It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whats wrong with the democrats?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   
In the 2004 election the democrats got beat, and some of the political analyst are calling this a political relignment about there is no more divided government for awhile. Whats wrong with the democrats? Do they need to find some new issues and stick to them and actually stand up to the republicans, or is this the end of the democrats; the oldest political party in the United States.



[edit on 2-12-2004 by CMCLA2003]




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Actually the win of the Republicans was not a clean sweep during 2000 and it was not a big sweep during the 2004, so in the history of the US has always been comings and goings, so eventually it will be a turn over.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:14 PM
link   
They've got a problem, but its the same problem everyone else has. the country finally divided on its most divided line, and we're starting to see that. the division, population wise and electoral vote wise, is pretty much even. the left has most of the economic and intellectual power, the right has all the moral power.

really, though, note the numbers. as marg (ps love the icon) said, both wins were very, very close, and dont prove very much. it could have just as easily gone for kerry last november. there is no 'problem' specific to them, they just didnt come out on top.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer

really, though, note the numbers. as marg (ps love the icon) said, both wins were very, very close, and dont prove very much. it could have just as easily gone for kerry last november. there is no 'problem' specific to them, they just didnt come out on top.


Well thanks, I though I should make my santa different


Anyway I agree with you, some claim the death of the democratic party but is not so, actually is just that we have a very divided country in half.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   
The truth is that this win was a large win, because of the size of votes given, the fact that it was a majority vote win and the fact that the Republicans have taken even more seats in congress.

The country is no more divided now than it was beforehand; why wasn't every Democrat and liberal political commentator screaming "A divided nation!" before this election? Seems simple to me. They wanted to ignore the fact that their 50 years of brainwashing through the education system and the idiot box hadn't worked. After this election, they can no longer ignore the fact that they haven't turned us all.

Will the Democratic party abandone its ultra-liberal position after building it to a crescendo? No, the numerous left-wing organizations and the many liberal-elite political figures won't let it happen. The best the Party can do is try and look more normal to the population, as Hillary has been trying to do. All you have to do is fool the people. But doing that might not be as easy as it once was; the Democratic Party tipped its liberal hand this time, and we got a good glimpse.

If it can't pull itself back from the edge, this might be the end of that party.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I disagree with you Thomas this is not the first time in the history of our nation that elections result are this closed, is the way politics play, when you have to mayor political parties. And by the way Bush did not won by 75% of votes so it was not a big mayority and our nation is divided.

Now when you come from a small island like me that have 4 political parties then you will understand how different political views works.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
TC, you're right, weve always had that division, but it was brought out in 2000, and stayed that way due to the nature of that election. normally, weve had lots of divisions, not just into half but into fourths, fifths, eighty-sixths, what have you. once we found something strong enough to split us right down the middle it becomes much more apparent.

i do not think clinton is the future of the party. they could do a lot better.. just gotta look beyond the easy names.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Yes the democratic party is in tatters In my home state in 2000 the first republican in 135 years was elected govenor and in 2004 the state legislature was over-run with a republican victory despite years and years of gerrymandering by the democrats. This had nothing to do with hating democrats on any personal level - people are just fed up with inaction at greater and greater expense.

The national results IMHO reflected this trend as far as I'm concerned.

The democratic party must quit being the party of negativity in order to win elections. The message of anybody but Bush, no war, wrong war, economy bad, no jobs, europe hates us, muslims hate us, they'll steal social security, health care sucks - etc. etc. etc.....................................
ad infintum......................(install personal negative of your choice)

All of that equals one big huge negative message to swallow when voting democratic, while individual points may be valid and need action to solve. The american people want to hear those solutions along with stating the problem at hand. To point out problem after problem without a viable and I dare say palatable solution is to sound like nothing more than a whiney teenager on a long road trip.

Elections cannot and will not be won on messages such as given by the democrats in this past round.

Positive and realistic solutions will on the other hand win elections, I'm afraid that the party is at this time wholly incapable of doing that as long as the far left wing holds sway.

From some of the posts and media stories of late about democratic sensibilities (oxymoron) I do not see change on the horizon.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
And by the way Bush did not won by 75% of votes so it was not a big mayority and our nation is divided.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by marg6043]


Since when does it take 75% to win an election? 51% to 48% is huge. Bill Clinton, "the popular one" never reached 50% of the electorate. Bush was being bashed everyday by the media, hollywood, rockers and rappers. But it was the silent majority, you know the ones that would never be caught dead at a "protest", who saw through the BS and saw the truth and re-elected this great President.

Now back to what is wrong with Democrats, well it is simple, it is Political Correctness...
Remember when a "rainforest" was a jungle?
Remember when a "hearing impared person" was deaf?
Remember when a "native American" was an Indian?

More "PC" Lexicons For a good laugh
www.columbia.edu...

Political Correctness is just the tip of the IceBerg for what is wrong with the democrats, but I'll just start there.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
does anyone have any information about the average age of democrat voters.....I'm wondering if a very large segment of their base (baby boomers) are about to stop voting? of course with the historical precedent of dead voters voting 10 to 1 democrat, i wonder if the baby boomers won't vote even more demo



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Most of the older Americans are Republican (the parents of the Baby Boomers) and yes, sadly, that group is dying off.

A friend gave me a link to an op-ed piece last night that said things very well; although the country may vote conservative, the social changes are liberal and will continue to move into our culture. Remember, 40 years ago the Republicans were screeching and screaming about non-Whites trying to enter politics and influence the voting. Today they're courting them and even have a few among their ranks.

In the end, the liberals win. Comforting thought!



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
From somone who watched the democrats lose to Bush from outside the USA they seem to be struck between a rock and a hard place.
For example the democrats wanted to keep the troops in Iraq (the right thing to do.) However Bush wants to keep the troops in Iraq as well and the democrats wernt offering any ideas on how they were going to fix Iraqs problems.

The same gose for national security Kerry was nither for or against the Patriot act. If Kerry had said he would get rid of the Patriot act then the people who despirs the act would have voted for him.

Also I think the democrats need to separate themselvs from the american health care system the cost of medical care in the USA is far to high.
The health care system is something that the democrats could use as ammo against Bush.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I agree, the Democratic party is definantly going to have to do something drastic. Their negativity routine just isn't cutting it anymore. People vote Republican because they know what they are going to get. If you vote Democrat, well, their stance seems to change from election to election. They preach about Affirmative action and equal rights, yet mock Powell and Rice. I'm sorry I think people are starting to see the Hypocricy. Did you know that the Republicans got the largest black...errr.... African American..... errrr.... Displaced African vote ever in this election? Even they are starting to see the light.

Times they are a changin'

[edit on 2-12-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 02:23 AM
link   
When I was growing up, my entire family was Democrat. Hell, the whole steel mill town was Democrat. The state was Democrat. It was a good relationship, we voted for them, they brought us jobs and occassionally a new community center. I actually didn't know many Republicans at all.

I am much more politically aware now, and solidly conservative. This works best for me and my wallet and my conscience. There is nothing in the Democratic platform that appeals to me at all, especially the negativism without solutions. Nowadays, it's the Republicans that roll their sleeves up and get things done, not the Democrats.

When did things change? Well, the Democrats began to change drastically about the time of the Viet Nam war. I didn't stop voting D till the eighties, though. But that was when they turned away from mainstream America and towards an attitude of elitism. I always laugh inside when I hear them say they are more 'enlightened' or 'something. What a snobbish attitude. Typical of sissies is the only way I can explain it.

Gloom and doom, that's all I hear from the left. There are very few Democrats whom I would ever consider voting for. Joe Lieberman is one of them. Good, solid, honest man, willing to compromise. Unfortunately, the Democrats have decided that he is not radical enough for them. Their loss, and the country's loss.

Nowadays, I associate Democrats with organizations like the ACLU, and the Teacher's Union. And the UN.

Maybe things will start to change for them when McAuliffe leaves. That's if they don't put Dean in his place.




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I love it when Republicans try to give Democrats advice on what they're doing wrong. It obviously has something to do with our values, rather than the notion that a pair of crappy campaign managers ran a crappy candidate. Couple that with the fact that America is at war, citizens are scared, and Americans themselves always error on the side of caution.

The conditions were not condusive to a Kerry victory.

If there is a single thing that the Democratic Party needs to do, is stick harder to those core convictions that all of you so nicely decry. I support the war, I'm against the war. I'm not really for homosexual marriage, but
everybody should be equal. Kind of. Sort of.

You can hate Howard Dean all you want, but you knew what the guy stood for, and you knew you were gonna get in the face. Sometimes you just have to lose, because it's the right thing to do. I'd rather lose for something I believed in, rather than win for something I don't. There's nothing better in the world than to be called a "bleeding heart liberal". Kerry was ashamed of it, and that's why he lost.

04 also had one of the dirtiest poltical tricks I've ever seen in my life. I mean dirty. The Swift Boat guys killed irradiated Kerry, contaminated him forever. Hey, all's fair in love and war, and I certainly applaud Karl Rove, it was brilliant. Good job, and I'mn serious. But, now that it worked and the whole thing is over, you have to admit, that set the low bar for gutter politics. Nothing to be ashamed of, I applaud you.

So now Rush and O'Reilly can hem and haw and pull their hair out over the death of the Democratic party and progressive ideals. The modern Liberal is dead, please bring back Hee Haw now.

And that's fine, go ahead. You earned it.

And we'll give you lip service and play along, and the Democratic Elite will put out press releases about "redisovering the core of our party", but's that's just for show. Because, you're in a cultural war of attrition and you're losing. You've been losing since the fifties. We have time on our side. Every time a conservative dies of old age, a liberal is newly born.

And the best thing that Liberals can do is get out of your way, because now you have to put your money where your mouth is. Conservative policies have to succeed now, because there's nobody else to blame should they fail. The conservative ideal world is tantamount to the communist worker's paradise. Not in any value system sense, but as Communism was to Democracy, Conservatism is to Liberalism.

You spend so much defending it, now you actually have to live in it.

And I don't think conservative ideals are necessarily conducive to personal happiness. It's about regimen, rather than choice. It's about living life a certain way, for fear of certain punishment from an invisible figure in the sky. While that's certainly not true of a great many conservatives that I've met and debated, the core principles are founded upon it.

They resist change. In any shape. In any form. In the great humanistic tug of war, they're the ones who put the breaks on and say, "Too fast, too fast". Any great society needs to be flexible. It needs to be able to stretch, like rubber, twist and conform, evolve with time.

Indeed, as many of you feel so inclined to give us advice, I'll send some back to you. Modern day conservatism, as we've seen it since 2000, is a fad. That doesn't make it any less valid or worthwhile. That doesn't negate the values that you hold dear, but it is a fad. And like any fad, anywhere at any time, it will most certainly die out.

You can deny this and be most shocked when you find yourself holding up the pillars by yourself. Or, you can get in and grab everything you can, before we kick you out. If you can't get abortion done now, you never can. If you can't stop homosexuality now, you never can. If you can't change the tax code and strip away FDR's new deal agenda, it will never happen.
You control everything, and if you can't achieve your agenda while riding this wave, then modern day conservatism will have proven itself to be a failure. You will never again have this much momentum, so make it good.

Break a leg.

And I'm sure I'll get responses like "Liberals are the SUXX3RS!" and "Bush is JEEBUS!", but you also know I'm right.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by brimstone735]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
No you won't get any responses like that from me...

I'm just going to say I think you have a warped idea of whats really going on. So therefore, no, I don't think you're right.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
I'm just going to say I think you have a warped idea of whats really going on. So therefore, no, I don't think you're right.


Then tell me how I'm wrong. Please offer specifics.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
I love it when Republicans try to give Democrats advice on what they're doing wrong. It obviously has something to do with our values, rather than the notion that a pair of crappy campaign managers ran a crappy candidate. Couple that with the fact that America is at war, citizens are scared, and Americans themselves always error on the side of caution.

The conditions were not condusive to a Kerry victory.


I'll admit you are correct here, but these are not the only reasons Kerry did not win. He talked a lot about what needed to be fixed in America Bush is a dumbass!!!!!! (my girlfriend's thoughts on Bush
) yet never said how. But I guess all that fits in with the crappy candidate theory.



If there is a single thing that the Democratic Party needs to do, is stick harder to those core convictions that all of you so nicely decry. I support the war, I'm against the war. I'm not really for homosexual marriage, but
everybody should be equal. Kind of. Sort of.


All right, I agree with you on this one. They seem to sway with whatever they think might get them more votes. With Republicans you know what you are going to get from election year to election year.



You can hate Howard Dean all you want, but you knew what the guy stood for, and you knew you were gonna get in the face. Sometimes you just have to lose, because it's the right thing to do. I'd rather lose for something I believed in, rather than win for something I don't. There's nothing better in the world than to be called a "bleeding heart liberal". Kerry was ashamed of it, and that's why he lost.


I tend to think there is nothing worse than being called a "bleeding heart liberal." Makes you sound like a sissy girl...




04 also had one of the dirtiest poltical tricks I've ever seen in my life. I mean dirty. The Swift Boat guys killed irradiated Kerry, contaminated him forever. Hey, all's fair in love and war, and I certainly applaud Karl Rove, it was brilliant. Good job, and I'mn serious. But, now that it worked and the whole thing is over, you have to admit, that set the low bar for gutter politics. Nothing to be ashamed of, I applaud you.


Well... The funny thing is the Democrats were trying to do the same thing to Bush... But they really couldn't dig any dirt up on the man... At least not any "new" dirt that wasn't already fung by the Democrats in the 2000 election.



So now Rush and O'Reilly can hem and haw and pull their hair out over the death of the Democratic party and progressive ideals. The modern Liberal is dead, please bring back Hee Haw now.


Do you expect them not to?



Every time a conservative dies of old age, a liberal is newly born.


well... the newborns are probably liberal until the age of 25 or so... then they usually start seeing the true liberal idea and switcch over to the common sense right.



Indeed, as many of you feel so inclined to give us advice, I'll send some back to you. Modern day conservatism, as we've seen it since 2000, is a fad. That doesn't make it any less valid or worthwhile. That doesn't negate the values that you hold dear, but it is a fad. And like any fad, anywhere at any time, it will most certainly die out.


How are you so sure the fad isn't liberalism?

I guess your ideas aren't that warped... by the way I had some great things to say here before my girlfriend dragged me into the bedroom halfway through this post and caused me to forget.


But you are definantly a liberal... how can I tell? The morbid, doomsday, negative attitude you portray throughout this entire post. Cheer up, you only live once. Unless you believe in something greater.............



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   

from brimstone735
If there is a single thing that the Democratic Party needs to do, is stick harder to those core convictions that all of you so nicely decry. I support the war, I'm against the war. I'm not really for homosexual marriage, but
everybody should be equal. Kind of. Sort of.

You're almost on the right track here. If there is a single thing that the Democratic Party needs to do, it is to return to those core values that once made it so popular.

It used to be the party of the average guy. The family party. But your party has forgotten who it's constituents were. The family guy, the Catholic, the church-goer, the one not afraid to say God Bless you or Merry Christmas.
Now you make it shameful for the guy to be proud of his flag, to be a member of the VFW or K of C, to believe in God. The guy and gal who would rather tell their little kids about sex and alternate lifestyles when they, the parents, feel it is the right time, not the public school's.

You have forgotten them in favor of Hollywood and Harvard. That's why you lost, and why you will continue to lose. And you keep idolizing the Deans of the party as heralds of the future, when they are just wackos out on the last limb of the tree.

The Swift Boat guys had something to do with Kerry losing, but not a lot. I will give you three reasons why I'd never have voted for him:

1. "That's not your business, that's my business". Remember when he said that? It showed how much disdain he has for the common man.

2. His refusal to release his SF-180 records. He was hiding a dishonorable discharge. AFTER he made himself out to be he big war hero.

3. His "I thought it would be doubly advantageous..." statement.

Now he can dance all he wants, but these show what kind of man he was, and what kind of man the party tried to sell as representative of the people.

BTW, the Republicans aren't afraid of holding the reins; just be sure to give them credit when they do good the next four years.




new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join