Guide for Democrats: How to win in 2008

Buzzed · Post by **Buzzed** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:48 pm

The only possible way Democrats will win the election in 2008 is if they nominate a conservative Democrat. The problem with Kerry is he was too liberal, so hordes of conservative Democrats (you know who you are), ended up voting for Bush.

Democrats cannot afford to lose the conservative Democrat vote in the next election if they plan on winning.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:37 pm

We so need to get away from this two party crap.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:58 pm

Perot is still alive, right?

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:15 pm

I think the main thing is that the democrats have a major image problem. They all look like soulless politicians and their presidential campaigns lack energy.

Bill Clinton had real charisma. Dubya has real charisma. Gore and Kerry...don't.

I think that by the time someone votes for Dubya in spite of the fact that he lead an invasion, that it's kind of pointless to try and reason with them. Would they *really* vote democratic just because the theoretical democratic candidate has a softer stance on, say, gun control?

I think that what it really has to do with is charisma and persona. Bush had them in spades and that's why so many people wanted to vote for him.

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:13 pm

Dubya has real charisma.

Umm..you're the only one I've heard say that. At best, I've heard he has a down home sort of charm. You know, talks to people like he's just one of them and all that.

I think that by the time someone votes for Dubya in spite of the fact that he lead an invasion, that it's kind of pointless to try and reason with them.

Leading an invasion is not inherently a bad thing. Technically, we invaded Germany. In fact, the justifications bandied about for both actions are rather similar. The only question that requires reason is whether or not the justifications hold water in this case.

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:16 pm

WillyGilligan wrote:
Dubya has real charisma.
Umm..you're the only one I've heard say that. At best, I've heard he has a down home sort of charm. You know, talks to people like he's just one of them and all that.

It works for him. It sets people at ease and they feel they can trust him. I'd say that counts as charisma.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:21 pm

Conservation parties in Europe (Central Europe) do what the Republicans in America do, distract from the real issues and make their opponents go on the defensive.

It works.

Democratics, if they're serious about ever wanting to win a majority in Congress, or the Presidency again, are going to have ot pick their issues, and stick to them. They can be the "every man's" party anymore. They're like a sick-in-the-head mother who wants to make everyone happy and have no one fight at dinner time, it won't work.

Ronald Reagan supposedly unified the Republicans and focues them into a single (few) issue party. Why can't the people on the other side try the same thing?

Pick one or two main issues and stick to them, not twenty causes, it's stupid, you'll never win.

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:41 pm

http://www.redstate.org/story/2004/11/5/141135/715

I still maintain that trying to stick up for the gays really did hurt Kerry, unfortunately.

In the Washington Times today. Even though every traditional indictator--the weakness of the local economy, late-deciders and moderates breaking decisively for the challenger--showed Kerry winning Ohio, he was unable to win a state that Gore had essentially conceded, only to lose by 3.6%. Looking at the state's three biggest counties--traditionally accounting for 30% of the total ballots cast--and Kerry won by much bigger margins than Gore did. So how did he lose?
It appears that the winning margin for Bush was an Ohio ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, and the massive, grassroots get-out-the-vote efforts of its supporters. Turnout in rural and exurban counties was up dramatically--much bigger proportionately than the increase found in the urban counties. The most telling statistic is that in 2000, turnout was 38% Democrat, 37% GOP, but this time, it was 35% Democrat, 40% GOP--a huge swing. Of course, the irony is that the initiative never would have been on the ballot had the Mass Supreme Court not legalized gay marriage--meaning that four justices from Kerry's home state may have cost him Ohio--and thus, his ticket to the White House.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:38 pm

Buzzed wrote:The only possible way Democrats will win the election in 2008 is if they nominate a conservative Democrat. The problem with Kerry is he was too liberal, so hordes of conservative Democrats (you know who you are), ended up voting for Bush.

Democrats cannot afford to lose the conservative Democrat vote in the next election if they plan on winning.

Funny, I thought that's why they /lost/ the election: because liberals couldn't tell the difference between the democrat and the republican.

I think the solution may be doing what the republicans successfully did: instead of trying for the middle-of-the-road, appease everyone, Clinton-esque technique, they ran as far right as they could, and let everyone follow. The democrats should, I think, nominate someone who's in the middle of the liberal spectrum: not a republican with a different necktie, not a communist tree-hugger, but in-between. Someone who can represent their /ideals,/ no matter what might politically be expedient or even possible. Someone who can appeal to a broad range of liberals, since appealing to a broad range of people in the center of the political spectrum means trying to appeal to conservatives as well as liberals. Appeal to the whole liberal base, and win; appeal to the half of liberals who are close to center and half the conservatives who are close to center, and you risk having the half those conservatives vote for the guy to the far right.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:44 am

I'm inclined to agree with 32, here. The Democrats won't win an election by running a Republican. They'll win an election by running a candidate who campaigns on traditional Democratic issues, but doesn't terrify conservative voters. John Edwards would be a strong candidate by this logic. So would Hillary, once everyone realised that yes, she was open about her ambition to run for President, and no, she wasn't speaking like a Nazi.

BloodHound · Post by **BloodHound** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:09 am

All those opposed to Hillary Clinton as the first female president say "Aye"

WillyGilligan · Post by **WillyGilligan** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:13 am

Why?

Oh, and VEED!

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:16 am

We need Dean, damn it.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 8:25 am

Angel wrote:Democrats, if they're serious about ever wanting to win a majority in Congress, or the Presidency again, are going to have ot pick their issues, and stick to them. They can be the "every man's" party anymore. They're like a sick-in-the-head mother who wants to make everyone happy and have no one fight at dinner time, it won't work.

Ronald Reagan supposedly unified the Republicans and focues them into a single (few) issue party. Why can't the people on the other side try the same thing?

Pick one or two main issues and stick to them, not twenty causes, it's stupid, you'll never win.

I think you're absolutely right. And I think the reason it hasn't happened so far is because the Dems are also all about PC/multiculturalism/I'm-okay-you're-okay stuff. Which, you know, some of that I'm cool with and some of it I think has gone too far. But regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, the problem the Dems have had is that they're so damn busy fighting each other over /which/ few issues are the most important, that they haven't left nearly enough time for fighting the GOP. This was the first election in my memory that had the Dems largely unified. Unfortunately, they unified behind a Lite Republican, and so we lost.

32 is right: the Dems are acting like that kid in high school who won't pay attention to the girl who likes him because he's so busy chasing after the girl who couldn't give a shit about him. (If the two-party system were "Some Kind of Wonderful", the Dems would be Keith, the "middle" would be Amanda Jones, and the Democrats' base would be Watts.)

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 12:32 pm

Wounded Ronin wrote:Bill Clinton had real charisma. Dubya has real charisma.

People use the word "charisma" waaaaaaay too often. Hitler, Churchill and Lenin all had charisma. Kennedy had something like it. Clinton and Bush have charm.

Buzzed · Post by **Buzzed** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:44 pm

I sense alot of denial in this thread. The majority of Americans are conservative. There is no denying that.

I can think of a prime example of a conservative Democrat. JFK.

It is perfectly fine to be conservative. It doesnt mean you are a Republican.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:50 pm

Angel wrote:Conservation parties in Europe (Central Europe) do what the Republicans in America do, distract from the real issues and make their opponents go on the defensive.

That's not what Republicans in America do.

Democratics, if they're serious about ever wanting to win a majority in Congress, or the Presidency again, are going to have ot pick their issues, and stick to them. They can be the "every man's" party anymore.

They never were "every man's party." Now they just can't fool people into thinking they are.

3278 wrote:Funny, I thought that's why they /lost/ the election: because liberals couldn't tell the difference between the democrat and the republican.

Nope. Liberals could tell the difference, and so could conservatives and moderates. Even radicals could tell the difference. The reason he lost was because too few liked what he was selling. Going farther left doesn't change that.

[quote"mrmooky"] They'll win an election by running a candidate who campaigns on traditional Democratic issues, but doesn't terrify conservative voters. John Edwards would be a strong candidate by this logic.[/quote]
The two are more or less mutually exclusive. But even if they weren't, you've got a pretty funny look at American politics if you think that John Edwards doesn't terrify conservatives more than Kerry, Dean or Daschle.

Thorn wrote: Unfortunately, they unified behind a Lite Republican, and so we lost.

And by Lite Republican, you mean Most Liberal (i.e. Un-Republican) Senator in the Democratic Party.

Don't let me discourage any of you. Please, everyone keep thinking that the reason Democrats lost was because they weren't left enough. Please, please, please be thinking that way during the primaries for '08. Nominate Dean. Nominate Edwards.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:25 pm

It doesn't matter if Kerry is the most liberal Senator in the Democratic Party; what matters is that his campaign was /percieved/ as being too centrist. Perception is more important than reality when dealing with an ignorant voting public.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:37 pm

Perhaps his campaign was percieved that way by lefties. I disagree that's how it was perceived by middle or right-leaning voters, and I don't think anyone's made even a remotely good argument that people with this perception had anything to do with the results of this election, or that assuaging the caseating center of the left will ever win anyone a future election.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:04 pm

Anguirel wrote:We need Dean, damn it.

Ghe.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:40 pm

Marius wrote:You've got a pretty funny look at American politics if you think that John Edwards doesn't terrify conservatives more than Kerry, Dean or Daschle.

Perhaps I do. It's not like I've ever been to America. But when I talk about not terrifying conservatives, I'm talking about the average moderate conservative on the street, not the hardened partisan who'd vote for a Republican candidate who ate babies.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:52 pm

That's who I'm talking about, too. Edwards is a scary, scary politician.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:01 pm

Marius wrote:Perhaps his campaign was percieved that way by lefties.

And right-ees. And centrists. In fact, I encountered a ridiculous number of undecided people who ended up going for Bush because they "couldn't tell the difference" between Kerry and Bush. Not literally, but figuratively.

Bush won by swinging right of center, to pull in all those votes to the far right. I think a democrat can win by swinging left of center, instead of trying to appeal to the conservative centrists. Of course, it's impossible to know until someone tries, but I think without someone to really rally behind - someone who is percieved as more than just "someone who's not Bush" - the Democratic party will continue to stagnate. And lose.

Maybe centrism will work again for the Democrats. Clinton proved that a broad base of appeal - another term for "being wishy-washy," I'm told - can work. Ultimately, it's less about the issue than the candidate.

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:27 pm

I think so. I think that one major problems the democrats had was that their last 2 candidates were boring and un-charismatic people.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:45 pm

And right-ees. And centrists. In fact, I encountered a ridiculous number of undecided people who ended up going for Bush because they "couldn't tell the difference" between Kerry and Bush. Not literally, but figuratively.

For serious, that's so very ignorant. I hate to be a bitch about this, but I can't think of a single election in the past hundred years or so where the candidates were more different than in this one.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:28 pm

I can't think of a single election in the past 100 years during which the populace wasn't ignorant. Television, newspapers, radio, and what it seems to boil down to is what people want to believe, or what they choose to believe.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:30 pm

That should really read, "what the campaigns tell them to believe." And Kerry's campaign told people to believe the things that didn't get him elected.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 6:31 pm

Marius wrote:I hate to be a bitch about this, but I can't think of a single election in the past hundred years or so where the candidates were more different than in this one.

Y'know, you're the first person I've ever heard say anything remotely like this? Somewhere, there's a serious information differential between you and...well, the rest of America.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 10:58 pm

Marius wrote:
Thorn wrote:] Unfortunately, they unified behind a Lite Republican, and so we lost.
And by Lite Republican, you mean Most Liberal (i.e. Un-Republican) Senator in the Democratic Party.

Oh honey, please. Don't forget - I'm from Wisconsin, where we just re-elected Russ "Madman" Feingold to the U.S. Senate. The only Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act, if you'll recall, and co-author of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform legislation (sorry, I can't recall the exact title, and don't have time to look it up).

And considering all the times Kerry has reportedly "flip-flopped" on issues, how could he possibly be the "Most Liberal Senator in the Democratic Party"? If he kept flip-flopping, wouldn't some of those flips or flops be to agree with the Republicans? It's not like there's a third party in there he could have been supporting, so if the "Most Liberal Senator in the Democratic Party" can't decide whether to go left or right at any given moment... well, then aren't all those other Democrats in there just other Republicans? And where is all that other leftie legislation is coming from, then? Especially since, you know, according to the Bush campaign Kerry has hardly been doing jack crap in the senate all this time.

Make up your mind - is he a flip-flopper, or the most liberal senator?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:00 pm

I have to agree with 3278, care to elaborate Marius?

I mean I only know a few hundred voters, but of the few hundred I know most of them felt Kerry was Bush lite. Hell, I even really feel that way. Where is our perceptions deviating from yours?

I'm intrested, because it behooves me to know more. And you can definitely help me with that.

Buzzed · Post by **Buzzed** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:15 pm

[quote="Serious Paul"]I have to agree with Marious. I am not informed enough to really make a claim that this election had two candidates that were more different from eachother then in the past 100 years, but I can say this:

Kerry is in no way shape or form like Bush at all. Find one issue in which they both agree on the same type of strategy.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:18 pm

The day Kerry was described as the "lesser of two evils," I knew the Democrats were fucked. Let's put it in terms everyone can understand:

The Republiacns are Coca-Cola. They've been around, everyone knows what they taste like, everyone knows the brand name, everyone's had a little here and there, and there are a shitload of imitators. Iif you want to have a different drink, you do not choose Pepsi, because Pepsi ain't all that different than Coke, and you definitely do not try to market yourself off as Coke Lite. That's the problem with the Democrats: they wanna be Pepsi, Republicans with a little more sweetner, but nobody plays that shit because Democrats suck worse than Pepsi. If you try to make a drink that'll appeal to Coke drinkers because it tastes a lot like Coke, they'll just go back to drinking Coke.

The idea is to make something totally fucking different, like a Mountain Dew. You can present the puma piss in as many different flavors as you want - red, orange, pitch black, that shitty tasting stuff at Taco Bell - so it'll appeal to a bunch of different people but none of it's ever going to taste like fucking Coke.

Yes, AK's had way too much Red Bull.

ak404 · Post by **ak404** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:21 pm

Buzzed wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:I have to agree with Marious. I am not informed enough to really make a claim that this election had two candidates that were more different from eachother then in the past 100 years, but I can say this:
Kerry is in no way shape or form like Bush at all. Find one issue in which they both agree on the same type of strategy.

Both went for the "moral and religious" vote.

Both went for the "I'm one of the little people, too!" vote despite both men being born into well-off families.

Both went for the "I can be an effective leader against the terrorists" schtick.

Both tried to be more macho than the other, and in the process both attempted to undermine the manly score of the other.

Both tried to prove their opponent was not entirely truthful or dependable.

Neither actually focused on the good they could do without kicking the other guy down.

Neither men did not leave a sour taste in my mouth.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:30 pm

Both wore ties a lot.

Both were taller than 5' 10"

Both had two daughters.

They were clearly exactly the same on all of the issues.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 11:31 pm

ak404 wrote:Both went for the "I can be an effective leader against the terrorists" schtick.

That's a bit cynical. What did you expect them to say? "I'm actually really bad at fighting terrorism"?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 2:05 am

Well they could have been honest and said "We're not used to fighting this style of war, we're still feeling it out, but we have high hopes, the best training and weapons available."

Wounded Ronin · Post by **Wounded Ronin** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:27 am

I think Kerry should have claimed he'd dual wield M60 machineguns from the hip while standing on the roof of a swift boat.

Ratoslov · Post by **Ratoslov** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:38 am

PROTIP: Never take campaign advice from your opponent.

First off, the 2008 election simply will not be as important as the 2004 one, due to the 1 inevitable and 3 possible Supreme court seats opening up. Second, barring constitutional amendments or unconstitutional laws that get upheld anyway, there won't be a incumbant advantage. So it's a relatively easy year. Here's a quick and easy plan.

1. Keep it simple, stupid.
Keep your arguments short and to the point. Don't talk down to your audience, but don't talk over their head either. Clinton won with 'It's the economy, stupid.' Kerry lost because while he had nuanced reasons, it came across as indecisiveness. Sad to say, but the American public has no tolerance for a political view on anything that won't fit on a bumper sticker.

2. Morals.
The Republicans have very carefully placed themselves as having a monopoly on morality and religion in the US. Fix that. You know and I know that the Left has morals too; pontificate on them. Don't be afraid to go to church. People like religious people.
Learn to speak the language of the religious. Use biblical analogies, even if you're pagan.

And whatever you do, don't compromise the values you find most important- social justice, a open society, whatever. Have someone else point this out.

3. The Working Class
My god, you guys suck at this one. Know why the working class votes Republican when the Republicans are the Rape The Working Class party? Because the Republicans know how to speak to them and you don't. This one's two parts, the language and the photo-ops.

Language: Focus on the work ethic. The reds have managed to make people associate corporate welfare and free-market assraping with the work ethic. The Dems know all about the work ethic. Talk about social responsibilities instead of human rights. Example: Instead of an increased minimum wage as 'A right to a living wage', go for 'The responsibility for employers to reward employees for hard work.' Working conditions are about responsibility to employees, not about employee safety. If you get accused of 'Class Warfare', that's a sign you're doing the right thing.

Photo ops: Go bass fishing. Go out and play football with your kids, but only if you know how to play football first. Go to the gym and bulk up off-camera, so you'll look mean and lean for the cameras. Go to a Nascar race, drink a few beers, have a good time. For god's sake don't get behind the wheel of one of those for the picture, but have a look under the hood in the pit.

4. Go for the throat.
Maybe in some golden age, politics was a gentleman's sport, but it's not now. The Republicans will go to any depths to destroy you. Spread rumors. In speeches, make remarks that attack your opponent's strengths. You'll still want to attack their weaknesses *more*, but if you attack their strengths they may be forced to defend them, which makes them look weak in that area. Find any way short of electoral fraud to influence the election.

5. Show some balls.
You are fighting for the future of the country. Act like it. Get Howard Dean to give you lessons if necessary. Or Hillary. The republicans always win on the empty machismo ballot. Don't have empty machisimo, have the real thing. If you're worried about reducing the level of the debate in the country, suck it up. Republican pundits are already calling Liberals traitors, terrorists, and devil-worshippers. As long as you don't actually shoot someone on live TV, you'll be fine. You can raise the level of the discourse all you want when a liberal is in power- not just in the office, but in either the house or the senate too.

6. Teamwork
Building the right team is vitally important. Make sure your VP can deliver at least one whole expected swing-state. Also, choose a VP that compliments you well. Recruit some good speakers to do stump speeches in swing states and swing counties. Not just politicians, either, but actors and musicians. (If you can play a cool instrument, all the better.) Your campaign manager and your office manager must work well together too.

Aaand that's about every bit of advice I can think of.

Ratoslov · Post by **Ratoslov** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:38 am

Edit: accidential double post

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:53 pm

Buzzed wrote:Democrats cannot afford to lose the conservative Democrat vote in the next election if they plan on winning.

I don't agree at all. Why on earth would the dems win by running a conservative candidate, if you want conservatism you vote republican. Plus there probably arn't any conservative democracts, they are called moderates or something like that

You can't win over the opposition by becoming the opposition. In that case they won, you just have to make a better case for yourself and what you believe in.

I think it was more of issues and image. I think Kerry spoke the issues, unfortunatly for him he had a few to many viewpoints on the same issue which became and image problem that the Bush people hammered on for about 6 months or so. That shit sticks after awhile. I have no problem with changing once mind when new information becomes available but doing it to much and it does appear that you are uncertain of your position, but the same time holding on to a position when it has clearly been proven wrong then you are an idiot.

Another "problem" was that Bush was already chosen by more or less default while Kerry first had to fight off the others and had to say things to win that and then he had to explain that later on. Next time both candidates could have that problem. Personally I think if they (the party) where smart they would select just one candidate without the hoople and run with him. That creates stuff that can be used later. If Sharpton or whomever it is wants to run again and loose like always he can run as an independent. The party just choses its "running horse" so to speak and stick with him. Having the party candidates tear into eachother first is not good at all.

In lots of countries you have "shadow governments" etc, no conspiracy theories here please, where the other side has a guy that is their main guy. Then they have people that handle all issues on specific issues for example finance or foreign policy.

The dems are currently some kind of headless horseman.They should pick on "soon" in my mind say within the next year or so and build that candidate up for the next ~3 years instead of just trying to build them up in 1.

Wounded Ronin wrote:Bill Clinton had real charisma. Dubya has real charisma. Gore and Kerry...don't.

Dubya has the charisma of a lamp post. He has that folksy guy "one-of-us" feeling but that ain't charisma as far as I am concerned. On the charisma-o-meter Clinton was lightyears ahead of the pack.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:11 pm

Ratoslav wrote:The same old crap that's been losing Democrats elections for quite a while now.

Yeah. Keep doing that stuff, please.

lorg wrote:I don't agree at all. Why on earth would the dems win by running a conservative candidate, if you want conservatism you vote republican. Plus there probably arn't any conservative democracts, they are called moderates or something like that

You run a conservative candidate because it's a conservative country. Representative democracy and whatnot. There were conservative Democrats. There may even still be a few, but many have left the party because it's marginalized them.

lorg wrote: The party just choses its "running horse" so to speak and stick with him. ...

In lots of countries you have "shadow governments" etc, no conspiracy theories here please, where the other side has a guy that is their main guy. Then they have people that handle all issues on specific issues for example finance or foreign policy.

The dems are currently some kind of headless horseman.They should pick on "soon" in my mind say within the next year or so and build that candidate up for the next ~3 years instead of just trying to build them up in 1.

That's not the way it works around here. It would be good for the Party, but it would sure be bad for all the party members who want a say in who they get to vote for.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:19 pm

Marius wrote:You run a conservative candidate because it's a conservative country. Representative democracy and whatnot. There were conservative Democrats. There may even still be a few, but many have left the party because it's marginalized them.

Only about half the population agrees. More conservative then say Europe yeah sure but I wasn't aware you compared yourself to us. If anything the last couple of elections have shown that it is quite split down the middle between the two sides and that there is a smaller section that moves back and forth depending on various reasons such as various issues and political image.

Marius wrote:That's not the way it works around here. It would be good for the Party, but it would sure be bad for all the party members who want a say in who they get to vote for.

I did not mean to imply that there should be some sort of dictatorical selection of one candidate, just don't have the squabble in the public eye. Certain party people will still choose or "elect" or "nominate" who they want, just keep it out of the news cycle cause it hurts the candidate and then once selected you have to build them up again.

Sure it is not the way it works right now, doesn't mean it would not be beneficial if it was the way it did work. A bit of change now and then is good for you.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:41 pm

If anything the last couple of elections have shown that it is quite split down the middle between the two sides and that there is a smaller section that moves back and forth depending on various reasons such as various issues and political image.

Yeah, the trick being that most of the mobile group, and many of the people habitually voting Democrat are, in many senses, conservative. American politics get funny this way. When an African-American union member votes Democrat, it's not because he isn't a complete conservative. Chances are he is. When a guy like me votes Republican, it's not because I'm not liberal. By most definitions, on most issues I am, quite.

I did not mean to imply that there should be some sort of dictatorical selection of one candidate, just don't have the squabble in the public eye. Certain party people will still choose or "elect" or "nominate" who they want, just keep it out of the news cycle cause it hurts the candidate and then once selected you have to build them up again.

Yeah, I know what you meant. But "certain party people" shouldn't be making the choice. The party members should be chosing, and that is the public, so it has to be in the public eye. That's how parties work here.

Ratoslov · Post by **Ratoslov** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:26 am

Marius wrote:
Ratoslav wrote:The same old crap that's been losing Democrats elections for quite a while now.
Yeah. Keep doing that stuff, please.

Yeah, everyone thinks the Democrats are the party of morality and fiscal responsibility, and they certainly lost the last election due to oversimplifiying their message, pandering to the lower and middle class, and for being overly aggressive in the last election.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:44 am

Marius wrote:Yeah, I know what you meant. But "certain party people" shouldn't be making the choice. The party members should be chosing, and that is the public, so it has to be in the public eye. That's how parties work here.

But isn't it "certain party peoples" that select them now? As in members of the party. There is no reason for non party members to have any say or view in the process or selection is there?

Public does not equal party members. They might vote for the party but that doesn't make them members of the party now does it? Perhaps your system is so different that it actually does, I am not sure but it would be a bit weird if it did.

Anguirel · Post by **Anguirel** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:05 pm

Ok, it's half the public. Remember that you're looking at something like 49% of registered voters being registered republicans and 49% being registered democrats. They get to vote in primaries (which are paid for by the state, I think...), and that makes each primary race an issue of interest to half the population. In addition, the primaries are when the candidates can make and spend money most easily for their campaigns - it's an extra 6 months of advertising. The primary debates are great - an hour or two of free commercial to get your message out that many people watch, for all intents and purposes. They don't really spend 6 months tearing each other down. They spend 6 months explaining their own plans, tearing into each others' plans (and thus improving them in the end) and hammering out what will become the platform for the party. I don't think it should be changed.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:33 pm

Anguirel wrote:They don't really spend 6 months tearing each other down. They spend 6 months explaining their own plans, tearing into each others' plans (and thus improving them in the end) and hammering out what will become the platform for the party. I don't think it should be changed.

They are not exactlly spending six month building up the candidate either, as far as I am concerned. Take the last one for example. Kerry pilled on a lot of the so called flip flopping there to try and get rid of the other candidates so that he would become the winner.

I think the system would benefit if a few party representatives selected the candidate they thought had the best chanses of winning and then present him to the public for six months instead of having a 6-man race for the job. Cause as it is now it is like "Political Survivor" where one of the candidates gets bumbed of the "island" one at the time and we all get to see them pony for position and stab at eachother.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:38 pm

lorg wrote:I think the system would benefit if a few party representatives selected the candidate they thought had the best chanses of winning and then present him to the public for six months instead of having a 6-man race for the job.

So in the end, two teams, each "a few" party representatives, would choose the two men who have any chance of being President. Ultimately, that's saying six people choose the two candidates. That sucks. I much prefer the Primaries.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:25 pm

Public does not equal party members. They might vote for the party but that doesn't make them members of the party now does it? Perhaps your system is so different that it actually does, I am not sure but it would be a bit weird if it did.

Weird, isn't it? Like, we said, the People are going to be the government, and then we actually have political parties comprised of by populace and represented by politicians instead of parties comprised of politicians and supported by populace.

Yeah, it does make them part of the party. Public does equal party members. We (like 50-60% of us) put down our party affiliation when we register to vote. And, in fact, you don't have to be registered Republican to vote in the Republican primary.

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Nov 10, 2004 10:39 pm

3278 wrote:
lorg wrote:I think the system would benefit if a few party representatives selected the candidate they thought had the best chanses of winning and then present him to the public for six months instead of having a 6-man race for the job.
So in the end, two teams, each "a few" party representatives, would choose the two men who have any chance of being President. Ultimately, that's saying six people choose the two candidates. That sucks. I much prefer the Primaries.

It sounds like he's suggesting the way the National Conventions used to be run, except retarded. Honestly, I think we should eliminate the primaries and give the conventions back the responsibility of picking the candidates - it's fairer to the underdogs, what with the idiotic "Iowa/NH Choose!" system we've got now - but that's me.

Guide for Democrats: How to win in 2008

Guide for Democrats: How to win in 2008

Re: Guide for Democrats: How to win in 2008

Re: Guide for Democrats: How to win in 2008