PDA

View Full Version : I heard it said on 'progressive' radio that 'there was no Democratic leadership'


Volcana
Nov 4th, 2004, 03:35 AM
By this, they meant politically.

I would not necessarily disagree with this.

What Democrat politician in American is eligible to be president who can command the Black vote?

What Democrat politician in American is eligible to be president who can command the Latino vote?

What Democrat politician in American is eligible to be president who can command the labor vote?

What Democrat politician in American is eligible to be president who ever speaks about poverty?

What Democrat politician in American is eligible to be president who can command the women's vote?

What Democrat politician in American is eligible to be president who can command the Jewish vote?

What Democrat politician in American is eligible to be president who can command the youth vote?

It used to be that the leadership of the Democrats could unify that diverse constituency.

Who's gonna do that now? Who could?

Hillary?

I'd vote for her in a second, but unless Bush makes a complete and total hash of his second term, terrifying 90% of America, could she be elected?

Edwards will run again. Dean might. Any of those names seem ready to unify the party?

Barak Obama isn't going to be ready to start a Presidential run in two years, much less take over the party.

The 'Liberal vs New Democrat vs Progressive' split in the Democratic party hasn't been healed.

Who's the leader of the Democratic Party?

tenn_ace
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:44 AM
Clinton wasn't at the top of the party or well-know politician 12 years ago when he won the White house for the first time, so, I think, Obama is the best candidate. He won't have a lot of "bad" baggage like Kerry did, he is articulate, has charisma.

Edwards was a huge dissapointment IMO. He'd better not to run.

I'd love Hillary to become a president, but that's just utopia. She will never be elected a president IMO.

vogus
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:54 AM
Clinton wasn't at the top of the party or well-know politician 12 years ago when he won the White house for the first time, so, I think, Obama is the best candidate. He won't have a lot of "bad" baggage like Kerry did, he is articulate, has charisma.

Edwards was a huge dissapointment IMO. He'd better not to run.

I'd love Hillary to become a president, but that's just utopia. She will never be elected a president IMO.

i agree about Edwards, he was not really impressive, and i think Howard Dean is finished as a presidential contender. But you are selling Hillary short - like a lot of people youre discounting her because she's a woman. With the right campaign, she could win a big percentage of white women's crossover Republican votes.

Obama needs to prove himself more, maybe in 8 or 12 years he could be a Democratic nominee. Hillary has the inside edge right now though, if she wants it.

ys
Nov 4th, 2004, 06:28 AM
Realistically? No Hillary and no Obama.. The last election showed, in pure mathematical terms that to win Democrats must win some of White/Christian/Conservative states who now represent a popular majority. You won't have a slightest chance in the world to win over a conservative voter with a woman or an African-American in next few decades.

It could be Kerry again. It could be Gore again. That is possible. I hope it is not Edwards..

Circe
Nov 4th, 2004, 07:07 AM
to hope that hillary will win cross-over votes from white republican women is being overly optimistic. they probably fear her even more than their male counterparts.

as for obama...to carry an entire country? just not happening.

in the end it comes down to mathematics and the repubs have a huge headstart in terms of safe states. unless some of the mid-western states start going blue, democrats start with the huge handicap of having to win almost all the battleground states while repubs can get away with capturing a few of the big ones like Florida and Ohio. at the moment it seems more likely, if anything that coastal states will go red than heartland states going blue.

dean? maybe - at least he has a constituency.
gore? i dunno, usually you lose an election and youre finished.
but i think it'll take more than the "great leader". the party seems to be disorganized and lacking grassroots support.

Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 07:22 AM
He has to be charming and come from the South ;)

ys
Nov 4th, 2004, 07:24 AM
He has to be charming and come from the South ;)
Like Bush?

Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 07:28 AM
Like Bush?
:rolleyes:

Who were the last two Democratic presidents, and where did they come from?

~ The Leopard ~
Nov 4th, 2004, 07:56 AM
On a trivial note, I constantly get confused by this business of the more right-wing party called "red" and the more left-wing party "blue". I have to stop and think each time. Who dreamed that up? :scratch:

Brian Stewart
Nov 4th, 2004, 08:44 AM
I think the red and blue designations simply arose from consolidation of electoral maps. One network would have Republican states red and Democratic states blue, and the next would be vice versa. Very confusing for channel hoppers. "Wait a minute, I thought so-and-so won that state???" They just agreed on uniform presentation.

As for Democrats winning Southern states, I don't necessarily agree that it's a lost cause. I think the problem for them is, many of them do. Which is why they don't spend much time campaigning there.

There are two important elements which make a voter support a candidate: agreement with his/her stance on the issues (or at least the ones deemed most important) and comfort with the candidate. The first involves getting your message to the voters. Charles Schumer underscored this on the Daily Show. He said the Dems' stances on social issues still were in line with the vast majority of Americans, but they did a poor job of communicating it.

Which brings us back to the North/South thing, and the general Southern mistrust of "Yankees". It's much easier to hate an abstract. If all Southerners know of Northerners is the stereotype, and a perceived lack of respect, they are not likely to vote for them, or even listen to them. Prospective Democratic Presidential candidates have to make Southerners comfortable with them. They need to spend a lot of time in these Southern states, not just talking to people, but talking with people. Explain not just what you're going to do, but why, and listen respectfully to their concerns.

I wouldn't write off any states as being out of reach. USA Today printed electoral maps of every election since 1972. Did you know that the entire west coast used to be red? Clinton turned it all blue. And Reagan, the father of modern conservatism, captured most of the NE blue states.

Hagar
Nov 4th, 2004, 10:23 AM
I think the Democrats can also win votes in the South by setting up local networks. If they have good people in the local communities who can communicate the Democratic message, it might help.

I also thought that Kerry should not have done such a big effort for Florida. I mean, that state has Jeb Bush as a governor. Maybe he should have concentrated on some of the southern states with less electors.

Sam L
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:45 AM
He has to be charming and come from the South ;)
No I agree with you there.

I think John Edwards is the answer but we'll see.

Sam L
Nov 4th, 2004, 11:46 AM
Realistically? No Hillary and no Obama.. The last election showed, in pure mathematical terms that to win Democrats must win some of White/Christian/Conservative states who now represent a popular majority. You won't have a slightest chance in the world to win over a conservative voter with a woman or an African-American in next few decades.

It could be Kerry again. It could be Gore again. That is possible. I hope it is not Edwards..
You're right, but why not Edwards?

tenn_ace
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:11 PM
Edwards couldn't even help to win his own state this election. just useless.

flyingmachine
Nov 4th, 2004, 02:47 PM
On a trivial note, I constantly get confused by this business of the more right-wing party called "red" and the more left-wing party "blue". I have to stop and think each time. Who dreamed that up? :scratch:
Leopard : Left wing is most died in the States only has the middle and the right. It's very different from European politics. Well in terms of varity anyway.

harloo
Nov 4th, 2004, 03:38 PM
They are right their is no democratic leadership who are smart enough to nail a political strategy that wins elections.

The Republicans are already getting ready for 2008. They are trying to get a bill passed that will allow for non-us born citizens to be eligible for the Presidency. They will fight tooth and nail to get this passed which undermines the integrity of our constitution. Is their a reason why they are trying to get this legislation approved?

They want Arnold to run for President in 2008. Personally I think it will nothing but an insult to woman and African Americans because what does it says about a country that will encourage someone who isn't born here to run for President when natural citizens are looked down upon when considering running for office.

BARACK OBAMA can win the election in 2008. If both him and Hillary run on a ticket together somehow I think Arnold can be defeated. Arnold just bum rushed into California and got elected and could not even speak properly. Obama has appeal, education, and decent looks. Obama has 4 years, and I think that is enough time considering what Arnold did.

The democrats better plan now because if not they will be on the losing side again in 2008.

flyingmachine
Nov 4th, 2004, 03:49 PM
I don't know much about the poeple in the Democratic party but I think first you have to have a leader who could united the party first. It sounds like the Democratic is in bits at the moment.
Also new ideas have to put frontword as well. Otherwise it will be boring boring Democratic again.
Anyway good luck with that. It's for the sake of democarcy a strong oppsition is needed.

ys
Nov 4th, 2004, 03:49 PM
They want Arnold to run for President in 2008. Personally I think it will nothing but an insult to woman and African Americans because what does it says about a country that will encourage someone who isn't born here to run for President when natural citizens are looked down upon when considering running for office.

Why? How are "natural" citizens better than "naturalized"? All citizens should have the same rights.. I am with Republicans on this. And how exactly it is an insult to "woman and African Americans" escapes me really.. :lol:

BARACK OBAMA can win the election in 2008. If both him and Hillary run on a ticket together somehow I think Arnold can be defeated.

:rolls: This ticket won't win a single state perhaps.. Forget about Obama.. There will be no AA president or VP in our lifespan.. And women? Democrats have already tried it wth Ferraro. Worked wonders..

harloo
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:11 PM
Why? How are "natural" citizens better than "naturalized"? All citizens should have the same rights.. I am with Republicans on this. And how exactly it is an insult to "woman and African Americans" escapes me really.. :lol:


:rolls: This ticket won't win a single state perhaps.. Forget about Obama.. There will be no AA president or VP in our lifespan.. And women? Democrats have already tried it wth Ferraro. Worked wonders..
You as a firm Bush supporter have proved with your comments highlighted above why it is an insult if this legislation is passed.

The forefathers of our constitution wrote that our President must be a natural born citizen in this country and we have many qualifed minorities and women who can run for the Presidency. How dare someone try to change it so they can win the election in 2008.

harloo
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:15 PM
Obama has appeal that crosses color lines, and if he runs as VP with an experienced candidate like Hilary a win is possible. I guess this is something that will scare conservatives because it is possible that they could steal some of the votes. :lol:

griffin
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:20 PM
There will be no AA president or VP in our lifespan.. And women? Democrats have already tried it wth Ferraro. Worked wonders..

She ran in 1984 with Fritz Mondale against Ronald Reagan - one of the most popular presidents of the 20th century. Not exacly a good test case for what's possible in 2008.

I don't think Hillary can win, either - not because she's a woman, but because so many people in the US have already made up their minds about her, and not for the better.

vogus
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:34 PM
The Republicans are already getting ready for 2008. They are trying to get a bill passed that will allow for non-us born citizens to be eligible for the Presidency. They will fight tooth and nail to get this passed which undermines the integrity of our constitution. Is their a reason why they are trying to get this legislation approved?

They want Arnold to run for President in 2008. Personally I think it will nothing but an insult to woman and African Americans because what does it says about a country that will encourage someone who isn't born here to run for President when natural citizens are looked down upon when considering running for office.
.
:worship: great post. The foreigners are such hypocrites on this issue. YS how would you like it if an American guy moved to Russia, took Russian citizenship, and then tried to get elected president of Russia? You wouldnt like it at all, and yet, everybody expects US to have a different standard and different rules than other nations on this.

In any case this amendment will not pass, Schwartznegger wont be able to run. There's a reason we've had this in our constitution for 200 years.

harloo
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:44 PM
I don't think Hillary can win, either - not because she's a woman, but because so many people in the US have already made up their minds about her, and not for the better.
Ok griff who would you suggest? In alot of polls before the election process began it was indicated that Hillary would be a great running mate to defeat GW. Of course you have so many Hillary republican detractors who detest her because she is a tough politician.

Ferraro is no Hillary.

vogus
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:45 PM
This ticket won't win a single state perhaps.. Forget about Obama.. There will be no AA president or VP in our lifespan.. And women? Democrats have already tried it wth Ferraro. Worked wonders..

your generalizations are annoying. If you cant discriminate between individual specific situations, then you can't have an intellectual discussion. Your assertion that because the 1984 Mondale/Ferraro ticket was a failure (neither had big personal appeal, while Reagan was extremely popular), and therefore ALL future tickets with a woman or a black on them will fail, is completely without logic. Hiding beneath that statement is the attitude of "this is how things are and nothing will ever change." It's a ludicrous statement and a ludicrous attitude.

jacobruiz
Nov 4th, 2004, 04:49 PM
I think Hillary or Barack Obama would be wonderful in the White House. The two of them together, however - while being a dream come true ticket for me, would never make it to the White House.

Both of them would have to run with a white man to have a chance of winning. I do think Edwards is a possibility; just because he didn't win North Carolina (very conservative Republicans) doesn't mean he isn't electable.

Gore - no way, Kerry:sad: probably not.

wayitis
Nov 4th, 2004, 05:33 PM
Hillary-Barack would be an awesome ticket, but a little bit too unrealistic... In order to stand a chance in the Southern states, Hillary would probably have to run a very conservative agenda which would probably clash with Obama's ideals... the Dems will have to contemplate two ways of approaching the next election: either courting Dixieland with a staight-forward, very clean candidate, possibly a General or war hero, or concentrate their work on the swing states like Florida or Ohio with a more centrist, well liked new face. That's where I think Hillary will have a chance, even though she will probably have to face enormous opposition inside the Democratic party and getting the official nomination. A Hillary-Obama ticket would probably carry the same states Kerry did with an even higher margin and lose worse in the South-Heartland...

Crazy Canuck
Nov 4th, 2004, 05:45 PM
You as a firm Bush supporter ....

Ys is a firm supporter of Bush? Really??

ys
Nov 4th, 2004, 05:46 PM
your generalizations are annoying. If you cant discriminate between individual specific situations, then you can't have an intellectual discussion. Your assertion that because the 1984 Mondale/Ferraro ticket was a failure (neither had big personal appeal, while Reagan was extremely popular), and therefore ALL future tickets with a woman or a black on them will fail, is completely without logic.

You are a master of generalizations, and twisting things left and right, it seems.. Where did I say "ALL future tickets"? But now with right-wing hypocrisy clearly taking over the country you can safely assume it is not going to happen next 20 years.. at least.. Besides, we are not talking about woman OR black ticket.. The post was an answer to a reference woman AND black.. Ever heard of boolean algebra?

ys
Nov 4th, 2004, 05:52 PM
:worship: great post. The foreigners are such hypocrites on this issue. YS how would you like it if an American guy moved to Russia, took Russian citizenship, and then tried to get elected president of Russia? You wouldnt like it at all

Who said that? If someone proved with years of hard work his aleegiance to the country, I don't give a flying fuck in which geographical place was the person born.. It is just about convincing people that you are the right person for the job.. If you can convince, why do we need an artificial limiatation? You can enjoy a natural born W being your president.. I'd take Schwarznegger over him any day..

Bacardi
Nov 4th, 2004, 05:54 PM
Apparently in the USA there is no leadership whatsoever, how else do you explain George W Bush being in charge?

Tennis Fool
Nov 4th, 2004, 06:12 PM
Obama has appeal that crosses color lines, and if he runs as VP with an experienced candidate like Hilary a win is possible. I guess this is something that will scare conservatives because it is possible that they could steal some of the votes. :lol:
The duo will have to carry the Demo states, as well as the swing states. How can they do that when two white males couldn't do it?

In fact, I think the apathy would be so great they will be record low turnout in 2008. In fact, states like NJ could go Republican.

vogus
Nov 4th, 2004, 06:22 PM
Besides, we are not talking about woman OR black ticket.. The post was an answer to a reference woman AND black.. Ever heard of boolean algebra?

i just re-read your previous post to make sure i hadnt misunderstood it, and it sure seems like you referring to "a woman OR a black" as it was stated... it's obvious that Hillary AND Obama on the same ticket isn't good political strategy...

i'll take W Bush over Schwartznegger (or any Hollywood Republican) any day week or year, thanks. At least Bush isnt a creation of the movie industry and he has some authenticity to his character. I'm not a Bush supporter, and i dont like his party, but i'll say that much for him personally.

griffin
Nov 4th, 2004, 07:07 PM
Ok griff who would you suggest? In alot of polls before the election process began it was indicated that Hillary would be a great running mate to defeat GW. Of course you have so many Hillary republican detractors who detest her because she is a tough politician.

Ferraro is no Hillary.

Never said she was - and that's no insult to either woman.

Hey, I'd vote for Hil in a heartbeat, and I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm also standing left of Ted Kennedy. The GOP will smear her like cream cheese if she makes a run for the White House, and in too many places in this country it's going to stick.

Who would I suggest? I don't know. I think it's more important to work on organization on the ground, focusing on House and Senate races, and building a base for the next nominee to run on. The rest can figure itself out. In 1988, how many people picked Bill Clinton as the next nominee?

vogus: Bush is authentic? A blue-blood son of a powerful, well-connected political dynasty, gets educated at East-coast establishment schools...then decides to pick up a phony Texas accent (go watch a tape of his debates with Ann Richards years ago, and tell me he isn't pulling he accent out of a cartoon) and pretend he's a good ol'd boy? Claimed to be a "united not a divider" and then hits the ground running in his first term alienating not only the Democrats, but moderates in his own party? Claimed to be a "compassionate conservative"?

Authentic fertilizer is still fertilizer.

decemberlove
Nov 4th, 2004, 10:51 PM
hilary and obama would never win. what a terrible combination. griff is right about mrs clinton. a lot of people don't care for her.

the women's vote is very important to the democrats, and many women lost respect for hilary when she decided to stay married to her husband just to move up in the world. she should've divorced and worked her way up the ladder on her own.

obama won't be ready in 2008. he needs more ecperience, and like vogus said, has to still prove himself.

edwards is done. he did a terrible job.

kerry is done. the dems won't take the chance.

gore is done. see kerry. no charisma. this is a different america than the clinton era america.

dean maybe? bill richardson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson) ? i think the dems have more of a chance if they define what they are about instead of trying to be more moderate just cos the republicans are moving to the right.

i think a dean & richardson ticket would make the younger folks come out in full force, which could make a big difference. richardson would capture NM, maybe even FL depending upon how overwhelmed florida becomes by latinos in the next few years and how runs for the republicans...

Volcana
Nov 8th, 2004, 10:54 PM
Depending on the order of the primaries, Hillary is the nominee. She was the best fund-raiser the Dems had the last four years. Even better than Bill. A LOT of Democrats owe her favors, and she's VERY popular among Democratic women. And Republicans WON'T be crossing over to vote against her in the primaries. She's the Dempcratic nominee THEY want.

Having said that, I think she can win the election, if things are going badly enough. The thing is, neither Bush nor Cheney will be on the ticket. So the country would have to be tired of Republican policies, not Bush policies (which, by and large, aren't Republican). The Republican niminee next time has the best of both worlds. He can run AGAINST Bush, as a 'traditional' Republican, OR as the person who 'carries on the Bush tradition'.

Let's not forget the single issue that underlies all of this. Race.

Recall Lyndon Johnson words to Bill Moyers right after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had passed.

"Bill, I've just handed the South to the Republicans for fifty years, certainly for the rest of our life times."

The South had been solidly Democratic from 1868 to 1964. Why? Race. Specifically, white resentment of Blacks gaining freedom, because a Republican adminstration prosecuted the Civil War, and another Republicanadminstration outlawed slavery.

And from the 1968 presidential election til now, Republicans have garnered more and more of the Southern vote, til now the South is as solidly Republican as it once was Democratic. Because Democratic administrations passed the legislation that legally (if not actually) guaranteed Blacks equal protection under the law.

As long as the Democrats are the party that promotes equal protection under the law for Blacks, and the Republicans are the party that supports suppression of the rights of Blacks, the Democrats aren't winning more that one or two southern states in an election, if that. And those states will be states with big Hispanic populations, like Florida.

The Dems need to hunker down and figure out what their core values really are, and, quite possibly, how to articulate them in terms of "What would Jesus do?" Religion may be the only force powerful enough to trump race in the South. Not, mind you, that it ever has. But what's another option?

Circe
Nov 9th, 2004, 05:06 AM
i just re-read your previous post to make sure i hadnt misunderstood it, and it sure seems like you referring to "a woman OR a black" as it was stated... it's obvious that Hillary AND Obama on the same ticket isn't good political strategy...

i'll take W Bush over Schwartznegger (or any Hollywood Republican) any day week or year, thanks. At least Bush isnt a creation of the movie industry and he has some authenticity to his character. I'm not a Bush supporter, and i dont like his party, but i'll say that much for him personally.
bush is authentic? surely you meant pathetic, yes?

d-love, do you think Bill R has serious chances of running for the Presidency at some time in the future? he's 47 now so i suppose he has time on his side.