NationStates Jolt Archive

The South is increasing in Electoral College power. It remains strongly in the slimy Republican Party hands. ;) The Democrats obviously need a Southern Strategy to win elections there once again.

Alright, Americans, start thinking. None of us want another Bush-esque president in office in 2009.

Just remove bans on inbreeding. They'll vote with all three hands then

*yawn*

guns.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7569129&postcount=7


Though personally, I find the "slimy" sentiment silly. We're all Americans. This keeps up, I'm going to have to tirade against those darn Massachusettians. :D

erm, dress up as republicans and go around the south raping, pillaging, plundering, etc, and then you sail off in your longboats back to Denmark, so you can get back into your liberal costumes, return to redneck county USA and be like "What the fuck happened here?" and then they tell you, and you're like "Shit. Fucken republicans. We're gonna introduce a bill maken all rednecks the power to lynch those bastards" and the rednecks will shoot in the air and laugh. And you'll win 2008.

"Just remove bans on inbreeding. They'll vote with all three hands then"

:rolleyes: It has always been the act of an occupying power to try and reduce the conquered to a sub-human state.

The democratic would need a candidate that southerners could relate to, one that would at least partially espouse some of the moral views that they hold. Putting more money into agriculture, showing definite morale views, meaning that a candidate would have to show where he stands, in plain language on a variety of issues (stem cell research, abortion.) It's very important because much of the south votes on morale concerns and not economic ones.

Gun control should not be infringed upon by any northerner attempting to gain votes in the south. Many southerners would reject that man simply because they know if that right doesn't mean anything to him, then neither does the rest of the constitution.

Since abortion is a sacred cow to the Dems, either gun control or the death penalty. Its not going to sweep the South but it'll help in the border states. One of the reasons Clinton did well in the South (besides Ross Perot) was because he went back to Arkansas during his campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally retarded guy.

erm, dress up as republicans and go around the south raping, pillaging, plundering, etc, and then you sail off in your longboats back to Denmark, so you can get back into your liberal costumes, return to redneck county USA and be like "What the fuck happened here?" and then they tell you, and you're like "Shit. Fucken republicans. We're gonna introduce a bill maken all rednecks the power to lynch those bastards" and the rednecks will shoot in the air and laugh. And you'll win 2008.

That's a bloody jackpot right there.

erm, dress up as republicans and go around the south raping, pillaging, plundering, etc, and then you sail off in your longboats back to Denmark, so you can get back into your liberal costumes, return to redneck county USA and be like "What the fuck happened here?" and then they tell you, and you're like "Shit. Fucken republicans. We're gonna introduce a bill maken all rednecks the power to lynch those bastards" and the rednecks will shoot in the air and laugh. And you'll win 2008.

Ha, 10 points for creativity.

It's all about gun control.

Bill Clinton has said it himself. Just run a democrat who is pro-gun.

One of the reasons Clinton did well in the South (besides Ross Perot) was because he went back to Arkansas during his campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally retarded guy.
And something like this actually gains votes in America? It's disgusting.

[QUOTE=Markreich[Though personally, I find the "slimy" sentiment silly. We're all Americans. This keeps up, I'm going to have to tirade against those darn Massachusettians. :D[/QUOTE]
Funny, it was my Republican American uncle from Illinois that called the Republican party "slimy" ever since Reagan.

Interesting threads, but no one brought up the obvious, is that Democrats need to bring their positions into line with the majority of American voters. Many liberals think that since they believe something, it is obviously true. When they can not force others to believe the same as them, they start calling other people names and ridiculing their intellience. Case in point, the next few replies after this post will probably be derogatory in nature to what I have said.
George Will wrote an excellent column about the "enlightened movement", liberals who believe that they are superior to all other forms of life that do not believe differently.
How do you lose the south again? Spend the next four years insulting the intellience of the people who are voting. Who is going to do this? Certainly not the candidate who needs the votes, but the people who "endorse" them. Talk about fratricide.

Interesting threads, but no one brought up the obvious, is that Democrats need to bring their positions into line with the majority of American voters. Many liberals think that since they believe something, it is obviously true. When they can not force others to believe the same as them, they start calling other people names and ridiculing their intellience.
Its a good idea. Its also a shame that it means that parties don't stand for anything anymore. They just bewilder people into being afraid and making people think they are the only answer. It's not democracy, its two warring dictatorships

Its a good idea. Its also a shame that it means that parties don't stand for anything anymore. They just bewilder people into being afraid and making people think they are the only answer. It's not democracy, its two warring dictatorships

This is vague and I would like to understand it better. Please clarify.

This is vague and I would like to understand it better. Please clarify.
The voters no longer get a choice. The democrats are becoming so similar to the republicans that if you vote one, its almost the same as voting the other. I mean, what were the chances of Kerry doing anything about Iraq? About 0, as his advisors would have declared change a no no.

As I've said before on various threads, the American system is getting much like the roman senate. They had two parties, both of which claimed to stand for slightly different things, but were actually the same and just wanted power. The romans got so sick of it they reverted to a dictatorship for a while.

You'll probably show me to be wrong here. Politics isn't my strong point, especially US politics.

Have large amount of democrats from places like New York, California, and Massechucettes(?), move to conservitive states just in time for the next election.

[QUOTE=Markreich[Though personally, I find the "slimy" sentiment silly. We're all Americans. This keeps up, I'm going to have to tirade against those darn Massachusettians. :D
Funny, it was my Republican American uncle from Illinois that called the Republican party "slimy" ever since Reagan.[/QUOTE]

He found Nixon to NOT be slimy? :D

Run a moderate from Ohio who is pro-gun, and take the fight to them on education and healthcare.

An Australian point of view.

I would sneak into Southerners' homes and replace Bibles with hentai manga. When they pick them up and read them, they will have fatal heart attacks. In the end, the result is millions of fundies dying of heart attacks and the South losing representatives and thus electoral votes. It has the side advantage of leaving behind only diehard liberals and libertarians, as well.

I would sneak into Southerners' homes and replace Bibles with hentai manga. When they pick them up and read them, they will have fatal heart attacks. In the end, the result is millions of fundies dying of heart attacks and the South losing representatives and thus electoral votes. It has the side advantage of leaving behind only diehard liberals and libertarians, as well.

Somehow I am not surprised that you would be extreme enough to kill anyway who didn't agree with you.

Of course, you were probably joking also.

QUOTE: Many liberals think that since they believe something, it is obviously true. When they can not force others to believe the same as them, they start calling other people names and ridiculing their intellience.

Actually, my first thought upon reading this was "Damn! That's FOX News!".
Just replace "liberals" with conservatives and "intelligence" with moral values.
That's correct too.
As a Libertarian, hearing the two parties squabble over who's more "abused" by the other party is getting old.
You both hate each other equally. All settled?

First hting you need is a southern candidate. Not Gore, something more like clinton witha shot of kennedy and a bit of reganesqe. Then give up on abortion. Say it should be settled in the Supreme court and You wont take a position. get the vote out to the little guy, like the ppor stupid farmer who doesnt give a shit about ideals and offer him bigger handouts. Destroy all bible thumpers. Frame the republican candidate in late october getting busy with a hooters waitress...

First hting you need is a southern candidate. Not Gore, something more like clinton witha shot of kennedy and a bit of reganesqe. Then give up on abortion. Say it should be settled in the Supreme court and You wont take a position. get the vote out to the little guy, like the ppor stupid farmer who doesnt give a shit about ideals and offer him bigger handouts. Destroy all bible thumpers. Frame the republican candidate in late october getting busy with a hooters waitress...

And a little hentai goes a long way. :fluffle: :p

As a Southern Republican, I can already tell you nothing will work. The South will always be the "solid south", for one party. The Dems used to have us, and they held office for years. Then, in the 60's we moved to the GOP, and now they dominate. Go SOUTH!!!


By the way, losing the strong stance on abortion, stopping gun control, shutting up with the jokes about inbreeding, and getting candidates who don't have $1000 haircuts would help too.

I would sneak into Southerners' homes and replace Bibles with hentai manga. When they pick them up and read them, they will have fatal heart attacks. In the end, the result is millions of fundies dying of heart attacks and the South losing representatives and thus electoral votes. It has the side advantage of leaving behind only diehard liberals and libertarians, as well.

That's pretty ignorant. We Libertarians are the ONLY party that has a formalized stance on Pornography... We're for it's free distribution and sale. We also want to legalize drugs.
Why make us sound like those conservative assholes?

Ohh I have a much better idea in mind.

www.fuckthesouth.com

I live in NC a southern state...I am a Demacratic to win in my state we need to
1 give assult weapons away
2 gain an accent
3 start a war on 5 countries
4 insult the french
5 carry a gun
6 come from the south
7 stop foucusing on minorities
8 learn the art of deception.
9 do drugs and deny it.

That is what my friends say but if they did that i would vote for a 3 party.

warning - the following is an utterly reformist party-politics strategy coming from an anarchist that thinks the entire system is screwed no matter who you vote for.

first off: we know for an absolute fact that the majority of republican voters are voting based on either abortion or guns. they actually perceive the republican party to hold social democratic positions on most other issues, positions that they agree with - which is wildly at odds with actual republican party positions and behavior. so what the democrats need to do is siphon off those single or dual issue voters somehow.

secondly: completely abandoning gun control or abortion rights is utterly unfeasible for the democrats, as they would stand to lose a huge chunk of their core supporters to the greens or something. which means that trying to siphon off republican votes by adopting even more of the republican platform will continue to be a losing strategy, just like it has been since the 80s.

so what we are left with is that the democrats need a way to neutralize republican support, rather than trying to take it for themselves. which means creating a splinter party that runs on both their social democratic positions and their "yay guns!" and pro-life positions (and probably "eww, gays are icky" while they're at it). they would run in republican strongholds, especially for house seats. and in presidential races they would focus their campaigns in the south and great plains. when faced with a choice of two parties that are against abortions and for guns, most republican voters would be forced to look at the parties' other positions, and they would choose the new party (assuming, of course, that they were able to effectively organize and advertise themselves).

'Lose their ballot papers'

Say all people who have slept with their 1) Sisters
2) Brothers
3) Mothers
4) Father
5) any other form of inbreeding

can't vote.

Declare that any voters must celebrate Gay, anti religon, pro abortion day, by wearing a pink tux,must be tight for men, make up and carry dildos.
No one in the Bible Belt would turn up,hene winning the election for the democrats! Go Hillary!

Nascar-gun toting-Jesus for President!

Go into the heart of rural Mississippi or Alabama, find the village idiot and ask him to run for president. Sure, he'll beat the bible till his fists bleed but make sure he knows it's not the Democrats he's running for. At the convention, mkae sure all the speakers bash Kerry and Clinton and have hundreds of elephants taped to the walls and roof. It's bullet proof.

Many liberals think that since they believe something, it is obviously true. When they can not force others to believe the same as them, they start calling other people names and ridiculing their intellience.
I think that this is a case of arrogant people in general rather than just liberals. I mean, are you trying to say that no Bush supporter in the South ever insulted people from the Northeast?

He found Nixon to NOT be slimy? :D
Come to think of it, he singled out Nixon as the slimiest president ever. So yeah, he thinks Republicans are slimy, but he often votes for their candidates.

Come to think of it, he singled out Nixon as the slimiest president ever. So yeah, he thinks Republicans are slimy, but he often votes for their candidates.

He's a Republican. He found Nixon & Reagan (which confuses me) to be slimy. Yet you say he voted for their other candidates...

Ford? Ugh. Truely the Homer Simpson president.
Bush 41 & 43 - Hmm.

So, was he just a closet Democrat that voted for Dole? :D

Then give up on abortion. Say it should be settled in the Supreme court and You wont take a position.
It already was settled in the Supreme court in 1973.

As a Southern Republican, I can already tell you nothing will work. The South will always be the "solid south", for one party.
Why?

erm, dress up as republicans and go around the south raping, pillaging, plundering, etc, and then you sail off in your longboats back to Denmark, so you can get back into your liberal costumes, return to redneck county USA and be like "What the fuck happened here?" and then they tell you, and you're like "Shit. Fucken republicans. We're gonna introduce a bill maken all rednecks the power to lynch those bastards" and the rednecks will shoot in the air and laugh. And you'll win 2008.
If I remember correctly, Dumbocrats are the type who would pay danegeld. Quite a few people in the south would just shoot your ass.

Go into the heart of rural Mississippi or Alabama, find the village idiot and ask him to run for president. Sure, he'll beat the bible till his fists bleed but make sure he knows it's not the Democrats he's running for. At the convention, mkae sure all the speakers bash Kerry and Clinton and have hundreds of elephants taped to the walls and roof. It's bullet proof.
Ah, you mean the republican version of Kerry. That might work, as long as Kerry doesn't run again.

Boo Hoo...
We lost the election, so let's start bashing Republicans. After all, it'll do SO much good. How 'bout you liberals offer free baby trees to anyone who votes? Or a free latte? Or a "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" season 1 DVD? I could go on all day...

Morons.

It already was settled in the Supreme court in 1973.

Exactly right.

He's a Republican. He found Nixon & Reagan (which confuses me) to be slimy. Yet you say he voted for their other candidates...

So, was he just a closet Democrat that voted for Dole? :D
I have not quizzed him on who he voted for in each and every election, so I don't know. He says he votes for the Republican more often than the Democrat. Mind you he's no diehard partisan "ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN" uber-conservative.

In any case, I cannot imagine that he voted for Bush this year.

I think he's a closet Democrat. ;)

Ford? Ugh. Truely the Homer Simpson president.

???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Jerryford.jpg

Well, he does look like Homer.

I have not quizzed him on who he voted for in each and every election, so I don't know. He says he votes for the Republican more often than the Democrat. Mind you he's no diehard partisan "ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN" uber-conservative.

In any case, I cannot imagine that he voted for Bush this year.

I think he's a closet Democrat. ;)


???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Jerryford.jpg

Well, he does look like Homer.

That's very possible. I wanted to vote against Bush, really I did. I just couldn't vote for Carter Part 2: Looks, acts, and talks like Kennedy, but with none of the charisma or elan. :(
(Not that it matters, as I live in Connecticut.)

Check out: www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/0713.htm
If you ever see it, it's only a mediocre episode, but it hits Bush Sr & Ford right on the spot. :)

All they have to do is run on a "we will make a theocracy" ticket. That's how Bush won.

Check out: www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/0713.htm
If you ever see it, it's only a mediocre episode, but it hits Bush Sr & Ford right on the spot. :)
I've seen it.

"Hi, I'm former president Gerald Ford"

"D'oh!"

Boo Hoo...
We lost the election, so let's start bashing Republicans. After all, it'll do SO much good. How 'bout you liberals offer free baby trees to anyone who votes? Or a free latte? Or a "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" season 1 DVD? I could go on all day...

Morons.

Who's 'We'? Oh...I get it...you have troubles writing in the first person plural form...oh, no - you're trying to be funny...

Could you go on all day? Could you really? Wow, that'd be a rare treat, and so devastatingly funny to boot. Please do go with your unassailably witty invective, I'm positively trembling with anticipation of further helpings of your frightfully amusing, and terribly original, observations...

Elf-boy.

All they have to do is run on a "we will make a theocracy" ticket. That's how Bush won.

nah, doing that will just split the democratic vote, as the republicans have already claimed that territory and any move by the democrats to there will not pick up more votes than it would lose them.

they need to split the republican vote.

i really think my idea (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7578109&postcount=29) is the strategy that makes the most sense. but the democrats won't do it, because their deeper problem is that they suck at playing the game compared to the fascists.

Give and hype up the constitutional party, which will, if it's well enough known, syphon away the fundamentalist christian votes. If moral values are such a big deal, make them choose between a bible thumper, and an honest bible thumper.

One of the reasons Clinton did well in the South (besides Ross Perot) was because he went back to Arkansas during his campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally retarded guy.


And something like this actually gains votes in America? It's disgusting.

During the New Hampshire primary of 1992, I attempted to change the subject from Gennifer Flowers and asked Governor Clinton about his decision to execute a mentally disabled black man in Arkansas named Rickey Ray Rector. The crude indifference of his non-response convinced me then that he was lying, as his toadies are lying still, when they say they would rather focus on "the issues" than on the bimbos. What they want is to be allowed to suck undisturbed on the public and private tit, and if any analogies should suggest themselves, well-- the fault is hardly mine. I wish Rector rather than Flowers had come back to expose Clinton as an unscrupulous and vulgar and mendacious jerk six years later, but it was bound to happen in one department of his life or another, and any nemesis is more educational than none at all.

--Christopher Hitchens, "Clinton's Comeuppance," The Nation (Feb. 16, 1998): 8.

Give and hype up the constitutional party, which will, if it's well enough known, syphon away the fundamentalist christian votes. If moral values are such a big deal, make them choose between a bible thumper, and an honest bible thumper.

nah, screw those theocrats. the dems need a party that will vote with them 80%+ of the time if they win house seats. welfare state social democrats that like guns and hate abortion basically. only they'd have to call themselves something other than that, because while polls show that people actually hold those beliefs, they have also bought in to the republican framing of the debate that made those terms 'bad'. call 'em the populists or something

Simple. Nominate one of the following:
-Bill Nelson
-Mark Warner
-Evan Byah
-Bill Richardson
and NOT one of the following:
-Hillary Clinton
-Howard Dean
-Michael Moore

Sure, get a set of morals that the average person wouldn't think would send you to Hell.

How about nominating someone who isn't openly contemptuous of Southerners and their values? It seems like the "strategy" posts here focus on how to divide up the South or make it irrelevant, rather than to build a platform that it could actually agree with.

-An atheistic, scientific Republican

Sure, get a set of morals that the average person wouldn't think would send you to Hell.
We've already got those, fucknut--or didn't you hear? Divorce rates are lowest in blue states, teen pregnancy is lowest in blue states, and rates of care for the poor and needy are highest in blue states. Maybe you folks need to get an idea of what it means to be truly moral, instead of being a bunch of self-righteous assholes.

Elaborating on the theocracy ticket . . .

Tell them that if ya elect them they will secede from the liberal states and rename it 'Jesusland'

(Note: While this is a flippant and satirical post, I would not be surprised if there's a few nutjobs out there in the world who would sincerely agree with the following. And it's not my beliefs either, it's flippant satire.)

How the Democrats can win the Southern Vote in 2008

1) Promise to build "Internment Camps" where all homosexuals will be detained and quarantined from the rest of society.

2) Promise to make White Anglo Saxon Protestantism the nation's official religion and forcibly convert those of other faiths or detain them as "enemy combatants."

3) On a similar note, abolish public schools and have churches offer education instead.

4) End welfare and abolish minimum wage laws so that the bums can get work without excuse. There's also the military if you lazy drones don't want to work at Wal-Mart.

5) Put women back in the kitchen making dinner and babies like tradition says they should.

6) End affirmative action. The only minorities we want in the White House are the ones with the serving trays.

It seems like the "strategy" posts here focus on how to divide up the South or make it irrelevant, rather than to build a platform that it could actually agree with.

-An atheistic, scientific Republican

that's because the issues that win votes in the south and plains are directly opposed to those that win in northern cities and coastal states. the democratic party sucks enough already without totally selling out its few positive points trying to attract more people. there ain't room for a democratic party that both supports and opposes gun control and abortion and such. not on a national level anyway. and without opposing those things they won't win in the republican strongholds, while they also won't win as easily in their own strongholds if they do oppose them.

6) End affirmative action. The only minorities we want in the White House are the ones with the serving trays.
A Republican nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and Bush has picked both Powell and Rice for his #1 Cabinet post. Some Republicans have urged Powell to run for President, and I'd like to vote for Rice someday. Ms. Rice is not currently employed in making babies, either.

Republicans try not to care about people's race, while Democrats seem to assume that anyone with dark skin needs special help to succeed.

point out how bush's cabinet is a carpetbaggers delight to negroes and wetbacks. how while all of those good honest southern white folk were electing bush and cheney, once they got into office practically everyone they appointed was some sorta coloured or jew.

Here's a simplified version of everything that you're suggesting:

Stop running Democrats at all! Get a Republican candidate in 2008! GNP vs. GOP!

I say we need another General Sherman to put the south in line like we had to last time they acted up.

A Republican nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and Bush has picked both Powell and Rice for his #1 Cabinet post. Some Republicans have urged Powell to run for President, and I'd like to vote for Rice someday. Ms. Rice is not currently employed in making babies, either.

Republicans try not to care about people's race, while Democrats seem to assume that anyone with dark skin needs special help to succeed.You ought to rephrase that to say some Republicans try not to care about peoples' race. It would be more accurate. Don't believe me? Try running for office as a black Republican in the deep south--anywhere in the deep south. Powell didn't run for President because he knew he'd get shot trying, and I suspect Rice knows the same. It's sad but it's true--as long as the Republican party depends on their racist friends in the south for their margins of victory, they'll never have a person of color at the top of the ticket.

I say we need another General Sherman to put the south in line like we had to last time they acted up.
a republican, the democrats should take pains to point out.

a republican, the democrats should take pains to point out.


You're aware arent you that the parties which used to be called "republican" and "democrat" have no real ideological connection to the modern parties which bear the same names.

You're aware arent you that the parties which used to be called "republican" and "democrat" have no real ideological connection to the modern parties which bear the same names.

which is why the democrats can't win a single state in the south, they need to return to their roots of white populism in the southand great plains, and city machine politics in the north and a mixture of the two in the midwest inorder to win.

which is why the democrats can't win a single state in the south, they need to return to their roots of white populism in the southand great plains, and city machine politics in the north and a mixture of the two in the midwest inorder to win.



I still favor total war and scorched earth.

They voted for bush, they deserve it.

point out how bush's cabinet is a carpetbaggers delight to negroes and wetbacks. how while all of those good honest southern white folk were electing bush and cheney, once they got into office practically everyone they appointed was some sorta coloured or jew.
Classic liberal racism . . .

Classic liberal racism . . .


No one who uses the word "wetback" is a liberal, sorry.

You ought to rephrase that to say some Republicans try not to care about peoples' race. It would be more accurate. Don't believe me? Try running for office as a black Republican in the deep south--anywhere in the deep south. Powell didn't run for President because he knew he'd get shot trying, and I suspect Rice knows the same. It's sad but it's true--as long as the Republican party depends on their racist friends in the south for their margins of victory, they'll never have a person of color at the top of the ticket.
I have lived in the South, and in Texas in particular, for most of my life, and I have encountered racism from both sides of the political spectrum. It is by no means unique to the Republican conservative. I donate money to the Vernon Robinson campaign in North Carolina - a black running for office - specifically because he was black, and conservative. A black CONSERVATIVE can easily win in the South.
I think the main division is not of North and South, but instead, urban vs rural, as any cursory examination of the map of red and blue counties would show. The bulk of New York and Pennsylvania land area is read, but the small blue areas comprise Philadelphia and New York City. The populations of the urban areas try to enforce their view of the world on the rural areas, and vice versa.

No one who uses the word "wetback" is a liberal, sorry.
I see, so when someone criticizing conservatives, Republicans, whatever, uses racist terms, they are not racist, and not liberal either?

I see, so when someone criticizing conservatives, Republicans, whatever, uses racist terms, they are not racist, and not liberal either?


There are many criticism which can be levied against the bush administration and the republicans from positions other than liberal.

American liberals are ispo facto opposed to racism.

A racist liberal is a contradiction in terms.

There are many criticism which can be levied against the bush administration and the republicans from positions other than liberal.

American liberals are ispo facto opposed to racism.

A racist liberal is a contradiction in terms.
Therefore, Senator Byrd, a noted Democrat and Liberal, when he uses the word '******' on national TV, and who is also a former member of the KKK, is not racist, but when Senator Lott, a Republican, praises Senator Thurmond during his segregationist period, he is not? Oh, that's right, a conservative is by definition a racist, at least according to the MSM and the Democrat Party. What a crock!
American liberals may say they are opposed to racism, but their actions belie that.
How about the LIBERAL radio jock calling Condoleeza Rica an 'Aunt Jemima'? Oh, but he's a liberal, so he could not be racist.

I see, so when someone criticizing conservatives, Republicans, whatever, uses racist terms, they are not racist, and not liberal either?

Um...making fun of Republicans isn't racism. Racism is being biased against someone because of their RACE, not their political persuasion. Hence the term "racism."

As for Dems in 2008? I'm not sure. But I have some plans for '12...
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Um...making fun of Republicans isn't racism. Racism is being biased against someone because of their RACE, not their political persuasion. Hence the term "racism."

As for Dems in 2008? I'm not sure. But I have some plans for '12...
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!
So levying racist terms at a CONSERVATIVE black person is not racist, but doing so towards a liberal is? Talk about your hypocrisy!!!!

Therefore, Senator Byrd, a noted Democrat and Liberal, when he uses the word '******' on national TV, and who is also a former member of the KKK, is not racist, but when Senator Lott, a Republican, praises Senator Thurmond during his segregationist period, he is not? Oh, that's right, a conservative is by definition a racist, at least according to the MSM and the Democrat Party. What a crock!
American liberals may say they are opposed to racism, but their actions belie that.
How about the LIBERAL radio jock calling Condoleeza Rica an 'Aunt Jemima'? Oh, but he's a liberal, so he could not be racist.

ideals and people are two very different things; you have to be able to address them with this in mind in order to pass any sort of judgement here. The 'archetypal liberal' does not engage in racist activites, comments, etc, though some individuals who identify with the liberal movement and are labeled as such may in fact be racist. I will agree that Senator Byrd's comments were racist, as were Senator Lott's. However, the stance of the 'liberal movement' does not support racism. In contrast, the 'conservative movement' actively pursues a campaign of racism and other forms of enforced discrimination as a part of it's moral and social ideal.

Something that needs to be said here...the Democrats have ZERO chance in the south unless they nominate a CONSERVATIVE. And even then, the Republican would probably still win (unless it's a liberal Republican, haha).

Even Clinton, at the height of his popularity, could not take the deep south. If we had nominated Edwards he MIGHT have carried his state, but it's doubtful he could have won South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

The Democrats will never take the South unless they essentially run as a Republican. But doing so would lose them support in their base.

This mentality of needing to take the South is counterproductive. Democrats have built up a solid Northeast/West Coast alliance...the immediate battleground is the industrial North. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania are all within a few percentage points of either party. This area is far more winnable by a Democrat than the old Southern coalition of Carter.

Conventional wisdom has it that the South is growing in population, and the North losing in population, and the electoral shift will go straight to the Republicans. In reality, it's more complicated. The Southeast is growing but so is the Southwest. This means California will continue to grow and become a larger and larger anchor of the Democratic Party. And red states like Nevada and Colorado are increasingly becoming tossups. Heavy Republican states like Mississippi and Oklahoma are also losing electoral clout along with the northern blue states. Together with Florida, the future of the winning electoral coalition will depend largely on the Latino vote.

ideals and people are two very different things; you have to be able to address them with this in mind in order to pass any sort of judgement here. The 'archetypal liberal' does not engage in racist activites, comments, etc, though some individuals who identify with the liberal movement and are labeled as such may in fact be racist. I will agree that Senator Byrd's comments were racist, as were Senator Lott's. However, the stance of the 'liberal movement' does not support racism. In contrast, the 'conservative movement' actively pursues a campaign of racism and other forms of enforced discrimination as a part of it's moral and social ideal.
The 'conservative movement', while it does contain its share of racists, as do the limousine liberals, does NOT actively pursue a campaign of racism. Conservatives oppose affirmative action precisely because it judges a person by the color of their skin, instead of the content of their character, as Martin Luther King used to say. Conservatives opposed welfare in its previous form because they believed it perpetuated a cycle of poverty that hits minorities in particular. George Bush has appointed highly skilled and competent minorities in his administration, in higher posts than Clinton ever did. Liberals simply try to paint conservatives as racists so they can take the minority vote for granted and throw them scraps when they get cantankerous. Conservatives judge people by their actions, not by their intents.

At their best, yes, conservatives judge people by their content, not their color. Unfortunately, I personally haven't seen a whole lot of conservatives at their best. And, let's face it, the conservative ideology seems more prone to enabling racism than the liberal ideology, which is not to say that racism can't be found in liberals. After all, all stereotypes begin somewhere.

Now, back to the topic. I don't believe that the Democrats have any chance at winning in 2008. In fact, they might not have any chance in 2012. However, I believe that eventually the political pendulum will swing, just as it has always done. The Democrats need to simply stick to their guns until then. After all, while around 51% of America voted for Bush, around 48-49% voted for Kerry (Not real sure of the percentages). Even if it's not a majority, that's still a metric assload of people.

One final thought: Let's try to have a little more respect for others' opinions, eh? Sure, you hold your values to be dear and true, but so does someone on the opposite end of the spectrum. We're liberals and conservatives not because we decided to call ourselves as such, but because the belief system that goes along with the name meshes well with our own personal belief system. I mean, you can call yourself a liberal or conservative all you want, but if your ideology marks you as something else, then you're something else.

are really desperate arent you,
I feel your pain.

Conservatives oppose affirmative action precisely because it judges a person by the color of their skin, instead of the content of their character, as Martin Luther King used to say.

i'm not sure which part is more laughable - the idea that conservatives oppose aa because it 'perpetuates racism', or the implication that mlk jr didn't advocate some sort of similar program.

i'm not sure which part is more laughable - the idea that conservatives oppose aa because it 'perpetuates racism', or the implication that mlk jr didn't advocate some sort of similar program.
Personally, I feel affirmative action served its purpose, but it has been time to end it for awhile now...