NationStates Jolt Archive

The statistics don’t look too good for the Democrats at least for the near future. One reason at least: they are increasingly seen as a party obsessed with multiculturalism and racial quotas etc, and so increasingly out of touch with people of European origin.

This is reflected in the results: 61% of white males voted for Bush. 54% of white females too. These are very impressive numbers for the GOP, and continue and improve upon a trend that started in 1964. LBJ in 1964 was the last Democrat to have a majority of the white vote.

Whites, although their percentage of the population is decreasing, are still overwhelmingly the biggest voting block of the electorate, and will be the most significant factor for many more elections.

And: Bush also managed to increase his share of the vote among Hispanics to 42%, up from 35% last time. This suggests that the historical justifications for Hispanics voting Democrat - because the Dems supported affirmative action and were perceived as being softer on immigration controls and better on welfare may no longer be that important.

Think about it: a large majority of Hispanics are socially conservative and are sickened by the Democrats’ social liberalism on issues like abortion, gay marriage, feminism etc. It could well be that the Republicans may be able to forge a permanent alliance between a majority of whites and at least 40% of the socially conservative Hispanic vote to guarantee almost permanent power.

More likely if the Democratic Party consigns itself to the wayside of history, then the Republican party will splinter into multiple parties coalesceing rapidly into two parties. More likely than that is the Democratic Party actually reinventing itself and begining to stand for smaller governent, thus attracting the libertarian and Rockefeller wings of the Republican Party which are begining to get disgusted with the Republican Party.

More likely if the Democratic Party consigns itself to the wayside of history, then the Republican party will splinter into multiple parties coalesceing rapidly into two parties. More likely than that is the Democratic Party actually reinventing itself and begining to stand for smaller governent, thus attracting the libertarian and Rockefeller wings of the Republican Party which are begining to get disgusted with the Republican Party.

I don't see the Republicans splintering anytime soon.

Being out of touch with people of "European ancestry" isn't the problem for Democrats.. they're going and will be gone soon... 70% and dropping fast.. but Bush taking 44+% of hispanics this time is Bad News Bears, unfortunately for the DNC.

I don't see the Republicans splintering anytime soon.
I also don't see the Democratic Party disappearing anytime soon either. But were the Democratic Party to render itself irrelevant then the Republican Party would splinter. As long as there is a "them" to be opposed to groups can ignore their differences in order to defeat 'them', once you have sucessfully vanquished "them" you have no reason to accept the "errors in doctrine" of your fellows.

The statistics don’t look too good for the Democrats at least for the near future. One reason at least: they are increasingly seen as a party obsessed with multiculturalism and racial quotas etc, and so increasingly out of touch with people of European origin.

This is reflected in the results: 61% of white males voted for Bush. 54% of white females too. These are very impressive numbers for the GOP, and continue and improve upon a trend that started in 1964. LBJ in 1964 was the last Democrat to have a majority of the white vote.

Whites, although their percentage of the population is decreasing, are still overwhelmingly the biggest voting block of the electorate, and will be the most significant factor for many more elections.

And: Bush also managed to increase his share of the vote among Hispanics to 42%, up from 35% last time. This suggests that the historical justifications for Hispanics voting Democrat - because the Dems supported affirmative action and were perceived as being softer on immigration controls and better on welfare may no longer be that important.

Think about it: a large majority of Hispanics are socially conservative and are sickened by the Democrats’ social liberalism on issues like abortion, gay marriage, feminism etc. It could well be that the Republicans may be able to forge a permanent alliance between a majority of whites and at least 40% of the socially conservative Hispanic vote to guarantee almost permanent power.

A great deal of minority immigrants oppose affirmative action, but this is something that wins votes for the democrats among these groups.

Seeing as Bush granted amnesty for a crudload of illegal mexican immigrants, and also supports NAFTA, its no suprise he is attracting the Hispanic vote. The bigger issue though, is as you said, the social conservatism of the hispanic demographic, which is largely made of devout catholics.

In addition, the Republicans had at least one Hispanic state governer canidate at their disposal.

Things look worse for the Democrats than you might imagine in this respect since they are actually losing favor in ALL minorities. This could be in part due to changing issues combined with strong activism and heavy polarization.

Republicans will indeed have power for a while longer. Indeed, Dino Rossi MIGHT just win Washington, putting a Republican governer in Washington for the first time in ages, which, if he does well, might wrestle Washington (and perhaps consequently the entire west coast, if he is very, very good,) from the Democrats. This is one of their traditional strongholds, but its already almost reached 50/50 division. Indeed, Oregon briefly went Republican, but reverted in time for the election.

It might be noted that LBJ was the last Democrat to carry the South. The Civil Rights Act may be seen as dooming the Democratic Party by giving the South to the Republicans in no uncertain terms, but that's only true as long as institutionalize hate is a commonality in those states. When the spirit of the law becomes the spirit of the people in that part of the country the South will likely return to the Democrats, we just have to hope that day comes soon.

I also don't see the Democratic Party disappearing anytime soon either. But were the Democratic Party to render itself irrelevant then the Republican Party would splinter. As long as there is a "them" to be opposed to groups can ignore their differences in order to defeat 'them', once you have sucessfully vanquished "them" you have no reason to accept the "errors in doctrine" of your fellows.

If we capture Osama or find WMD right before the midterm elections, you could see a 60 seat working majority, and probably pigs flying by too. ;) That's basically what happened to the Whigs, the only real major party to disintegrate and be replaced by a new order... they took the wrong side in a war and lost big.. the DNC would have to shift radically toward peacenik-ism.

I don't see the Republicans splintering anytime soon.
It could happen. Here in the UK, the Conservatives (I think the equivalent of your Republican Party in terms of policies) rendered themselves obsolete almost straight away after 18 years of power because they wrecked the country and then went through about 4 different jackass leaders in the space of a few short years;

- John Major, famously remembered for being extremely unmemorable. The only good thing about him was that he wasn't Thatcher, and that gave him a boost that managed to keep him in office for two terms before losing to Blair in '97.

- William Hague, who's out-of-touch attempts to fit in with young, popular culture involved claiming he could drink "fourteen pints a night". He was seen by most people as that worst kind of upper-class snob; the kind that pretends not to be.

- Iain Duncan Smith, totally incapable of making a rousing speech and lost a vote of confidence within his own party and resigned eight days after saying he intended to lead the party for 'a long time to come'.

- Michael Howard, current leader and opposed by many older voters in England because of his previous involvement in the Thatcher governments of the 80s. In 1997, when he was Home Secretary, Political TV interviewer Jeremy Paxman also made him look like an idiot on national television, which didn't help.

They aren't even that far behind, but with Labour almost guaranteed to win every election in the near future save something drastic happening, there's already a lot of dissent towards Tony Blair from within the Labour party - most disgusted with his begging to Bush over everything.

When you're in danger of losing, you all tend to cling together to pull through - now Labour are guaranteed victors, the cracks are beginning to show - they're not quite ready to splinter yet, but every decision Blair makes there always seems to be some sort of rebellion within the party.

we all know that minorities make up a majority of the U.S. right? Maybe that's why the democrats are focusing of multiculturalism.

we all know that minorities make up a majority of the U.S. right? Maybe that's why the democrats are focusing of multiculturalism.

Well, not all minority voters (especially those who are educated and have entered the skilled workforce) would consider Democratic racial policy an advantage, as, not only doesnt it benefit them, it wastes their tax money and imposes the very discrimination that its supposed to avoid. Republicans stay out of racial affairs altogether and havent really done anything to alienate immigrants (save for tightened security, which is logical during wartime. Come to think of it, though, South Africa has been a primary focus ever since some suspected terrorists were found to have originated from there while being interrogated by mexican border gaurds. I still support heightened security though as ease of movement to my old home is less important than protecting my new home from maniacs brainwashed by government propaganda and religious clerics.)

The fact that Bush is an (admittedly hypocritical) free trade advocate helps cement this with pretty much all who are Republican or Clintonian in believes about international trade, as protectionism hurts immigration.

we all know that minorities make up a majority of the U.S. right? Maybe that's why the democrats are focusing of multiculturalism.First of all they don't, unless you count men or women as a minority. Second they are doing pretty poorly at retaining the minorites, who are in general social conservatives (at least Blacks and Hispanics). Multiculturalism is begining to lose its edge in the face of the social value divide, as seen by the Bush's increased pull of Hispanics.

we all know that minorities make up a majority of the U.S. right? Maybe that's why the democrats are focusing of multiculturalism.


That's actually wrong. Whites are still well over 60% of the population.

The GOP hasn't commanded as much power as it has in this election in well over 40 years. In fact, it hasn't been this strong since before FDR (of course, both parties were very different then).
As for the Hispanic vote, Mexican-Americans are strongly Democratic and others, such as Cuban-Americans, tend to be Republican (and highly concentrated in the Miami area). The growing Hispanic vote could surely be influential in shaping the future of American politics for either side.

"It might be noted that LBJ was the last Democrat to carry the South."

Actually, in 1976, Jimmy Carter carried NC, SC, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Missiouri, West Virginia, Florida, and Arkansas. So Jimmy Carter carried the South in '76, and he was an uber-liberal.

On the Hispanic issue: the Democrats have for a long time believed that Hispanics will vote for them, and on that basis have supported what is basically almost uncontrolled Hispanic immigration. But in the space of just 4 years, Bush has increased his vote among Hispanics by 7%, to 42%. Statistically, this is a huge improvement for the GOP, one not yet fully addressed by the mainstream media.

This perhaps has a great deal to do with the Democrats being perceived as anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights. These positions are anathema to most Hispanics. The Democrats, maybe, should re-evaluate their immigration policies. They may well be helping to import a massive number of people who will ultimately vote against them.

"It might be noted that LBJ was the last Democrat to carry the South."

Actually, in 1976, Jimmy Carter carried NC, SC, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Missiouri, West Virginia, Florida, and Arkansas. So Jimmy Carter carried the South in '76, and he was an uber-liberal.

Carter only took those Southern states because, for reasons I don't fully understand, the arch-segregationist George Wallace endorsed him. Liberals often forget that Carter went to Wallace pleading for his support. Whatever it was Carter said was apparently effective.

I don't see the Republicans splintering anytime soon.

You dont?

I can see it happening as soon as 2012

Infact the Republican party, and the American Two party system as a whole has had a history of constantly being reborn.

The Dixiecrat exodus of the 50s, The rise & fall of the Whig party, the Reagan Revolution alienated many republicans.

I could see a mass defection of republicans over to either the Democratic party, OR: The social conservative wing of the GOP will form their own party

This perhaps has a great deal to do with the Democrats being perceived as anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights. These positions are anathema to most Hispanics. The Democrats, maybe, should re-evaluate their immigration policies. They may well be helping to import a massive number of people who will ultimately vote against them.

This might also get some of the republicans to take back their opposition to Bush's amnesty policies for Hispanic illegal immigrants.

Bush wins 286-252, and beats Kerry by 3%, and you say the Democrat Party is finished?

Let's take a trip back in time, to 1980, 1984, and 1988.

Reagan beat Carter 489-49 (10% ahead in popular vote), Reagan beat Mondale 525-13 (18% ahead), and Bush Sr. beat Dukakis 426-111 (8% ahead).

Now THOSE are landslides, or mandates, or whatever you want to call it.

Then Clinton beat Bush Sr. 370-168 (ahead 6%), and Clinton beat Dole 379-159 (ahead 9%).

Politics is a pendulum, it swings back and forth.

Some people had said earlier the Republican Party will splinter - rather, I hope the Libertarian Party becomes stronger

I cross my fingers, hope and pray, that the Republican party will splinter. In the GOP, there is no hope for economic conservatives, libertarians, and paleoconservatives. Why those groups hold their noses and cast ballots for Bush, et al, I will never know.

As for the Libertarian Party- they will have to get serious before they will have my vote. Get a candidate with some noteriety...not silly "businessmen" who do seminars on how to avoid the income tax or prefessional frauds.

More likely if the Democratic Party consigns itself to the wayside of history, then the Republican party will splinter into multiple parties coalesceing rapidly into two parties.

The Democratic party is more likely to split. Republicans generally are united around what the party stands for. The Democrats are a fractured party. Their party is just too big, too many groups disagreeing and fighting with each other.

The Democratic party is more likely to split. Republicans generally are united around what the party stands for. The Democrats are a fractured party. Their party is just too big, too many groups disagreeing and fighting with each other.


Socially and from a foreign policy prospective, the GOP doesn't agree on much. But I'd be happy if they both split.

It might be noted that LBJ was the last Democrat to carry the South. The Civil Rights Act may be seen as dooming the Democratic Party by giving the South to the Republicans in no uncertain terms, but that's only true as long as institutionalize hate is a commonality in those states. When the spirit of the law becomes the spirit of the people in that part of the country the South will likely return to the Democrats, we just have to hope that day comes soon.

It is exactly this type of thinking that has caused the Democrats to lose power. When the Dems started this class and gender crusade, the country was in dire need of it. The country and tolerance and equality has come a long way since then. We are past the stage where legislation will erase
whatever rascism/gender/class inequality is still left. But the Dems keep playing the exploitation game, whether its race or gender. Their message doesnt hold traction anymore because things have changed so much for the better. If they dont update their message for the current state of the country, they will continue to lose power.

The Dems also have to serously reconsider their stance on taxes. With the shift in this country away from mainstream manufactoring and white collar payroll jobs, more and more people are becoming small businessmen/contractors/consultants. The group that the Dems demonize tax wise are these people. You have to understand that people in this group who make $200,000 dont actually see that money. The money is constantly going back into the business. When you stick them with a punative tax rate, they tend to be upset.


Even though I am mostly Republican, I do not want to see a weak Democratic party. The country is better off when there are two strong parties in healthy competition

Forever? That's what the Romans said!

For Democrats, we are in the middle of the dark years. Think Republican in the 1950s and 60s.

Beginning in 1932 the Democrats began nearly forty years of political domination, with only the two term election of a moderate, non-dealogue Republican president in Dwight Eisenhower during the 1950s as a brief respite from Democratic control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It was a time when everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, was proud to call themselves some version of liberal.

Well, we had our Dwight Eisenhower in Bill Clinton (who was really much more conservative than either Republicans or Democrats care to admit - think NAFTA, defense of marriage act, welfare "reform," the telecommunications act, emphasis on a balanced budget, etc.). The beginning of GOP dominance began with Nixon and really took off with Reagan. We are now at the high water mark of Republican control in the nation. Liberal has become a pejorative and Democratic candidates will continue to try and show they are just as conservative as their GOP counterparts.

The GOP will take the country too far to the right and there will be a backlash, just as there was a backlash to liberalism in the 1970s and 1980s. However, I think these dark days will last for another decade or two. Yet, just as the conservative revolution began with Goldwater, at the height of liberal domination, it is now, at the height of GOP control, that liberals must begin planning and working for a return to power.

For Democrats, we are in the middle of the dark years. Think Republican in the 1950s and 60s.

Beginning in 1932 the Democrats began nearly forty years of political domination, with only the two term election of a moderate, non-dealogue Republican president in Dwight Eisenhower during the 1950s as a brief respite from Democratic control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It was a time when everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, was proud to call themselves some version of liberal.

Well, we had our Dwight Eisenhower in Bill Clinton (who was really much more conservative than either Republicans or Democrats care to admit - think NAFTA, defense of marriage act, welfare "reform," the telecommunications act, emphasis on a balanced budget, etc.). The beginning of GOP dominance began with Nixon and really took off with Reagan. We are now at the high water mark of Republican control in the nation. Liberal has become a pejorative and Democratic candidates will continue to try and show they are just as conservative as their GOP counterparts.

The GOP will take the country too far to the right and there will be a backlash, just as there was a backlash to liberalism in the 1970s and 1980s. However, I think these dark days will last for another decade or two. Yet, just as the conservative revolution began with Goldwater, at the height of liberal domination, it is now, at the height of GOP control, that liberals must begin planning and working for a return to power.The problem is that although the raw numbers look the same, the situation on ground wasn't The Democratic Party of the 50s & 60s was deeply divided, splintered if you will, into two factions (well actually more but two significant ones), there were the Dixiecrats who came from the south and were what would now been known as DINOs and the Northern Democrats, but the Dixiecrats only took the Democratic party name becausue they refused to be in the party of Lincoln, they didn't vote often with the Northern Democrats. Nixon to an extent managed to woo the Dixiecrats, Carter won them back for his election and Reagan convinced them to give up, converting the Southern Dixiecrats to serious Republican supporters. I think the Democrats of today can pull the same thing off with the "small government" Republicans if they can sucessfully reinvent themselves as a small government party, Bush has gone some distance towards alienating the small government wing of the GOP but the Democrats have done nothing to win them over. While in the 1960s the Dixiecrats had almost a century of tradition at charting their own path independant of the Democratic Party, the modern small government Repoublican has very little tradition of rejecting their nominal party to support them, and while the 1960s Dixicrats knew from long experience that the Democratic party wasn't going to endorse their policies and that they had to function as deal mongerers to have their policies adopted, the small government republicans are nowhere near that divorced from the GOP.

The problem is that although the raw numbers look the same, the situation on ground wasn't The Democratic Party of the 50s & 60s was deeply divided, splintered if you will, into two factions (well actually more but two significant ones), there were the Dixiecrats who came from the south and were what would now been known as DINOs and the Northern Democrats, but the Dixiecrats only took the Democratic party name becausue they refused to be in the party of Lincoln, they didn't vote often with the Northern Democrats. Nixon to an extent managed to woo the Dixiecrats, Carter won them back for his election and Reagan convinced them to give up, converting the Southern Dixiecrats to serious Republican supporters. I think the Democrats of today can pull the same thing off with the "small government" Republicans if they can sucessfully reinvent themselves as a small government party, Bush has gone some distance towards alienating the small government wing of the GOP but the Democrats have done nothing to win them over. While in the 1960s the Dixiecrats had almost a century of tradition at charting their own path independant of the Democratic Party, the modern small government Repoublican has very little tradition of rejecting their nominal party to support them, and while the 1960s Dixicrats knew from long experience that the Democratic party wasn't going to endorse their policies and that they had to function as deal mongerers to have their policies adopted, the small government republicans are nowhere near that divorced from the GOP.

If the Democratic Party went "small government" I would totally abandon the GOP in a heartbeat.

If the Democratic Party went "small government" I would totally abandon the GOP in a heartbeat.
I've seen the trend, the small government Republicans are growing dissatisfied with the GOP. Of course the Democrats would have to marginalize Kennedy, Schumer and a fair number of their big government heavies for this to work, but it could. Even without ditching the old guard, if a sizable enough portion of the Democrats endorsed small government policies they could convince many (not most, many damn it) Republicans to join them accross party lines. The Democratic party is pretty partisan but the Republican Party isn't.

Did anyone see the county by county map of the election? The map of the US was 96% red and 4% blue. If it weren't for a few population centers the democrats would be out of business.

The Democrats biggest problem is that the democratic party has stopped listening to the average American. They only listen to the rabid left wing.

Did anyone see the county by county map of the election? The map of the US was 96% red and 4% blue. If it weren't for a few population centers the democrats would be out of business.

The Democrats biggest problem is that the democratic party has stopped listening to the average American. They only listen to the rabid left wing.

Political parties are supposed to represent opposing points of view, not common points of view. Are Americans to be content having political representation for the right-wing and the 'common' points of view, but with no representation for the left?

Hardly seems fair, does it?

The Democrats biggest problem is that the democratic party has stopped listening to the average American. They only listen to the rabid left wing.That's very not true. There was a tendency in the Presidental camapign for Kerry's staff to be in a echo chamber, only hearing their own views echoed back at them (and even that ended), but the party is far more diverse and in touch with the American People than the campaign was. The problem is that they are not speaking to a broad enough segment of the population. Even without changing their policies, they could be more effective merely by presenting their views in a manner understandable to a larger chunk of the populace - what Clinton was able to do early on. Liberman, for example, is more "in touch" with the American People than Bush will ever be, but he is unable to communicate this to a large enough chunk of the electorate to be effective. Even the Senator from Marth's Vineyard could pull a large chunk of the populace to the democrats if he only bothered to use his rhetorical skills to adress them instead of presenting rants against what most Americans feel is their values.

As an outsider, I have to ask "What do the Democrats stand for?" - they seem to be pretty similar to Republicans, only more moderate.

Political parties are supposed to represent opposing points of view, not common points of view. Are Americans to be content having political representation for the right-wing and the 'common' points of view, but with no representation for the left?

Hardly seems fair, does it?And which party is the one which holds the point of view opposing the existance of gravity? Which party is the one that hold the opposing view that rain falls up? Which party feels that democracy is a bad thing? In a two party system, it does not mean that one party must automatically reject the positions of the other, many of the positions held by either party are reasonable, and should be adopted by both parties, and indeed usually are. The idea is that the two major parties should represent the two major divergent viewpoints (which do exist), not one major viewpoint and one minor viewpoint. Do not confuse major with majority either, both major parties need to represent the majority viewpoint on issues for which there is a majority viewpoint to be sucessful, but there is such a plethora of viewpoints on a variety of issues that most viewpoints are only plurality viewpoints.

There is no need for a major party to endorse obscure viewpoints held by an insginficant fraction of the populace, A major party should not endorse a position contrary to other party on 1: slavery, 2: democracy (in its genaral sense), 3: Prohibition, 3: Monetarism, 4: female sufferage, or a variety of other positions which have become accepted or rejected by the majority of the populace, at least if they want to remain a major party.

"Think about it: a large majority of Hispanics are socially conservative and are sickened by the Democrats’ social liberalism on issues like abortion, gay marriage, feminism etc."
I do think about that. I think about how convoluted it is that people would hold as the most important voting issues, things like abortion and gay marriage, which don't effect a majority of the population. When these issues are used as "moral" superiority in a kind of hateful, spiting attack on women's rights and a relatively small number of people who get abortions, want rights as a homosexual minority. It speaks of half the voting public, 50 million+ people in this country who would rather attack in a hateful manner, and feel morally better about, a couple of minority issues, than worry about the war, how well terrorism is being dealt with (Where's Osama? That's right the most powerful nation in the world cannot find this one guy who remains taunting our leader). This kind of random searching being done by homeland security at the airports and the focus of file sharing and pornography, is supposed to make me feel like something is being done? 5,000 people have been arrested as having something to do with terrorism, yet none of them have been convicted. This is the record the incumbent was running on. America deserves to have this party.

"Think about it: a large majority of Hispanics are socially conservative and are sickened by the Democrats’ social liberalism on issues like abortion, gay marriage, feminism etc."
I do think about that. I think about how convoluted it is that people would hold as the most important voting issues, things like abortion and gay marriage, which don't effect a majority of the population. When these issues are used as "moral" superiority in a kind of hateful, spiting attack on women's rights and a relatively small number of people who get abortions, want rights as a homosexual minority. It speaks of half the voting public, 50 million+ people in this country who would rather attack in a hateful manner, and feel morally better about, a couple of minority issues, than worry about the war, how well terrorism is being dealt with (Where's Osama? That's right the most powerful nation in the world cannot find this one guy who remains taunting our leader). This kind of random searching being done by homeland security at the airports and the focus of file sharing and pornography, is supposed to make me feel like something is being done? 5,000 people have been arrested as having something to do with terrorism, yet none of them have been convicted. This is the record the incumbent was running on. America deserves to have this party.


The problem with this is that for a portion of the American population, abortion is, to one extent or another, infanticide, and in their view not simply a woman's issue. I don't want to change the nature of this thread to deal with abortion, but that is how they see it.

[QUOTE=Squi]Liberman, for example, is more "in touch" with the American People than Bush will ever be, but he is unable to communicate this to a large enough chunk of the electorate to be effective. QUOTE]

While I dont agree with your statement, I do like lieberman a lot. The problem with the Democratic party is that will not allow a relatively moderate person like Lieberman to win in the primaries. The rabid left wing has much more control over the Democratic party than the hard right wing has over the Republican party.

Liberman, for example, is more "in touch" with the American People than Bush will ever be, but he is unable to communicate this to a large enough chunk of the electorate to be effective.

While I dont agree with your statement, I do like lieberman a lot. The problem with the Democratic party is that will not allow a relatively moderate person like Lieberman to win in the primaries. The rabid left wing has much more control over the Democratic party than the hard right wing has over the Republican party.Which part of the Liberman statement do you disagree with, his being "in touch" with the American People or his inability to communicate to a large enough chunk of the electorate?

As for the last, I'm not really sure that is true myself. The perception of the majority of Americans is that the Democratic party is hostage to the extreme more than the Republican party, but my analysis of their positions shows them about equal with the GOP a little more so as a matter of official policy. But this perception thing goes to the the ability to communicate, and the choice of who to speak to. It's kinda funny actually, by making places like Bob Jones University off-limits to serious Republicans, we've forced Republicans to take thier message to the moderates instead of the extreme, while the Democrats continue to speak mostly to the extreme left and not the moderates.

What the Democrats need is a person like Ron Paul to switch parties and run for president. Don't change his views, but change the party. Or get Lew Rockwell to run.