Who Should the Democrats choose in '08?

[wasteofo2]

So this is a little different than my other thread, as opposed to asking who you think will win, I want to know who everyone thinks should win. So essentially, who do you think would be the Democrats best hope in '08? Should they choose a solid, sound Liberal who isn't afraid to show it and stick to their message, so as to attract a large segment of Liberals that John Kerry scared off by his indecisiveness and crappyness in general? Should they go for a moderate to try to take back Democrats that Bush won over? Should they choose someone whose positions don't even really matter, and just has a nice personality and a smiles a lot to win over the public?

Keep in mind that John Kerry, even with being such a crappy candidate, got 48% of the popular vote. It would seem that unless the Republicans choose someone stellar, the Democrats would only have to choose someone slightly better than Kerry to win, and there are many candidates who could easily get all the same people who voted for Kerry plus many more groups.

While I realize there's a lot of positive sentiment towards Lieberman and Gephardt on this board, they both failed SO miserably that I'm just going to leave them out, since they both proved unable to attract any significant amount of voters anywhere (Lieberman just barely beat Al Sharpton in the state he is a Senator for, and Gephardt lost definitively to three people in Iowa of all places). However, despite the fact that Clark only won one state, I'm going to put him in anyway, since he started his campaign very late, and depending on how Bush's military adventures work out, the mood in the country might be that we need a President who really knows his sh|t about the military and how to wage war.

Maybe I'm just a deamer, but I think if Joe Biden were the nominee, and he didn't plagarize speeches again, he could give even Guliani a run for his money. He's a really smart guy, but still manages to talk very directly and plainly. He's definitely not so moderate that Liberals would be turned away, but he's definitely not out on the left wing, and has very good relationships with many Republican Senators and works bi-partisanly, but at the same time, calls Bush on all his insanity. Also, considering the fact that Bush was an alcoholic, a coke-head, and gave false premises for war, and still got elected twice, I think that the American people can forgive Biden for little things like using other people's speeches 20 years ago.

I think a perfect election would be something like Biden vs. Lugar in '08; two smart, honest, decent people with straightforward and simple ideological differences that they aren't afraid to hide or discuss.

 

[mattmns]

I think the democrats should just forfeit 2008, and wait until they have someone worth voting for. However, I will vote for Hillary if she runs.

 

[wasteofo2]

I think the democrats should just forfeit 2008, and wait until they have someone worth voting for. However, I will vote for Hillary if she runs.

I can understand if you think Hillary isn't a good candidate, but do you really think that a pool consisting of Bayh, Richardson, Biden, Clark and Warner contains no one worth voting for?

 

[mattmns]

May I ask? What is so great about Richardson? Also, why did the democrats not put any of these great candidates up for this past election? Richardson is gov of NM, Clark was in the running right? I am not sure about the others.

edit... I might vote for Barack Obama, I did not see him up there the first time. Essentially I would only vote for a democrat if they were a minority, or a woman; or, if Jeb ran.

 

[wasteofo2]

May I ask?

Certainly

What is so great about Richardson?

In my opinion, Bill Richardson can really connect with people when he speaks, and relay ideas very well. He's clearly a bright enough guy if you hear him speak, and has some very insightful ideas and observations about anything you hear him talking about. In governing, he's very pragmatic in his problem solving (good for drawing in people who are scared of the world Liberal), and is a very motivated governor. Simmilar to people like Guliani, Bush and FDR, when he has an idea about how to fix a problem, he will push and shove and even break some bones to attempt to fix a problem. He pretty much lives out the FDR quote "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

Also, why did the democrats not put any of these great candidates up for this past election?

"The Democrats" do not choose who runs for the nomination of the Party, individuals choose to run or not to run. For the most part, these people had either not been elected officials very long, not held their current office very long, or were scared off by the fact that Howard Dean had so much support, thinking that everyone had already chosen to support Dean, or had sided with an opponent of Dean's, such as Gephardt, Kerry or Edwards.

Richardson is gov of NM, Clark was in the running right? I am not sure about the others.

Yes, Richardson is the Governor of NM, and Clark ran in '04.

edit... I might vote for Barack Obama, I did not see him up there the first time.

If by "the first time", you mean 2004, then of course you didn't see him. Prior to the 2004 election, he was just an Illinois State Senator, now he's a Federal Senator (is there a better phrase for that?).

Essentially I would only vote for a democrat if they were a minority, or a woman; or, if Jeb ran.

So you're racist and sexist against white men? In that case, you should know that Bill Richardson is ethnically Mexican.

By the way, did you vote for Kerry in '04? He practices Catholocism, and ethnically is 1/4 Jewish; was he enough of a minority for you?

 

[mattmns]

By first time I meant, the first time I looked at the list(for Barack).

Yes I did vote for Kerry in 04, but only to get rid of Bush. I am not racist or sexist.

I plan on voting republican in the 08 election because Bush will be not running, I hope; in addition, the only reason I would vote for Hillary or Barack is because I think it is time for a minority or woman president.

Richardson, hmm I do not really consider him to be hispanic. Maybe 1/4 at most. I guess the only reason I do not like Richardson is because I live in NM, and, to me, it does not seem like he has done a lot for the state; however, he has only been here for a few years, so maybe I just need to give him more time.

 

[wasteofo2]

By first time I meant, the first time I looked at the list(for Barack).

Yes I did vote for Kerry in 04, but only to get rid of Bush. I am not racist or sexist.

So why do you totally rule out voting for a white male Democrat, if you're not racist or sexist?

Richardson, hmm I do not really consider him to be hispanic. Maybe 1/4 at most.

I'm not sure of Richardson's exact ethnicity (it's hard to get someone to say "Bill Richardson - the half Mexican Governor of NM" in today's PC world), but whenever I read anything about him, his ethnicity is always listed as simply Hispanic or Mexican...

I guess the only reason I do not like Richardson is because I live in NM, and, to me, it does not seem like he has done a lot for the state; however, he has only been here for a few years, so maybe I just need to give him more time.

Heh, that's funny, my Aunt, who also lives in NM, complained about (as she described it) Richardson nearly authoritarian style of governing, that he does whatever he wants whenever he wants however he wants, and there's no changing his mind when he gets it set on something.

It's amazing how different reality is for two different people...

 

[SOS2008]

Should they go for a moderate to try to take back Democrats that Bush won over?.

The Democrats who voted for Bush were; 1) people who felt we needed to finish the war, whether they agreed with invading in the first place or not, and who were concerned about sending a wrong message of weakness, and 2) minorities, such as blacks, women, and most of all Hispanics who voted for religious reasons to ban abortion and gay marriage. If the issues of the war and obsession with "wedge" issues can be diminished and replaced with issues of economy, civil rights, etc., and these people may return to the D-line.

It would seem that unless the Republicans choose someone stellar...

I realize I'm going out on a limb by putting this in writing, but I predict Guliani. He actually can speak, and quite well, but more importantly has the 9-11 emotional appeal as well as religious appeal.

However, despite the fact that Clark only won one state, I'm going to put him in anyway, since he started his campaign very late, and depending on how Bush's military adventures work out, the mood in the country might be that we need a President who really knows his sh|t about the military and how to wage war..

Hopefully most realize they were lied to about Iraq, have been reminded of loss of life in war, and most of all are tired of outrageous deficits, thus making further warmongering a very unpopular agenda. I think people are beginning to realize the futility of ending terrorism in this manner, and that it may in fact just be fueling it, and it doesn't take a military type to solve the biggest problem with homeland security--our borders. BTW - the Dems seem to be avoiding the hot topic of illegal immigration...

I think if Joe Biden were the nominee, and he didn't plagarize speeches again, he could give even Guliani a run for his money..

I can see that.

Also, considering the fact that Bush was an alcoholic, a coke-head, and gave false premises for war, and still got elected twice, I think that the American people can forgive Biden for little things like using other people's speeches 20 years ago.

But did Biden repent and become born again? This is very important to why these people have been so devoted to Bush. And per the recent "tape" fiasco, I've only heard him admit to marijuana.

Barack Obama doesn't have enough experience or exposure, though I feel he would appeal to the Evangelical blacks--if blacks get out and vote--especially in the South. Edwards may be considered because he comes from the South like Carter and Clinton. He'd be the nice guy with a smile.

Hillary is a front-runner, and qualified, and has proven herself in NY if going against Guliani. She would be polarizing in the opposite direction that Bush was--the fundamentalists hate her (and Bill). Hillary vs. Guliani could create a continuation of the culture war. However, Republicans who are moderate and not religious fanatics seem to like her, and who knows, maybe the mainstream is ready to elect a woman? If Kerry got 48%, and Hillary could pick up the mainstream, she could win despite the religious/neo-conservative right wingers.

Who ever it is, they better get a platform that is meaningful and will attract the hearts and minds of America. This is another reason Kerry failed.

 

[mattmns]

My view may sound really akward, so let me try to clear it up. I have republican values, for the most part. I will probably be voting for a white male republican in '08. However, if Hillary, or Barack make it on the ballot (as a major party candidate) then I will probably vote for them because I feel it would be interesting to have a minority, or woman, president. I guess what I am saying is that if Hillary or Barack make it on the ballot then I will vote for them, if they do not then I will probably vote republican. So I guess I could be discriminating against white male democrats.

For Richardson I do not judge him by what he tries to put forward, or how he may do what he wants, I have judged him by how I felt NM has changed in the past few years. I wonder if our congress has decided on that NM cookbook bill yet.

Edit.. yeah I am not sure of Richardson's ethnicity either. I have seen him numerous times, my basis was just personal opinion, no fact.

 

[wasteofo2]

Hillary is a front-runner, and qualified, and has proven herself in NY if going against Guliani. She would be polarizing in the opposite direction that Bush was--the fundamentalists hate her (and Bill). Hillary vs. Guliani could create a continuation of the culture war. However, Republicans who are moderate and not religious fanatics seem to like her, and who knows, maybe the mainstream is ready to elect a woman? If Kerry got 48%, and Hillary could pick up the mainstream, she could win despite the religious/neo-conservative right wingers.

There's something interesting that Hillary is doing which I simply can't imagine why John Kerry didn't do about Abortion.

Hillary has recently been clarifying that while she believes in the right to choose, the ultimate goal of both sides of the abortion debate should be "how to reduce the abortion rate", and pointing out that under Bill Clinton, the abortion rate went down, and under George Bush the abortion rate has gone up. Apparently, educating people about birth control and sex in general, as opposed to preaching abstinence, reduces teen pregnancy and therefore, less babies are aborted. Apparently, if you're anti-abortion, being pro-life is the best way to achieve your goal.

It's really brilliant; she's one smart woman.

 

[Locrian]

Thanks for the thread. I don't think it matters though. The democrats are so far off of any reasonable track that even if they win the presidency, they won't be able to do much with it. In the mid-90's someone (don't remember the name :( ) wrote a paper on how the republican party was doing a better job leveraging its moral metaphors. He predicted that they would continue an increase in power until the democratic party changed.

As far as I can tell, he was right.

 

[wasteofo2]

For Richardson I do not judge him by what he tries to put forward, or how he may do what he wants, I have judged him by how I felt NM has changed in the past few years.

While you may decide to judge your Governor based on how your state's doing, that's apparently NOT how the American people judge Presidential candidates.

Before being President, Bush was Governor of Texas and Clinton was Governor of Arkansas (and the sky is blue, and there are 7 continents). When they ran for the Presidency, neither of their state was doing all that well, infact, some of the primary attacks against them were that they couldn't run one state effectively, and giving them control of an entire country would just be worse. Apparently, those attacks didn't work, and both of these pretty unsucessful Governors became two-term Presidents.

 

[wasteofo2]

Thanks for the thread. I don't think it matters though. The democrats are so far off of any reasonable track that even if they win the presidency, they won't be able to do much with it. In the mid-90's someone (don't remember the name :( ) wrote a paper on how the republican party was doing a better job leveraging its moral metaphors. He predicted that they would continue an increase in power until the democratic party changed.

As far as I can tell, he was right.

Who's to say the party isn't changing?

If you watch any of those cable news shows, ever since the election, they've been having segments on "What should the Democrats do next?" Everyone has their ideas about what the Democrats need to do to change, and all the Democrats realize there needs to be some changing. However, there isn't any unifying idea about how to change to best regain power.

I actually think that might be beneficial.

You see, without a uniting national agenda, the individual Democratic candidates will naturally adjust to best serve and please their particular constituents. I could see very easily within 4 or 6 years the Democrats being a party that has very little national consistency, but a very effective local message that at least takes them off of their huge downward spiral that they're on now. Without a strong Liberal platform, Democrats in the south can appeal to voters there, and without a strong Moderate platform, Democrats in more Liberal areas can be as damned Socialist as they want to.

Furthermore, a well-liked and popular Democratic President could help The Party regain it's footing amongst people. If a Democrat does well as the President, people might re-think their stance on Democrats, and be more likely to vote for a Democrat just by party-affiliation with a President whom they happen to like. Or, people who haven't voted before might become loyal to the Democrats because of the good work of a Democratic President.

 

[mattmns]

While you may decide to judge your Governor based on how your state's doing, that's apparently NOT how the American people judge Presidential candidates.

Before being President, Bush was Governor of Texas and Clinton was Governor of Arkansas (and the sky is blue, and there are 7 continents). When they ran for the Presidency, neither of their state was doing all that well, infact, some of the primary attacks against them were that they couldn't run one state effectively, and giving them control of an entire country would just be worse. Apparently, those attacks didn't work, and both of these pretty unsucessful Governors became two-term Presidents.

Exactly, that is why I will probably not vote for him, if he made it to the ballot. Also, that is why I was curious as to why you thought he was so good.

 

[wasteofo2]

Exactly, that is why I will probably not vote for him, if he made it to the ballot. Also, that is why I was curious as to why you thought he was so good.

Pretty much his personality and style have wooed me to him, the same reasons people liked Bush and Clinton, even when they had poor credentials. Though to be fair, he hasn't had much time to do anything, and there is the state legislature to contend with.

 

[BobG]

In my opinion, Bill Richardson can really connect with people when he speaks, and relay ideas very well. He's clearly a bright enough guy if you hear him speak, and has some very insightful ideas and observations about anything you hear him talking about. In governing, he's very pragmatic in his problem solving (good for drawing in people who are scared of the world Liberal), and is a very motivated governor. Simmilar to people like Guliani, Bush and FDR, when he has an idea about how to fix a problem, he will push and shove and even break some bones to attempt to fix a problem. He pretty much lives out the FDR quote "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something."

My first opinion is that Richardson would have no chance of being nominated.

The Democrats have a long history of nominating someone that may satisfy the left wing base, but has no chance of appealing to the nation (Humphrey, McGovern, (how did Carter get in there? Oh yeah, post-watergate syndrome), Mondale, Dukakis. Kerry was really quite conservative compared to the typical Democratic candidate.

But, then again, those candidates were elected when Democrats controlled Congress and couldn't understand why they couldn't win the presidency. The Republicans were the underdog party and their candidates always had to drift to the center to lure Democratic crossovers.

Maybe in the current political balance, the roles will reverse. The Republicans will nominate right wing symbols and the Democrats will nominate practical candidates that can lure Republican crossovers.

I could vote for someone like Bill Richardson of NM or Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Bill Richardson is definitely the more charismatic (and arrogant) of the two.

Keep in mind that John Kerry, even with being such a crappy candidate, got 48% of the popular vote. It would seem that unless the Republicans choose someone stellar, the Democrats would only have to choose someone slightly better than Kerry to win, and there are many candidates who could easily get all the same people who voted for Kerry plus many more groups.

Umm, keep in mind who he was running against. Even Carter beat a merely mediocre Ford, while Kerry couldn't beat a horrid Bush. (Oh, yeah, that post-watergate syndrome thing).

Carter brings up an entirely off-topic question. How come he doesn't get to hang out with the 'boys', George 41 and Slick Willy?

 

[SOS2008]

There's something interesting that Hillary is doing which I simply can't imagine why John Kerry didn't do about Abortion.

Hillary has recently been clarifying that while she believes in the right to choose, the ultimate goal of both sides of the abortion debate should be "how to reduce the abortion rate", and pointing out that under Bill Clinton, the abortion rate went down, and under George Bush the abortion rate has gone up. Apparently, educating people about birth control and sex in general, as opposed to preaching abstinence, reduces teen pregnancy and therefore, less babies are aborted. Apparently, if you're anti-abortion, being pro-life is the best way to achieve your goal.

It's really brilliant; she's one smart woman.

The reason Bush jettisoned abortion is because two-thirds of Americans are pro-choice, so he went for easy pickings to satisfy his Bush-worshippers and spoke against gay marriage (whoopee-doo).

And while I agree that the condition of women in general must be addressed, and not just the banning of abortion (i.e., how to reduce the abortion rate), I won't go into the problem of really crappy parents who have unwanted children...oh and she did say that abstinence should be encouraged as well, let's not forget two things. First, the neocons cannot be seduced with facts, logic, or anything of that sort. And further to the point, the right-wing rednecks really dislike people who are smart--especially a woman.

 

[Moonbear]

The main problem the Democratic party has is that they are too fractionated. You'll find a group of Democrats supporting each of those candidates, for all the reasons they are different from one another, and not coming to a consensus about anyone candidate. The only thing that unified the party in the 2004 election was hatred for Bush. Hardly a promising direction for the party. This is the reason I think your assumption that a candidate only has to do marginally better than Kerry to win is wrong. The 2008 candidate won't be running against Bush, he or she will be running against another new candidate for the Republican party. There will be no incumbent, so both will need to prove themselves to the voters.

I haven't voted in your poll because I really don't know. There are some in that list I'd never vote for. Hilary is definitely one who gets my NO vote. Sorry, but when I push for the first woman president, I want it to be someone who I think will actually do a good job, and I don't trust Hilary any more than I trusted her snake oil salesman of a husband.

Several on the list are too much of newcomers for me to really know much about them. Obama is one of them. The first time I heard of him was on election night. He's going to need to prove himself first. I didn't even know who Mark Warner is and had to go Googling for information on him. His website talks about all the good he's done for VA, which on first blush seems promising, but again, to me he's a relatively unknown entity, so not sure how that will pan out. One thing I don't like about Bush is the lack of details, so something I'm looking for in a candidate in 2008 is someone who can provide more details about who they are, what they stand for, and how they plan to implement changes they think are necessary.

There are a lot of us who are more in the middle of the political spectrum who would love to see a candidate who breaks from traditional party lines. If you can find a candidate who is pro-choice, keeps their nose out of other people's bedrooms and marriages (in other words, I don't want to know what side of the issue they are on, it shouldn't even be an issue), cuts government hand-outs, provides enough foreign aid to maintain good international relations, but doesn't cave into every nation that comes begging to our door, supports building an infrastructure that provides alternatives to fossil fuels, supports small business growth and isn't a puppet of large corporations, and who still manages to have enough personality to talk to the average citizen without insulting their intelligence or talking over their heads (now isn't that a tricky balancing act), then there's a candidate who could probably win 60% of the popular vote, leaving the 20% extremists of either party as the ones who don't know who to vote for.

 

[Locrian]

Who's to say the party isn't changing?

Who cares if its changing, if it's not addressing the reasons it has failed? As long as it fails to realize its moral foundation, create strong moral metaphors, and use those metaphors effectively, it will keep losing voters.

About the only thing the democratic party had in 2004 was an anti-bush policy. It didn't work, and they are left in a worse position now than they were then. I see no evidence of a come back.

 

[wasteofo2]

Several on the list are too much of newcomers for me to really know much about them. Obama is one of them. The first time I heard of him was on election night. He's going to need to prove himself first.

I didn't even know who Mark Warner is and had to go Googling for information on him. His website talks about all the good he's done for VA, which on first blush seems promising, but again, to me he's a relatively unknown entity, so not sure how that will pan out.

That's weird that you first heard about Obama on election night, he gave the keynote address at the Democratic convention, and was the Illinois Democratic Senate nominee opposing Jack Ryan (the guy who pressured his wife to have sex with him in public), and later opposing Allen Keys. Either way, Obama will only have 4 years of Senate experience then, and almost certainly won't be READY for the job, I just put him there as one of the options for a person who sounds optimistic and smiles a lot.

Warner is the Governor of VA, and in a weird position. VA was in a bit of a pickle, and he proposed a general tax increase to help things out, and despite being the first Governor in decades to do such a thing, he still has very high approval ratings. In VA, Governors are only allowed to serve one 6 year term, so in 2008 he won't be Governor anymore, and will likely leave with hugely favorable numbers in VA. He'd almost definitely win VA if he was the Candidat, and probabally pick up WV and other such southern states that went to Bush by fairly narrow margins.

 

[SOS2008]

Maybe in the current political balance...

Check out comments under: "How does the government of the United States compare?"

Carter brings up an entirely off-topic question. How come he doesn't get to hang out with the 'boys', George 41 and Slick Willy?

He was monitoring elections...And oh how I wish he was helping with the Palestinian/Israeli process, the way Clinton has been helping in the attempt to regain some global popularity in regard to the Tsunami. Lord knows help is needed with global politics.

 

[wasteofo2]

Who cares if its changing, if it's not addressing the reasons it has failed? As long as it fails to realize its moral foundation, create strong moral metaphors, and use those metaphors effectively, it will keep losing voters.

About the only thing the democratic party had in 2004 was an anti-bush policy. It didn't work, and they are left in a worse position now than they were then. I see no evidence of a come back.

Similarly, who's to say that people aren't adressing the reasons that the Democrats had failed? In 2000, the Democrats won the popular vote and believed that the electoral college was stolen from them, and they were only down by one member in the Senate, so there was no great problem to fix, but after 2004, the Democrats realize there are lots of changes to be made. I stand by my belief that the Democratic party will evolve into a much more de-centralized party, with Democrats in different regions behaving totally differently and having totally different messages to best suit their specific conditions. Of course this already exists, but I bet there's going to be a lot more specialization amongst the Democrats in the coming years.

 

[SOS2008]

The main problem the Democratic party has is that they are too fractionated...The only thing that unified the party in the 2004 election was hatred for Bush. Hardly a promising direction for the party. This is the reason I think your assumption that a candidate only has to do marginally better than Kerry to win is wrong. The 2008 candidate won't be running against Bush, he or she will be running against another new candidate for the Republican party. There will be no incumbent, so both will need to prove themselves to the voters..

Dang--So true.

One thing I don't like about Bush is the lack of details, so something I'm looking for in a candidate in 2008 is someone who can provide more details about who they are, what they stand for, and how they plan to implement changes they think are necessary.

Agree again...

There are a lot of us who are more in the middle of the political spectrum who would love to see a candidate who breaks from traditional party lines. If you can find a candidate who is pro-choice, keeps their nose out of other people's bedrooms and marriages (in other words, I don't want to know what side of the issue they are on, it shouldn't even be an issue), cuts government hand-outs, provides enough foreign aid to maintain good international relations, but doesn't cave into every nation that comes begging to our door, supports building an infrastructure that provides alternatives to fossil fuels, supports small business growth and isn't a puppet of large corporations, and who still manages to have enough personality to talk to the average citizen without insulting their intelligence or talking over their heads (now isn't that a tricky balancing act), then there's a candidate who could probably win 60% of the popular vote, leaving the 20% extremists of either party as the ones who don't know who to vote for.

So if reversed (from the progressive side), perhaps that would be the govenater of California?

 

[SOS2008]

Thanks for the thread. I don't think it matters though. The democrats are so far off of any reasonable track that even if they win the presidency, they won't be able to do much with it. In the mid-90's someone (don't remember the name :( ) wrote a paper on how the republican party was doing a better job leveraging its moral metaphors. He predicted that they would continue an increase in power until the democratic party changed.

As far as I can tell, he was right.

I'm not so sure it's about change, but rather leveraging (marketing) the "moral metaphors." Which means understanding your audience (the three 's' - shallow, simple, and superficial), demographics (think Karl Rove), understanding all is fair in love, war, AND politics--target opponents with lies, tamper with the electoral process (confusing ballots, miscounts, "wedge" issue propositions, etc.), redistrict, what ever it takes (but be quiet and sneaky about it).

 

[SOS2008]

Okay, I was trying to remember the program--here it is: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/. So for the Democrats to win the next election, they need a good candidate, a meaningful platform, and to hire one of these guys (which the Republicans have done). And you thought everything else I've said is...a little disconcerting?

 

[SOS2008]

Okay, I went to the website and realized I should say click on CHAPTER FIVE
"Give Us What We Want" -- Political consultant Frank Luntz has built his career on a simple idea: It doesn't matter what you want to tell the public -- it's about what they want to hear. This focused on recent trends of political campaigns in America...

 

[Locrian]

Similarly, who's to say that people aren't adressing the reasons that the Democrats had failed?

Me, and independent voter who voted for both democrats and republicans in the last election - but fewer democrats, and fewer than ever before. Of course, I have never voted for either a democrat or a republican for president, but I'd love to get the chance. How is it you'd like me to make my case? Is it in my place to show that they aren't, or is it someone else's place to correct me and show that they are?

I just checked the dnc website. The platform is old, from the election. It takes twenty four pages before they make any kind of moral argument for anything. Weak. You say they're changing. That's nice, but I'm not convinced, and I see no reason why anyone else should be.

 

[Locrian]

I'm not so sure it's about change, but rather leveraging (marketing) the "moral metaphors." Which means understanding your audience (the three 's' - shallow, simple, and superficial), demographics (think Karl Rove), understanding all is fair in love, war, AND politics--target opponents with lies, tamper with the electoral process (confusing ballots, miscounts, "wedge" issue propositions, etc.), redistrict, what ever it takes (but be quiet and sneaky about it).

No, those would not be effective changes.

 

[SOS2008]

Who cares if its changing, if it's not addressing the reasons it has failed? As long as it fails to realize its moral foundation, create strong moral metaphors, and use those metaphors effectively, it will keep losing voters.

About the only thing the democratic party had in 2004 was an anti-bush policy. It didn't work, and they are left in a worse position now than they were then. I see no evidence of a come back.

Though I feel there is an unfortunate confusion between "morals" (distinguishing between right and wrong) versus "religious values." I would like to know your definition of the Republican moral foundation and strong metaphors you feel the Democrats lack. And I notice you state they need to "use those metaphors effectively," which means better marketing, doesn't it?

Because as I've stated, Bush was reelected in part due to his stand against abortion and gay marriage, yet as I predicted before the election, he has abandoned the abortion cause. Nonetheless, the fundamentalists seem to be appeased enough with his statement against gay marriage in the State of the Union speech (big deal). I stand by the premise that it is all marketing and no substance, and is effective because the Republicans understand the masses are largely ignorant and can be easily duped.

If you want to talk about morals, like is it moral to preemptively attack countries contrary to international laws, is it moral to spend like crazy during times of high deficits, is it moral to ignore the labor force of America with trade pacts with China, amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc., is it moral to ignore the environment (global warming), etc. than I feel the Democrats have plenty of morals to go on. Does anyone deny they suck at strategy, organizing, marketing, etc.?

Ultimately I feel there needs to be several viable parties in this country to correct the current direction. For example, Arnold is not Republican, but there is no party he fits into (at least anyway, so far), and we could start a long list like this. Perhaps this should be the focus rather than trying to figure out how to save the Democratic party...?

 

[Locrian]

Though I feel there is an unfortunate confusion between "morals" (distinguishing between right and wrong) versus "religious values."

I whole heartedly agree.

As for a listing of some of Republican's moral metaphors, Moral Strength is probably the best example. "Morale failure is personal failure" is another. Moral responsibility is a third. I've heard these used, and seen them implemented. The democratic party tried to steal some strength metaphors in the last election; as far as I can tell, it didn't work.

You ask if what I mean is their marketing. The answer is that this is what I said. I can only see evidence of marketing failures; I do not know any real mover in the dnc personally. However, I have come to suspect that it is not just a marketing failure, and that the dnc does not represent anything substantial except what the rnc isn't. Of course, it doesn't matter. They can have all the ideas they want. If they can't market them, they have no value whatsoever.

I'm disgusted with the populist losers that have been voted into office under the pretense that they are conservatives. I'm even more disgusted watching "capitalists" and people who support a "free nation" support them. I blame the current problems on the dnc's failure to produce a powerful central message, a viable platform, and a campaign to attract voters.