Mickey Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I blame most of it on the radicals in the party, since they are the ones who are the most vocal. The moderates need to become more vocal, and show that they are the direction of the party, not the radicals. The same goes for the Republicans. They need to have the moderates become more vocal, or they will suffer the same fate as the Dems. 111231[/snapback] No offense but every time we do that the right labels them a huge, radical left wing liberal and so we then have to go out and find an even more conservative democrat and start the whole cycle over again. Democrats are never going to outflank the republicans by moving to the right. They will simply move a little more to the right themselves. Given party loyalties, I don't think there is a point where they will move too far to the right so that moderates will be alienated. I keep thinking that will happen and it doesn't. I remember the Republican primary in 1988. Dole was the candidate of the conservative wing of the party and Bush was the moderate. That is why Reagan put him on the ticket, to assuage the moderate wing of the party. Flash forward to 1996 and Dole was selected as a moderate candidate, one able to appeal to the middle of the road voter. Four years from now and we will probably be calling Ashcroft a moderate. Look at republican writings and leaders. Do you see anyone ringing an alarm bell that maybe they are approaching the line where they are getting too conservative? Not hardly. Instead there are green lights being flashed everywhere that they can now afford to lurch even further to the right. The democrats, in my opinion, may very well have to make a big change but not the one I keep hearing about trying to appeal to red staters with talk about morality. The voters who traditionally vote democratic because of economic issues no longer do because of so-called moral issues. Meanwhile, the democrats are wasting their time trying to get those votes at the expense of appealing to marginal republican voters. There are plenty of moderate republicans who are pro-choice and as uncomfortable with christian political movements as are the democrats. They vote republican however because democrats want to tax the crap out of them as they tend to be well off. If some waitress in Nevada working on minimum wage wants to vote for Bush even though he opposes raising the minimum wage simply because he opposes gay marriage, then I think it is a waste of time for the Democrats to try and get her vote. I wish her the best but the democrats don't need her if they can get socially moderate republicans whose numbers are increasing in places like Arizona and Nevada and even in some southern states like North Carolina and Virgina. That coupled with the youth vote which, though not enough to swing it for Kerry this time around is certainly growing and heavily democratic could be what they need to build a new coalition. We can cut taxes just as crazily as the republicans. Its not like the electorate ever rose up in righteous anger against a tax cut. Democrats need to stop being the reponsible parent and start dealing out candy like its Halloween. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 No offense ... 113104[/snapback] I disagree with several of your statements. I will try to take them in order: No offense but every time we do that the right labels them a huge, radical left wing liberal and so we then have to go out and find an even more conservative democrat and start the whole cycle over again. Care to give examples? The ones I see labelled as radicals are not moderates, but actual radicals. I don't think there is a point where they will move too far to the right so that moderates will be alienated. There is a point when this will happen. It is when the Democrats put out a more centrist candidate. Countering radical righties with radical lefties forces people to vote party line or not vote (of course they could vote for candidates outside of the "big two," but that is another topic). Give the moderates an actual moderate choice, and the radical Republicans will lose support and moderate Republicans will cross party lines. Look at republican writings and leaders. Do you see anyone ringing an alarm bell that maybe they are approaching the line where they are getting too conservative? Not hardly. Instead there are green lights being flashed everywhere that they can now afford to lurch even further to the right. Which is my point of several posts, where I state that the Republicans are going to take things too far. They do not see the writing on the wall. Since the Democrats seem to want to go even farther left, that will force people to find alternative candidates or give up on the voting process. The democrats, in my opinion, may very well have to make a big change but not the one I keep hearing about trying to appeal to red staters with talk about morality. They do not need to use morality to appeal to the moderates. You seem to be listening to too much of Michael Moore's Jesusland crap. The Dems need to focus on their social issues. Pushing the class warfare and race baiting type stuff appeals to the radicals, but not the moderates. They want to see actual solutions that make sense. Kerry was not able to accomplish that, and he has nobody to blame but himself for that. There is not much you can do about the one-issue type voters, as you mentioned with the waitress. We can cut taxes just as crazily as the republicans. Its not like the electorate ever rose up in righteous anger against a tax cut. Well, then maybe they should start doing it. Actions speak louder than words. All I heard this past election was the tax increases that Kerry wanted to put through to pay for all of his new spending. You can't say "the deficit is out of control" and follow it with "I have a stevestojan-load of new spending proposals" and expect people to buy into it. Democrats need to stop being the reponsible parent Good one, Mick. Nice to see that you still have your sense of humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 its tough to say which way the senate is going to go in 2 years without knowing what the political climate in the country and each state will be like in 2 years and without knowing which senators are going to retire but in numbers alone, it looks better for the republicans. they have 15 seats to defend, the democrats have 17, and 1 independant(really democrat) 15 Republicans: AZ - Jon Kyl IN - Richard Lugar ME - Olympia Snowe MO - Jim Talent MS - Trent Lott MT - Conrad Burns NV - John Ensign OH - Mike DeWine PA - Rick Santorum RI - Lincoln Chafee TN - Bill Frist TX - Kay Bailey Hutchison UT - Orrin Hatch VA - George Allen WY - Craig Thomas 17 Democrats: CA - Diane Feinstein CT - Joe Lieberman DE - Tom Carper FL - Bill Nelson HI - Daniel Akaka MA - Ted Kennedy MD - Paul Sarbanes MI - Debbie Stabenow MN - Mark Dayton ND - Kent Conrad NJ - Jon Corzine NE - Ben Nelson NM - Jeff Bingaman NY - Hillary Clinton WA - Maria Cantwell WI - Herbert Kohl WV - Robert Byrd 1 Independant: VT - Jim Jeffords as far as individual races go, the only ones i know enough about to speak on are the ones in states i have lived in (PA and VA). Both seem like safe republican holds, tho a socially conservative democrat may be able to unseat santorum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I disagree with several of your statements. I will try to take them in order:Care to give examples? The ones I see labelled as radicals are not moderates, but actual radicals. There is a point when this will happen. It is when the Democrats put out a more centrist candidate. Countering radical righties with radical lefties forces people to vote party line or not vote (of course they could vote for candidates outside of the "big two," but that is another topic). Give the moderates an actual moderate choice, and the radical Republicans will lose support and moderate Republicans will cross party lines. Which is my point of several posts, where I state that the Republicans are going to take things too far. They do not see the writing on the wall. Since the Democrats seem to want to go even farther left, that will force people to find alternative candidates or give up on the voting process. They do not need to use morality to appeal to the moderates. You seem to be listening to too much of Michael Moore's Jesusland crap. The Dems need to focus on their social issues. Pushing the class warfare and race baiting type stuff appeals to the radicals, but not the moderates. They want to see actual solutions that make sense. Kerry was not able to accomplish that, and he has nobody to blame but himself for that. There is not much you can do about the one-issue type voters, as you mentioned with the waitress. Well, then maybe they should start doing it. Actions speak louder than words. All I heard this past election was the tax increases that Kerry wanted to put through to pay for all of his new spending. You can't say "the deficit is out of control" and follow it with "I have a stevestojan-load of new spending proposals" and expect people to buy into it. Good one, Mick. Nice to see that you still have your sense of humor. 113139[/snapback] Actaully, Dean was the radical in the democratic primaries who was rejected by democrats out of fears that he was too far left to ever win a general election. Kerry, with his bona fides military record in Viet Nam was the centrist, Edwards the right of center candidate. We nominated Kerry and he chose Edwards as his running mate. That would be the equivalent of the Republicans running Rudy and Arlen Specter. We thought we had a centrist ticket and then watched the machinery of the right tag them both as big time liberals. It would have been the same if we had nominated Lieberman. No matter how right we move, it won't be as right as them becasue they will just edge even more to the right. We will always be the left and they will always be able to tar us left wing radicals. Clinton was a centrist, a moderat democrat yet according to the right, he is about the most left wing President in history besides Carter. He was able to fight that but just barely, he needed lousy republican candidates, Pat Buchanan and Perot to help him out. A booming economy didn't hurt either and his southern heritage didn't hurt either. We agree that the republicans will keep moving to the right but I see no evidence that there is a point that will be too far. You believe there is but haven't told me why. At what point will we finally start hearing some concern among republicans themselves that they are going over the deep end? Specter's comments the other day was the first I've heard of such a concern being expressed and he got B word slapped in a hurry and has been begging for forgiveness ever since. As for the parent comment, tax cuts are candy and the electorate has never turned one down even if, and it has been true on some occasions in our history, it was bad for the country. The responsible parent, would not deal out the sweets when there are bills to pay. In that sense anyway, they have been more responsible. The deficit numbers for the last 12 years show that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 The responsible parent, would not deal out the sweets when there are bills to pay. In that sense anyway, they have been more responsible. The deficit numbers for the last 12 years show that. 113324[/snapback] But your centrist candidate Kerry, was going to INCREASE spending. Doesn't sound like responsible parenting to me. Increase taxes and increase spending is not a way to show that you are a "centrist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Actaully, Dean was the radical in the democratic primaries who was rejected by democrats out of fears that he was too far left to ever win a general election. Kerry, with his bona fides military record in Viet Nam was the centrist, Edwards the right of center candidate. We nominated Kerry and he chose Edwards as his running mate. That would be the equivalent of the Republicans running Rudy and Arlen Specter. We thought we had a centrist ticket and then watched the machinery of the right tag them both as big time liberals. It would have been the same if we had nominated Lieberman. No matter how right we move, it won't be as right as them becasue they will just edge even more to the right. We will always be the left and they will always be able to tar us left wing radicals. Clinton was a centrist, a moderat democrat yet according to the right, he is about the most left wing President in history besides Carter. He was able to fight that but just barely, he needed lousy republican candidates, Pat Buchanan and Perot to help him out. A booming economy didn't hurt either and his southern heritage didn't hurt either. We agree that the republicans will keep moving to the right but I see no evidence that there is a point that will be too far. You believe there is but haven't told me why. At what point will we finally start hearing some concern among republicans themselves that they are going over the deep end? Specter's comments the other day was the first I've heard of such a concern being expressed and he got B word slapped in a hurry and has been begging for forgiveness ever since. As for the parent comment, tax cuts are candy and the electorate has never turned one down even if, and it has been true on some occasions in our history, it was bad for the country. The responsible parent, would not deal out the sweets when there are bills to pay. In that sense anyway, they have been more responsible. The deficit numbers for the last 12 years show that. 113324[/snapback] Holy revisionist history Batman. Clinton and Kerry are centrists and Edwards to the right? Pass the doob, councelor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts