1.The Democratic Party is lost. Instead of having clear,concise ideas and standing by them, they ran this campaign by reaction, with the Republicans setting the playing field as far as issues go. 2.The Dems stronghold issues of Social Security, Healthcare and the Economy are complex and difficult for many Americans to grasp. Republicans meanwhile, represent the more black and white issues like abortion, guns and tax cuts. Most Republicans will vote on anyone of these issues alone. 3. 9-11. The TV pundits are kissing president bubblehead's butt and giving him credit for this victory when all he has really done on the campaign trail is play the terrorist card by beating the war drums and waving the "bloody shirt". Take away 9-11, this president with his right wing agenda would today have an approval rating in the 40's.
Bruce Arena said "We'll most likely put 11 guys out on the field and see how that works." He was pulling Portugal's leg, of course. Trouble is, the Democrats seemed to have adopted that as a campaign strategy. Mr. Acorn hits the upper 90 on his first point: The Democrats really failed to come up with some clear, appealing ideas for the voters that set them aside from the Republicans. And it's not like the Democrats didn't have a target-rich opportunity, either. Frankly, the Democrats really need to learn how to do political battle. Instead of recoiling everytime the Republicans go boo hoo hoo, they need to wake up in the morning wondering "How can we make the GOP even madder at us today?" Hey, that attitude worked for Newt Gingrich.
This is absolutely true. And the Republicnas did well with picking off their issues and cornering them. This race is the end of Terrry McAuliffe and will dim the influence of Bill Clinton. One of the real turning points was the Minnesota memorial service, which put on full display the "Politics Over Humanity" approach of the Democrats in recent years. Expect Daschle and Gephardt to seep aside, the party to lurch left, and more decline. [QUOTE} .The Dems stronghold issues of Social Security, Healthcare and the Economy are complex and difficult for many Americans to grasp. Republicans meanwhile, represent the more black and white issues like abortion, guns and tax cuts. Most Republicans will vote on anyone of these issues alone. [/QUOTE] That doesn't stop them from playing mediscare tactics I don't think the Democratic senior voters of Florida who have problems figuring out the butterfly ballots are voting based on their complex understanding of the Social Security and Medicare issue.In fact though, I don't think these are difficult issues to understand, and the Democratic approach, let's throw more money down the hole without addressing the underlying problems, is not particularly novel. And I don't know when the Democrats became the sole party of the Economy.I would argue that the public has a much better grasp of the economy than they used to. It used to be that the president got blamed for short-term economic downturns that were largely out the president's control. That hasn't happened to this Bush the way that it happened to his father. 3. Ah, you stumbled upon one of the biggest problems for the Democrats -- their continuing underestimation of President Bush. I don't know how many times he's going to keep kicking your butt before you start respecting his political skill. Call him a moron if you want, but he's had his way with the Democrats over and over again. A better politician than Bill Clinton, because he brings votes for all his friends too. IF you all want to continue to underestimate him, that's fine. But you'll lose. Some other observations: 1) I am a newspaper reporter in Georgia, and it was a bloodbath down here. Chambliss everyone could believe, but Sonny Perdue? Does the man have a full set of teeth? I'm not sure.Unreal. After listening to the results in several precincts I walked over to the Republican county commission chairman and said "It's a bloodbath." Everytime there was a He just nodded his head. Don't be surprised if Zell Miller sticks his finger in the wind and switches parties. 2) I'm a native Texan, and what happened to Ron Kirk? What happened to all this "rising minority political tide" in the Lone Star State? The Democrats offered an incredibly able politican, and he got trounced. 3) What happened in Florida? Jeb Bush was supposed to be in trouble. Guess not. 4) What is the deal with Minnesota? Hand-counting? Is it any surprise that one of the most socialistic states in the country is still hand-counting the ballots? Are they still collectivizing agriculture, too?
Great...the GOP now controls the House, the Senate, and the White House. A sad day for people with brains. I don't get it. I just don't get it.
Maybe you actually use your brain you would get it The bottom lines: 1. Dems are leaderless 2. W is an able politician, and elections are not an IQ test. If Dems learned their lessons and the economy is not turning around, in two years the table may be completely turned. For now, it's humble pie time for the Dems.
The Republicans won because the Democrates have to many like you in the party. Richie (Life Long Democrate)
Whatever your views on him and his policies, Dubya does have a pretty clear and straight-forward agenda, and seems to be able to lead the Republicans. As far as I know, there is no clear leader of the Democrats, and they have not got a real agenda other than 'Dubya sucks'. To base a campaign on reaction rather than action is giving the opponent the chance to set the pace. And it also sounds like you have a similar situation to here in Britain, as the Republicans control all the branches of government and can do what they like.
I'm a registered Democrat, have been since the age of 18, and I am disgusted by the modern Democratic party. The main reason we lost the Senate and are actually worse of in the House: The horrifying, disgusting, demeaning political rally in Minnesota that trampled the memory of one of the greatest liberal senators in the history of Congress, Paul Wellstone. That display, in which the Democrats booed Trent Lott, unintived Dick Cheney (Wellstone's boss, in his role as President of the Senate), and acted so badly that a former PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER was so disgusted he had to leave caused a lot of backlash, not just in Minnesota but around the country. The Democratic "leadership" has no one to blame but themselves for losing the Senate and House. They are completely out of touch with the majority of the American populace, and on part of their former base of voters, poor or lower middle class whites, have jumped ship and joined the Republicans. The Democrats will win nothing in the future with their current leadership. They couldn't even get a KENNEDY elected in Marlyand, a state where there hasn't been a Republican governor since Spiro Agnew!
It's quite simple. Up here in Michigan, Granholm (D) ran a positive campaign, while Postumous (R) ran a very negative campaign. That usually doesn't sit well with most people. And although I don't agree with all of her ideals, mainly because I'm a Republican, I thought that she had more vision for the governor's seat. She ran on her strong points and didn't bash her opponent. But I couldn't turn the TV on without seeing another negative add about her. And that really helped solidify my vote. And I didn't think I was turning on my party. I much rather have someone compentant that I don't agree with completely, than someone who isn't ready to take the reigns. I hope she proves me right. But apparently, she was a rarity this election. Besides her, I pretty much voted Republican for every other position. If Democrats want my vote, then start earning it, don't demand it or feel entitled to it just because I sit in a lower tax bracket. Republicans are not the party of rich white men that the Democrats seem to trumpet every chance they get. I'm just a working class schmoe like most everyone on these boards.
9/11 9/11 9/11 We're in the middle of a national crisis, a "War on Terror" against "evil-doers." Bush cleverly has kept this alive with the Iraq campaign, and the Democrats couldn't make the economy a more important issue. I also tend to think, just from personal experience, that the country IS and has been for a while shifting to a more conservative agenda. Since Nixon won in 68, we have really only had 1 term of a traditional Democrat in office. Clinton was from the conservative wing of the Democrat party, and at times was indistinguishable from moderate Republicans. My vague sense is that this is largely a result of the impact of the mass media on politics; I think the conservative message is more "soundbite friendly." For instance, "LOW TAXES" is always going to win out over "well, we need to have program X and program Y to solve these pressing issues..."
We can agree, the Democrats are lost; however, you lack understanding if you believe the Democrats issues are Social Security, Healthcare and the Economy, their issues are instilling fear into the elderly, the uneducated, and the poor, while attempting to gain control of America to turn it into a complete Socialist State with themselves in power. You have no idea what President Bush's approval rating would be if it were not for 9-11 - so stop spreading your ridiculous rumors.
Re: Re: Why the Repubicans won I love all of this Democratic whining. Why did you lose? This whining attitude. The American people are sick of it. Your constant name calling. The American people are sick of it. Democrats gaining control of the Senate via a party switch. You think the American people liked that? Blatant Democratic gerrymandering cost the Democrats in Georgia where they should have been able to win. The Democrats have to begin to respect the American voter or they will continue to have looses like yesterday. A victory in a by-election by the party in power is rare in the last century. Now that it has happened, the Democrats need a wakeup call. Will they answer the bell? I hope not.
Re: Re: Re: Why the Repubicans won Given the scope of the catastrophe, there has been very little whining.
Re: Re: Re: Why the Repubicans won Hmmm, pot kettle black here I believe. I'm not a Democrat, nor Republican, as I have an interest in politics. The Republicans had the trump card of flag waving nationalism, and the prospect of kicking foreign ass somewhere. It worked for Thatcher in 1983. Still, if you think the Democrats are in a bad position, look at the Conservative party in Britain.
When I ask people why they vote Republican, I get 3 answers: 1- "I'm pro-life." 2- "I'm a hunter and the Dems want to take away my guns." 3- "My taxes are too high." Yes, there are Republicans out there who have a position on all issues, but I seldom hear it... As for "president bubblehead"? Sorry, I don't like him, I don't trust him....never have, never will. That may be blasphemy to some of you, but that's how i feel.... I believe this "election coup" was more the work of Karl Rove. The president was the spokesman who carried it to the public. He is a good salesman and I'll give him credit for that.... Flip back to August of 2001 and if you remember, the president's approval ratings were marginal at best. That fall was shaping up to be real interesting in Washington as all parties were set to go to battle over the social agenda of this country. But 9-11 changed everything..... Even though the Republican's won the day, the slom margin of victoryin many races indicates that this country is still philosophically divided. It hardly mandates the agenda of the far right which Bush seems to favor.... It will be interesting to see if the Dems in the Senate use the fillibuster the way the Republicans did when the Dems controlled all 3 branches of gov't in Clinton's first 2 years. Of course, for the Dems to do this, they better grow some balls real quickly.
Re: Re: Why the Repubicans won Fixed your post. As anybody in the know can tell you, Bush has never made a campaign decision in his life.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Repubicans won Yes, I will agree that Karl Rove appears to have picked the right person.
Re: Re: Why the Repubicans won I know that in East Texas, Kirk's numbers went down when his television ads began to run. Turns out a lot of people didn't realize he was black.
Democrats have to stop being nicer Republicans and actually stand for something. It's a big part of the reason why I couldn't vote for Gore in '00. Georgia excepted, it wasn't the "bloodbath" that some are saying this morning. It's just that (a) things were so close going in that any shift feels seismic, and (b) the party that controls the White House usually loses mid-term seats and the GOP didn't. (Well, they did in the governorships, but most governor jobs aren't exactly desirable positions nowadays, what with the massive state deficits.) What happened in Minnesota: A tight race with Wellstone carried over to Mondale, and apparently just enough people thought that the Wellstone death rally was in bad taste that they either stayed home or voted for Coleman. What happened in Missouri: Carnahan barely scraped by in '00, and she had never campaigned before in her life. Talent was and is a very skilled campaigner. What happened in Georgia? I haven't a clue. Someone needs to look at turnout. Chambliss is the one person who I think doesn't deserve to be there -- using soft-on-defense attack ads against a Vietman vet and triple amputee from war wounds is way, way below the belt IMO. Most of the governorships that surprisingly went/stayed Republican had more to do with who was running than a national GOP agenda. Glendenning is terribly unpopular in Maryland and Townsend was stuck with him. The state Dems in Massachusetts are a mess, despite Kerry's 80+% win for the Senate. Florida was a stretch for the Democrats to begin with. Everything else in the Senate, and 90+% of the House, was status quo. But just like in '94 when voter turnout was at an all-time low, the media is jumping on this as a major shift in the way that the country thinks. But in '96, Clinton was still able to get re-elected and the Dems made back some (not all) of the losses from two years before. I'm not convinced that the country is really more Republican as much as they don't see a real difference between the Republicans and Democrats, and they wanted local stability.