Pilosi for House Minority Leader?

[Bruzilla]

This election just keeps getting better and better!!! With Dick Gephardt bailing out of the House Minority Leader position, Rep Nancy Pilosi (D-CA) is the front runner to take his spot. Pilosi, one of the most liberal Dems in the Congress and fearless kool aid drinker for Bill Clinton heading the Dems in Congress. Could it possible get any better for the Republicans in 2004?

Add to this the fact that Al Gore is the front runner for President, followed by Sen John Kerry up in Massachusetts, and I see Bush winning in 2004 without breaking a sweat. The Dems are beginning to actually believe that by swinging far to the left they can win big in 2004, and I think all Republicans should do everything possible to keep them believing that.

 

[demsformd]

I have to disagree with you but it still is too early to make a prediction concerning President Bush's reelection chances. Rep. Gephardt stepped down so he could focus on a national election. And as for the assertion that going to the left will harm the party, I have to disagree. Too many of the national Democrats lost because they did not take a position on the issues. We said worry about the economy and how harsh it was. Yet we did not offer a solution to the problem because we feared that it would cause a conflict with Bush. Clinton offered a liberal plan for the economy in 1992 and he won by a landslide. We could have this week but the national party did not capitalize on the economy. I saw a poll that said that over 70% of people rated the economy as poor yet we could not kick the controlling party out of power. If Carville was here, it would have never happened.
As for the Dems, I see John Edwards from North Carolina as the most electable candidate. Southern roots and moderate to liberal positions make him favorable to most of the party. Plus I am certain that with total control of the government, the Republicans will construe their victories as a mandate for extreme conservative policies. This could be but I think that having control of the Senate hurts Bush more than it helps.

 

[vraiblonde]

As far as the Dems needing to get back to their hippie liberal roots - do you realize that not one single TRUE right-winger was elected on Tuesday? Sure, the Dems CALLED them right-wingers and extremists but not one of them were. The voting records do not lie - politicians do.

Those old stereotypes don't play anymore. The Republican party moved more to the center and took over not only the Senate, but the People's Republic of Maryland as well. Tom Daschle and Terry McAuliffe scared the voting public right into the arms of the Republicans. Maybe if those kids in Congress would have passed a few judicial nominations, this wouldn't have happened. 22% of registered Democrats voted for Ehrlich, if that tells you anything.

So sure, I think the answer for the Dems is to go more liberal - the further the better. In fact, I think you all should run Jesse Jackson or Barbara Boxer in 2004. Or get Hillary in there! Or maybe Maxine Waters!

 

[Tonio]

vrai, I'm for both parties moving closer to the center. Anything that undercuts the extremists is a good thing.

So I'm rooting for Martin Frost as House Democratic leader instead of Pelosi. Centrists are more interested in debate based on substance and rationality.

Say what you want about Clinton and Gore, but even most Republicans admit that these two are more centrist than, say, Maxine Waters.

Part of the Democrats' problem is that American blacks are bitterly divided over the issue of affirmative action. That's why you see blacks like J.C. Watts in the GOP.

If I were Frost, I would look for a "third way" approach to the issue, one that is more than just lip service to the idea of equal opportunity. A good start might be college admission programs like the one in Texas, which guarantees admission to the top 10 percent of each high-school class. Much better than quotas.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Bruzilla
... The Dems are beginning to actually believe that by swinging far to the left they can win big in 2004, and I think all Republicans should do everything possible to keep them believing that.

Nothing like having America's enemies learning the wrong lessons from the event.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
... So sure, I think the answer for the Dems is to go more liberal - the further the better. In fact, I think you all should run Jesse Jackson or Barbara Boxer in 2004. Or get Hillary in there! Or maybe Maxine Waters!

I'm hoping for Bagdad Bonior to make a comeback!

 

[Bruzilla]

I have to disagree with you but it still is too early to make a prediction concerning President Bush's reelection chances. Rep. Gephardt stepped down so he could focus on a national election. demsformd... sorry for waiting so long to reply to your post, but I just couldn't stop laughing. "Clinton offered a liberal plan for the economy in 1992 and he won by a landslide?" Oh man that is funny! Let me explain something to you... Ronald Reagan won by a landslide twice. George Bush Sr. won by close to a landslide. Clinton couldn't even get 40 percent of the vote, and if not for Ross Perot Clinton would have been unemployed in Arkansas in 1992.

I know that you Dems will never realize this, but you lost because your ideas don't relate to most Americans, so please move even further to the left. Please push the stops as far as they will go. That'll lock in your 30 percent base, but will also do wonders to energize the Republican base and the Independents to vote for the Republicans.

I agree with you that John Edwards from North Carolina is your best shot for 2004, but I would bet he gets pushed aside in favor of Kerry or Gore, especially if the far left in the Democratic party takes over. Go Kerry in 2004!!!!

I am hoping that before 2004 people realize that the Democratic party is the party of people who are takers, and that the Republicans are the party of the real working people. People in most Dem strongholds take tax dollars, they don't generate them.

 

[Flo]

I just read that Pilosi won...
Though it is kind of hilarious, as the Dems haven't learned from November 5th...

 

[Bruzilla]

Of course they've learned Flo... they've learned that only by pushing the most far left agenda they have can they possibly take back power in 2004. I highly encourage them to pursue these goals to the maximum extent possible. It is indeed a brilliant strategy.

They should do that and let the Republicans stumble around like fumble-bums for the next two years trying to make the independent and moderate voters happy. What a waste of effort that will be! The Dems will be able to win with their winning issues of gun bans, crushing the drug and oil companies, and showing terrorist dictators that we CAN all get along, while those silly Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to be centrist to avoid being labeled as too extreme.

The joke sure will be on us Republicans come 2004. Go Nancy Go!!!

 

[demsformd]

In my original post, I meant that the Dems should have been more liberal in this mid-term election. Mid-term elections are all about the parties' bases due to the lower turnouts compared to the presidential elections. If we could appease our base more, turnout could have been higher and we could have won. I think a better word for liberal here is stronger anyway. We were weak, the candidates did not believe in what they were saying. Instead of presenting no message, we should have presented a stronger one. But this is all just Monday morning quarterbacking so oh well...
Clinton won 43% of the vote in 1992 and over 360 electoral votes. In 1996 he got 49.1% in a three way race and carried 371 electoral votes. In 2000 George W. Bush lost the popular vote in a three-way race between Gore and a liberal spoiler who took votes from Gore. I think the statistics show that the Democrats are little more favored on the national level. Clinton had job-approval ratings in the 60s when he left anyway. He would have won in 1992 if Perot was out of the race anyway because Perot's supporters favored Clinton more than Bush.
In 2004 we need a moderate candidate like Edwards. Its too bad that that Californian woman is gonna win, definitely not the image the party needs right now. Frost was good but so was Harold Ford, a black congressman with moderate credentials and a fresh face. I just hope that Steny can keep the party straight.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by demsformd
He would have won in 1992 if Perot was out of the race anyway because Perot's supporters favored Clinton more than Bush.

You're kidding - do you remember what party Perot was before he dropped from the race, and then re-entered? Perot was even more conservative than Bush - he was the Republican spoiler in the same vein as Nader was in 2000.

It always gets me when people talk about the 'popular' presidential vote - it does not exist. Maybe people don't like the electoral college, but we have a representative form of national election, just as we have representatives in Congress. You don't elect a president by 'popular' vote anymore than a Senator or Representative's vote gets weighted by the size of their constituency - each Senator or Rep gets one vote, regardless of the population of who they represent, just as electors do. There's no 'popular' vote, it's an illusion. If no one wins enough electors to win the Presidency, there's a whole process. Can you imagine if the election had gone to the Congress, for a vote? It'd have gone to Bush, because Republicans controlled both houses then - would that have been fair? Of course it would - it is what is called for, by law. UN-fair would have been ignoring the rule of law.

 

[Larry Gude]

Thank you Frank!

Dems, Perot got out of the race with a small lead, Clinton second and Bush dead, back 10 plus points, which was the goal.

Perot got back in when Bush pulled even because almost all of his support went to, obviously, Bush. Somewhere in all this black helicopters showed up at Ross' place.

Then, with two weeks to go Bush had a small lead over Clinton even with Ross back in and then Lawrence Walsh released his bombshell, the infamous "unindicted co-conspirator" report about Bush vis a vis Iran/Contra.

Viola, Clinton wins.

Gotta get the history right to make a valid point.

 

[Duke]

I think it was inevitable.

The war just dominated everything. Even though people say they are more concerned about the economy, that doesn't mean they don't think the repubs can't fix it. And they were not going to vote against a "wartime" president.

 

[vraiblonde]

Hi Maynard! Curious what you think about the direction of the Democratic party - should they go more liberal or toward the center? I couldn't find where we're having the conversation so if you already responded to it, ignore this and I'll find you there.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by demsformd
In my original post, I meant that the Dems should have been more liberal in this mid-term election. Mid-term elections are all about the parties' bases due to the lower turnouts compared to the presidential elections. If we could appease our base more, turnout could have been higher and we could have won.

Densford, you're right that the Democrats need Frost or Ford. But what do you mean by the party's "base"?

 

[MGKrebs]

Hey Vrai.

I have no idea what the dems should do. I'm still shell shocked. I am certainly more liberal than most of America, and probably even mainstream dems. So in principle, I think they should go more left. If we are talking about winning elections, however, I'm lost. No clue.

 

[demsformd]

The party's base is the liberal groups that everyone here love to hate. This base is politically active and will always turnout in a mid-term election, but this year we didn't offer anything thus they did not actively attempt to turnout the votes. Come on, the Republicans had a better turnout than us. Our party is known to be much better at turning out the votes than the GOP. It was a bad tactical year for our party. But as James Carville said on Crossfire a couple nights ago, "Just like my beloved Tigers who won on a last-minute hail mary, Democrats don't give up, we still have a chance." And that we do, we just need to take advantage of our opportunities. We are about to squander one when that fricken liberal from California is elected leader. Oh, we need to get back on the right track...Clinton without the scandals where are you?

 

[Heretic]

I think an excellent canidate for the democrats in 2004 would be Rockefeller from WV. I have met him on a few occasions, yea he isn't a charmer like Clinton was but I think he could appeal to the public if he got some press.

How some of these nuts (on either side) get elected to anything is beyond me.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Heretic
How some of these nuts (on either side) get elected to anything is beyond me.

Easy answer, Heretic. The extremists are also the most vocal activists. I believe it's a personality issue, a craving for attention. So the extremists intimidate the centrist wings of their parties into silence. Their whole strategy is to manipulate people through fear, which I feel is immoral.

This is why you don't hear much GOP criticism of groups like the American Family Association, because less extreme Reps are afraid of being labeled anti-family or pro-homosexual (whatever the hell that means). It's why the more mainstream feminists don't criticize nutcases like Andrea Dworkin, who is clearly nuturing some colossal grievance against some man and is taking it out on the entire male gender. It's why Democrats (with the occasional exception of Bill Clinton) are silent about the racial ambulance-chasing of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

 

[Bruzilla]

I've been watching a lot of the post-election analysis, and it looks like the theory that minorities didn't come out and support the Dems like they usually do was wrong. Minority participation was just about where it usually is in most races. What was different was that more GOP and Independent voters went out and voted.

I noticed that Pilosi is already trying to smack down any competition to her throne. She sounds like another KKT... say that you're all for bringing people together and developing concensus views, then trash anyone that disagrees with you.

Once again... Go Nancy Go!