Did you hear Geraldine Ferraro?
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
sleuth, you and I have talked in real life. I have told you face to face I am a Principle Computer Systems Analyst and I do not like or use Microsoft anything if at all possible. I don't have to keep looking out for all the retards sending viruses and spyware. I do system administration on Microjunk stuff, so I do know how to capture a screen and edit it if I choose to use a Microjunk OS computer system; I do not unless there is absolutely no other way to accomplish the task. Either you didn't pay attention or you didn't remember. No harm, no foul.sleuth said:Just tryin' to help... my bad. :shrug:
Toxick
Splat
rraley said:
The only issue I have with you (or, at least the only thing I will address at the moment) is here.
Perhaps I'm being pedandic, but Gun control is not middle.
Gun control is and always will be a leftist agenda.
From way over there on the right or left sides of the aisle, the perspective of the middle, and of the opposite wing are constantly a little distorted ... this distortion is why Fox News is perceived to be right-wing, and gun control is perceived to be middle.
While most opinion polls show the assault rifle ban receives majority support does not mean it's not a leftist cause.
There was an overwhelming ban on gay marriages in the recent election. It is still a right-wing cause, don't you agree?
Mainstream and popular is not always Centrist.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
I don't know about RR, but I'm about ready to write off the Democratic party. There was a time that they were a true national party, but they've been continually limiting themselves since the 1970s. This may have been a good decision back then, but they have failed to recognize the corners they have been painting themselves into.
Look at the core of the party: Minorities, Women Libbers, Union People, Teachers, Gays, Anti-Gun folks, Abortionists, and Tree Huggers. Now, look what's happened over the past 30 or so years:
1. Countless predictions of environmental disaster have come and gone, and without merit. The Tree Huggers are more and more being seen as Chicken Littles. And ELF doesn't help things either with all the echo-terrorism.
2. Teachers - Ask any parent about the credibility that schools, teachers, and administrations have... about as much as Pat Buchanon.
3. Union People - They watched as Bill Clinton sold them down the river, and they've been losing their luster with the Gen X employees. They pushed hard for Dick Gephardt, and look where he ended up.
4. Abortionists - I think they had a good thing going, but fighting for partial-birth abortions cost them more than they know.
5. Gays - Most folks don't support the lifestyle and never will. They're content to deal with the reality, but when you opt to toss it in their faces, they're going to toss it right back.
6. Minorities and Women Libbers - Every year it gets harder and harder to make the case that blacks and women are downtrodden masses who need protection. In fact, more and more we're finding that these people are tired of being labeled as a victim class. They've made it in the World, and thy expect others to make it themselves, which is a double-whammy. Less people on the Government dole, and who are now paying taxes to support that dole, is bad news for the Dems.
7. Gun Control Types - Just can't get past that dang 2nd Ammendment, and hopefully never will. Meanwhile, crime rates continue to decline despite the increasing availability of guns.
So... the Democratic Party is comprised primarily of groups that are losing more and more credibility every day, and is becoming more exclusionary every day. They demean anyone who fits one of the above profiles yet votes Republican, while the Republicans are falling all over themselves to bring more people into their party. I hate to say that Carville is right, but the Dems might be out of it if they don't start waking up and realizing that they are more and more falling out of touch with the American populace.
Look at the core of the party: Minorities, Women Libbers, Union People, Teachers, Gays, Anti-Gun folks, Abortionists, and Tree Huggers. Now, look what's happened over the past 30 or so years:
1. Countless predictions of environmental disaster have come and gone, and without merit. The Tree Huggers are more and more being seen as Chicken Littles. And ELF doesn't help things either with all the echo-terrorism.
2. Teachers - Ask any parent about the credibility that schools, teachers, and administrations have... about as much as Pat Buchanon.
3. Union People - They watched as Bill Clinton sold them down the river, and they've been losing their luster with the Gen X employees. They pushed hard for Dick Gephardt, and look where he ended up.
4. Abortionists - I think they had a good thing going, but fighting for partial-birth abortions cost them more than they know.
5. Gays - Most folks don't support the lifestyle and never will. They're content to deal with the reality, but when you opt to toss it in their faces, they're going to toss it right back.
6. Minorities and Women Libbers - Every year it gets harder and harder to make the case that blacks and women are downtrodden masses who need protection. In fact, more and more we're finding that these people are tired of being labeled as a victim class. They've made it in the World, and thy expect others to make it themselves, which is a double-whammy. Less people on the Government dole, and who are now paying taxes to support that dole, is bad news for the Dems.
7. Gun Control Types - Just can't get past that dang 2nd Ammendment, and hopefully never will. Meanwhile, crime rates continue to decline despite the increasing availability of guns.
So... the Democratic Party is comprised primarily of groups that are losing more and more credibility every day, and is becoming more exclusionary every day. They demean anyone who fits one of the above profiles yet votes Republican, while the Republicans are falling all over themselves to bring more people into their party. I hate to say that Carville is right, but the Dems might be out of it if they don't start waking up and realizing that they are more and more falling out of touch with the American populace.
Bruzilla said:
Look, the Democratic Party is in a rough spot after ONE election; we cannot be spelling demise after we lose to a president during wartime. The Democrats always come back...give it time. It took the GOP 40 years to recover after the New Deal.
But I agree, the party needs change and I would like to spell it out in a long, extended post on another thread, but I have not gotten around to it.
As for the assertion that the Democratic Party is no longer a "national party," let us consider this...the Democratic Party did lose in every state south of the Mason Dixon line (except for Maryland), but there are opportunities in the South for Democratic presidential candidates to win (Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, Virginia, Tennessee) if we nominate a person who is not a Massachusetts liberal. Now, while the Republicans are saying that the Democratic Party is no longer national because we lose these states, they fail to realize that themselves they lost every state north of the Mason-Dixon line and on the West Coast. Would they then, by this logic, no longer be a "national party?"
I bring this point up to say that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are everywhere in this nation, but they do better among different segments of the electorate. Republicans do well with the people who go to church weekly, Democrats do well with the people who go to church less regularly. Democrats do well with people who grew up in the North, Republicans do well with people who grew up in the South. Just because different parts of the electorate vote for you does not mean that your party is no longer a "national party."
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Bzzzt...
...wrong answer.
The influx to robust Southern States is FROM other states, including people from 'blue' states and from immigrants. The old South was strongly Democratic and, frankly, racist. Their children are not and their new populations are not.
Simply put, Democrats do well now in cities, period, not in the north as a whole.
Check population trends.
Three bad posts.
...wrong answer.
The influx to robust Southern States is FROM other states, including people from 'blue' states and from immigrants. The old South was strongly Democratic and, frankly, racist. Their children are not and their new populations are not.
Simply put, Democrats do well now in cities, period, not in the north as a whole.
Check population trends.
Three bad posts.
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
Been meaning to post this; I read/saw a few days ago that the DNC is considering Howard Dean as the successor to Terry McAuliffe as it's chairman. I thought "right, that's gonna happen, NOT!"
I'd heard in rumors that McAuliffe was in fact going to be ousted, but nothing as yet(?) has happened, that I know of.
However, I did see a clip on MSNBC this morning that Howard Dean is being seriously looked at for Chairman of the DNC.
Wow, are they of sane mind?
I'd heard in rumors that McAuliffe was in fact going to be ousted, but nothing as yet(?) has happened, that I know of.
However, I did see a clip on MSNBC this morning that Howard Dean is being seriously looked at for Chairman of the DNC.
Wow, are they of sane mind?
They are moving further left. They think it will energize their base. I hope they keep it up.Penn said:
Penn
Dancing Up A Storm
I would have to re-term that as "hard left", in the case of Howard Dean!2ndAmendment said:They are moving further left. They think it will energize their base. I hope they keep it up.
Didn't these people watch the Democratic Primaries??
Also, if what I read is correct, Terry McAuliffes' srtength was that had the ability to raise lots of hard cash(Uh, got to be careful how I put that!)
Howard Dean was not so adept at money-raising, as I recall, no?
Dean's strength was in use of the Internet. He raised much of his money from contributions at his web site as I remember it.Penn said: