[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Whatever it is they should do, I think you can count on them not doing.
What the DEM's should do is work with the Bush administration in a non-partisan fashion, compromise to pass good domestic/economic legislation, support the war effort and move to the center.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they should all give support to Bush's illegal war against Iraq especially after 100,000 civilian deaths!! They should also support his economic policies which have created a $422 Billion deficit.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
Yes, they should all give support to Bush's **illegal* war against Iraq especially after 100,000 civilian deaths!! They should also support his economic policies which have created a $422 Billion deficit.
[/QUOTE]
Are you like the only guy on the planet who didn't get the election results? That "pap" and BS resulted in an incumbent being re-elected by a majority popular vote with his party GAINING seats in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1936. You clearly do not understand the magnitude of the loss suffered by the DEMs.
The topic is what should the DEMs do now. If they spend four years decrying the "illegal" war, talking about mythical Iraqi civilian deaths, and the budget deficit, they won't have a viable party in 2008.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
it wouldn't matter.. I'm surprised over 100 million votes are counted that easily in just a couple of hours.. it appears sometimes the results are pre-cooked!!
[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHAHA
This is coming from the people who accepted 99% polling with 97.5% going to the prime candidate without any discomport.
Are you like the only guy on the planet who didn't get the election results? That "pap" and BS resulted in an incumbent being re-elected by a majority popular vote with his party GAINING seats in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1936. You clearly do not understand the magnitude of the loss suffered by the DEMs.
The topic is what should the DEMs do now. If they spend four years decrying the "illegal" war, talking about mythical Iraqi civilian deaths, and the budget deficit, they won't have a viable party in 2008.
[/QUOTE]
Stop whining, MyVoice! You got your seat, what else you need?!
Since Bush is again the Chief of Command, soon everything will change for the good, aight!
So piss off to Soho for a week or two and let me know how it feels living and dying on the streets of US n A among the rest of your fellows and when you already at it, don't forget to send me a post card in advance....Cheers!!!
field a candidate who says ‘france sucks’ every so often, was atleast a suspect in the killing of a gay/muslim (but not a gay muslim.. they’re good..) and design their own cabal to do the behind the scenes occult machinations.. the neoLibs (might want to choose a less obvious name).
Are you like the only guy on the planet who didn't get the election results? That "pap" and BS resulted in an incumbent being re-elected by a majority popular vote with his party GAINING seats in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1936. You clearly do not understand the magnitude of the loss suffered by the DEMs.
The topic is what should the DEMs do now. If they spend four years decrying the "illegal" war, talking about mythical Iraqi civilian deaths, and the budget deficit, they won't have a viable party in 2008.
[/QUOTE]
Yes the Dems lost, but that doesnt mean fudge. Millions of Americans still voted for kerry's policies, millions of Americans were against the war before the election and millions of Americans are against it after. Why should these people support something which is against their ideological, religious or political beliefs just for the sake of appeasing Bush & Co.
oh and tell the young voters to screw themselves. this country rocks to the tune of Pat Robertson not eminem.
as an aside, given that the demographic where the Bush team dominated (in terms of age) was aging/elderly people. does that mean we'll see a lot more investment in medicare now?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
given that the demographic where the Bush team dominated (in terms of age) was aging/elderly people. does that mean we'll see a lot more investment in medicare now?
[/QUOTE]
There will be alot more cutbacks in medicare if anything and further tax cuts for the super rich!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
The topic is what should the DEMs do now. If they spend four years decrying the "illegal" war, talking about mythical Iraqi civilian deaths, and the budget deficit, they won't have a viable party in 2008.
[/QUOTE]
God forbid we talk about the budget deficits, ask for a viable count of Iraqi civilian deaths and or question the wisdom of the pre-emptive doctrine. They are legitimate concerns and expressed by a better candidate would have changed the outcome of this election. Because Rove was able to scare more envangelicals and uninformed voters to the polls than the uninspired Democrat was able to doesn't mean that the WHOLE Democratic message was wrong or W's was 100% right. There is still a 50-50 split in the electorate and a more viable candidate could have inspired enough young people or other Democratic constinuency to have swung it the other way.
Dems did pretty good considering the fact that after 9/11 Bush had 80+ approval rating. To run against any such incumbent president had to be an uphill battle. They did well to come 48/51% in popular vote and then lose the electoral college by just one state and that too by little margin of 49/50.
They failed to capitalize on Bush Administration's repeated mistakes by being too insecure about their own priorities. Some say they were intimidated into supporting the war but I don’t buy that.
The republicans should re-evaluate on how they made a historically united country into a bitterly divided one; that is if they care about the divide. After 'four more years' of Bush, Americans will be crying for someone with a head on his shoulders.
But unfortunately in 2000 they did little introspection or reaching across the isle when they won with less votes and a Supreme Court coronation. Besides crying for someone w/a head on his shoulders, they will want a uniter, not a divider.
This election proved very clearly that Senators make very bad Presidential candidates. Its very hard to run with years of "weird" Senate records. It is precisely this reason, that Governors make the best Presidential candidates.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
What the DEM's should do is work with the Bush administration in a non-partisan fashion, compromise to pass good domestic/economic legislation, support the war effort and move to the center. They will not be running against Bush or Cheney in 2008 so will not be facing an incumbent. They need to be able to take equal credit for moving the country forward and healing partisan wounds. An effective centrist House Minority Leader ticketed with a Southern or Mid-America DEM governor would be a good ticket for them in 2008.
[/QUOTE]
All this is good and dandy, my voice, but as always its lopsided. You have recounted what the Dems should do. You should also take a moment to highlight what the Reps should do (if anything) to unite the country after a bitterly divisive election. Nothing, cz they have won popular vote?
Im concerned bout the youth of america!!
only 17% shopwed up to cast their vote
thats 1 in 10 between 18-25 year olds, college students. They had an oppurtunity to make a difference but they chose to just watch Emimen on MTV.
My fear is that the Democrats won't have to do much to win the 2008 election as the country will be in shambles after 8 years of Bush and the Republicans in control of the White House, I hope I'm wrong about that though.
Shifting Geographical Focus
Democrats in 2008 will be able to take New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, it's about demographics. Ohio is shrinking and leaving fewer and fewer people in the cities allowing the less educated rural areas to extend their voice, the states mentioned above the opposite is occurring. Growth in these states bear jobs and that brings in educated people who are less likely to buy into the religious right of the Republicans. Ohio will continue to lose electoral votes while the southwestern cities will gain, this bears well for the Democrats and the focus and pressure will be shifted onto these states.
Saving Ohio and Making Inroads to the South
This will be a difficult maneuver and one that’s going to take time to create. Options include obviously picking a southern nominee to shore up some southern support. Another option is creating some type of 'religious left' that can pick off the fringes of the Republican party that see the Democratic party as immoral which the Republicans have sold successfully but falsely and aren't ingraded to deep into the religious zeal of the right.
I tried to find a county-by-county map of Election 2004, but couldn't find one. If someone can post it that will be great. The point is, that even in the states that Dems won in this election, majority of counties are still red. Its only in the thickly populated (urban) areas where Dems scored votes. Even in California, except for the Bay Area and LA/San Diego counties... pretty much everything else is red.
I am beginning to believe that John Edwards was right... there ARE two Americas. But I view that these two Americas are hugely divided between cityfolks America (including minorities) and the rest. A huge percent of American farmland does not care about many of the values held by the Democratic party. There seems to be a big disconnect between middle America and Dems. Democratic issues like gay marriage, abortion, govt sponsored health care, big government etc... are not resonating with rural America, and until Dems can appeal to these Americans, there is no way they can win just based on vote by city-folks.
And the problem for Dems is that if they move to the center to attract a wider majority of voters, they run the risk of losing whatever identity they have left and there will be little to distinguish them from Republicans.
Faisal the key is education. Those with higher levels of education live in the cities and understand the consequences of actions, they don't buy the little quips spoken by the politicians or the sound bites. You need to wrap your head around the issues, exam them yourself and this is more likely to be done by those with higher degrees of education while those with lower will just blindly follow the leader.
utd.. we are not talking about a few individuals who need to be educated. We are talking about 51% of American voters. Despite seeing Bush with all his quirks and smirks and bumblings, they still vote for him (and for Republicans) bcz they feel he shares their values. Most people in America do not share their values with Democratic party. If your target audience is not understanding your message, you need to either dumb down your message or change your approach. Blaming it on the education of the voter is not likely to win you any election.
See my latest post in the thread 'What Should Democrats Do in Next Elections....'
When I ask people who voted Bush why and they say "I don't want the U.S. to become Afghanistan" or "I dunno, I just like him" I have no choice but to blame lack of education.
