NationStates Jolt Archive

Liberals really need to shed the image that they want to ban all guns. It hurts them tremendously and undermines their image as a protector of personal freedom, and it's part of the reason most libertarians side with the Republicans instead of the Democrats. It's gotten so bad that when a Democrat goes hunting, people call it a publicity stunt (a Republican would not be judged so).

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031016-104703-1418r.htm

Seriously, this is one issue the Democrats need to budge on, and pull the NRA from exclusively being a GOP interest group to a general lobbying organization. There are too many gun owners across the battleground northern states (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) that otherwise support the Democrat platforms of healthcare, social security, etc, but can't bring themselves to vote for someone percieved as going to take away their guns. The labor unions are losing their ability to get out the blue-collar white male vote for the Dems because of this. Support gun safety, not gun control.

If the Democrats could just hold the above states, that's 275 electoral votes counting the solid blue states. 279 if New Hampshire stays blue (it likely will).

This talk of needing to appeal to the South...we don't need the South, and we never will take the South unless we get another Bill Clinton (even Clinton couldn't take the deep South).

We're never gonna get the Rocky Mountain and Plains states either (the exception is Colorado, which trends more Democratic each year). The next few elections will be decided in the northern battlegrounds listed above.

The electoral results: http://electoral-vote.com/

If I was the Democrat strategist for 08, I'd say write off the supposed Southern battlegrounds, run a limited campaign in the Southwest (New Mexico can easily go blue again, and Nevada is looking more likely than ever...and there is an outside chance of Colorado changing), cut the funding to the Florida campaign (went from a tie to a 5% Bush lead in 4 years. Ouch.), and go all out in Ohio (We cut Bush's win of 3.6% in 2000 to 2.5%. We can take it this time.)

We DON'T need another New England liberal. We don't need another percieved elitest like Hillary or Dean, who the Republican opponent can oppose running as a "common guy" type. In short, we could really use Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. He won re-election by 62% in a state that went 60-39 for Bush. That's 11 more electoral votes. We wouldn't even need Ohio.

Quite simply, if we run with Bayh, we're pretty damn unbeatable.

Yes, he's a centrist, but he's liberal enough where it counts. He's pro-choice, although he voted for the ban on partial-birth abortion (hell, a whole bunch of Dems voted for that...it's a loaded issue that most Americans came down against...run and fight another day, I say), but thankfully voted against additionally criminalizing the murder of a pregnant woman. He voted to add sexual orientation to the list of hate crimes, and he's voted against increasing penalties on drug use. HOWEVER, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment only out of "unnecessariness", but sort of indicated that he would support one if the Supreme Court ever strikes down a state ban against gay marriage. His position on civil unions is still unknown to me after extensive googling, and he obviously wants to keep it that way coming from conservative Indiana. I'm guessing he wouldn't care one way or the other; the majority of America supports civil unions at least.

It comes down to, do we value winning, or ideals?

Quite simply, we MUST win in 2008. The liberal Supreme Court justices might make it 4 more years, but they won't make it another 8. If we lose again, the entire party will shift to the center out of desperation and we're lost.

Running a Dean or Clinton ticket sounds great, but they'll get creamed in the upper battlegrounds. THAT is where the election will be decided 4 years from now, and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh can take the whole region.

We'll get gay marriage eventually, but not with such widespread popular opposition to it. Should Bayh win the presidency, and the Supreme Court overturn a state ban on gay marriage, I think Bayh would have the sense to bow to his party and stay silent. That's more than we can expect from a Republican.

Bayh 2008. Thoughts?

Is this not pretty much what I always say about the gun issue.

I agree with it totally.

Liberals really need to shed the image that they want to ban all guns. It hurts them tremendously and undermines their image as a protector of personal freedom, and it's part of the reason most libertarians side with the Republicans instead of the Democrats. It's gotten so bad that when a Democrat goes hunting, people call it a publicity stunt (a Republican would not be judged so).

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031016-104703-1418r.htm

Seriously, this is one issue the Democrats need to budge on, and pull the NRA from exclusively being a GOP interest group to a general lobbying organization. There are too many gun owners across the battleground northern states (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) that otherwise support the Democrat platforms of healthcare, social security, etc, but can't bring themselves to vote for someone percieved as going to take away their guns. The labor unions are losing their ability to get out the blue-collar white male vote for the Dems because of this. Support gun safety, not gun control.


Of course the Democrats need to abandon gun control. Not because of the additional voters that they would gain, but because gun control is a failure. Or to quote Mr. Gephardt, "...a miserable failure...". I love that line. Thread topic addressed and settled.

But now you start getting to the root of the problem the Democrats have had for years. They look at the electorate as a bunch of groups. Then they think they need to come out with position that will appeal to each of those diverse groups. You can't do that and not be confusing.

Look at the Republican message that Bush espoused during the last week or so of the campaign. Five points, a good number because you can keep track of where you are by counting on one hand. 1) We can protect you, 2) We can protect your wallet, 3) We share your values...I don't remember the other two. But it makes a nice easy to understand message. Campaigning is advertising.

Kerry had a position of the day, "du jour" to make our foreign critics happy. Maybe he did represent the Democratic party, but he was hard to follow. I don't think a clear message ever was presented by the Democrats, other that "I'm a war hero, vote for me". Like I said campaigning is advertising and a product with those ads would sit on the shelf until the manufacturer went bankrupt.

I won't presume to make Democratic policy, but I think they should play to their traditional strengths, not to the special interests in the party. Campaign for the labor votes, not just unions, but all labor. Make us understand what you can do FOR minorities, don't just take them for granted. Tell us why tax cuts are not going to help the economy, don't just demagogue the issue with class warfare. Same thing with Social Security. Tell us why this system isn't going to go bankrupt. But put the national interest above the special interests.

Don't outsmart yourselves by thinking the only reason Bush won was because of terror and gay marriage. The anti-Democratic slide was going on well before that. Don't forget about the congressional elections in 1994 and the contract on America. That might have been the start of voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic party. And Bush won most of the counties in the U.S. in 2000. Just not enough popular vote in big states. Those big states are still Democratic, but the Republican base seems to be leaving for smaller more friendly areas.

The Democrats have a lot of work to do to become a national party. I think the Democratic Leadership Council that was started up again is a pretty good start, as long as they don't just put window dressing on the problem. Chodolo, the Democrats do need the South. It's a big population center and it's getting bigger. People move here because they don't like the tax and regulate attitude of the North. That means we will have even more electoral votes next time. No president has won without a majority of the South, yet. Gore and Kerry sure tried, but we won't elect bums.

Bayh might be the right guy. Lieberman could have been. How are you going to keep the liberal fringe from nominating another loser? Geez, Howard Dean and John Kerry, what choice is that?

Good luck to you and to your party. I'd like to see a Democratic party that can do more than hate the Republicans and take minority votes for granted. I think we might end up with a more representative government if that could happen.

Regards,

I'm a strongly pro-freedom (economic, speech, guns, etc.), but I could theoretically vote for a Democrat over a gun rights issue. There are enough gun grabbing Republicans that there is ground to be gained. Paridoxically, Democrats tend to suffer more when they vote against gun rights than do Republicans.

Besides that, federal gun control is doubly unconstitutional, and virtually all of it is both immoral and impractical. This is the right reason to oppose gun control, not to gain votes.

As for gun control, the whole issue has been turned around. It's not about banning guns, it's about gun safety and keeping guns out of easy access to criminals, while still protecting the right of hunters, gun enthusiasts, and average people who happen to want a handgun. I'm more of the libertarian view on most social issues, and if the Democrats came out and just said they strongly support the second amendment, they could have a very effective message: complete personal freedom.

Studies have shown that perceived anti-gun biases hurt Democrats tremendously in the 40% of America that owns guns. If they just said, "We support your right to own guns...and we support your right to healthcare, social security, creating jobs, etc" they would take that group even without bowing to the religious right.

And agreed, Kerry ran an awful campaign up to the final weeks when he finally came out and started saying meaningful things, but by that point the Swifties had slandered him, Rove had painted him as a flipflopper, and he had a hard time closing the gap (though he did do well coming back to a 3% loss after the 15% loss he was polling at in September).

Don't outsmart yourselves by thinking the only reason Bush won was because of terror and gay marriage.
Frankly, those are the only two reasons Bush won. If 9/11 had never happened, even you must admit Bush would have lost in a landslide. Bush's entire campaign centered on how the Democrats were "weak on terror". And the gay marriage thing played a far larger role than you'd admit. Moral values came out on top to the surprise of many. In any case, terrorism will obviously die down as an issue by 2008, unless we get attacked again, in which case Bush's popularity will go soaring into the 90% realm again, and we truly are fucked in 2008.

the Democrats do need the South. It's a big population center and it's getting bigger.
The electoral values are set until 2008. And in the scenario I listed, if the Democrats win the northern battlegrounds (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa) the Republicans can't stop them. Democrats don't need the South any more than the Republicans need New England. But you're right about population movements. In the future we will need another Bill Clinton to sweep the river states (Missouri, Arkansas, and Lousiana). But in 2008 the path to victory lies in Ohio (or Indiana, should we choose Bayh), and holding Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and retaking Iowa.

I'd much rather the Democrats pander to the gun-nuts in the North than the bible-thumpers down South. The future of the Democrat Party lies in retaking the North and Southwest, not the Southeast.

Bayh is a threat to Hitlery.

Both parties need to find some middle ground, but it isn't going to change.
Each election both sides swing to greater political extremes.

You think Dick Cheney really believes that homosexuality is immoral? No.
His own daughter is a lesbian. But because of his political stance he must
side with that conservative opinion. It's the same with thing for Democrats;
their candidates must puppet to the will of the party.

What about the GOP, are they gonna go moderate in 2008? McCain, Guiliani, Pataki...Swarzenegger? :p

This is the first election where neither candidate is running an incumbent or sitting VP...in a long time (for those who haven't heard, Cheney has ruled out a 2008 run).

It's a free for all in both parties, as the moderates fight the wingers. Conventional wisdom says if one party picks a moderate and the other a winger, the moderate wins. If both parties go with moderates or wingers...it should be an interesting election.

The Democrats seem to be under more pressure to move to the center, since they just lost...the Republicans seem to be under more pressure to move farther to the right, since they just won.

Someone mentioned a while back that McCain and Guiliani would win a national election, but couldn't win a GOP primary.

I wonder if the same will hold true on the Democrat side for Bayh (hopefully not).

But before Democrats hop on the Bible bandwagon, soften the gun control a bit and we'll have more than enough votes and states to win.

Gun control vs Gun safety = Good stuff. I really do enjoy shooting my SKS. And if it means I HAVE to shoot more to meet some safety certification, then hey, lets do it.

Dems can win the Deep South, but they have to be moderates / centralist, and not leftist.

Who will run in 08? Heck we don't even know who we are going to put on the pedastool. I'm sure a campaign manager somewhere knows, but main stream public doesn't know. We do know, that VP Cheney said he would not run.

Keep in mind thou, Senators do not fare thee well in the Presidential race.

[deleted some earlier text]
Frankly, those are the only two reasons Bush won. If 9/11 had never happened, even you must admit Bush would have lost in a landslide. Bush's entire campaign centered on how the Democrats were "weak on terror". And the gay marriage thing played a far larger role than you'd admit. Moral values came out on top to the surprise of many. In any case, terrorism will obviously die down as an issue by 2008, unless we get attacked again, in which case Bush's popularity will go soaring into the 90% realm again, and we truly are fucked in 2008.


We can "what if" the thing to death. What if 9/11 had never happened? Well, we wouldn't have needed a department of Baggage Police, nor would we have needed an expensive war on Islamist terrorists. Maybe the tax cut would have reaped substantial dividends and the economy would have been booming by the summer of 2004. I don't think I'm ready to admit that Bush would have lost the election, at all.

Maybe, without the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, John Kerry's war record wouldn't have been such a turn-on to the Democratic party. Howard Dean could have been nominated. On the other hand, Joe Lieberman or Evan Bayh could have been nominated, too, and that might have made it a horse race.

You can't just isolate one thing and pull it out of context. It's the whole chain of events that is important. Maybe things would have sucked, maybe the tax cuts would have made the recession worse. Maybe this, maybe that.

As far as values go, I think most miss the point there, too. The poll questions I remember gave results like "people voting for Bush thought that marriage should be between a man and a woman", not that they voted for Bush because of his stand on gay marriage. One of the telling questions and answers that I remember was that a vast majority of people in the country thought that Bush represented their values better than Kerry. Values wasn't defined in the survey to mean anything in particular, just used in a general sense.

Which goes back to my main point. Democrats need to forget trying to pick issues that will secure a special interest group. They need to pick some solid, broad issues that will appeal across the country. Make accessible, affordable healthcare an issue. That would have some pretty broad appeal. Don't just focus on gun control because it has burned you in years past. No one will believe a Democrat that "sees the light" all of a sudden after so many years of favoring bans, anyway. You're far better off sticking to traditional Democratic issues that can pull in a lot of people.

One last thing. Why are all these folks talking about Arnold Schwarznegger running for President? There's something wrong with that whole idea...try to figure it out.

Firstly, Ahhhnold can't run for Prez, he wasn't born on US soil. Secondly the swifties accusations were in all probability quite accurate. If they weren't accurate then Kerry wouldn't have had a problem releasing all his military records to the public. He did not even though he knew that the Swifties were hurting his campaign. This suggests that some if not most of the accusations were correct. Thirdly, it was a publicity stunt. He went out with a auto-loader and came back with an over under and wasn't carrying his own goose. Now, if he was such the avid hunter he proclaimed to be, he would have had his own shotgun. And he sure as hell would have carried his goose. He didn't want to offend PETA, however, so he didn't, thus proving once again he can't stand up to any pressure. :sniper:

Liberals really need to shed the image that they want to ban all guns.
What if I don't want to ban all guns? But rather enforce the Constitution of the United States?

What if I don't want to ban all guns? But rather enforce the Constitution of the United States?

That's what he was saying. They shouldn't support a ban on guns.

IMO, gun control is unconstituitional and just plain stupid. Gun control doesn't do anything. It is a miserable failure that restricts law-abiding citizens from enjoying, or practically using weapons the 2nd ammendment grants them the right to use, and encourages criminals by promising to keep guns out of the hands of their victims.

A putrid self centered criminal in my country can walk into my house with a

gun and kill me, but according to my wise countrys laws(Aussie) I cant own a

gun and shoot him first in self defence.

To hell with the law in this case I think, me continuing to live is much more

important than supporting stupid laws made by stupid people.

You think Dick Cheney really believes that homosexuality is immoral? No.
His own daughter is a lesbian. But because of his political stance he must
side with that conservative opinion.

Actually I am not sure on that. I have heard/read more then one rumor that the relationship is kind of hostile.

I did not follow their campaign but did anybody see him hug her during the aww family shots?

To steal from Time Magazine:
"No Democrat except Clinton has won re-election since FDR."

... not a good statistic for the DEMs.

I totally agree w/ the gun control statements, BTW. As far as I'm concearned, we have plentiful laws. They just need enforcement.