Democratic Dilemna

So, maybe I’m opening a Pandora’s Box here, but I’d really like to know what people from all sides of the political spectrum think has prevented the Democrats from winning the last 2 presidential elections, although the 2001 election was hotly contested.

Why was Bill Clinton able to defeat Bush’s father and Bob Dole? Were they simply weak candidates who ran poor campaigns? Does Clinton’s background as a Southerner have anything to do with it? Kennedy was the last Democratic president who was not from the South, right?

Did Clinton scar the Democratic Party with his sex scandal?

I think it’s fair to say America as a country is center-right, but not always as far to the right on things as the Bush administration itself.

I’m not looking to start a fight here. I’d like to hear what people think.

After what and how you’ve been writing today, I would think that answers should be relatively clear… :unamused:

“One shot, one kill.” :bravo:

Great topic, Etheorial.

I have a dinner to go to, so I’ll have to save my conjecture on this subject for later.

Let me, however, make a quick “preemtive strike” in an effort to avoid doing a messy thread split later:

[color=green]If your answer to Etheorial’s question is “The Democrats didn’t lose; the elections were stolen” please start a separate thread (or look for an old one) and make your argument there.[/color]

I am not making any statement on the legitimacy of that point of view – I know it is one that some people hold. However, if one believes that the Democrats “won” both of the last presidential elections, then none of the potential explanations offered by Etheorial would apply. There would be no need to discuss what the Democrats can do to get more votes, because the answer would be that they already have enough votes, and they just need to focus on keeping the next election from being unfairly stolen from them.

Cheers,
Hobbes

This pretty much sums it up, although I would tend to disagree on his apparent belief that it is possible to be a “sane and rational Left(y)”.

The Left loses out because they don’t do or have ANYTHING constructive. They simply froth about stolen elections, and make third-grade-playground-level insults about “Chimp”, and scream “Halliburton! Halliburton!” at random intervals even when nothing related is being discussed, and try their best to obfuscate and smokescreen and lie, and fatuously claim they could do things even better despite their decades-long record of being utterly useless at anything.

Your recent posts have been prime examples. They’re pretty much 100% fertilizer. Whine all you want, it’s an accurate assessment.

As far as votes (which Hobbes brought up more so than you did) take a look at all the vote fraud that went on in the last election, and you’ll see it was the Democrats setting up phone banks to call Republicans and tell them that they had to bring three forms of ID to the polls in Ohio, it was the Democrats slashing Republican Party vehicles’ tires in Milwaukee, it was the Democrats passing out cigarettes to the homeless in exchange for votes in Wisconsin, and it was the Democrats planning illegal cross-border dual registration between Minnesota and Wisconsin so that they could vote twice. Claims of black voters being “blocked” by long lines in Ohio turned out to be in a district where the election board was led by a black Democrat – the lines were because turnout was high, not because he was trying to sabotage his own party and his own race.

Face it, your side has been discredited and people have flooded to a party that, while not even remotely perfect, is at least a hell of a lot better.

I owe Tetsuo a beer…he is allowed to drink beer isn’t he?

[quote] Face it, your side has been discredited and people have flooded to a party that, while not even remotely perfect, is at least a hell of a lot better.
[/quote]

Squid, you certainly lay into the Democratic Party, but you haven’t said anything that the Right has accomplished that’s particularly admirable.

During GW Bush’s term:

  • September 11th and a failed attempt to capture the Mastermind. Taliban currently regrouping in Afghanistan.

  • Saddam Hussein is gone, but at what cost? Moreover, how great a threat was he to begin with?

  • Domestically, some tax cuts for large corporations. Granted there has been some economic improvement, but is that really due to Bush’s specific policies? Was the '90’s booming economy due to Clinton’s specific policies?

  • An attempt to overhaul Social Security that is not as easy as Mr. Bush presumed it would be

  • John Roberts will probably be confirmed. I don’t agree with his viewpoints on most things, but I must admit he seems qualified. If he’s confirmed that would be an accomplishment for Bush: a qualified justice sharing his viewpoints as Chief Justice.

Overall, Bush’s record doesn’t look that impressive, in terms of accomplishments. We know his base is fiercely loyal, but what about people sitting on the fence? Do you think they will vote Republican again in '08, especially after war?

Anyone think the Democrats simply ran two weak candidates in the past two elections? Gore almost (or did) win, riding on Clinton’s coattails. Kerry, whom I don’t think anybody liked that much, predictably lost.

What I’d like to see is the people here who are conservative Republicans give truly intelligent arguments to back up their claims. Not distorted facts. I’m certainly not the only one guilty of getting hot-headed on this website. There are plenty of people on the other side guilty of the same thing.

[quote=“MaPoSquid”]This pretty much sums it up, although I would tend to disagree on his apparent belief that it is possible to be a “sane and rational Left(y)”.

The Left loses out because they don’t do or have ANYTHING constructive. They simply froth about stolen elections, and make third-grade-playground-level insults about “Chimp”, and scream “Halliburton! Halliburton!” at random intervals even when nothing related is being discussed, and try their best to obfuscate and smokescreen and lie, and fatuously claim they could do things even better despite their decades-long record of being utterly useless at anything.[/quote]
See, but that’s just basing it on the overly noisy, attention-whoring mongoloids that get all the attention. They fuck it up for the rest of us. Unfortunately they’re also the most vocal, but I would be willing to wager dollar to donuts that they’re also the minority. I think it’s unfair to tar us all with the same brush. It’s exactly the same as when those dipshits start ranting about Republicans being blind, war-mongering liars. Yes, there are plenty of them that are, and a lot of those are very, very vocal. But that doesn’t make them representative, and anyone who assumes either the raving, conspiracy-nut whackjobs or the “You’re an unpatriotic communist” unevolved mongoloids are representative of the left or right respectively does both sides a tremendous disservice, and does much more harm to any chance of actual constructive discussion than any amount of said ramblings.

So? Did you ASK anyone to do so?? Let’s see:

[quote=“Etheorial, in his original post,”]So, maybe I’m opening a Pandora’s Box here, but I’d really like to know what people from all sides of the political spectrum think has prevented the Democrats from winning the last 2 presidential elections, although the 2001 election was hotly contested.

Why was Bill Clinton able to defeat Bush’s father and Bob Dole? Were they simply weak candidates who ran poor campaigns? Does Clinton’s background as a Southerner have anything to do with it? Kennedy was the last Democratic president who was not from the South, right?

Did Clinton scar the Democratic Party with his sex scandal?

I think it’s fair to say America as a country is center-right, but not always as far to the right on things as the Bush administration itself.

I’m not looking to start a fight here. I’d like to hear what people think.[/quote]
Hmm. Bob Dole, Bill Clinton, why can’t the Dems win when they keep shoving out unimaginative party hacks as “electable candidates”. . . . Nope. Don’t see it.

I also failed to explain Fermat’s Last Conjecture. Bummer.

I think there are a number of factors the lead the Republicans winning in 2000 and 2004. Aside from 2000 Florida issue that we don’t need to rehash.

In the 2000 the mood in America was very optimistic and many people just wanted a change. Many voters in my generation remember the Reagan Era leading to the Bush presidency, which was quite lack-luster and uneventful, besides a small war in the middle.

So Gore had the same problem. He was a less charismatic politician than his predecessor, making my generation think of “read my lips” Bush. Not to mention his deadpan demeanor didn

Because this is a thread about problems with the Democratic Party, I’m gonna reserve any thoughts about Blackwell, Harris, Deibold, and GOP complicity in this game for another, more appropriate time. That being said, if Democratic Party ever wanna get my support in the future they will have to stop trying to fuck with the democratic process, as well. I’m only going to mention my personal experience with apparent Democratic vote rigging.

Last summer my work had me in one notorious Democratic Midwestern city looking at the voter rolls. My colleague noticed the strangest thing. Some guy’s voter reg says his birthday is July, 4 1776… Wait a minute, so does his his wife’s… Another one, named Daly, of all names. … Mr. and Mrs. Falsetti (I shit you not) were apparently 229 years old but like many others with the exact same birthday, they voted in every city, county, state and federal election, and almost exclusively in Democratic Primary for the 8 years for which the rolls covered. A+ for citizenship. Pretty disturbing.

Don’t get me started on some ways the DNC fought to keep Nader off the ballot…

This seems to be a pretty accurate acount of Democratic failures, although I don’t know that I’d necessarily equate the Left with any party in America. I’d have to say one of the most Left wing shits in our state legislature is a Republican. To bad he’s not in my district, he’d probably get my vote and maybe even some volunteer time. In our Republican state, the Republican primaries is where you might find the most Left-leaning candidates. (The Democrats seldom have contested primary races–not enough interest in them parts.)

Anyhow back to the national scene, the DNC doesn’t really even offer anything. Take Kerry. 80 some-odd million Americans supposedly lack affordable healthcare. Kerry decides he can get votes from this pool of uninsured so he offers to get healthcare for like 40 million of those people. Now just imagine you’re an appathetic undecided voter and the guy on the tube is “promising” you that if you help elect him there’s a 50-50 shot you might get healthcare. Why bother?

You know what I think happened? The party has become too dependent on money as a replacement for soul. The real problem is that EVERYBODY KNOWS that the DNC is not serious about helping the little people–they’re afraid of them that’s why they live in the gated communities too. They suck off the corporate teet at every chance, and given the worry of losing someone’s dollar or losing their vote, they’re more concerned about the cash. They can’t talk about a sales tax on stocks and bonds, because their liberal donors would shit voided checks.

The working class is on to them, they know the party has forsaken them. They noticed how two Republican Presidents couldn’t pass NAFTA, that took a Democrat in the White House. I think there’s a lot of people with a lot to say about economic matters (for example on the ideal unemployment rate), but somehow the candidates never bump into into them at the fundraiser balls. The hypocricy is what bothers me here.

So what do Democrats offer us in the national race? Something that sounds like a Bush Lite:

Livable wage? No.

Health insurance? Maybe for half of you.

Iraq withdrawl? No, not for at least four years. In the interim send more troops.

Gay Marriage? No. Civil unions, same as Bush.

Ending the Drug War? Not a chance.

Until the Democrats can get some exitement behind an agenda that appeals to voters who struggle to stay afloat or even survive, they won’t win many elections with my help.

I just hope the party itself will shrivel up and blow away sooner rather than later, it’s time for a change.


(None of the above should be applied of this to all Democrats as they come in all stripes too, From Barbara Lee to Zell Miller.)

Whoa thare! WHAT war did JFK stop???

I recall him starting one, but then it was just called “sending military advisers.” :unamused:

Whoa thare! WHAT war did JFK stop???

I recall him starting one, but then it was just called “sending military advisers.” :unamused:[/quote] I think he means a charismatic, dynamic leader to unite the country… which is a popular notion of what JFK was, if incorrect.

I think it’s just a matter of competition. If bloated government, profligate public spending, runaway deficits, hapless messianic ‘nation building,’ criminally inefficient bureaucracy and a national leadership which seems to be permanently under the influence of mind-altering drugs is your thing, the Democratic Party used to be the only game in town.

Now Democrats are being given a serious run for the money by the former ‘other side’ and seem to be suffering a debilitating identity crisis as a result which affects people’s willingness to support them.

Observing Democrats observing current-day ‘Republicans’ is like watching somebody seeing themselves in a mirror for the first time with a look of confused disbelief on their face.

I will hold off on toldyaso ranting today in this thread, as I did yesterday courtesy of the preview function and delete option.

So, for you leftswinging folk, and Democratic supporters:

what would you have done to change what’s wrong with the Democratic party?

I think Howard Dean’s doing a great job. I wish he’s run for President.

:smiling_imp: I’d love to see the Democrats nominate a JFK candidate – someone who takes corticosteroids, procaine, antispasmodics including Lomotil, testosterone, amphetamines, Nembutal, and various antipsychotic drugs, while humping anything that moves.

The truth is that no other presidential administration can begin to compete with JFK’s record of recklessness, lechery, and deceit. Bill Clinton, bad as he was, was no match for JFK. His reckless behavior with women, drugs, and mobsters betray character faults that might have cost the nation dearly. Whether he was smoking marijuana or dropping LSD with Mary Meyer, bedding East German spies, or failing to pass most of his legislative agenda in Congress, JFK was irresponsible and a weak leader. I can only hope that the Democrats nominate someone with such a checkered personal life.

Honestly I think if the Democrats quit letting their front man come from Massachusetts or Minnesota they might have a fighting shot. Unfortunately if you

This is a very revealing post. I think many Americans place too much emphasis on the personal lives of their leaders. They are often concerned about whether their leaders have the correct “moral values” to lead the country, and they intensely scrutinize their personal lives as a way of evaluating it. This is one reason that it so easy for the Republicans to make a big deal out of Bill Clinton getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky. They made it a moral issue. It wasn’t about perjury at first. That is incorrect. It was about the fact that the President, a married man, had sexual relations with a younger woman. No doubt it was irresponsible and foolish, but it didn’t deserve to become the circus that it did.

As far as reckless and foolish American administrations, at least recent ones, the current one leads the pack in my humble opinion. Mr. Bush may not be a womanizer, but he’s a war-monger, and doesn’t know how to conduct diplomacy, intelligent foreign policy, or “nation building,” which is probably why he said he wasn’t interested in nation building before the '00 election.

Mr. Clinton does know how to conduct diplomacy, and how to reserve military might for when it’s truly needed. He opened diplomatic relations with Vietnam in 1995, no small task, and when China tried to intimidate Taiwan before the '96 elections sent aircraft carriers to show the Chinese we meant business. Fine examples of the use of diplomacy and showing some military muscle when it was critical to do so.

As far as other reckless and foolish American administrations, no doubt Lyndon Johnson’s comes to mind, although Richard Nixon’s was in many ways worse. Do you recall “Vietnamization?” That policy entailed massive bombing campaigns in Cambodia that devestated the country. Nixon didn’t care. He, like Johnson, never understood the nature of his opponent in the Vietnam War.

And need I mention Watergate? That shook the faith of the nation in the government, and with good reason. The fact that the President had to resign shows just how implicated he was in it.

I think we need to pay more attention to our leaders’ policies and less to their personal lives. Bush’s and Nixon’s commitments to their spouses didn’t result (or in the case of Mr. Bush) hasn’t resulted in good policy making.

The bombing of Cambodia resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians, and so has the campaign in Iraq. Not to mention the American soldiers who lost their lives as the result of the reckless policies Nixon and Bush pursued. Nixon seemed to think that it was worth it to devastate Cambodia. After all, according to him, the South Vietnamese government was committed to democracy and needed our help to fight those Communist (but don’t forget nationalist) aggressors.

Now, those Iraqis need us to help them create a democracy. Although they didn’t ask, we’re gonna help them, no matter how many people die.

I think Mr. Nixon and Mr. Bush are two of the worst presidents in American history, not because of their personal lives, but because of their careless, reckless, and ultimately disastrous policy-making.

E, you’re fingerpointing again. Where are your suggestions about improving the Demoicratic party?