Two questions arising from the 2004 results

[froedrick]

Reread his post again froedrick but take a few deep breaths first and count to 10 and you'll see he was saying nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry hairygroin has pissed me off and so has the other 55 mill who voted bush. mb

[Hairygroin]

funny how liberals are so good at pointing fingers.

If only they pointed at a mirror.

[froedrick]

If only you didn't speak, or type.

[Cylor]

Cut out the bickering or another thread will go to waste.

[Hairygroin]

Hairygroin: *stir the fire*

froedrick: !#!@$!%!@!!@$!%!@%

Cylor: *double bitch slap*

[Jason]

Cy, we're simply progressing toward a complete divide of our ever-so-happy little spaceship microcosm. That's all. It's not like the discussions on these forums differ whatsoever from the attitudes being expressed throughout the nation right now.

I like my civil war shaken, not stirred. How about you?

[Vykromond]

There's a lot more to it than that, Sleepy, not least of which is the issue of how to win in 2008.

At the very least, your proposition is ignoring the fact that the Dems absolutely need to retake some Congressional seats in the 2006 midterms. Otherwise, Bush is going to get 4 years of being able to trample over domestic policy. Granted, there's a growing Republican minority that takes issue with some or all of the theocratic blitzkrieg that seems to be gathering steam within the ranks of our president-elect, but we still need an opposition party.

[Facetious]

While it's sad, I think a large part of the problem is that John Kerry came across like a big douchebag. He looks like a douchebag, and he talks like a complete douchebag. As far as basic personality goes, I could totally see kicking back and having a beer with George Bush. He's a little bit of an asshole, a little bit stupid, but I bet he has some killer stories about coke and hookers back when he was younger, and some funny stories about farming and shit in Texas. I love people like that. John Kerry comes across as one of high school teachers that gave everyone shitty grades because they claimed that "if you look at the grading rubric, a C is technically average. So if you get a C, you did fine!" In a society where most people don't actually pay any attention to the issues, I think the way a candidate comes across on TV is extremely important, and the democrats chose someone that came across as a pompous ass that talked like he was more important than everyone else. If this is how I view the candidates' personalities, I can't imagine how an uneducated farmer from the midwest would view them. As sad as it is, I think this lost the Democrats the election.

[Sleepy Weasel]

There's a lot more to it than that, Sleepy, not least of which is the issue of how to win in 2008.

Pick a more likeable candidate. And I'm sorry for not addressing all the issues in a 15 second post in a forum where I don't respect the opinion of 99% of the users. Saying "wait 4 years" wasn't supposed to be taken literally. I was just suggested a reason for some optimisim amid the general gloom for the democrats.

[Vykromond]

I guess I'm sorry for answering you, then. Excuse me.

[Fit of Rage]

1) (PRESIDENTIAL QUESTION) Would the other Democratic primary candidates have done better than Kerry?

- Sadly, I think any Democract would have fallen victim to the same fate. The fact of the matter is that the majority of America is dangerously ignorant, and most people have an unfounded fear of change.

2) (POLITICAL QUESTION) Where does the Democratic party go from here?

- It pains me to say it, but I feel as though the Dems are going to be nearly powerless in the legislature, save for the filibuster. I don't see partisanship fading into the background enough to allow for even the tiniest amount of mutually beneficial progress to be made. Bush will have his way and the house and the senate will support him. So much for checks and balances. My only hope is for the simultaneous assassination of Bush and Cheney. Barring a miracle of that caliber, the Dems have nowhere to go. Their backs are to the wall, and they're probably shitting themselves. I'm soiling my pants right along with them.

Cheney doesn't have to be assassinated. He's going to drop dead in the next few months. I agree with you on other points though.

I think Kerry might try to run for President once more in 08 but not beyond that. Guiliani is a nice guy but I don't think he's got the overall experiance to be President. A city is not a nation.

[Bob (SRB)]

Was I the only one that thought someone called "Obama" running might be a bad thing. I could just imagaine some texan hillbilly yelling "Oh good lord!!! Martha get the 12 gauge, the muslims are takin over! Osama's running for president!"

[Epinephrine]

The Democrats lost the election on their own (mis)merits.

They failed to see that huge section of America that consists of religious conservatives who would NEVER vote Kerry.

These people believe that the Democratic party would be a mistake and even evil because of the fact that they support abortion and are percieved to support gay marriages (even though Kerry said he opposed it, I bet none of those religious guys believed it). The democrats needed to make the moral issues in the very least a non-issue. How else would a former cokehead, drunk driver alcoholic, war-dodger get 80% of the vote of people who thought "moral values" were the most important thing in this election (and 22% of the electorate thought so).

Kerry won on all the actual issues (war, economy, health care), but not on the intangible issues of 'that's a guy I can trust'.

Until the Democrats find someone like that they're not going to win. Clinton was amazing at that, and it helped a ton because he was from the South and from a humble background, and tried hard not to sound too arrogant. I think for the same reason Edwards would have done better, but we'll never know.


1) I think it'd be fun to see Gulliani + The Goubinator (if they change the law) vs. Hilary + Obama, or better yet, Hiliary + Bill (haha!).

Obama is one smart guy, and Hiliary has the centrist view of her husband which appeals to many.

2) They need to start looking at the following (from the New York Times):

Living Poor, Voting Rich
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: November 3, 2004

In the aftermath of this civil war that our nation has just fought, one result is clear: the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland.

I'm writing this on tenterhooks on Tuesday, without knowing the election results. But whether John Kerry's supporters are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad, they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly against their own interests - for Republican candidates.

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective on bread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in much of America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values.

"On values, they are really noncompetitive in the heartland," noted Mike Johanns, a Republican who is governor of Nebraska. "This kind of elitist, Eastern approach to the party is just devastating in the Midwest and Western states. It's very difficult for senatorial, Congressional and even local candidates to survive."

In the summer, I was home - too briefly - in Yamhill, Ore., a rural, working-class area where most people would benefit from Democratic policies on taxes and health care. But many of those people disdain Democrats as elitists who empathize with spotted owls rather than loggers.

One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party. Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the year, "What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," says that Democratic leaders have been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they have lost touch with blue-collar America.

"There is a very upper-middle-class flavor to liberalism, and that's just bound to rub average people the wrong way," Mr. Frank said. He notes that Republicans have used "culturally powerful but content-free issues" to connect to ordinary voters.

To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns, gays and grizzlies.

One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.

Then we have guns, which are such an emotive issue that Idaho's Democratic candidate for the Senate two years ago, Alan Blinken, felt obliged to declare that he owned 24 guns "and I use them all." He still lost.

As for gays, that's a rare wedge issue that Democrats have managed to neutralize in part, along with abortion. Most Americans disapprove of gay marriage but do support some kind of civil unions (just as they oppose "partial birth" abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from coat-hanger abortions).

Finally, grizzlies - a metaphor for the way environmentalism is often perceived in the West as high-handed. When I visited Idaho, people were still enraged over a Clinton proposal to introduce 25 grizzly bears into the wild. It wasn't worth antagonizing most of Idaho over 25 bears.

"The Republicans are smarter," mused Oregon's governor, Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat. "They've created ... these social issues to get the public to stop looking at what's happening to them economically."

"What we once thought - that people would vote in their economic self-interest - is not true, and we Democrats haven't figured out how to deal with that."

Bill Clinton intuitively understood the challenge, and John Edwards seems to as well, perhaps because of their own working-class origins. But the party as a whole is mostly in denial.

To appeal to middle America, Democratic leaders don't need to carry guns to church services and shoot grizzlies on the way. But a starting point would be to shed their inhibitions about talking about faith, and to work more with religious groups.

Otherwise, the Democratic Party's efforts to improve the lives of working-class Americans in the long run will be blocked by the very people the Democrats aim to help.

That said no one's mentioned the gay marriage thing so here's my take on it:

I think it's sad that all 11 states that had it on their ballots banned gay marriages and/or civil unions. Why do people (like panda's hillbilly parents) care so much about what other people do? It's not like these gay people are going to get married in your church. It's not like they're forcing your kids to be gay. It's not like they're infringing on anyone else's rights. Why not let gays do what they want? Why not extend the same benefits to them that every other heterosexual (be it common law or marriage) couple gets? These are people too, and they face the same types of problems all couples do, and giving them the same benefits and respect is good for all of society. It's so sad that a nation that professes to be the leader of tolarance and human rights in the world could be so against this.

-Epi

[froedrick]

cuz tha bible says dat all dem dere gays is goin ter hell! WHY THAT MAKES ME MAD I HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE. IF HE'S GOING TO HELL AND IM NOT SHOULDN'T I BE HAPPY HE'S TAKING MY FUCKING SPOT.

Moronic fucking dickwads in that god damn country. I'm coming to wyoming with assault rifles. watch the fuck out, I'm going to ruin all your shit fuckers.

[PUNK rock]

I think it's sad that all 11 states that had it on their ballots banned gay marriages and/or civil unions. Why do people (like panda's hillbilly parents) care so much about what other people do? It's not like these gay people are going to get married in your church. It's not like they're forcing your kids to be gay. It's not like they're infringing on anyone else's rights. Why not let gays do what they want? Why not extend the same benefits to them that every other heterosexual (be it common law or marriage) couple gets? These are people too, and they face the same types of problems all couples do, and giving them the same benefits and respect is good for all of society. It's so sad that a nation that professes to be the leader of tolarance and human rights in the world could be so against this.

-Epi

The most logical explanation I've heard from a gay marriage ban supporter: He doesn't want his tax dollars giving benefits to gays. Also, he mentioned that it would be even more difficult for a child growing to be ridiculed for having gay parents.

Not the best explanation, but a lot better than "OMG THE BIBLE SAYS ALL GAYS SHOULD DIE!!!"