You know, I've been thinking...Follow

If the Democratic party really wanted to win back voters from the Republicans, couldn't they try something really unusual and just be... completely straight-up with the American people? I mean, the biggest problem the Democrats have is that the Republicans have somehow managed to successfully paint themselves as the "moral" party. The Democrats suffer from a reputation for voting on "immoral" policies such as gay marriage and abortion, etc. So even though voting Republican isn't in the best interests of the majority of voters, they still stole a lot of votes this last go around. We all know that.

What I was thinking is, if I were in charge of the Democratic party, I'd give them a face-lift. I'd make it standard party practice to avoid dubious campaigning tricks like mudslinging, manipulating the truth/spindoctoring, or making election promises that aren't intended to be kept. I'd table the really controversial stuff like gay marriage rights for a few years, until the party got back on its feet. And I'd promote like hell. Have a totally new, fresh look for the party. I'd probably get in some advertising consultants, PR people, etc. Make sure that the American people see that the Democratic party is totally changing and won't be the same party it's always been. The left really needs to get its act together and turn a totally new, dynamic face towards the people. They need to come off as the honest, straight-forward, young working-class party again. But they need to do it with a purpose in mind. They need to really work to distance themselves from the right in some way. If they were to really work at being the honest, no-mud-slinging party, I think that would go a long way towards winning back their voters and then some.

Shame I'm not in charge of the Democratic party...

I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT! I have to at least try!

Good Lord. Now I'm going to have to see Gbaji's 22 page thesis on his pop psychoanalysis of the Democratic Party.

Of course, I'll skip over it upon seeing it, but still...

Americans like to cling to religion. I think that subconsciously some Red-State voters believe that if they vote Republican, they're supporting God and they'll score some points with St. Peter at the pearly gates.

Democrats need to rely less on celebrity endorsements and get some stronger candidates that voters are attracted to, like Slick Willy. Clinton was a strong advocate for the military, which attracted some Republican voters.

I don't think it really matters whether or not the democratic politians get a "face lift", majority counts. In this case, the stupid people always win.

Lets face it, if you don't sleep with your sister, fly a rebel flag, **** goats and go to church religously then are you really American. (bad joke)


Really though, what is a good book to read that is relatively easy to understand politics?

Edited, Thu Feb 10 19:21:16 2005 by Mlynn

See, shows ya how much I know! I thought a president could run 3 times. I know nothing about politics and that is horrible on my part. I really need to educate myself!

I do have a question though, and I am sorry if it is stupid...

but

Why do Democrats and Republicans despise each other, aren't we all suppose to be for the same hopes, dreams of a "free" country? Politics are so hard. I don't get it.

Edited, Thu Feb 10 19:19:02 2005 by Mlynn

All we need is for the Republicans to field a wimpy candidate. Apparently, America hates wimps above all else.

You do realize that this is all that encompasses American politics in general, right? Both parties did their fair share this election year.
Your grasp of the concepts of conservativism (if that's not a word already, it should be) are faint and frightening. I'm basically agnostic, yet I still agree with most of what the Republican party has been saying in recent years.

Except for the whole gay-marriage thing. Let 'em have civil unions, but trying to change over 2000 years of Christian practice is a futile effort.
First of all, the majority doesn't always count (Al Gore).

Secondly, thope "stupid people" are the voting public. I'm sick and fu[/i]cking tired of every whiney liberal (read: sissy) I see ******** about Middle America. Maybe you're the ones that just don't get it. To most folks in the "Bible Belt", you're the stupid one that just can't understand. People have different opinions, learn to deal with it or shut the f[i]uck up.

On second though, learn to deal with it, then shut the fu[i][/i]ck up.

Twiztid

I don't know if I'd call those positions truly right-wing either though, the far right-winger would want a powerful state with strict regulation of private weapons ownership. Go far enough left or right on the circle and its fascism, but libertarians seem pretty contrary to a fascist position.

Shine on, you crazy diamond...

I'd say I'm closest to being Libertarian. I define it as, do whatever you want, but don't expect me to bail your *** out. I don't like the idea of paying taxes to support your mistakes, but I certainly think you should be free to make them.

It's this kind of thinking that's getting the Dems in trouble though. Sure. "some Red-State voters" certainly believe that. But those aren't the swing voters that will make a difference between a Dem or a Rep win in a national election.

It's that kind of thinking that leads to Mlynn's statements catagorizing all those who vote Republican as backwards hicks who are too stupid to know better.

That's the exact kind of thinking and talk that pushes those moderate swing votes away from the Democratic party. That's exactly what they *shouldn't* be doing.



It's not just the strength of the candidates. It's in what way they are "strong". The problem is that many of the power players in the Democratic party today think that "strong" means a candidate that is a hard-core to the left on issues as possible. But due to the inherent divisiveness of the cause-based core of the Democratic party, those who are ultra-strong in that sense tend to get weeded out in the primary process. What's left is someone like Kerry who can appear to meet the needs of each group to their satisfaction while also appearing to not cater too much to groups they don't agree with (not every gay-rights person is a treehugger, not all treehuggers are pro-labor, and not all pro-labor people are pro-gay-rights). But that kind of wishywashiness does not fly with the swing voters, with predictable results.


Yeah. I'm going off on a diatribe here, but the Dems need more then a face-lift. They need to figure out what issues they *really* care about and that they can get most people (not just people who are already on the bandwagon) to see as important. Then they need to focus on those things. They need to stop spending so much time trying to convince the public that something is a problem that needs to be fixed, and spend more time fixing problems that the public already sees as a problem and already wants a fix for. That'll get them votes.

I dunno dems and pubbies in the states are both pretty shifty but every single libertarian that i have had the displeasure to talk to has usually been a self absorbed d[i][/i]ick.

No offense Pensive it just happens to be the truth in my experience

It is a shame that the mid level politicians like governors and House of representive members have managed to convice a majority of Americans that helping your fellow man/woman is a bad thing.


Democrats need to stand up and ask when did the republicans decide that Roosevelt, Nixon, and even Reagan were wrong on social causes. Each of these three iconic Republican presidents not only maintained social programs but expanded them to help the common man.

Democrats need to show that when you help people they tend to commit less crime and move into a part of society where they begin to contribute.

As far as Republicans being the moral party goes, I tend to think this is just another bit of political crap. The Republicans have as many scandles as anyone, in fact they change the rules to make sure the scandles to effect thier favored people.