NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=21&u=/ap/20041211/ap_on_re_us/democrats

Who do you think should run the Dems. I favor Howie D. I mean, that guy is fun to watch. It would only be a matter of time before he completely flips out. You can't buy that kind of entertainment!

Simon Rosenberg is probably the most intelligent choice, which means he has a snowballs chance in Hawaii.

Really, I hope Howie wins. YYYEEEIIIAGH!

I should lead the democrats.

I finished my masterful plan to guide the democrats to complete political power while I sobered up in the Carbondale Township Jail. I entitled it "My Continued Inconvenience" and it is fool-proof.

But can you scream like the Dean?

But can you scream like the Dean?

I can yell like Dean, scream like a woman, and spit nauseating venom like Zell Miller. I cannot fail.

Dean's the frontrunner. Apparently Wellington Webb also has high support. Apparently Rosenberg doesn't have that much support.

In any case, the head of the DNC coordinates much of the fundraising. Dean's obviously the guy to lead that.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=21&u=/ap/20041211/ap_on_re_us/democrats

Who do you think should run the Dems. I favor Howie D. I mean, that guy is fun to watch. It would only be a matter of time before he completely flips out. You can't buy that kind of entertainment!

Simon Rosenberg is probably the most intelligent choice, which means he has a snowballs chance in Hawaii.

Really, I hope Howie wins. YYYEEEIIIAGH!
Tempest in a teapot. Exercise in futility. Irremediable irelevancy.

Democrats need to get it together...the man to do it is not Obama and Not Dean and not Rosenburg.

It has to be a moderate, with good speaking, and acceptable to the red south.

Cross off Dean(NOT moderate, NOT acceptable to south.)
Cross off Obama(NOT acceptable South.)
Cross off Rosenburg(Not a fantastic speaker and not acceptable down south.)

How about Clinton?

Bill not hillary(Not acceptable down south.)

Democrats need to get it together...the man to do it is not Obama and Not Dean and not Rosenburg.

It has to be a moderate, with good speaking, and acceptable to the red south.

Cross off Dean(NOT moderate, NOT acceptable to south.)
Cross off Obama(NOT acceptable South.)
Cross off Rosenburg(Not a fantastic speaker and not acceptable down south.)

How about Clinton?

Bill not hillary(Not acceptable down south.)
*yawn*

The deep South is solid Republican. Not even Bill Clinton could take Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, or Virginia, even at the height of his popularity, and running against a Senator from Kansas (Bob Dole).

As the South has gone Republican, the North has likewise switched. New Hampshire, Maine, and even Vermont used to be reliably Republican. New York used to have a formidable Republican party, but they've since lost support as the GOP has moved to the right on social issues.

Quite simply, the Carter and Clinton methods of winning aren't applicable anymore. The South simply won't vote for a Democrat president (though Virginia is perhaps shifting with increasing urban growth from the DC area).

A new strategy is needed, one which accepts the changes in the electorate. Namely, the future of the party is in the Southwest, and the Southeast (Florida). Latino immigration is shifting electoral power, and whichever party builds up support among the growing Latino population will likely have a winning coalition.

It was not long ago the south was the bulwark of the Democratic party. If they are so ready to cede it then they have willingly moved the 'battlefront' to the northern states. It is better to be on offence than defence. This defeatism and unwillingless to accept reality is why the Democratic party is experiencing rapidly declining influence and power.

The next leader must be prepared to adjust the Democratic platform enough to retain the core constituents ande gain enough new ones to make the loss of the fringe radical constituents worthwhile.

The deep South is solid Republican. Not even Bill Clinton could take Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, or Virginia, even at the height of his popularity, and running against a Senator from Kansas (Bob Dole).
He did win Georgia in '92. But thats probably more a product of Ross Perot than anything else.

It was not long ago the south was the bulwark of the Democratic party. If they are so ready to cede it then they have willingly moved the 'battlefront' to the northern states. It is better to be on offence than defence. This defeatism and unwillingless to accept reality is why the Democratic party is experiencing rapidly declining influence and power.

The next leader must be prepared to adjust the Democratic platform enough to retain the core constituents ande gain enough new ones to make the loss of the fringe radical constituents worthwhile.
I agree that the Democrats shouldn't just cede the south to Republicans. But maybe you haven't noticed that the Republicans have ceded the Northeast to Democrats?

I don't think that the Dems need to change their platform much (got to drop gun control though), because it's mostly moderate anyway. If they try to move right, it would be pointless to simply become Republican-lite.

It has to be a moderate, with good speaking, and acceptable to the red south.
Why the hell should the south hold America to ransom?

I don't think that the Dems need to change their platform much (got to drop gun control though), because it's mostly moderate anyway. If they try to move right, it would be pointless to simply become Republican-lite.?

Democrats have made the mistake of believing that they must be the opposite of what Republicans are. There is nothing wrong with adopting values shared by other parties be they republican, green or libertarian, if the values are right for the country.

Why the hell should the south hold America to ransom?
The south is America as much as any other point of the compass.

Democrats have made the mistake of believing that they must be the opposite of what Republicans are. There is nothing wrong with adopting values shared by other parties be they republican, green or libertarian, if the values are right for the country.


The south is America as much as any other point of the compass.

What issues have they taken up simply to be the opposites of the republicans?

In consideration of the blue vs. red areas, do you think that John Carpenter (the director) had something of that in mind when he made "Escape from New York" and "Escape from L.A." ?

Sounds like a plan to me. :)

What issues have they taken up simply to be the opposites of the republicans?
More to the point - what issue haven't they?

More to the point - what issue haven't they?

Answer my question, and I will be able to answer yours.

The point is, there are no issues Democrats hold in common with Republicans.

When there is overlap the Democrats make sure to find a nuance or point to differentiate on. They do this even if it means ignoring their own position and votes on the issue even if it was only months ago. When a Republican innitiative works they grumble quietly and seek to undo it through subterfuge.

He did win Georgia in '92. But thats probably more a product of Ross Perot than anything else.
That is most likely true. Clinton and Bush Sr. both took around 43%, with Perot taking 13%. In 1996, Dole took Georgia by 1%, with a much smaller Perot presence (in fact, Perot did poorly across the South, but took upwards of 30% from areas as different as Maine and Montana. The West just seems to be more accepting of independant candidates (Nader is always a big draw in both Alaska and Oregon).)

A roundup of Perot's influence on 1992: http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

Perot most likely cost Bush Sr. the states of Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Not enough to change the results, but obviously it would have been a lot closer.

It was not long ago the south was the bulwark of the Democratic party. If they are so ready to cede it then they have willingly moved the 'battlefront' to the northern states. It is better to be on offence than defence. This defeatism and unwillingless to accept reality is why the Democratic party is experiencing rapidly declining influence and power.
Like I've said, the Democrats ceded the South as the Republicans ceded the North (and West Coast). Unfortunately for the Democrats, their Northeast base is losing electoral votes to the Southwest and Southeast. In Texas and Arizona, it obviously benefits the strong in-state Republican force. In California it obviously benefits the strong state Democrat Party. In Florida, it is less certain. 20 years from now Florida may be the new "California", a strong Democrat electoral power, or it may look more like Texas. It's hard to tell. In the West, Colorado and Nevada are rapidly trending Democrat (and gaining electoral votes). It's wide open.