What's wrong with the Democrats?

[Yeahman]

Democrats and Middle America: What's the Real Problem? (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi06/ross.htm)
The party’s problem is that its two appeals work at cross-purposes. In the New Deal coalition, the party’s sectional support from two relatively disadvantaged groups, Catholics and southerners, reinforced its populist economic appeals. But it’s much harder to be the voice of the common man and woman and speak at the same time for the more educated and more cosmopolitan.
This is the dilemma that Democrats evade when they say the party’s problem is weakness on national security. They will remain a minority until they face up to it. Repeated election defeats have demonstrated that the constituency of the well-schooled and open-minded, even when allied with racial minorities, is too small to win elections. Democrats must take up the challenge posed by Thomas Frank and reclaim the populist heritage of the New Deal in a new environment. To do this requires a willingness to attack economic unfairness, for which the plutocratic Bush administration has created all too many targets. It also demands a greater sensitivity to the cultural preferences of Middle America, both in style—it is no accident that for forty years every Democratic president has had a southern accent—and in substance on issues such as gun control. This is, as Frank asserts, the way to rebuild a liberal majority—and more than that, it is the democratic way.

There's also a great article about religion and politics in the same issue but I think it requires a subscription.

The point of that article was that the left has lost its religion and in the process has not only lost members but has become less effective. Religious leaders led the civil rights movement and abolition. Liberal Democrats before the 60's were usually staunchly religious. You read the speeches from the Democratic National Conventions back then and you'd think they were church sermons. Fighting poverty, discrimination, injustice, and other causes of the left were seen as religious battles. Political arguments were not framed in a secular humanistic way as they are today but were explicitly religious. The Democrats opposed removing prayer from school. They were the populist party.

Now when was the last time you heard Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton use religious language? Kerry realized the mistake and started quoting Bible verses a couple of weeks prior to the elections but by then it was too late.

So the solution? Talk religion and let go of the smaller things. Support "under God" in the Pledge. Support Bible studies in school. Is banning "under God" so important that the party is willing to commit political suicide and risk things like universal healthcare and sane foreign policy? Gore supported faith-based initiatives and Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Carter was pro-life! This wasn't that long ago. Where are these Democrats today?

[thaite]

No.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I'm not sure that talking more about religion is the solution, but the anti-religious slant of many so-called left-wingers, democrats, and liberals has contributed a lot to my feelings of distaste and abandonment...ultimately causing me to consider more moderate beliefs or ideologies in the process. I think ironically YW is a left-leaning forum (at the very least, a good majority of active posters seem to be left-leaning) that actually has caused a shift in my perspective and made me embrace more moderate views over time (I was very left-leaning beforehand) after listening and disagreeing with so many radical and pessimistic views of some of the members. I imagine if I were to post regularly on a right-leaning forum that the opposite would occur, but since I've never aligned myself with right-wing ideological frameworks for any significant period of time, that would never happen anyway.

[power puff girl]

the problem with the democrats is that we don't have a lying scumbag like karl rove who cheats and does whatever he needs to win elections. we've been trying to win these elections on intellectual and rational grounds, where we know that once we can explain our positions, more voters will favor us. but, the problem is that the republicans have convinced a wide swath of americans that the intelligence is a bad thing, and have gone after them on purely visceral level. of course, as the republicans continue to slash educational spending, more americans become more stupid and will vote republican.

[Chad]

"electioneering" is an alarming and anti-democratic phenomenon which dominates politics under the electoral party system. Getting elected is a game, a contest of who is the best liar, who has the most good liars on their team, and who can tell the best lies that will raise the most money. such a system is not only undemocratic but the complete opposite of democracy.
I intend to run for mayor because I'd like to build more parks. Then I find out that you (the people) would rather have a school built. So I change my platform and say "Let's build a school!" because I know this will get me elected against my opponent who wants to build parks. I have misrepresented myself for the sake of gaining power. This is dishonest politics and it has no business calling itself democracy. When we accept that our leaders are liars and we still tolerate them, we have cursed ourselves.

[Yeahman]

the problem with the democrats is that we don't have a lying scumbag like karl rove who cheats and does whatever he needs to win elections. we've been trying to win these elections on intellectual and rational grounds, where we know that once we can explain our positions, more voters will favor us. but, the problem is that the republicans have convinced a wide swath of americans that the intelligence is a bad thing, and have gone after them on purely visceral level. of course, as the republicans continue to slash educational spending, more americans become more stupid and will vote republican.
Except that those who vote Republican have, on average, more education than those who vote Democrat.
Democrats can't win because like powerpuff girl here, they're blind to the problem.

[snailpoo]

of course, as the republicans continue to slash educational spending, more americans become more stupid and will vote republican.

FY 2004 provided $53.1 billion in federal funds earmarked towards education, which represents a 47% increase over FY 2000 and a 131% over FY 1996.

The Department of Education published Education Statistics Quarterly provides a summary of the statistics:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_6/6_3/5_1.asp


...where are Republicans slashing educational spending?

[Yeahman]

FY 2004 provided $53.1 billion in federal funds earmarked towards education, which represents a 47% increase over FY 2000 and a 131% over FY 1996.

The Department of Education published Education Statistics Quarterly provides a summary of the statistics:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_6/6_3/5_1.asp


...where are Republicans slashing educational spending?
In power puff girl's head.
Powerpuff, what were you saying about "intellectual and rational grounds"?

[ahsingjai]

I would never vote republican if they keep sending idiots like george bush to be their leaders. If they are so educated, why George Bush? eeeeeeeeeediots.

[haplesshobo]

The point of that article was that the left has lost its religion and in the process has not only lost members but has become less effective. Religious leaders led the civil rights movement and abolition. Liberal Democrats before the 60's were usually staunchly religious. Fighting poverty, discrimination, injustice, and other causes of the left were seen as religious battles.

So the solution? Talk religion and let go of the smaller things.

Not really. There are still many religious leaders in the democratic party such as Rev. Jesse Jackson. The most loyal base to the democratic party are the blacks, and they are also among the most religious. And, the democratic party still leads the fight against poverty, discrimination, injustice, etc..

I also think its a mistake to try to say that the Republicans are the religious party and the Democratics are the anti-religious party. There are many religious Democrats, but they aren't hitting you over the head with their religion by referring to that all the time.

And, I'm not too sure how effective populist attacks on economic inequality would turn out to be. After all, Gore tried to do that in 2000, and it was his to lose. Of course, we all know how that turned out.

The Democrats problems include: they've been labeled as people eager to increase taxes and increase spending (that helped finish Mondale in 84); labeled too lenient on crime, especially with their anti death penatly position (that hurt Dukasis in 88 when he answered the question about what if his wife had been raped and murdered), and they're in danger of being labeled as soft on national defense and terror (going to hurt them in 08, especially if there's another attack), etc..

Of course, the logical thing would be the Democratic Party to move more to the center on issuses where they're out of step with most americans. But, the problem is that it would alienate their base, and you need your base to help drive the election with their volunteer work, donations, etc..

Of course, the Republican party has the same problems where they need to move to the center on issuses where they're out of step with most americans. But, again, you cannot do that without that blowing up on you if it ends up alienating your base.

[Yeahman]

Not really. There are still many religious leaders in the democratic party such as Rev. Jesse Jackson. The most loyal base to the democratic party are the blacks, and they are also among the most religious. And, the democratic party still leads the fight against poverty, discrimination, injustice, etc..

I also think its a mistake to try to say that the Republicans are the religious party and the Democratics are the anti-religious party. There are many religious Democrats, but they aren't hitting you over the head with their religion by referring to that all the time.

And, I'm not too sure how effective populist attacks on economic inequality would turn out to be. After all, Gore tried to do that in 2000, and it was his to lose. Of course, we all know how that turned out.

The Democrats problems include: they've been labeled as people eager to increase taxes and increase spending (that helped finish Mondale in 84); labeled too lenient on crime, especially with their anti death penatly position (that hurt Dukasis in 88 when he answered the question about what if his wife had been raped and murdered), and they're in danger of being labeled as soft on national defense and terror (going to hurt them in 08, especially if there's another attack), etc..

Of course, the logical thing would be the Democratic Party to move more to the center on issuses where they're out of step with most americans. But, the problem is that it would alienate their base, and you need your base to help drive the election with their volunteer work, donations, etc..

Of course, the Republican party has the same problems where they need to move to the center on issuses where they're out of step with most americans. But, again, you cannot do that without that blowing up on you if it ends up alienating your base.
Blacks are the exception. They aren't swing voters.
Yes there are religious Democrats. My mother is one. But I can't think of many religious Democrats in public office today. Lieberman maybe? Harry Reid? Certainly not Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, or Hillary. Dean was the worst. He was so obviously clueless about religion during his campaign.

And it reflects in the voting. Those who attend religious services regularly tend to vote Republican. Take out blacks and Jews and the gap is huge.

The Democratic party used to talk about religion much more. There's been a gradual decline. Today if a Democrat talks about religion he has to append a disclaimer. For example, Jimmy Carter last November: "I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion."

The Democrats have an edge on the economy. They've never been strong on defense. Crime hasn't been an issue lately. Just ask Kerry what the Democratic party needs to do to win. Suffice to say that NARAL isn't too happy with the post-election Kerry.

[DragonKnight]

Sheesh, define religion and religious. Some Judeo-Christian based one? Does it have to be one god? How about Hindus? Are they less religious just cause they don't worship the Christian god? Or Muslims? Same god, right? Even Judeo-Christian based. Just that a lot of brown people are in it plus they do it differently. Oh yeah, forget all those Buddhist. They don't even recognize Christ. Guess they're less religious. And fuck those liberal Christians. They don't have the gonads to wipe out other religions nor oppress people of color and women in the name of god.

[snailpoo]

Well, the problem is simply politics, the goal of which is the appease your base of support while attracting the middle ground, a delicate balancing act. Head towards the middle too much (ie. Miers), and you alienate your base. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Bush and Rove do a much better job at garnering the middle, than Kerry did.

It's not even just the religious right, Dragonknight. Catholics are staunchly Democratic, and have always been. And yet, when the Democratic base of the liberal left went so far in fighting the Republican base of the religious right, they alienated Catholics so much that Kerry, a Catholic candidate, didn't win the Catholic vote.

The Democrats need to figure out a way to again garner support from the middle. Like it or not, Dragonknight, the vast majority of this country is Christian. Once you leave the confines of New York and California, you'll find a very blurry line between church and state, with no Constitutional challenges, because EVERYBODY in the community believes that way. THAT is the middle that both Democrats and Republicans need to fight for, and the Republicans are doing a much better job.

[haplesshobo]

Unfortunately for the Democrats, Bush and Rove do a much better job at garnering the middle, than Kerry did.

The Democrats need to figure out a way to again garner support from the middle. .

Wasn't 2004 the exception to that rule about winning the middle?

It seemed that Bush's success was more due his base than winning the middle.

[snailpoo]

Wasn't 2004 the exception to that rule about winning the middle?

It seemed that Bush's success was more due his base than winning the middle.

When you look for the middle, you look at voting blocks who shift their usual party allegiance, and you look to the key swing states. The massive defection of Catholics along with 44% of Latinos would indicate that the middle went Republican. Ohio and Florida indicates likewise.

[Craig]

Republicans - the party of the asshole white men
Democrats - the party of the bitchy white women

[pikachupacabra]

They say if you're young and republican, you're heartless.

But if you're old and democrat, you're stupid...

I guess both parties suck. end of story. the end. end end end.


FO SHIZZLE

[AznTrojan]

no leaders.. no direction.. no hope..

ironically.. most middle american republicans vote against their financial interests..

They say if you're young and republican, you're heartless.

But if you're old and democrat, you're stupid...

I guess both parties suck. end of story. the end. end end end.


FO SHIZZLE

paraphrasing churchill.. nice

[haplesshobo]

When you look for the middle, you look at voting blocks who shift their usual party allegiance, and you look to the key swing states. The massive defection of Catholics along with 44% of Latinos would indicate that the middle went Republican. Ohio and Florida indicates likewise.

From what I remember reading or hearing, I seemed to recall that the argument that Bush won because the republican organization was better able to mobilize their voters than the democrats. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I thought that the number of evalengical christians increased, where they were a bigger percentage of the voting population.

I could also be wrong, though. I never really looked closely at the breakdown of the votes.

[Yeahman]

From what I remember reading or hearing, I seemed to recall that the argument that Bush won because the republican organization was better able to mobilize their voters than the democrats. I don't recall the exact numbers, but I thought that the number of evalengical christians increased, where they were a bigger percentage of the voting population.

I could also be wrong, though. I never really looked closely at the breakdown of the votes.
That was a factor but the evangelicals aren't a swing vote. They always break conservative. The Democrats can't do anything about it just as the Republicans can't expect to court the feminist vote. To be sure the left was out in full force too. The "Anybody But Bush" campaign was successful in mobilizing liberals. But it just wasn't enough. The Democratic base isn't wide enough anymore. The reason is in the swings. Catholics (including Hispanics) and women have been switching teams.

[snailpoo]

Yep.

Haplesshobo, take a look here:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

There are a lot of categories that are traditionally staunchly Democrat that were only barely Democrat. There are a few categories that are traditionally staunchly Democrat that actually shifted Republican. Yet, there are no categories that are traditionally staunchly Republican that moved anywhere but staunchly Republican.

[haplesshobo]

That was a factor but the evangelicals aren't a swing vote. They always break conservative.

I'm not saying the evalengical is a swing vote. I'm just saying that if you can bring out enough of them and mobolize enough of them, then the swing voters become less of an issue. If you squeeze out another 5 million evalengicals, in swing states, then that could tilt the election.

The poll data doesn't show if there was any signifigant increase in the number of evalengical voters in 04 vs. 00. I'd need to see that data first.

I just have a tough time believing that Bush won 04 because he won the middle. For most of his first term, he really never tried to court the middle or appease the Democrats. Instead, he succesfully pushed through policies that his base loved, and the Dems hated to the core. It was a much different Bush from 00, who tried to court the middle with all his compassionate conservative spiel.