NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe I'm ultimatly right, maybe I'm wrong. In any case, however, I have a hunch. Tough times are ahead for the Democrats. They might be entering a period like the Republicans did after Barry Goldwater: they become deeply divided, scattered, and don't successfully reemerge for a while.
The signs are pointing toward it. Let's consider, first of all, Bush's once-high popularity rating. I'm sure most Americans on this forum liked Bush at one time or another, especially before and during the Iraq war. Then it slipped dramatically. This could not happen so dramatically if opposition did not exist. In addition, the many factions of Democrats were united in their opposition of Bush.
Now that election day is over, that opposition no longer exists. Kerry is obviously defeated, Congress is further swept by Republicans, and Tom Daschle, one of the highest-ranking elected Democrats, will be gone. Yet Bush will be here for four more years, and can't be reelected. His approval rating will go back to a comfortable area simply because we're stuck with him.
All of this may make the Democrats a sort of sluggish party for at least a couple of election cycles. That's because their leadership is weakened, their power is dwindiling, and they have no real way to oppose the president anymore. It's exactly what happened to the Republicans in the sixties.
Now I am not saying that this should be a bed of roses for the Republicans, either. Deep infighting may take place in the party simply because it is too big. I already see a major conflict between Tom DeLay's Christian Right and the Bush Administration's neoconservatives. But time will really tell. It's just a hunch of mine, really.

bump

bump

Anyone?

Don't bump your topic every 10 minutes. It can be construed as spam and punished as such.

No official warnings, this time, but I do recommend that you wait 12 hours before bumping your own topic.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Now we're in for four more years of fascism.

Don't bump your topic every 10 minutes. It can be construed as spam and punished as such.

No official warnings, this time, but I do recommend that you wait 12 hours before bumping your own topic.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
Fair enough. My apologies.

Now we're in for four more years of fascism.
[sarcasm]
How I love it that mein Fuhrer is back in the White House!

China is going to let go of its currency and Bush is going to get it. Besides, in 2008, this ups the chances that a woman will get elected. I'm personally tired of the male egos running the world.
I think in the end, Bush will ruin himself in the eyes of the public anyway.

It will help that the Republicans no longer have Daschle to contend with.

Four more years of anti-fascism, aka the war on terror.

The democrats will have no end of fun trying to reconstitute themselves. They WILL do it, thank god, and become a viable right-wing party once again in the near future.

At this point they will re-enter American politics, and have several advantages over the "infighting" Republicans.

The trick will be whether the republicans can get what they need to do (the so-called rightist agenda) done, or waste time infighting amongst themselves.
Right wing party? I have a feeling your post was more of a mockery of the American system than an arguement, but I may be wrong. Nevertheless, yes, the Dems will reogranize, but not until at least by the 2012 election cycle. As for the Republicans, the party should be safe for at least four more years. Republican Congressmen and Senators respect him and seek his leadership. He has done an extremely effective job of holding the party together, and I have no reason to believe that he can't for the next four years. The real trouble will come with who's after him.

i honestly doubt the next president will be republican, although maybe this guy's right. maybe there will be a "as long as bush is gone i don't care who gets in" mentality among democrats.

Dear Katganistan:

Why on earth did you delete that post? There was no flame involved, the post seemed to be nothing more than a statement of position and belief.

Did you delete it because you took exception to his position or what?

I confess to being totally mystified by many actions of the Mods on here. I would greatly appreciate your enlightening me since I would rather not have my posts deleted, threads I start closed, or my nation terminated.

i just have this eerie feeling of fascism now... but Tariks probably right, the next term will most likely be for the Democrats.

i just have this eerie feeling of fascism now... but Tariks probably right, the next term will most likely be for the Democrats.
How so?

How so?
For which? the fascism thing or the democratic thing?

Maybe I'm ultimatly right, maybe I'm wrong. In any case, however, I have a hunch. Tough times are ahead for the Democrats. They might be entering a period like the Republicans did after Barry Goldwater: they become deeply divided, scattered, and don't successfully reemerge for a while.
{snip} [T]heir leadership is weakened, their power is dwindiling, and they have no real way to oppose the president anymore. It's exactly what happened to the Republicans in the sixties.
Now I am not saying that this should be a bed of roses for the Republicans, either. Deep infighting may take place in the party simply because it is too big. I already see a major conflict between Tom DeLay's Christian Right and the Bush Administration's neoconservatives. But time will really tell. It's just a hunch of mine, really.

The Democrats do need to do some soul-searching, but I think they have some things in their favor. Their first priority should be learning from this election; Bush is still an unpopular president -- that a sitting war president to win re-election with only about 51-52% of the vote indicates a pretty strong disaffection with his policies and the nation's direction under him. I would say the Democrats lost this election more than the Republicans won it. So why did they lose it? Because the Democrats have lost a coherent message and for three elections now (including the Congressional elections two years ago) do not have anyone in the party who could articulate a message in any event. As William Saletan argues on Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2109128/), the Democrats rely too much on nuance and not enough on simplicity. They nominated the wrong guy this year -- someone with a better ability to connect with the average voter probably would have knocked Bush out of office. Unfortunately, the Dems don't have someone like that right now -- Howard Dean came off as too aggressive, and John Edwards didn't have the experience. The Democrats would be wise to not even consider Hillary in 2008; though she probably would be a capable president, she brings with her too much baggage that Republican operatives could and would exploit to tear her down.

The flip side of this is that the Republicans don't really have anyone either. John McCain is their most electable member, but the religious right would never support him. The 2008 presidential primaries will be interesting because neither party looks like they have anyone who can take it all. I don't know that Edwards will ever accrue the necessary profile to persuade voters to choose him -- he doesn't have Clinton's charisma.

I'm out on the far left, but recognize that the Dems remain the closest thing we have to a viable progressive party. If they can find someone who can articulate a simple, direct message about America's values being for everyone, then they might be able to begin to reverse their losses in the South and in the Midwest. The economy is on their side; they need to find a way to beat the Repubs at their own game, by tying acceptance and tolerance (not racism/homophobia as the Repubs have) to their economic message. I don't think Bush will get too far with his reactionary agenda -- the Dems still have enough seats in the Senate to filibuster, and enough moderate Republicans like McCain and Lincoln Chafee will side with them on environmental and privacy issues. The situation in the Middle East and with terrorism is more likely to get worse than better anytime soon, and Bush will look all the worse for it. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that the Dems will pick up two or three seats in the next Congressional elections, and retake the White House in 2008... assuming they can find the right person for the job.

i just have this eerie feeling of fascism now... but Tariks probably right, the next term will most likely be for the Democrats.

yay i'm right!

The democrats have been in decline for a very long time, they just have not seen it.

Bill Clinton only took the white house due to Ross Perot. Soon after the Dems lost control of Congress. Clinton's reelectin breathed a bit of life into the party, but it was short-lived.

Only by getting a senator to defect did they get control of congress for a few months in 2001. Next election they lost their majority again.

Now, this election, their balance is slipping even further away. They don't realize that it has been slipping not for four years, but for 24 years.

Until the Democrats 'wake up and smell the coffee' they will gradually chase their tales into infinity and eventually succumb to a third party.

China is going to let go of its currency and Bush is going to get it. Besides, in 2008, this ups the chances that a woman will get elected. I'm personally tired of the male egos running the world.
I think in the end, Bush will ruin himself in the eyes of the public anyway.

A woman in the White House that isn't the 1st Lady?!? HAHA! Sorry to say but that will never happen. Ever. The feminist party has no seats in Congress and I highly doubt that the Democrats or Republicans will campaign for a women. Not to be rude or anything, but think a little. It just won't happen. It's impossible.

A woman in the White House that isn't the 1st Lady?!? HAHA! Sorry to say but that will never happen. Ever. The feminist party has no seats in Congress and I highly doubt that the Democrats or Republicans will campaign for a women. Not to be rude or anything, but think a little. It just won't happen. It's impossible.
*cough* Hillary *cough* Clinton

*hack* Clinton *HACK COUGH* Hillary

phew, that was a doozy... *clears throat*

Maybe I'm ultimatly right, maybe I'm wrong. In any case, however, I have a hunch. Tough times are ahead for the Democrats. They might be entering a period like the Republicans did after Barry Goldwater: they become deeply divided, scattered, and don't successfully reemerge for a while.

We'll be fine.

We cannot see this as a defeat. We rallied 55 million people to the voting booths without resorting to placing a religious issue on the ballot in 11 states.

We did just fine and will come back strong.

No worries about the Democrats. We're sloppy, ill-mannered, aloof, drunken, liberal partiers ... but, in the end, we will prevail.

Dear Katganistan:

Why on earth did you delete that post? There was no flame involved, the post seemed to be nothing more than a statement of position and belief.

Did you delete it because you took exception to his position or what?

I confess to being totally mystified by many actions of the Mods on here. I would greatly appreciate your enlightening me since I would rather not have my posts deleted, threads I start closed, or my nation terminated.

The poster in question is DoS for circumventing forumbans, flaming, et al.
There are plenty of posts I disagree with that are still on this site, so I thank you for assuming it was partisan rather than me doing my job.

*cough* Hillary *cough* Clinton

*hack* Clinton *HACK COUGH* Hillary

phew, that was a doozy... *clears throat*

or maybe sheila jackson lee, as proposed by a girl who's very close to you, friggot. try and enlighten her to the way of the hillary, eh bud?

For which? the fascism thing or the democratic thing?
Never mind.

We'll be fine.

We cannot see this as a defeat. We rallied 55 million people to the voting booths without resorting to placing a religious issue on the ballot in 11 states.

We did just fine and will come back strong.

No worries about the Democrats. We're sloppy, ill-mannered, aloof, drunken, liberal partiers ... but, in the end, we will prevail.
That turnout, however, may not be as impressive for the Dems in 2006, or maybe even 2008. I think quite a few people will just become content with Bush.

Is Hellary planning on leaving Bill and marrying the next Republican Presidential Candidate?

The lat liberal to get over 50% of the vote was Jimmy Carter, who did not get 51%. And that was right after Watergate had 'decimated' the Republican party.

The bigger question is what party will replace the Democrats after they lose even more seats in the next few elections.

The Democrats do need to do some soul-searching, but I think they have some things in their favor. Their first priority should be learning from this election; Bush is still an unpopular president -- that a sitting war president to win re-election with only about 51-52% of the vote indicates a pretty strong disaffection with his policies and the nation's direction under him. I would say the Democrats lost this election more than the Republicans won it. So why did they lose it? Because the Democrats have lost a coherent message and for three elections now (including the Congressional elections two years ago) do not have anyone in the party who could articulate a message in any event. As William Saletan argues on Slate (http://slate.msn.com/id/2109128/), the Democrats rely too much on nuance and not enough on simplicity. They nominated the wrong guy this year -- someone with a better ability to connect with the average voter probably would have knocked Bush out of office. Unfortunately, the Dems don't have someone like that right now -- Howard Dean came off as too aggressive, and John Edwards didn't have the experience. The Democrats would be wise to not even consider Hillary in 2008; though she probably would be a capable president, she brings with her too much baggage that Republican operatives could and would exploit to tear her down.

The flip side of this is that the Republicans don't really have anyone either. John McCain is their most electable member, but the religious right would never support him. The 2008 presidential primaries will be interesting because neither party looks like they have anyone who can take it all. I don't know that Edwards will ever accrue the necessary profile to persuade voters to choose him -- he doesn't have Clinton's charisma.

To be honest, I'm not too concerned about candidate electability for either side. Clinton, for example, came out of nowhere. What really is the problem is style, not substance. The good news, however, is that men of style are not born, but made. If John Kerry wanted to, he could have seriously refined himself to be a better speaker. It's a big part of campaigning. However, he doesn't.

The lat liberal to get over 50% of the vote was Jimmy Carter, who did not get 51%. And that was right after Watergate had 'decimated' the Republican party.

The bigger question is what party will replace the Democrats after they lose even more seats in the next few elections.
My guess is that the Liberatarian party may begin to chip away at Republican members. Even if they never become powerful, they may end up being like Ross Perot in his heyday.

A woman in the White House that isn't the 1st Lady?!? HAHA! Sorry to say but that will never happen. Ever. The feminist party has no seats in Congress and I highly doubt that the Democrats or Republicans will campaign for a women. Not to be rude or anything, but think a little. It just won't happen. It's impossible.

You have... serious issues... women have rights now.

Maybe I'm ultimatly right, maybe I'm wrong. In any case, however, I have a hunch. Tough times are ahead for the Democrats. They might be entering a period like the Republicans did after Barry Goldwater: they become deeply divided, scattered, and don't successfully reemerge for a while.
The signs are pointing toward it. Let's consider, first of all, Bush's once-high popularity rating. I'm sure most Americans on this forum liked Bush at one time or another, especially before and during the Iraq war. Then it slipped dramatically. This could not happen so dramatically if opposition did not exist. In addition, the many factions of Democrats were united in their opposition of Bush.
Now that election day is over, that opposition no longer exists. Kerry is obviously defeated, Congress is further swept by Republicans, and Tom Daschle, one of the highest-ranking elected Democrats, will be gone. Yet Bush will be here for four more years, and can't be reelected. His approval rating will go back to a comfortable area simply because we're stuck with him.
All of this may make the Democrats a sort of sluggish party for at least a couple of election cycles. That's because their leadership is weakened, their power is dwindiling, and they have no real way to oppose the president anymore. It's exactly what happened to the Republicans in the sixties.
Now I am not saying that this should be a bed of roses for the Republicans, either. Deep infighting may take place in the party simply because it is too big. I already see a major conflict between Tom DeLay's Christian Right and the Bush Administration's neoconservatives. But time will really tell. It's just a hunch of mine, really.


The Democrats are in serious trouble. They have no real leader or focus. None of this years Democratic candidates were really outstanding, or able to really appeal to much of the population. Other than Hillary, no names have been put forth as potential candidates.

The Republicans are also heading for trouble, as you suggested. But, at least half a dozen names keep coming up as suggestions for potential candidates for the Republicans in 2008.

They have no real leader or focus. None of this years Democratic candidates were really outstanding, or able to really appeal to much of the population.

Actually, if the media hadn't killed Howard Dean, he may have beaten Bush. Dean is a damn fine man, a damn fine politician, and a damn fine candidate.

Dean/Obama 2008!

:D

Oh ... and I'll say it again ... HILLARY WILL NOT RUN IN 2008!

Maybe I'm ultimatly right, maybe I'm wrong. In any case, however, I have a hunch. Tough times are ahead for the Democrats.

You are completely right. I wish I could see a silver lining somewhere in the election but there isn't one. The Democratic Party is done for, at least for a loonggg time. The democrats want into hyper drive to defeat Bush this year and still lost. I think a lot of moderate Democrats are going to get tired of losing and jump ship. Good bye multi party system, hello Republicanville

The Democrats are in serious trouble. They have no real leader or focus. None of this years Democratic candidates were really outstanding, or able to really appeal to much of the population. Other than Hillary, no names have been put forth as potential candidates.

The Republicans are also heading for trouble, as you suggested. But, at least half a dozen names keep coming up as suggestions for potential candidates for the Republicans in 2008.

What half dozen? I'm curious...

You forget so easily how, at the beginning of the primary campaign, everybody was dismissing Kerry as "bland" compared to the other candidates - until the voting started and he started winning.

What half dozen? I'm curious...

You forget so easily how, at the beginning of the primary campaign, everybody was dismissing Kerry as "bland" compared to the other candidates - until the voting started and he started winning.

Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Bill Owens, Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, Chuck Hagel, and George Pataki have all been put forth as serious contenders. Also Colin Powell and Arnold Schwarzenegger have been put forth as potentials. Even Ron Paul, John Ashcroft, and Rick Sanatorum have been suggested.


Actually, if the media hadn't killed Howard Dean, he may have beaten Bush.

Dean is a damn fine man, a damn fine politician, and a damn fine candidate.

Dean/Obama 2008!

Oh ... and I'll say it again ... HILLARY WILL NOT RUN IN 2008!

LOL!!!! There was not a chance in hell Dean could have beat Bush. He would have gone down in a Mondalesque disaster.
Dean may be the nicest guy around, but he's not at all able to win over the heartland.
Obama gave a great speech at the convention, and he might be a good candidate in 2012 or 2016, but not in 2008 - still too fresh andf "young".
Hillary would be a disaster in 2008.

I have yet to see any possible candidates put forth with any real possibility of winning nationally.

Nicholas Kristof's column for today (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fNicholas%20D%20Kri stof) is an excellent analysis of why the Democrats failed this year (and have failed in the recent past).
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.

Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Bill Owens, Jeb Bush, Bill Frist, Chuck Hagel, and George Pataki have all been put forth as serious contenders. Also Colin Powell and Arnold Schwarzenegger have been put forth as potentials. Even Ron Paul, John Ashcroft, and Rick Sanatorum have been suggested.

McCain and Guiliani aren't conservative enough.

Jeb? Florida 2000 will be a great tool against him.

Powell? Well he might swing the arch-conservative vote(I kind of think he is a closet archconservative after listening to the antics of his son).

Frist? Nahh

Arnie? Sorry but that pesky Constitution stands in his way. Don't think the US is going to make an amendment to allow him to run.

Ashcroft? LOL That was pretty good thanks.

[/QUOTE]

The Democrats are in serious trouble. They have no real leader or focus. None of this years Democratic candidates were really outstanding, or able to really appeal to much of the population. Other than Hillary, no names have been put forth as potential candidates.

The Republicans are also heading for trouble, as you suggested. But, at least half a dozen names keep coming up as suggestions for potential candidates for the Republicans in 2008.
And trouble shouldn't start under Bush. No one has unified the party like he did since Reagan. Once he's gone, however, we're fair game for trouble. In any case, though, I fear that the Republicans may become complacent, and swing leftward. While I understand that we're in a war, I'm still concerned about the fiscal state of the government. Even though it really isn't as bad as a few times before, and it doesn't trump security or the economy in my opinion, I fear that they may be encouraged to spend far more. The reason why interest rates are so low is because Asian state banks love buying our debt, but they may be heading for an economic downturn. When that happens, interest rates will go up, but that may curb government spending by a lot. In any case, I feel that Kerry would've handled our fiscal situation worse. But I digress. The point I want to make is that our size may make us move left, and I might not recognize the party, anymore.

You are completely right. I wish I could see a silver lining somewhere in the election but there isn't one. The Democratic Party is done for, at least for a loonggg time. The democrats want into hyper drive to defeat Bush this year and still lost. I think a lot of moderate Democrats are going to get tired of losing and jump ship. Good bye multi party system, hello Republicanville
If it makes you feel better, I feel that a third party may rise. In fact, it almost did in the early seventies, when the Democrats were in the same position.

The problem the Democrats have now is that by unstoppering every cork to unseat Bush has shown the modern Democratic Party to be simply a cog in the international socialist machine. The timely UN "leak" of information regarding munitions, news storys based on probably forged documents, Michael Moore "documentary", high-vitriol content statements by other hollywooders, european attempts to influence the election, etc, etc. The cooperation between various socialist elements worldwide to defeat Bush have brought the Dems into the open as one-world socialists. Unfortunately for them, most Dem voters don't consider themselves socialists, and wouldn't support such radical agendas. Like a bug under a cruel child's magnifying glass, the Dems are shriveling and burning.
Given a choice between Republican Nationalism and Democratic Socialism, the voters have clearly selected the former.

McCain and Guiliani aren't conservative enough.

Jeb? Florida 2000 will be a great tool against him.

Powell? Well he might swing the arch-conservative vote(I kind of think he is a closet archconservative after listening to the antics of his son).

Frist? Nahh

Arnie? Sorry but that pesky Constitution stands in his way. Don't think the US is going to make an amendment to allow him to run.

Ashcroft? LOL That was pretty good thanks.



Those names are all Republicans with national standing and name recognition that are being touted. My point was that the Democrats don't have such a list.
Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2008#Potential_candidates_for_2008) and compare how many names suggested have national recognition. I recognize 17 of 35 Democrats and 18 of 24 Republicans. That's <50% versus 75%.

And trouble shouldn't start under Bush. No one has unified the party like he did since Reagan. Once he's gone, however, we're fair game for trouble. In any case, though, I fear that the Republicans may become complacent, and swing leftward. While I understand that we're in a war, I'm still concerned about the fiscal state of the government. Even though it really isn't as bad as a few times before, and it doesn't trump security or the economy in my opinion, I fear that they may be encouraged to spend far more. The reason why interest rates are so low is because Asian state banks love buying our debt, but they may be heading for an economic downturn. When that happens, interest rates will go up, but that may curb government spending by a lot. In any case, I feel that Kerry would've handled our fiscal situation worse. But I digress. The point I want to make is that our size may make us move left, and I might not recognize the party, anymore.

I don't recognise the party now. Bush's big government and spend policies plus the undue influance of the Christian extremists are a 180 turn from my Republican party (the party of Barry Goldwater). It's a telling comment on the state of the party when Goldwater said to Dole We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"

The split is going to be between the Libertarian/moderates wing and the religious extremist who've hijacked the party. When good solid Republicans like McCain can be smeared by Bush in 2000 and then are said to not even be Republicans (as I've seen here in other threads) or are "not Republican enough", there's something rotten iin the state of Denmark.

Those names are all Republicans with national standing and name recognition that are being touted. My point was that the Democrats don't have such a list.
Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2008#Potential_candidates_for_2008) and compare how many names suggested have national recognition. I recognize 17 of 35 Democrats and 18 of 24 Republicans. That's <50% versus 75%.



I don't recognise the party now. Bush's big government and spend policies plus the undue influance of the Christian extremists are a 180 turn from my Republican party (the party of Barry Goldwater). It's a telling comment on the state of the party when Goldwater said to Dole We're the new liberals of the Republican Party. Can you imagine that?"

The split is going to be between the Libertarian/moderates wing and the religious extremist who've hijacked the party. When good solid Republicans like McCain can be smeared by Bush in 2000 and then are said to not even be Republicans (as I've seen here in other threads) or are "not Republican enough", there's something rotten iin the state of Denmark.
I think that a split may be happening, but it may be worse. At least the party is still the main force behind not intervening in the economy, and to a large extent, personal liberties. The Christian right just thinks that liberties are being stripped away in their favor, but they really aren't.

The problem the Democrats have now is that by unstoppering every cork to unseat Bush has shown the modern Democratic Party to be simply a cog in the international socialist machine. The timely UN "leak" of information regarding munitions, news storys based on probably forged documents, Michael Moore "documentary", high-vitriol content statements by other hollywooders, european attempts to influence the election, etc, etc. The cooperation between various socialist elements worldwide to defeat Bush have brought the Dems into the open as one-world socialists. Unfortunately for them, most Dem voters don't consider themselves socialists, and wouldn't support such radical agendas. Like a bug under a cruel child's magnifying glass, the Dems are shriveling and burning.
Given a choice between Republican Nationalism and Democratic Socialism, the voters have clearly selected the former.

"Clearly" by 1.2% of the population.

"Clearly" by 1.2% of the population.
It was more like three percentage points. Plus, Bush was the first president since 1988 to have more than 50% of the popular vote.

It was more like three percentage points. Plus, Bush was the first president since 1988 to have more than 50% of the popular vote.

No, it was more like three percentage points of the votes cast.

what democrats haven't figured out yet, and probably will not, is that many of their issues were communicated just fine, but they were REJECTED.

The fatal error they will make is to continue 'trying to communicate' (harping on) the things that have been rejected by the majority of voters rather than changing or correcting them and building on their existing (few) strengths.

No, it was more like three percentage points of the votes cast.
That's what I meant. But does 1.2% of the population also count those that didn't vote? If so, then I'm sorry, but they should have no voice in this government, nor be entitled to complain/praise the government.

what democrats haven't figured out yet, and probably will not, is that many of their issues were communicated just fine, but they were REJECTED.

The fatal error they will make is to continue 'trying to communicate' (harping on) the things that have been rejected by the majority of voters rather than changing or correcting them and building on their existing (few) strengths.
I wish that was true. But the Democrats do always tend to be the populist party. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, just what voters want to hear.

Plus, Bush was the first president since 1988 to have more than 50% of the popular vote.
All that means is that third-party politics is dead in America. This election was way closer than both of Clinton's landslide wins, but strong third-party candidates in the 90s kept Clinton just below 50% of the total vote, even though he beat Bush Sr. and Dole by huge margins.

All that means is that third-party politics is dead in America. This election was way closer than both of Clinton's landslide wins, but strong third-party candidates in the 90s kept Clinton just below 50% of the total vote, even though he beat Bush Sr. and Dole by huge margins.
Still, it's greater than 50%, and while it isn't a landslide, it wasn't as close as some thought. In any event, third party politics aren't dead in America. They just didn't matter this election, as it was percieved by Americans as too important to vote for a guy that could never win.

Actually, I do recall an odd glitch in the election coverage where for a few minutes it was claimed that Nader might win Louisiana...

Actually, I do recall an odd glitch in the election coverage where for a few minutes it was claimed that Nader might win Louisiana...
Funny, as all of the networks considered Louisiana to be solidly red.

I wish that was true. But the Democrats do always tend to be the populist party. It doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, just what voters want to hear.
Not really. Most of the liberal agenda has to be passed by the judiciary because it would never pass muster in a popular vote.

Things that were once their banner colors are now liabilities - not all for the right reasons.

Affirmative action has become portrayed as legal discrimination against whites and asians. Abortion has become difficult to defend with the advent of 'partial-birth'. Gay Rights has become Gay re-education to many. Women's Rights has been re-portrayed as reduction of men's rights. Affordable Healthcare is now Socialized Healthcare. Their education position has become defined as monopoly protection. Fiscal Responsibility by to them is positioned as tax more, spend as much as they want. Labor is weakened by the decline of unions and don't even consider their defence record. Their environmental position has become radicalized beyond usefullness.

The conservatives have successfully converted many of Democrats strengths into percieved weaknesses. To the point where a president who is not particularly loved by conservatives bested the liberal challenger. The trouble wasn't Kerry as much as it was the liberal platform. They have alienated too many Americans with an agenta that is alien to most, high-brow bullying and catering to the most radical of their constituents. Bush would have bested ANY liberal challenger. It is not the candidate that much change, it is not the advertizing that must change, it is the platform itself.

Democrats could do that without changing their core values. However they must define their core values in a way that they cannot be hijacked by the radicals and used to alienate voters. They must then distance themselves from the radicals, wean themselves from the teat of loud support and pursue popular support - a much more difficult task.