I mentioned this on another thread, but a big problem is how the media define the Heartland as the repository of all good values, and the coasts as the heart of decadence. They allow the GOPs to define moral values in a way that makes people on the left defend favoring work over wealth, or defend civil rights for women and minorities. It's one thing to favor the death penalty. But if you're gonna favor it, it's IMmoral to not also support giving defendants all the resources necessary, and sanctioning prosecuting attorneys who break the rules. Howcome THAT isn't a moral issue?
And you have to realize that starting your question off by calling people "loons" removes most of your target audience. Did I say any of those other issues were not important? Did I say that? Let me ask you something. Do you vote for a candidate based entirely on performance? Or does your assessment of whether that candidate represents what you believe to be the values that would guide you play a role? Many voters feel that it is important that the leader of a country reflect their values because they believe those values will guide future actions. NEWSFLASH: Sometimes it matters how you say things as much as what you say.
just hilarious, thanks i needed a laugh today ok you simply don't get it at all - i'm saying that these things are NOWHERE near as important as things like war and terrorism and the low and middle class base of our society i mean... are you trying to avoid the damn question? should gay marriage even be mentioned in the same conversation with the war in iraq? ps- i will share my view on religion shaping policy: it is the stupidest, most offensive, most selfish fvcking thing i have ever heard of... not to mention, we have now waged at least one war based on fighting exactly that - for crying out loud, isn't that one of the main reasons the pilgrims came here in the first place? wasn't it the whole idea behind the birth of our government? right, whatever... well at least you didn't try to belittle me for what i believe boohoohoo
wrong... i asked what kind of loon would you have to be to place "moral issues" ahead of something like war? is this difficult to admit or something? shoudl this even be a discussion? how is the relative unimportance of of how people about feel about having gay people married compared to something like war lost on you? oh dear lord, i give up thanks, i love the song of the intellectually underdeveloped
Did you even read my post? I never said that moral values are the most important to me. I said it is irrelevant, if it is important to the voter, then it should be important to the candidate. Period. I actually agree with you on this, all I am saying is that by belittling others for what they think is important rather than addressing their issues you alienate them.
I judge a person's values by their actions. Declaring yourself to be brave, honest and compassionate doesn't mean a lot if your actions don't reflect that. Mostly, this is the case when you're talking to people who can't (or won't) understand what you're saying.
Precisely!! And those values reflected in their actions are very important to the way you view the candidate. If their actions are reflective of your values, then you are more likely to vote for them. Not really. If you start off the conversation by offending someone, do you really expect them to listen to you. Put in another context, do you start out a date on your "best behavior" or do you just "let it all hang out". How about a job interview?
The Dems can't write off entire huge and growing regions of the country and expect to have any success as a national party. The strategy of getting the northeast and Pacific coast and then trying to grind out enough votes around the Great Lakes has failed twice now. There's no room for error with that strategy, and every campaign will have error. It will be even more difficult after the 2010 census.
i think you have this backwards, my friend - why is it a solution for the candidates to drop down to the level of the populace? how about if the voters just have better judgement? and as for these people who vote on a moral values platform... be careful what you wish for - people can now find every conceivable way to seperate themselves from others; race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, sports affiliation, city affiliation, neighborhood affiliation blah blah blah - before too long... they will find something about you that is "morally unacceptable" and you'll quickly become one of "them"
Did you mean if the candidates have better judgement? If so, what you are talking about is the conundrum of getting elected. You have to simultaneously convet that you have better ideas and should lead, while showing the electorate that you are one of them and, in Bill Clinton's words, that you "share their pain". I haven't "wished" for anything. All I have said is that one cannot dismiss what the electorate feels is important if one wants to be elected.
The dems were reasonably competitive in states like Colo, Ariz & Nev to think they could come up w/ a strategy for winning there. These states are growing like gangbusters. Also, states like Virginia, Tenn, Ark - and Florida were pretty close. After all, Bush got less than 300 EVs.
Here's a clue for you: These people wer'e talking about hate the fact that someone could undergo a medical procedure and not view at as "murdering a baby," or that they may have a long-term relationship with someone of the same sex and not be racked with guilt. So, rather than pursuing a traditional Republican position of small-government not interfering with private lives of people, these Republicans who vote against their economic interests work really hard to make sure that people who might consider terminating a pregnancy or committing to a long-term same-sex relationship don't enjoy their lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness.
i wasn't aiming that comment at you "and as for these people who vote on a moral values platform... "
Hey, I'm all for fairness and the like, but can you really say that Kerry didn't tell people what they wanted to hear? He had so many positions on so many issues that I think he just confused the hell out of people.
I wonder if Michael Moore is already working on a spin for yesterday to put in his next movie? Fact is, the Democrats blew a great chance to boot a prez that wasn't that popular. Their candatate wasn't great and the campagn sucked. They didn't reach enough people and the end result was that Kerry did worse than Gore and the GOP have more seats in Congress. The Democrats have a lot of work to do the next 4 years.
That pisses me off quite immensely. We had a president with a poor approval rating, an unpopular war and an economy in the pooper. And Kerry underperforms Gore? The Democrats are worthless.
Edwards concession speech is a disgrace. The Dems expect Bush to be concilatory, but all Howdy Doody can drone on about is "fighting" for a laundry list of stereotypes.
I am very suprised that the "MTV Generation" didn't swing the vote in Kerry's favor. Hell, P-Diddy and Choose or Lose did everything but take people into the polls and pull the handle for them. I guess all those kids were too blazed to get out of the dorm room.
I think we have to stop pointing the finger at the Democrats, which I am not. I think we need to look at the ignorant people who will vote for Bush no matter who is running against him. That is the problem. And it won't be solved in the next 30 to 40 years to come. Because the people in the south will never vote for someone who is not their kind.
Reagan was from California. Not exactly their "Kind." Damn, whats the world coming to when people vote for who they think would best represent their interests in government. Representative democracy...what the hell were our founding fathers thinking.
It may not be as difficult as you think. A lot of the population increase in the south and southwest is coming from the north. Also, Virginia, Arkansas and Missouri - states that were supposed to be solidly red - turned out a lot closer than many thought they would be.