lose 49 states - see Mondale vs. Reagan - than give up on their stupidity. The other key factor is that the right is willing to excoriate those who cause them to lose, while the left does nothing but rationalize = in 1992 when the Republicans took over congress, Dan Rather dismissed it as simply "the American people acting like children". Of course it wasn't the blatant failure of Clinton to do anything he promised, no, of course not.

 

Ask yourself this: in 2006 we gave the Democrats congress and their shot to "make things so much better". What did we get? A recession, no change in gas prices, no change in the Iraq war, and a convoluted prescription drug policy that makes Medicare even more of a mess. Each one a broken promise and now their approval rating is 20 points LOWER than Bush's ever has been.

 

But I am sure it's going to be someone else's fault again.....

[olivier in france]

Are you kidding? First of all the blame-game for Democrats begins and ends with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and of course Bush. They will never, ever, ever, allow themselves to blame themselves, primarily because it is bad for their collective "self-esteem" and we all know that harming someone's self-esteem is worse than killing them.

 

Honestly, from 1980-today, every time the Democrats lose they blame everybody else but themselves. Case in point: where is the blame for Nader and Michael Moore, who took 95,000 votes away from them in Florida, thereby electing Bush? No, somehow that act of masturbation is not their fault, it's somebody else's? it's Karl Rove's? AUFKM?

 

And what's the worst thing: the worst thing is that they don't seem to realize that it's their bad ideas or bad behavior, like raising the capital gains tax in the middle of a recession(Jimmy Carter and Obama if he wins) or Clinton's bj losing it for Gore, that are the primary reasons they are 2-5 in Presidential elections since 1980, but they continue to blame everybody else, making them look even more ridiculous.

 

 

I don't think the religious right works the way the ridiculous left works in this regard. The main difference is that the religious right wants to win, while the ridiculous left would rather lose 49 states - see Mondale vs. Reagan - than give up on their stupidity. The other key factor is that the right is willing to excoriate those who cause them to lose, while the left does nothing but rationalize = in 1992 when the Republicans took over congress, Dan Rather dismissed it as simply "the American people acting like children". Of course it wasn't the blatant failure of Clinton to do anything he promised, no, of course not.

 

Ask yourself this: in 2006 we gave the Democrats congress and their shot to "make things so much better". What did we get? A recession, no change in gas prices, no change in the Iraq war, and a convoluted prescription drug policy that makes Medicare even more of a mess. Each one a broken promise and now their approval rating is 20 points LOWER than Bush's ever has been.

 

But I am sure it's going to be someone else's fault again.....

 

 

what an angry post !!!... did your wife leave you to live with a leftist or what?!!

[swede316]

Ask yourself this: in 2006 we gave the Democrats congress and their shot to "make things so much better". What did we get? A recession, no change in gas prices, no change in the Iraq war, and a convoluted prescription drug policy that makes Medicare even more of a mess. Each one a broken promise and now their approval rating is 20 points LOWER than Bush's ever has been.

And that my friends is why Obama/Clinton will lose.

[pBills]

Ask yourself this: in 2006 we gave the Democrats congress and their shot to "make things so much better". What did we get? A recession, no change in gas prices, no change in the Iraq war, and a convoluted prescription drug policy that makes Medicare even more of a mess. Each one a broken promise and now their approval rating is 20 points LOWER than Bush's ever has been.

 

 

Did you ever take into account the veto power Bush has? Kind of hard to get things done with a President that will threaten to veto pretty much anything thrown at him. Recession I believe started before 2006. Gas Prices are EVERYONE'S fault - not just the dems.

 

Gas prices - nothing was done when the problem started. Just think, last year (July 2006) — Prices at the gas pump jumped 104 percent from $1.47 per gallon in January 2001 to $3.00. The average household with children will spend about $3,815 on transportation fuel costs this year, an increase of 100 percent or $1,912 over 2001 costs. Again, that all happened between 2001 and July 2006. Granted we're worse off now. Dems and Republicans are at fault at least from 2006 to now. From 2001 to 2006 I would have to put the majority of the blame on the republicans.

 

Now it would be easy to blame the oil companies (in 2005 the five largest oil companies reported a record $110 billion in profits - could they have put some of that money towards refining? Exploration?). Somehow, someway we have to get to OPEC and knock them back a bit since something like 70% of what we pay at the pump goes in that direction.

 

Bottom line is that something has to be done.

[Wacka]

If it wasn't for Ross Perot, the dems would be 1-9 since 1968. even with their 3-7 record, the three wins were two of the worst presidents.

[pBills]

Oh god we're now ranking presidents.

[KD in CA]

Oh god we're now ranking presidents.

 

 

That's almost as pathetic as dismissing the Dem Congress' performance as Bush's fault.