Re: The Democratic party must CHANGE, Moore-types must be abandoned. You've just given 50% of the explanation of why Kerry lost this campaign.
Re: The Democratic party must CHANGE, Moore-types must be abandoned. The other 50% being windsurfing. I mean, I don't think the party could've nominated a worse candidate. Then again, why the hell did they have so many to start with, and why the infighting during the primaries? Actually, the other 50% is more Terry McAuliffe being a douchebag than Kerry's windsurfing.
Re: The Democratic party must CHANGE, Moore-types must be abandoned. Actually we aren't disagreeing at all. I said Christianity in GOVERNMENT is under attack and it is. Chistianity in the general population is growing as you stated. And that is where the Republicans have outsmarted the Democrats. Reps took advantage of that better than Dems. In the third debate it was an issue that Bush won handily. When Kerry said he was a Catholic, he quickly added it wouldn't affect his decision-making. Bush has boldly said he makes his religion a part of his daily life. Americans looked at the two and said, "if your religion ISN'T a part of your daily life, what good is it?" Another point for Republicans. Here again is an area where Dems have missed the boat. They call Bush a stupid, religious zealot and Karl Rove says he is a man of character and conviction. Bush then stands up and says, "you may not agree with my decisions but you will always know where I stand." Point Republicans. It should be easier for Dems to see but they just don't seem to want to do it. Too bad.
To respond to the thread title, I say the democratic party should never and must not apologize fighting for the justice and for the disadvantage. They just need to refine their tactics in fighting with these dark forces that will rule America the next four years in the congress and in the local level.
Re: The Democratic party must CHANGE, Moore-types must be abandoned. And it should be. It was never supposed to be there at all, and most of it that's under attack - the like "under God" part of the pledge - was added very recently. Again, just because Democrats believe that religion doesn't have a place in government doesn't mean they believe that it doesn't have a place in society. And when the media let the GOP skate when they distribute flyers in West Virginia claiming that Kerry was going to ban the Bible... well, the Democrats have already lost.
The American people were not ready to hear or believe that we're losing in Iraq and we're losing the war on terror. Gay marriage didn't help, but there was no difference between the two candidates, except for Bush's support of a Consitutional amendment. There was a serious difference in foreign policy. But people wanted to hear happy talk. So they voted for Abu Ghraib. That was the Democratic message that was rejected. When Reeps are talking about mandates and moral values, they're putting wallpaper on an anthill.
This is reality-based view of Bush. We reailty-based people are confused because Bush's statements don't match the world we see, and they are contradictory. That is why we don't understand the Bush voter and cannot believe that anyone with two synapses would vote for him. I don't know why I didn't see it until yesterday, given the hundreds of prols I heard speak about how wonderful Bush is in the media and the many "Rapture Ready" boards I visit to make fun of, but now I think I understand. The Bush voter is the star of a story. They are taking part in their very own personal "Left Behind" by Tim LaHay as translated by George Bush. Think about every movie thriller you have seen. Isn't there a point about 3/4 of the way in where the hero loses all his friends because they are convinced that the hero is crazy? That is why no one cares that "Old Europe" is against us - it make sense as part of the story. The story bad guy is a shadowy inscrutible foriegner, inhumanly inteligent, clever, rich and, of course, meaninglessly evil. When we reality-based people don't see him that way, we are accused of discounting the threat (or even of secretly wanting him to succeed). Is there any doubt that Bush will remain popular longer if Bin Laden is never caught than if he is? No matter how powerful or many the believers become, they will always be the persecuted minority because that is an attractive part of the story. Every Bush speech is designed to make people see the plot. And it is easy for his supporters to see it and live it because it isn't really that different than the normal religious life they lead. After all, isn't Biblical living also living inside a story, where eventually Satan will lose and everything is going to end just peachy? Reality is just a triviality to them, as long as they are living in the story, while it is the alpha and omega of the secularist. If Shahrazad Bush can last 4 years keeping the story going, the Democrats still won't beat him. If at some point they see the yellow grid lines poking through, however, look out.
1) It's easy for Democrats to say "It's only a few points," but it's not anywhere near that easy. Bush got 51 percent of the vote. How many times has the Democratic candidate achieved that figure since WWII? Once, in 1964. Throw in the minimal post-Watergate majority in 1976, and that's the sum total of their majorities. With a roaring economy in 1996, Clinton still couldn't convince a majority of voters that he was the best candidate. 2) By pursuing a big-city, metro area strategy, the Democratic party is becoming a regional party that holds power only in the states with mega-cities. The biggest problem with this strategy is that it really hurts in the Senate. It obviously leaves you with fewer seats, but it also gives Republican presidents extra votes on high-proflie issues, because of the fear of getting Thuned.If I were a Democrat, I would be at least as worried about this. 3) Assuming that the MoveOns of the world equal their Republican equivalents assumes an equal acceptability in the American public. Given the dominance of Republicans in public office, I think that's a questionable proposition, at least for now. 4) A huge problem is that Karl Rove just fulfilled his Mark Hanna fantasy. By courting the values crowd, he's essentially carved out of an uncertain political climate a plausible ruling coalition that could continue for a couple of decades. I'm not saying it will, because it's still not a huge colaition and it's still in its infancy, but the Republicans now have a repeatable winning strategy, which is a lot more than the Dems can say. In the future, Democratic presidential candidates will have to choose between embracing some of the values agenda and its secular base. It will require a lot of talent in a democratic nominee to overcome. 5) Dems need to look at Barak Obama. He's positive, understands the power of American myths, and knows how to couch left-ish policies in values-oriented language. That's going to work a lot better than John Edwards running around doing his best Huey Long impersonation. 6) "You're a moron, but please vote for us" isn't a winning strategy. 7) As far as pursuing the middle vs. the left ..... I don't know. Should you try to get along with the age or wait for your time to come.? I'd have to be clairvoyant to know that.
Comparing "strong 3rd party" races with "no strong 3rd party" races is pointless. It's like saying the Carolina Panthers have a better offense than Arsenal because they score more points. Plus, I could point out that except for 1984 and 1972, the GOPs haven't topped 53% since Eisenhower. It's the nature of the beast. OK, and by doing the opposite, the GOPs are, well, doing the opposite. Take away the illegal voter purges of 2000, and the Dems are, right now, celebrating a 4 election winning streak based on those metro areas. One of the Dems' biggest problems is that because the media are biased against them, they don't harp on the fact that the GOPs, too, are a regional party. Bush never had to defend the fact that he was gonna get creamed in big states. The Dems do NOT have a mountain to climb. It's barely a hill. They have to climb that small hill, AND make Tom DeLay the face of the Republican party in the Northeast and Southwest. The big problem with your analysis is contained in the word "dominance." The Dems' big problem is that they keep losing the close ones. Both for president and for Senate (damn, when we gonna catch a break there?!?!) One great thing the Dems could do is start making people like Chris Shays and Olympia Snowe answer for Tom DeLay and the new guy from Oklahoma. There are a big enough number of anomalous GOPs in the House and, especially, the senate, to turn things around for the Dems. But on top of it all, the Dems have to get 2% of GOP voters to switch sides. It ain't easy, but THAT'S the size of the challenge. Only if you believe that incoming (young) voters are as homophobic as outgoing (dying) voters. That's obviously not the case. The demographic trends wrt gay rights are HORRIBLE for the GOPs. There's a reason Kerry was so popular with the youth. Well, two reasons, Iraq, and homophobia. Maybe. But, again, Kerry and Nader combined for 49% of the vote. Which is better for the Dems, to embrace gay bashing, or to try to woo those among the 51% who are amenable enough to the Dems' other values, and against gaybashing? To me, it's the latter. What the hell is the point of the Dems promoting homophobia? Remember Reagan in '84? He ran an amazingly issueless campaign, and won a smashing victory. But even as big as his win was, he had little mandate, cuz he didn't run on anything. Plus, let's face it, if the Dems move right on gay rights, the media will find a new "reasonable" position to the right, allowing the GOPs to move even further right. And to carry on from my last point above, the Dems have to get more pro-active about conservative media bias. If people who rated security as a top issue, AND believed certain Bush lies about Iraq, had voted for Kerry, Kerry would have crushed Bush. THAT would have been a real mandate. I've made this point elsewhere, but it's one thing if people don't understand some nuance in the tax code, or don't understand their 10th most important issue. But when people have as #1 or #2 a particular issue and are ignorant (NOT stupid or dumb, IGNORANT) about the issue, that shouldn't happen.
But the democrats must persaude themselves that they DO have a mountain to climb. That's why Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc are very successful: they apparently still genuinely believe they are besieged by the liberal media and portray their fight as an eternal struggle against the liberal "elites".