The Republicans have been successful in the false labelling of their party as the one with 'moral values'. They also play to the majority whites as the party to keep them in power, scaring the crap out of intolerant middle Americans. The more sophisticated liberals of urban areas are going to take "their country" down the tubes.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
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.
[/QUOTE]
I agree faisal, but I still believe that democrats can pull it together, if they start focusing on southern states more. It is a long battle they have to fight just like republicans did who have been planning for years and now we can see the results.
I believe that for next 10 to 12 years, democrats have to stay away from a hard-core left-wing liberal politics and move into the middle focusing more on southern states addressing moral and religious issues. And they can do it without losing their identity. Joe Liberman is a good example to start with. But in order to have this dialogue, it is necessary for democrats to choose their presidential nominees from a hard-core southern state for next couple of elections. They ran a Vietnam war hero on a moderate platform of deficit reduction and reuniting a divided America, against a president facing middling approval ratings, the most job losses in 70 years and a bloody, uncertain war in Iraq. Yet, the Democrats lost another bid for the presidency and four seats in the U.S. Senate.
So there is a clear message for democrats. Democrats have to bring the traditional Catholics of these southern states back in. They have to dialogue with them. The Democrats better figure out how to talk to a large part of the country that's concerned with religious and moral issues if they want to stay alive in USA politically. However, in order to communicate with these rural voters, I would re-emphasize, they need a presidential nominee from a hard-core southern state. Because these states will never ever and I say it again will never ever trust any liberal nominee no matter how presidential he looks. Just look at 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton won every thing, every thing,even in southern states. He won Tennessee, Missouri, Georgia, Nebraska, Iowa, Ohio, Arkansas even Louisiana. Can you imagine ted kennedy or any other nominee from east coast or west coast to win even one of these states. Whenever, democrats chose a nominee outside south, they lost it. They lost it with Humphrey (1968), they lost it with Mondale (1984), they lost it with Dukakis (1988), and they lost it with Kerry (2004). And they won it with Johnson (1964), they won it with Carter (1976) and they won it with Clinton (1992 and 1996). I believe that if John Edwards had more experience he would have pulled it together for democrats. Even Joe Liberman would have delivered it.
Meanwhile, if Democrats can't find the recipe for attracting more conservative voters, they have at least one thing going for them: time. Good news are that young Americans are more socially liberal than the Republican Party's values reflect, and in 10 to 12 years democratic party may have a big comback.
Faisal, check out these maps:
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.
Well, you haven’t asked the right person. tsk tsk tsk
http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/index.php
Here is your lovely california. Just reverse the color.
Red = Kerry
Blue = Bush
[thumb=H]ca-county5263_5274046.JPG[/thumb]
OG: My site is better 
Ahmadjee,
Bite me, CNN rules!
;)
Population in CA: The darkest Blue (Bush) in previous are the lightest yellow here.
[thumb=H]ca-population5263_9062129.JPG[/thumb]
Can you site give this stat: huh? huh? huh? :p
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
The Republicans have been successful in the false labelling of their party as the one with 'moral values'. They also play to the majority whites as the party to keep them in power, scaring the crap out of intolerant middle Americans. The more sophisticated liberals of urban areas are going to take "their country" down the tubes.
[/QUOTE]
I don't think these are necessarily 'false' labels. Hand to heart, Republican positions on social issues are more clearly defined, compared to Democrats who are always trying to find a nuance to explain their position.
For example..
Abortion: Republicans oppose it, period. That position more closely resonate with person of any religion, be it christian, muslim or jew. Dems favor it.
Gay rights: Republicans oppose gay marriage, period. Whereas it is democratic mayors (SF) and left-leaning judges (MA etc) who favor it.
Faith-based initiatives: Republicans support it, period. Dems oppose it because in their opinion it defiles the separation of church and state.
Can you site give this stat: huh? huh? huh?
No, the population in California is listed as "uncountable", due to illegal Mexicans. That makes mine not only more accurate, but more honest! :p
:p :p :p
Stupid people deserve a stupid president
and u people on gupshup who like bush are even more stupid than the white people themselves who like Kerry. I think white people would actually have some reasons to vote Bush, not good and valid ones but reasons none the less.
What reasons do u guys have for supporting Bush?
If you start off by calling them 'stupid', you are not likely to get any reason, good or bad, or response. :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
If you start off by calling them 'stupid', you are not likely to get any reason, good or bad, or response. :)
[/QUOTE]
yeah I thought i was being harsh, but bush's face popped up in my mind and I couldn't think of anything less than stupid
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
Bush is supposedly better for Pakistan .. at least for now.. We have to look out for our homeland too.
[/QUOTE]
oh, so the reason is Pakistan 1st; Islam 2nd?
Pakistan must be way high up in ur list then, above the killings of innocent Iraqi civilians and other Muslims, job loss, economy all-time low, and so so much more which I would explain but what's the point explaining to u brainwashed bushies
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by phoenixdesi: *
I agree faisal, but I still believe that democrats can pull it together, if they start focusing on southern states more. It is a long battle they have to fight just like republicans did who have been planning for years and now we can see the results.
I believe that for next 10 to 12 years, democrats have to stay away from a hard-core left-wing liberal politics and move into the middle focusing more on southern states addressing moral and religious issues. And they can do it without losing their identity. Joe Liberman is a good example to start with. But in order to have this dialogue, it is necessary for democrats to choose their presidential nominees from a hard-core southern state for next couple of elections. They ran a Vietnam war hero on a moderate platform of deficit reduction and reuniting a divided America, against a president facing middling approval ratings, the most job losses in 70 years and a bloody, uncertain war in Iraq. Yet, the Democrats lost another bid for the presidency and four seats in the U.S. Senate.
So there is a clear message for democrats. Democrats have to bring the traditional Catholics of these southern states back in. They have to dialogue with them. The Democrats better figure out how to talk to a large part of the country that's concerned with religious and moral issues if they want to stay alive in USA politically. However, in order to communicate with these rural voters, I would re-emphasize, they need a presidential nominee from a hard-core southern state. Because these states will never ever and I say it again will never ever trust any liberal nominee no matter how presidential he looks. Just look at 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton won every thing, every thing,even in southern states. He won Tennessee, Missouri, Georgia, Nebraska, Iowa, Ohio, Arkansas even Louisiana. Can you imagine ted kennedy or any other nominee from east coast or west coast to win even one of these states. Whenever, democrats chose a nominee outside south, they lost it. They lost it with Humphrey (1968), they lost it with Mondale (1984), they lost it with Dukakis (1988), and they lost it with Kerry (2004). And they won it with Johnson (1964), they won it with Carter (1976) and they won it with Clinton (1992 and 1996). I believe that if John Edwards had more experience he would have pulled it together for democrats. Even Joe Liberman would have delivered it.
Meanwhile, if Democrats can't find the recipe for attracting more conservative voters, they have at least one thing going for them: time. Good news are that young Americans are more socially liberal than the Republican Party's values reflect, and in 10 to 12 years democratic party may have a big comback.
[/QUOTE]
I am sure Dems can pull it together if they want to, but it will be a long road. If they keep blaming the lack of education of American voters, they stand no chance. It is this exact elitist We-know-what-you-want-so-you-can-just-shut-up mentality that has cost them in '00, '02 and again in '04.
Southern States is one, but the whole mid-west is staunch anti-Democrat and that should be a concern to them as well. Why can't they win in Central states. Even Clinton lost all of those. They are firmly red year-after-year. Obviously Dems are not connecting there.
I have said it before, and I will say it again.. senators make lousy Presidential candidates. Hindsight is always 20/20. Kerry had a terrible Senate record. He is a professional politician. His war record was shot to hell by the Swift Boat for Truth campaign, at the time when he was hoping to bask in the post-convention bump. He was just the wrong candidate for this job. But Dean would have done much worse.
From now until '06 mid-term, they should have a "A Dialogue with America" kinda road trip and figure out why they are not clicking again and again with the American people. And for '08, they should identify a credible Southern Governor for President. Hillary's route may still work, but she will have to adopt an Arkansas persona and re-transform her personality yet again.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AAM786: *
yeah I thought i was being harsh, but bush's face popped up in my mind and I couldn't think of anything less than stupid
oh, so the reason is Pakistan 1st; Islam 2nd?
Pakistan must be way high up in ur list then, above the killings of innocent Iraqi civilians and other Muslims, job loss, economy all-time low, and so so much more which I would explain but what's the point explaining to u brainwashed bushies
[/QUOTE]
Since you apparently live in Dallas, so you, of all people, should know why Americans vote for Bush.
Muslims are an insignificant minority in American elections, so lets not beat our chests to think we made any kind of difference in these elections. Most minorities did not. Its the core American population of white mid-western and Southern States that voted for Bush's re-election. And for them he is the right guy. He is socially conservative. He is fighting a war around the world to protect Americans (thats what they think). Bush is a born-again Christian who displays his faith on his sleeve. He is deemed better than Kerry who is deemed a professional politician and one who will change his positions often.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
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.
[/QUOTE]
So long as you and the DEMs think this, the party will whither and die. Let's start with 90% of black Americans voting for the DEM candidate no matter who he is. The black and poor population in DEM states lives primarily in the big cities. If you think the DEMs win in Detroit, Los Angeles, Baltimore and Washington DC because those are the places that the most educated in our country live, you are flat out nuts.
^ I have always been interested to know about the educational demographics of the parties. Do you have any stats?
There is no question about it that bigger minorities, including blacks and Hispanics vote Democrat and the average education level is low but at the same time from my personal observation usually the more educated the person, the more likely he is a registered independent or a registered democrat. But then it could be just my friends and acquaintances. So, if anyone has a study, please do share.
Check out these maps ahmadjee, The North and West coast have higher levels of education, look how red (intense) the South is when looking at the lower levels of education.
udt, I lived in the south for many years and while I know how bad the situation there is, it was far worse in Black & Hispanic neighbourhoods where the democratic party had a strong hold. So, while according to my observation among Whites & Asians the education to party affiliation is definitely leans the majority towards democrats or independents, I am not sure if the results be the same if someone does an over all average.
Wait, I am all confused.
Previously Republicans were dismissed as the Party of the rich. Now we are trying to recast them as the party of the stupid? Huh?
There is a larger dynamic at work here. I have a number of graduate degrees, and I voted for Bush, and frankly I did not the first time. I am registered Republican, but do not remember ever voting Republican in a Presidential election. And while Christian, I am not a "born-again" Christian. Frankly, Kerry was a crappy candidate. As many Democratic candidates have been. The Democratic nominating process produces unelectable candidates. Kerry is indeed about the most liberal Senator one could have picked. Lieberman, while a Jew, was far more electable in his views....
The liberal-democratic-media "elite" are arrogant and got slapped. Dismissing Bush supporters as stupid is a dangerous mistake....
Who said stupid other than you and AAM?
OG, in no way am I saying that all Republicans have lower levels of education than all Dems, now that would be stupid. The fact is OG that the South (Bush's strong hold) has a much higher rate of less educated folks in general than the North and West Coast, typically Democrat supporters. The religious right played a large part in this election and Karl rove worked them like magic by making gay marriage an issue in several states.