Why is no one giving the Dems a chance in '08?

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Other than socialism, I think the rest of those no longer apply to the current democratic party... the philosophies behind them largely belong to the conservative side of the floor, ie the Republicans (state's rights, etc.) The parties' alignments have shifted just a bit since then (Remember Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, left for the Progressive (Bull Moose) party... )

Well, I come to bury the GOP, not praise it. And your first point is correct: slavery has been abolished and the Democrats aren't pushing for a restoration. I shan't make the stretch that socialism is slavery. It isn't quite. Still, your other points are wrong.

Secession? It isn't the GOP that is supporting the Hawai'ian nativist movment.

Segregation? As one of those so-called "protected classes" that Affirmative Action is supposed to benefit, I tell you: state-sanctioned discrimination is inherently oppressive -- whether it is intended to oppress, or intended to help in a nanny state manner. True, not 'segregation' in its truest form...then again, I had to keep the alliteration going somehow.


In any event, the point of this thread is not to dissect my personal philosophy. The question was asked: why are people not supporting the Democrats. I offered my views. You can either react defensively to them, or you can attempt to understand them, if not necessarily agree with them. If you choose the latter, I'll be glad to enter into a discussion. If the former, I leave you to your fate.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by jkp1187
Hillary lacks the integrity and honesty of a Nixon, and I refuse to vote for any more members of the Bush-Clinton oligarchy. Which is a pity, because having listened to her in the recent NPR debate, she actually is closest to my own views of the current field of Democrats. So she's out.[/q]

Nixon, prosperity, the end of the VN war, detente, and some actually kinda progressive, if pragmatic social policy.

Clinton, prosperity, peace (except for the zero US casualty win in Kosovo) and some actually kinda progressive, if pragmatic, social policy.

Vote for Clinton, you KNOW you want to

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

"Way too much is made about data about specific job experience before the Presidency.

Thats what Id say, if my candidate had been in the state legislature 3 years ago.

Also, the importance of experience in managing large organizations is somewhat ameliorated by the importance of foreign policy this election.

Cause of course the issues in national security have nothing to do with managing large, complex organizations, like DoD, DHS, and the Intell complex. Or even DoS, for that matter.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Dems are definitely handicapped by running a Senator. On the other hand, the likely GOP candidate is a mayor. Anybody want to guess how many candidates have managed to ascend from mayor to president, with no stops in between?

Have any ever run?

John V Lindsay. 1972.

[Kuciwalker]

He didn't make it past the primaries, doesn't count.

[Admiral]

I just can't see foreign policy experience mattering that much in the general. Bear in mind that Bush had zero foreign policy experience, and especially early in the campaign was obviously uninformed about many important aspects of foreign policy (he didn't know who the Indian PM was, eg). What will matter will be substance, and even with Bush off the ballot, voters will absolutely be thinking about Iraq. Right now, all of the credible GOP candidates are campaigning on continuing Bush's foreign policy, and though that many change after the nomination, it will be hard to pull off. So even if the Democratic candidate is Clinton, the Dems should still have an edge up on foreign policy, and foreign policy will still likely be the number one issue in the mind of the voters.

[GePap]

Having lived under 8 years of Giulianni, the last thing that man needs is his hand on the button (specailly with Podhoretz as a policy adviser?!?!?).

After eight years of repubican control, I can see dems comming out to vote big, specially hispanic disgusted with the immigration (ie, them damned Mexicans!) while republicans might be dispirited enough to stay home, and that would be the difference.

[Admiral]

Seconded. One of the lessons of 2006, I think, is that immigrant-baiting is actively harmful to Republican candidates. So by all means, keep it up.

[Elok]

GePap, "pernicious" is spelled with two I's. Sorry, that's just been bugging me for a while...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
GePap, "pernicious" is spelled with two I's. Sorry, that's just been bugging me for a while...

No surrender! My sig has not yet begun to fight!

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's incoherent nonsense on several levels.

That's stupid.

Seriously Kuci (because you won't get the meaning behind what I just wrote and I don't feel like dragging an explanation through several threads like I normally have to with conservatives ), do you have anything constructive to say?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
I think if Hillary picks Richardson as the VP, I could see her easily losing. He brings a lot of baggage with him, namely losing nucular secrets to China and hundreds of millions in Enron deals.

I expect she will continue the Democrat's version of the southern strategy by picking a white male protestant from a swing state in the south or at least upper south. The idea being to undermine support or maybe take a state Republicans consider securely their's while reassuring religious or conservative voters who still believe a woman can't lead a country. "Sure she's a woman but looks at this WASP male next to her" sort of thing.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Right, but Obama is typically attacked as being light on foreign policy, even by his own party. What happens if he gets nominated, those attack ads are remembered, AND he faces another perceived/actual lightweight?

Does foreign policy even become the major issue in the campaign? Or do both avoid it because they just aren't that credible?

Party in fighting is a major problem for both parties which is why the party elites normally try to protect and set up a clear front runner early. That way their candidate isn't severely weakened during the primaries nor spent most of their money launching attacks against other members of the same party.

The downside is this protection means rather weak candidates sometimes get through the primaries only to be slaughtered by opposition which doesn't hold back and which the weak candidate is unprepared to deal with.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Admiral
I just can't see foreign policy experience mattering that much in the general. Bear in mind that Bush had zero foreign policy experience, and especially early in the campaign was obviously uninformed about many important aspects of foreign policy (he didn't know who the Indian PM was, eg). What will matter will be substance, and even with Bush off the ballot, voters will absolutely be thinking about Iraq. Right now, all of the credible GOP candidates are campaigning on continuing Bush's foreign policy, and though that many change after the nomination, it will be hard to pull off. So even if the Democratic candidate is Clinton, the Dems should still have an edge up on foreign policy, and foreign policy will still likely be the number one issue in the mind of the voters.

That's good analysis though I'd say Democrats will mainly talk about proposed domestic policy changes (health care, environment, responsible regulation and government over sight, etc...) with the huge exception being discussions of the war in Iraq. Both domestic policy and lots of reminders about the war in Iraq tend to favor Democratic candidates. Republicans are likely to try to focus discussion on foreign policy (Iran, North Korea, maybe Chinese protectionism) and spend every other waking moment trying to play up the immigration issue in hopes it will over shadow the numerous topics Democrats would win.

Much will depend on if unpopular Republican incombinents can pull a rabbit out of the hat a la Pete Wilson's 1992 reelection campaign in California (he was a Republican governor with an approval rating of around 20% but who managed a 51% reelection by massively engaging in race baiting and playing up illegal immigration).

I'd like to note that Wilson won his reelection on that wedge issue but it also turned most hispanics in California against the Republican party to such a degree that 15 year later most won't vote Republican even if the Dem is a complete wanker.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I expect she will continue the Democrat's version of the southern strategy by picking a white male protestant from a swing state in the south or at least upper south.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Wesley Clark. He'd be a very canny pick for her.