Why it sucks to be a Democrat

[Merlin1047]

Pity poor John Kerry. Did I really say that? You bet. Bear with me just a bit because I have to make a small detour in order to arrive at my point.

This election was the most hotly contested since Kennedy vs Nixon. The Democrats pulled out all the stops. Their voter recruiting drive was the most ambitious I've ever witnessed. They spent money like drunken sailors (no offense NATO). Rich left wingers poured millions upon millions into the campaign in order to defeat George Bush and that turned out to be a very poor investment indeed. Hollywood types lined up for chances to bash the president. The liberal alphabet networks weighed in with their slash and burn tactics - painting a recovering economy as a failure, depicting a successful war in Iraq as a quagmire, dredging up AWOL charges replete with forged documents while doing complimentary fluff pieces about kerry.

The Democratic campaign was a rousing success in every respect except one. Despite the fact that more liberals went to the polls during this election than any of the past six, it wasn't enough. Conservatives came out of the woodwork from all over the country to trump the liberals in all but their most sacred and devoted venues.

It is easy to make the post-mortem pronouncement that the Democratic party did not appeal to or represent the values of mainstream America. That is so painfully obvious that it is practically insulting the intelligence of the electorate to state that fact. So the real question is not why did the Democratic party lose this election, but HOW did it come to place itself in such a position that it found itself rejected by fifty nine million American voters.

Look at the structure of the Democratic party. Unlike Republicans, which are a nominally cohesive and connected group, the Democrats are a crazy-quilt patchwork of conflicting ideologies and single-issue radicals. During this election, the Democratic party was supported by communists, pro-abortion advocates, radical ecologists, aetheist groups, homosexual groups, hispanic groups, black groups, radical feminists, anti-war groups, anti-gun groups, anti-fishing/hunting & PETA groups, socialists, senior citizen groups (AARP), trial lawyers, and vegetarians.

Each group demanding that it's own special interest be placed center-stage in the Democratic party campaign. Each group competing for prominence, often with interests directly in conflict with other groups within the party. So the Democratic party, stuck with all of these special interest groups, tried to cater to them all. The result was that the party's message became muddled and contradictory.

Enter John Kerry, the annointed candidate. Not only is he faced with the daunting task of kissing the butts of the myriad factions of his own party, but he somehow has to balance that with an attempt to appeal to centrist conservatives. It's amazing that kerry didn't have a nervous breakdown during this immense juggling act. The fact that he came through unscathed is indicative that the man has few or no issues which he himself cares about. He and the Democratic party tried to be everything to everyone and the result was that they scared the hell out of conservatives. So it was the Democratic party which was responsible for the turnout of huge numbers of conservatives, not the Republican campaign. Basically, by presenting a scattered message of radicalism, the Democrats were the Republican's best friends. Republicans should send a hearty thank you to George Soros. The millions he poured into the campaign through groups like MoveOn.org probably produced more Republican votes than Democratic.

Is there relief in sight for beleaguered Democrats in the future? Not very likely. A quick look at some of their own leadership reveals a fundamental problem:

(sorry, lost my link)

" Democratic Party (DNC) - After the 2002 elections, Democrats control several key governorships (including PA, MI, IL, VA, NJ, NC and WA) and many state legislatures -- but lost control of the US House in 1994, narrowly lost control of the US Senate again in 2002 (but they still hold enough seats to block much legislation), and lost control of the White House in the 2000 elections. While prominent Democrats run the wide gamut from the near democratic-socialist left (Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich and the Congressional Progressive Caucus) and traditional liberals (Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry) to the center-right (Joe Lieberman, the Congressional Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democrat Network) to the GOP-style conservative right (Charlie Stenholm and Gene Taylor), most fall somewhere into the pragmatic Democratic Leadership Council's "centrist" moderate-to-liberal style (Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle). "

The leadership of the Democratic party is as split as its membership. During this election, Democrats had their universal hatred of George Bush to unite them. What will they use as their lightning rod in the next election when they no longer have George Bush to demonize? What issues will unite them in sufficient numbers to claim the White House?

The sad truth is that Democrats will probably be in a long decline because they cannot present a unified and cohesive message to the electorate. Having constructed itself out of a collage of single-issue radical groups, the Democratic party is now in the quandary of what to do with them. If the party decides to adopt a centrist message more acceptable to the voters, it is likely to alienate most, if not all of the fringe groups which currently comprise the party's base. So while the party will gain centrist support, it will lose the support of the lunatic fringe which currently comprises much of their number. Where will Democrats be if they can no longer rely on sequined Hollywood mouthpieces to shill for them? What will the Democratic party do without the likes of Rather or Moore to run interference for them in the media?

So today's Democratic party resembles a Frankenstein monster, constructed out of bits and pieces of various radical groups, lurching about in total confusion and mouthing utterances incomprehensible to the majority of Americans.

 

[007]

I'm tellin' ya Merlin... you really need an op-ed column in some daily, or an opinion page in a weekend issue of something.

You're good, and not just because I agree with what seems everything you say. I've yet to disagree with you, but even then, you're so articulate and convincing, I'd have to think before I did.

See that's what seperates me from the bullypulits. I "think" when I read something I disagree with, to take a good look at it to see if maybe I'm wrong. I doubt pulit has "thought" about ANYTHING he reads here. He's too busy dredging up whatever radical leftist zealot feed he can from the Devil only knows where.

My conclusion... "intelligent, thinking" people are predominantely conservative. The less than fortunate intellectually are predominately liberal, and letting someone else do their thinking for them is their main fault.

 

[UsaPride]

I'm tellin' ya Merlin... you really need an op-ed column in some daily, or an opinion page in a weekend issue of something.

You're good, and not just because I agree with what seems everything you say. I've yet to disagree with you, but even then, you're so articulate and convincing, I'd have to think before I did.

I agree!!

 

[Merlin1047]

I'm tellin' ya Merlin... you really need an op-ed column in some daily, or an opinion page in a weekend issue of something.

Thank you both for the vote of confidence. The fact is that I have spent much of my professional life writing. The sad part is that all of it has been devoted to student training literature, SOPs and regulations. Not exactly literary stuff. Sometimes you have to be so careful in choosing your words and constructing sentences that it makes me consider :alco: or :duh3: .

 

[nakedemperor]

My conclusion... "intelligent, thinking" people are predominantely conservative. The less than fortunate intellectually are predominately liberal, and letting someone else do their thinking for them is their main fault.

:rotflmao:

Hoooo boy. First time I've teared while I laughed in weeks.. thanks Pale

 

[007]

:rotflmao:

Hoooo boy. First time I've teared while I laughed in weeks.. thanks Pale

Not a problem naked. It's always good when you can laugh at yourself.

 

[musicman]

Merlin:

Add my vote as well! Many's the time I've told Joz, "Merlin's got to be a smart guy - he agrees with me on so many things!" :happy2:

Seriously, I'm glad you're on board!

 

[wolvie20m]

USMB Editoral perhaps.

 

[nakedemperor]

I'd like to question your logic in pronouncing the death of the Democratic party. Your argument makes it sound like America voted Dubya back into office by a wide margine. 3% is not a wide margine. And Johny Kerry "appealed to the values" of 49% of the voting population. A gap of 3.5 million voters certainly sounds like a lot, but historically, its a close race. And its the first presidential popular vote won by the Republicans in 16 years.

This election was won on account of terrorism, not "values".

 

[musicman]

I'd like to question your logic in pronouncing the death of the Democratic party. Your argument makes it sound like America voted Dubya back into office by a wide margine. 3% is not a wide margine. And Johny Kerry "appealed to the values" of 49% of the voting population. A gap of 3.5 million voters certainly sounds like a lot, but historically, its a close race. And its the first presidential popular vote won by the Republicans in 16 years.

This election was won on account of terrorism, not "values".

Of course, it's entirely possible that the threat of terrorism brought people's values into sharper focus.

And, this was also the first presidential election where a candidate got over 50% of the vote in 16 years. That, by itself, says something.

 

[nakedemperor]

Of course, it's entirely possible that the threat of terrorism brought people's values into sharper focus.

A provactive thought...

Although, I'm betting it had more to do with fear than with reassesed values.

 

[musicman]

A provactive thought...

Although, I'm betting it had more to do with fear than with reassesed values.

Not to get too argumentative, but fear can cause people to reassess their values as well.

 

[nakedemperor]

Not to get too argumentative, but fear can cause people to reassess their values as well.

I s'pose.

You know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.

 

[NATO AIR]

it reallly came down to waffles.

kerry waffled every time on terrorism... i'm sure he thinks its a bad thing and needs to be fought, but one day he was for prosecuting it, the next day he was for diminishing it, the next day he was for making it a nuisance, etc etc.

bush was crystal clear EVERY TIME. "DESTROY TERRORISM"

people can appreciate and respect real simple answers to supposedly complex problems. and in this case, bush is 100% right.. "DESTROY TERRORISM" no quarter, no prosecution, DESTROY.

btw, good writing merlin, i don't agree 100% but you did make some damn good points with a whole lot of sense.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I'd like to question your logic in pronouncing the death of the Democratic party. Your argument makes it sound like America voted Dubya back into office by a wide margine. 3% is not a wide margine. And Johny Kerry "appealed to the values" of 49% of the voting population. A gap of 3.5 million voters certainly sounds like a lot, but historically, its a close race. And its the first presidential popular vote won by the Republicans in 16 years.

This election was won on account of terrorism, not "values".

I don't know about the death of the Democratic Party either, but I would say the pulse is getting weak. If the Democrats survive this or not depends on the Democrats themselves. If the faces of the party insist on pushing complaints of voter fraud with lack of evidense, point fingers of blame for the very things they are doing, and refuse to take a solid stand on anything besides "we don't like the other guy", then I would say the life support systems need to be cranked up.

Indeed, this is the first time in 16 years that a Republican has won the popular vote. It's also worth mentioning that since Clinton won each of his elections with less that 50% of the vote, that a Democrat hasn't won a majority vote in 28 years and counting. And it was pretty damn close 28 years ago.

Oh, and I don't think there is really any one thing that we can point to and say that's why the election went the way it did. Terrorism was a big part of it, but I think there were a lot of reasons.

 

[musicman]

I s'pose.

You know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.

LOL! Makes my teeth hurt just thinking about it!

 

[Merlin1047]

I'd like to question your logic in pronouncing the death of the Democratic party. Your argument makes it sound like America voted Dubya back into office by a wide margine. 3% is not a wide margine. And Johny Kerry "appealed to the values" of 49% of the voting population. A gap of 3.5 million voters certainly sounds like a lot, but historically, its a close race. And its the first presidential popular vote won by the Republicans in 16 years.

This election was won on account of terrorism, not "values".

Ahem. . . . :read:

I don't believe that I was sounding the death knell of the Democrats. I suggested that the party is at the beginning of a period of "decline". My rationale for that was the party's inability to reconcile the varied demands of its collection of splinter groups with the concerns and values of middle America.

In regard to the election - yes, percentage wise you could construe that it was close. But you have to look beyond that. The fact is that the energy and money which the Democratic party dedicated to their get out the vote campaign as well as their efforts to sign up new voters was monumental. As a result of their efforts, the Democratic party garnered 55,949,407 votes. They achieved an increase of nearly ten percent (9.7) over the 2000 election numbers. Anyone would have to admit that those are indeed impressive numbers.

The Republican party on the other hand is saddled with conservative voters who by and large tend to be far less passionate about the issues and therefore less inclined to vote. Given average voter turnout for the Republicans, the Democrats should have won this race in a walk. In their first Bush-hating festival in 2000, Democrats produced 50,996,116 votes to the Republican's 50,456,169. Keep in mind that a great many conservatives were pretty passionate during that election. We had witnessed eight years of Clinton and were faced with the prospect of Clinton's "Little Me" becoming president. With these numbers in mind, consider the conservative turnout this year - 59,459,765. That's a 17.8 percent increase in voters pulling the Bush lever. I don't care how you slice it, that is nothing short of phenomenal especially in light of the constant vitriolic castigation of the President by the Democrats.

So you have to look beyond the simple comparison of this year's numbers in order to appreciate their true significance. It is one thing to win or lose the normal election. It is quite another to lose after having produced the absolute maximum effort which one is capable. The Democrats produced such a massive effort. In fairness, it was effective. An increase in voter turnout of nearly ten percent should have given the Democrats an easy victory. The final percentages should have been Democrats 53% vs Republicans 47% if you compare this year's Democrat turnout to the number of Republican votes in the 2000 election. So the Republicans overcame what should have been a six percentage point deficit and trampled the Democrats with a three percent victory. That's a NINE percent turn-around. To me, that's pretty impressive.

As far as your assertion that this election was about security and not about values, I have nothing to offer but my opinion. I believe that this election hinged on a collection of value issues such as John Kerry's lack of character, abortion, religion, moral values - including homosexual marriage. I believe that it also hinged on the perception of many voters that George Bush had the character to pursue the war on terror and to resolutely defend this nation and that John Kerry was lacking.

I have not been able to locate a poll which would serve to address my point. I hope that someone will conduct one soon. The Democrats should sponsor such a poll because they are in desperate need of taking an accounting of themselves to determine why they were so soundly rejected by the electorate.

 

[no1tovote4]

I s'pose.

You know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.

I tend to think that at least half of those that voted on "values" voted for Kerry. To believe that only Republicans can think they have all the morals is simply ridiculous, the Dems can be just as self-righteous. Many of those that voted for Kerry believed they were doing the right thing by their moral values, just as many that voted Bush did.

Only 1 in 5 say that that was the most important thing in the voting, it seems that it is more likely Terrorism and the Economy that created the vote as it turned out. That and the Republicans new get out the vote philosophy that the Democrats still don't give them credit for. Simply they got more people out to vote for them than an angry and motivated Democratic Party drive did. I am impressed Republicans! You did a fantastic job getting people to the polls.

 

[NATO AIR]

merlin the party's been in decline since the 80's.

there was not a single democrat who could have done 1/10th of what reagan did in the 80's. its sad, but hell, my parents have turned into independents (used to be republicans) lately, but they even say that.. back in the 80's, the democrats sucked. in the 90's they sold out their beliefs to get clinton and the white house. in 2000-2004, they've got some good folks but they're nominating the wrong people and taking twenty two stands on an issue instead of one.

 

[ChrisH]

A provactive thought...

Although, I'm betting it had more to do with fear than with reassesed values.

I think values did play a role in President Bush's win, but I do not think it was the sole reason, as some say, that he won re-election. I also do not think that values simply means abortion, gay marriage, etc. I think people looked at Bush's leadership skills, etc., and viewed those as values as well. I think abortion and gay marriage were some of the values, but certainly not the whole picture.

Something (as a principle or quality): This is one of the definitions of values. Notice the words principle and quality. What qualities, or what values does President Bush have? He is a strong leader, decisive, etc. I believe this in some cases is what people meant by values. BUT, I do believe that values as far as abortion and gay marriage, etc., were a part of it in many's minds as well. I still believe that Democrats have to adopt more of a values theme into their party and come more toward the middle if they are to have success after this.