About Incredible Shrinking Democratic Party Page 3
|November 10th, 2010||#21|
| || |
"My center is giving way, my right is in retreat situation excellent. I shall attack." -Foch
I am from NYC. I fly a French flag because I work in Paris.
Last edited by mmarsh; November 10th, 2010 at 16:35..
|November 10th, 2010||#22|
| || |
Cyclical majority ....... info
I disagree with the premise as delineated by your subject line.
I do NOT believe the Democratic party is REALLY shrinking. Democrats (historically speaking), have included voters, who for personal reasons, have been known to at times split their ticket ..... namely, splitting their ticket because a certain candidate is more in line philosophically with the voter's beliefs or because they are upset with the Democrats that presently hold office. Polls have indicated that fewer Republicans have done so.
This election was no exception. Many Democrats are disenchanted with Obama's policies and stance on a host of issues (including the Health Care Bill). On top of that, many voters are upset that Obama (and his administration), have fallen short of keeping the promises that elevated him to the people's choice for President of the United States.
While the vote was overwhelmingly lopsided and Republican, the Democratic Party is NOT dead. Politics are cyclical in nature .. and .. Democrats will in the future, again be the majority party.
|November 10th, 2010||#23|
| || |
And I will say that Obama did make some mistakes that contributed to people staying away or voting Republican: For example
1. They didn't sell the healthcare Act. They let the GOP spin machine blow it out of proportions without even trying to defend it. As Herman Goering once said "the bigger the lie the more people will believe it". And Obama inexplicably decided not to confront the liars.
2. Obama nominated a very pro-Wall Street economic team at a time where Wall Street was a popular as stomach flu. These people namely Geitner and Summers told Obama if he fixed Wall Street (and didnt punish it for their role in the economic catastrophy) it would in turn fix Main Street by proxy.
Well, Wall Street got fixed as is in recovery, but unemployment stayed at 10%. So the public saw bankers get richer and their neighbors houses in foreclosure and it made people very angry. Democratic voters (who tend to be Middle Class) saw this as a betrayal, favoring the rich over the middle class is supposed to be a GOP strategy.
3. And lastly was the message. Theres a saying in DC that I feel is 100% true: "The GOP is terrified of its base, the Democrats hate their base". Several White House Staffers (Emmanual and Gibbs) got caught bashing their own base in public. Its one thing to ignore the people who got you elected, but to public insult them because they criticize your elections is just stupid.
Its this that what cost the Democrats the last election, not a repudiation of Democratic principals as some people would like us to believe.
|November 10th, 2010||#24|
| || |
"Now do you what to have a real conversation on the Democratic Party or do you want to keep pussyfooting around?" mmarsh
It might have been interesting to have a discussion. To bad you refused your own suggestion.
Your refusal to discuss the Democratic Party, after making the above statement, indicates who the Troll really is.
Your ignoring of the problems Democrats are facing with the voters may give a real time example of why they are having problems. They are doing the same thing. They are not coming out and addressing the issues, they are not offering solutions, they are just whining about and are more worried about what the Republicans are doing.
In short they are "pussyfooting around".
That would explain a lot about why the Democratic Party is shrinking.
"Geographically, Democrats were largely pushed out of states where the party believed it had made lasting inroads, such as Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. The result is a national electoral map that more closely resembles that of the early 2000s, with the Democrats by and large confined to the East and West coasts, with the GOP dominating the heartland and the South." LA Times
Neither the article nor I indicated a belief that the Democratic Party was dead. What the article does indicate is that the Democrats were losing votes form women and younger voters which traditionally have been strong areas for them. While the Republicans made gains, I don't think it was a lopsided election.
mmarsh whiny attitude may very well mirror what voters see in the Democratic Party. Voters are tired of finger pointing and the fact that the Democrats accomplished little economically in the last two years even though they controlled the Congress, Senate and the Presidency.
|November 11th, 2010||#25|
| || |
Still arguing sentence semantics I see, it obviously saves you from discussing the topic as per usual. Perhaps you think I care about such nonsense? I don't. Which is why I didn't even read what you wrote, your not a conservative, your're just boring. I am smart enough not to get dragged into stupid arguments made by very childish people.
Suffice it to say and I this is has been echoed by mostly everyone, except for yourself because you don't want to admit its true. The Democratic party really isn't shrinking, elections are cyclical in nature, in 2012 it could be the GOP that is on the receiving end of an electoral drubbing, especially if there is a schism between the establishment and its more radical elements. This single election is too small a sampling to determine what the political mood is or will be. This election was anti-establishment vote, not a anti-democrat one. So Enjoy your victory, but don't think you can draw any long term conclusions about how small the democrat party is going to be...
Last edited by mmarsh; November 11th, 2010 at 10:31..
|November 11th, 2010||#26|
| || |
A viewpoint from a European info
To me the problem with backing the Republican Party or the Democratic Party in the hope to fix the state of the Republic is just like fighting cancer with cancer. Would you go to a doctor who tells you that the only way to fight off a deadly cancer is with another, less lethal form of cancer, as a way to divert from the original problem? I think the same metaphor can be used to explain the current politics in the US.
As I see it, there really is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Politicians from both sides have been called out on corruption, driven up the national debt, and have passed laws limiting American's freedom. I think that the only way to stop the current pattern of constantly switching sides in hope of a better government is for the average American to stop buying into the two-party system. To stop buying into the notion of voting for the better of two evils, instead of voting for whom truly represents the voter's ideals.
There are more than two political parties in the US. Why not do some research on politicians running for office in all parties and affiliations to find out who best suits you. There are more than two choices on the ballot, or at least there should be.
|November 11th, 2010||#27|
| || |
|November 11th, 2010||#28|
| || |
"Still arguing sentence semantics I see,".......
"Which is why I didn't even read what you wrote" quote mmarsh
I will leave it to others to assess your credibility. If you didn't read what I wrote, why was your first comment about what I wrote?
Just merrily trolling along.
|November 12th, 2010||#29|
| || |
Don't you worry about my relationship with others. I have been here 5 years everyone here knows me, whether they agree with me or not. I can stand on my reputation. Can you say the same? You would be surprised, how many people here REALLY don't like you. Lets just say that if you ever were banned here..nobody is going to be rushing to your defense. You remember that the next time you piss off a moderator.
As for trolling: I learned from a master didn't I? Though even I will admit that I doubt I could reach your level of being an assh*** even if I had the desire.
|November 12th, 2010||#30|
| || |
Changing the color on a map, doesn't mean there isn't a political presence of the other party still left in a state. It DOESN'T represent a shrinking of the party either. All it really represents, is the fact that there was at least one more vote for one party than for the other.
Parties wax and wain based upon what this election cycle's pet issues are. One election, the Republicans better represent America's issues and concerns, and the next election the Democrats do. As I said in my other post, politics is cyclical ... this years 'in' party, is out of power next election cycle, and then it goes round and round and round ad-infinitum.
Need I remind you of where the Republicans were the last time they got their bums waxed. Independents and Republicans crossed over, to vote the Democrats into power ... this time around, Independents and some Democrats crossed over to give the Republicans back the House.
IT DOESN'T REPRESENT ANYTHING MORE THAN IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS TURN THIS PART OF THE POLITICAL CYCLE, TO HAVE A MAJORITY ... NOTHING MORE, AND NOTHING LESS.
|No party able to command majority in UK elections|
|China plans to invade US!|
|My new political party.|
|Iraqi party seeks international prisoner abuse probe|
|Sunni party attacked|