Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Its condescending to patronise voters with your moral superiority rather than arguing the issues.

The people who voted for Bush are the ones who feel themselves moraly superior- if anything, they hate liberals for no making moral judgements of people.

[DanS]

Another thing the conservatives have got very very good at.

I don't know if you saw any of Bush's stump speeches, but he was very effective. 4 or 5 speeches a day, every campaign day. Hammering home his three or four themes. Kerry, the great orator, was an amateur in comparison.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Maybe you need to develop a 30 second elevator speech on each issue, Spiffor. You have to have a story to get people interested in what you have to say before they will listen to a complicated position. Because let's face it, most politicians who have complicated positions just use that as an excuse to hold incomprehensible positions.

Well, I have had discussions as long as half an hour with voters, who were genuinely interested (notably because I listened to them, which was something completely new). By knowing them better, I had no trouble getting my points across. It's just that my points were completely opposite to their opinions.

I mean, when I am talking to a strongly right-wing attached, slightly racist voter, I can't get them to vote for me. When I'm talking to people who have decided to abstain because they hate our political system (in general, middle aged people who have been digusted by decades of lies), I cannot convince them to vote for "the guy who keeps his pormises" (i.e me)

[Alexander's Horse]

Right - another strong point - most voters hate the permissive society.

There's an important political principle here - you can only reform to the limit the public will accept and perhaps a little beyond. To try and do more will make you feel good perhaps, but is political suicide.

Social Democratic parties once understood that. Tony Blair does. He keeps the leftwing of his party in check.

[Dinner]

AH: This is good advice but it is a side issue. The real problem is the Democratic Party keeps nominating bad candidates. What do Dukmagen, Dukakus, and Kerry have in common? They were are to far left and they were all losers. Clinton and even Carter were close to the center and they won. The first three weren't southerners and the last two were southerners.

The moral of the story is southern centrists can win by picking up red states while northern liberal lose because they don't play well in rural areas.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Leftists are just sooo cute when they are being obstinate.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Kind of sad really cause it would be really nice to have an alternative to the radicallization of the republicans.

Indeed.

Just like Republicans have to appeal to people who are not their ilk (read: people who are not elitist ultra-rich, actual benefit-havers of conservative governments), the Liberals must appeal to people who are not their ilk (read: people who are not elitist ultra-educated).

By wallowing in elitism, and condescending the ordinary voter, nothing good will come. Now, there is pandering and pandering. I completely agree with the idea that the Liberals should pander to the uneducated by understanding the value of uneducated people. I completely disagree with the idea they should pretend doing a policy they won't implement.

[Alexander's Horse]

I agree. It's probably simpler than I make out - but the right candidate must have the right policies.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Social Democratic parties once understood that. Tony Blair does. He keeps the leftwing of his party in check.

One of the first things Clinton did when he was nominated in 1992 was purge the party's leadership of the ideologue. He put them in a back room where they could huff and puff to their hearts content but where voters sure weren't going to see then.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sprayber
And the liberals stick their fingers in their ears and sing loudly so not to hear good advice.


Kind of sad really cause it would be really nice to have an alternative to the radicallization of the republicans.

Amen!

[Zulu Elephant]

How was Kerrys election platform more liberal than Clinton's?

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oerdin
One of the first things Clinton did when he was nominated in 1992 was purge the party's leadership of the ideologue. He put them in a back room where they could huff and puff to their hearts content but where voters sure weren't going to see then.

Exactly! By 1996 even a lot of Republicans liked the guy. He wasn't crazy, worked with Congress, and helped to pass bills that satisfied Republicans and Democrats alike. He did what politicians do best, he compromised and actually got a lot of crap done.

[Caligastia]

AH is dead right.

Democrats fancy themselves as the party of the average citizen, yet look who they nominated! A poncy snot-nosed silver-spoon-fed tosser who married into wealth. How is the common man supposed to respect that? Bush was also brought up in the fold of the elite, but he seems more human than Kerry. I didn't think much of either candidate as politicians, but I know who I'd rather sit down and have a beer with. Sometimes that can count for a lot in an election.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
How was Kerrys election platform more liberal than Clinton's?

For one thing Kerry touched on hot button issues like gay marriage which are political suicide also Clinton would get up and speak out against rap music like Queen Latifa advocating killing cops and he also pissed off lots of liberals by advocating centrist and conservative issues like welfare reform. He found issues which were of concern to average Americans, especially the center or right of center guys, which made them think he wasn't your run of the mill lefty.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Caligastia
AH is dead right.

Democrats fancy themselves as the party of the average citizen, yet look who they nominated! A poncy snot-nosed silver-spoon-fed tosser who married into wealth. How is the common man supposed to respect that? Bush was also brought up in the fold of the elite, but he seems more human than Kerry. I didn't think much of either candidate as politicians, but I know who I'd rather sit down and have a beer with. Sometimes that can count for a lot in an election.

AH is right? What about me? I've written two threads on this in the last two days. Have I been howling at the moon?