Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Are democrats generally negative?

  1. Apr 22, 2004 #1
    Or is this simply the result of a part put out of majority power, and trying ot make a case why those in power are bad?

    Assuming it is in fact the latter, I'd like to suggest to the self titled democrats/liberals/whatever that this is hardly a winning strategy.
    I view getting someone elected no different than the projects I have to sell to my clients as a consultant.

    You have a goal (get someone elected).
    You have an option (John Kerry)
    There is an existing solution that you don't feel is adequate(George Bush).

    Now, if I were to walk into a client and just tell them all the wrong things with their present system, it won't sell.
    If I say "My system should be chosen because it's not your system" I'd get laughed out of the business.
    Some of you guys( and I'd like to think this was only some internet forced cross-section of society, but many of the democrat politicians show the same thing), don't seem capable of simply explaining the positives of your vision for our country.

    Yes, identifying the problem is part of finding a solution. But move on beyond that step! The sheer negativity turns me off from liberal politics more than I can possibly express here.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 22, 2004 #2
    Democrats are negative toward poverty, violations of civil rights, poor health care, greed, ignorance...
  4. Apr 22, 2004 #3
    Good rhetoric, but this is a serious post.
    Many people on this forum want Kerry to be elected (according to the polls, a majority). However, there are only about two people I can think of that seem to try to give it a positive push, and frankly, those are the only people I listen to when they try to sell the candidate they think is best.

    While all of this can be pushed towards particular right wingers are this board as well, there are two big differences.

    1>The liberals are the majority on this board.
    2>Without swing voters falling to Kerry's side, Bush is going to take another 4 years.

    Sure, you guys can do what you would like with your candidate's image, but I don't personally think the negative play is a winning strategy, And frankly, since the attacks also lend themselves to almost every thread degrading into a pissing match about why Bush is so much worse than Kerry (including threads unrelated to the current election) I have a personal vested interest in this board getting back to discussing the topics at hand (perhaps our moderator can chime in on why he feels a negative campaign on Kerry's behalf is a winning situation). :smile:
  5. Apr 22, 2004 #4
    Frankly, the policies of George W. Bush and his administration have the potential to scare me almost as much as the terrorists do. I can see why we are in Afghanistan, but invading Iraq rightfully angers many of its citizens and over a billion Moslems. Clinton may have been personally immoral, but Republicans themselves seem a much greater corrupting force today, perhaps without realizing it.

    The bottom line: the United States never has been truly isolated, and now, more than ever we need to respect the opinion of the entire world. By forcing "democracy" down the throats of the multitude, we risk their alienation and revulsion instead. By further encouraging a society of materialism and corporate government over our own citizens, we weaken our example to others and threaten internal peace.

    G. W. Bush may be a good guy, but he has been set up as a Potemkin village concealing the false respectability of his keepers whose motto might as well read "the majority be damned." Rather than continue to argue politics, I'll see how Bushkin performs over this term, and maybe the next (~shudder~).
  6. Apr 23, 2004 #5
    For a long time I've know that you're a fundamentally serious person.
  7. Apr 23, 2004 #6
    I'm sorry that you live in fear. Don't worry, everything is going to be just fine.
  8. Apr 24, 2004 #7
    It's all relative. A sensible person would vote for someone whom he or she thinks has a shot at being elected and is the best alternative among the electable candidates. Whether it's, "Candidate A is good" or "Candidate B" is bad, the statement is made with the implication that you should vote for A because B isn't as good (in the first case) or you should vote for A because he's not as bad as B (in the second case). It's the same relationship, just stated in a different way.

    I think that a very negative view of a particular candidate can often be more mobilizing than a very positive view of another candidate. If I thought that everything was going great, I probably wouldn't be too interested in politics.

    Also, you are ascribing Democrats' words to their personalities (generally positive or negative) without considering the situation they find themselves in. Perhaps with different candidates, they would have more of this positive way of describing things that you would like to see, but given how horrible bush is in the eyes of most liberals, the negative words come out more often. Also, perhaps a sober assessment of of pretty much all politicians as liars or corrupt yields more negative remarks, as opposed to positive remarks that result from candy-land idealism.
  9. Apr 25, 2004 #8
    Some folks refuse to 1) see themselves, and 2) see the validity of any view besides their own. If Bush and his policies are bad for America(which they are), then how the heck do you put a positive spin on them and be honest?
  10. Apr 25, 2004 #9
    Zero, the question is why don't we focus more on positive words towards Kerry (or other Democratic challenger) than negative views towads bush. Your post didn't address Kerry at all. My view is that it's hard to be gung-ho positive (about bush or a dem alike) when you're realistic about these people.
  11. Apr 25, 2004 #10
    That's absolutely true...Democrats don't blindly worship their leaders the way Republicans do. For instance, we accept that Clinton wasn't wonderful in alot of ways, you will rarely hear an admission of the failings of a Republican from their camp...unless he is agreeing with a Democrat, in which case he is a traitor.

    Kerry's not perfect, but he absolutely is better than Bush.
  12. Apr 25, 2004 #11

    I believe there is a locked thread full of dislikes about the most powerful Republican we presently have :wink:
  13. Apr 25, 2004 #12
    Going negative is the best means of attacking an incumbent. It does not work when the candidate himself indulges in it. It works best when done by supposed impartial outsiders.
  14. Apr 25, 2004 #13
    The reason most liberals are going negative on Bush instead of positive on Kerry is:

    Like most everyone else said, Liberals all hate Bush with a passion and see flaw in practically everything he does. There are so many things going wrong in this country, that they need to be pointed out and Bush needs to be held accountable for them. Liberals feel that Bush is such a bad president, that they have a much better chance enraging people over all of Bush's mistakes and incompetencies than they do exciting people about all the wonder Kerry will bring, becuase Kerry is simply boring. When you talk about Bush, the reaction you get is strong from both sides, but when you talk about Kerry, the reaction is much weaker. Democrats think he'll be better than Bush, Republicans don't like him, but Republicans don't hate Kerry with anywhere near the passion that Liberals hate Bush. Simmilarly, Democrats don't love Kerry as much as Republicans love Bush. Bush is just much more likely to provoke a strong reaction than Kerry is.

    Besides, you have to point out your opponent's flaws to draw any contrast between him and the person you're rooting for. If Kerry wins this year, in 2008 whichever Republican is the nominee will have to come up with all the bad things Kerry's done to try to make what he wants to do look more appealing.
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2004
  15. Apr 25, 2004 #14
    Its true about Kerry...he's a middle of the road, competent but not exciting, average kind of politician...you could almost call him "conservative".
  16. Apr 25, 2004 #15


    User Avatar

    Uhhhh can you support that with..you know...some facts figures... You do know that Kerry's lifetime Quotant by the ADA is a whopping 92...higher, even, then Senator Kennedy's? :eek:
  17. Apr 25, 2004 #16
    Kat, do you have any sort of link to the actual things they took into account to give people that ranking? I remember hearing things from Kerry about how they had taken his votes out of context, deciding to count votes both for and against new taxes, and both for and against increased military spending as liberal, but I haven't seen the actual votes they counted, so as far as I know, Kerry could just be lying.
  18. Apr 25, 2004 #17
    You're right. Kerry is relatively liberal (there are no really liberal Senators IMO because they can't get elected in state-wide races). Howard Dean was probably the most conservative Democrat presidential candidate - not only was he very fiscally conservative (as shown by his record as governor of Vermont), he also had a 100% ranking from the NRA (:eek:). Kerry's rhetoric has become more centrist during his campaign, with the noted exception of trade policy. Kerry has always been a huge free trader (more so than Bush!), but he has "barrowed" Edwards' "fair trade" rhetoric (which is misleading because his policy proposals are still very much pro-free trade). I really respect Kerry for being a major player in revealing the Reagan administration corrupt foreign policies (Iran-Contra anyone?). But I am getting off topic...
  19. Apr 25, 2004 #18

    Hey, can you start another thread explaining more examples of why Kerry isn't as liberal as people believe??? I keep hearing this lately, am would like some information backing this up. Would make me happy to know we don't have someone as liberal as I thought running :redface:
  20. Apr 25, 2004 #19
    Here you go buddy:
    http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/8384529.htm?1c [Broken]
    And even better:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19165-2004Mar23.html [Broken]

    Oh, and for those of you who care, here are two links that correct the spin of both Democrats and Republicans:
    http://www.campaigndesk.org/ (part of the Columbia Journalism Review)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  21. Apr 25, 2004 #20


    User Avatar

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook