Twenty five reasons why Democrats have no chance in 2006

various | January 30, 2006 | self

[Terabitten]

Your final point is the most telling.

The Democratic Party, in order to regain national prominence, must distance itself from the raving moonbats in its party. Think back to the 80s, to the rise of the conservative movement. The Republican party had to actively dissasociate itself from the white supremacists (think David Duke), the blatant anti-Semites (think Pat Buchanan), and the other extremists within the party. Do you really think we would have had 5 victories in the last 7 presidential elections, or taken control of both houses of Congres, had we embraced Buchanan, Duke, and their ilk? Of course not.

The problem for the left, however, is that the moonbats are their biggest financial supporters. Until they accept the short-term pain and cut ties, formally and officially, with Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, etc., their death spiral will continue.

Eventually, I believe the Democrat Party will split. There will be an ultra-liberal faction that will be small but influential due to the amount of money they bring in. They will likely create a "new" party with a new name. Eventually, due to inability to actually win any elections, that party will fade to obsolescence. The larger, more centrist party will retain the name Democrat, and, in time, will move towards the center and become a serious challenge to Republicans again, probably around 2020.

[svcw]

I think the US should start selling off some of its public land and other stuff to pay down the debit.
I mean the US net worth is in the plus. So lets reduce or eliminate this burden by getting rid of all the excess stuff. You know like a giant garage sale.

[HopefulPatriot]

"I'd be happy to see the day that the GOP activist base gives McCain a fat lip when he tries to win the next primaries, and he leaves to join the Democrats."

Based on current polling data and what I believe to be true based on my own instincts, I think Democrats are going to accept and adapt to the reality that Hillary is a loser for them. By the same token, I think McCain will recognize that he cannot win the Republican nomination, but that he wants to be President so bad that he will not have any trouble making up his mind to switch when the ABS Networks, the NYT, LASlimes and the Washingtoncompost come begging. Hillary won't be the 2008 Democratic nominee; McCainiac will.

[HopefulPatriot]

"Depressing, by all too true!"

Don't be depressed; ping Jim Robinson and ask him to lead this effort.

[Terabitten]

Why it really isn't that great: America self identifies 35% to 18% conservative over liberal. Voters see the Democrats as socialists and reject their ideas.

But they don't act that way. Furthermore, both Gore and Kerry came within a single state of winning.

Ah, but the voters DO act that way. Bush's narrow victories in 2000 and 2004 are a direct result of the winner-take-all electoral college system.

Think of this - if California's 55 electoral votes, and New York's 30-odd, had been somehow reapportioned, the electoral vote count wouldn't have even been close, and Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 would've been more-or-less irrelevant.

[for-q-clinton]

So whether you or I agree with anti-smoking laws or not (and I most emphatically do agree), I am still pointing out that politicians can get trounced at the polls if they try to take up a flimsy "let business owners do what they want" tactic, which is a lie because they cannot allow gambling or nudity or drugs or hand-dishwashing already.

I believe the constitution says otherwise. What you outlined is an argument for local and state elected officials. But nationally they can't pass a smoking ban. They could regulate tobacco as an illegal product at the national level, but nothing else. To do so would be a disgrace to the constitution. I'm all for allowing states to do what they want.

[beaureguard]

Good post.

You're right, if the Dems were smart, they would move more to the center/right. It would be good for the country to have two strong parties competing for votes. Competition never hurts, and I think would help keep Republican party further to the right.

Don't see it happening, though.

[for-q-clinton]

There's another option that will help. And that's to end earmarks. This will prevent politicians from slipping into law a new bridge without anyone voting on it.

[showme_the_Glory]

bumping

[TatieBug]

Thanks so much. Just forwarded this list to all of my concerned friends...with the subject line: Positive Stuff

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Good idea but the WSJ reported this past week that big ranches out west were taking three or four years to sell. The Hollywood types apparently are tired of putting up hay.

[del4hope]

Great post. Of course they still have major $$$$ on their side in the likes of MMoore, Sooroos, and other left likes. The division in this country is the reason why they shelve out the big bucks. I hope they spend their last dimes trying to do so. Evil cannot win and will not win. They can do nothing without permission of our One and Only God...the One in whom those athiests do not believe.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[MarxSux]

The Dems have a long way to go to get as far down as they were in 1924. A mere eight years later they were in charge and stayed there for a generation. Granted it took the collapse of the economy to bring them back from 1924 but it just shows you that you cannot count them out. Stay eternally vigilant.

[Señor Zorro]

Think of this: a little better in Ohio and you would be talking about President John Kerry.

My point is that the Republicans are not doing as well as you seem to think and the Democrats are not doing as bad as you seem to think. The past two elections could just as easily have gone to Democrats--which is just as valid a look-back scenario as the different districting you proposed.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The incumbents have feathered their own nests. The new Computer-Aided redistricting is so precise, so powerful, that the vast majority of incumbents have completely removed any threat to their power. This is not a good thing. This will lead to a immovable ruling class that will not be responsive to the voter's interests.

Only too true. What we need is either at-large contests for congress in each state, or a mechanism for automatically varying the boundaries of congressional districts so that gerrymandering is not possible.

And term limits . . .

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The incumbents have feathered their own nests. The new Computer-Aided redistricting is so precise, so powerful, that the vast majority of incumbents have completely removed any threat to their power. This is not a good thing. This will lead to a immovable ruling class that will not be responsive to the voter's interests.

But it works for us in the short term, so I guess we shouldn't complain. If I were a Democrat, I would be really PO'ed.

Only too true. What we need is either at-large contests for congress in each state, or a mechanism for automatically varying the boundaries of congressional districts so that gerrymandering is not possible.

And term limits . . .

[GermanBusiness]

[I believe the constitution says otherwise. What you outlined is an argument for local and state elected officials. But nationally they can't pass a smoking ban.] You are only emphasizing my point that the Democrats could rip the Republicans a new one if they did decide to drop the anti-war nonsense and replace it with something wildly popular like anti-smoking laws. The fact that you hate smoking but are willing to go to bat for smokers...shows only that you would apparently stand on the ship as it goes into battle and go down with it. Your advice would lead a naive candidate to "stick up for the constitution" which, by the way, is something you see at DailyKOS every day (the leftists always show photos of the constitution on their pathetic websites). The younger Republicans will not follow you here. For the newer generations, smoking is considered a disgusting imposition on others, like assault. There is no constitutional right for a bar owner to allow some of their customers to assault other customers. Besides, all studies show that, wherever food and drink is served, food and drink sales revenues go way up when smoking is banned. Cigarettes are an appetite suppressant. Bar-owners are cutting their revenue off by allowing smoking. Check out Smoke Free Seattle to see what Republican voters helped pass recently in Washington State. The vote, 3 months ago, was 63% statewide in favor of banning smoking in all "workplaces"...to protect employees (it is unfair to say that some jobs, like waitressing or bartending, should only be for those who are willing to breathe smoke-this can directly impoverish someone in that profession who finally decides that he or she can't stand smoke but still needs to earn a living). We all know that Republicans and Democrats were 50:50 in Seattle for the election of the governor. But it was 63:37 in favor of banning smoking in every business including bars and casinos with no exceptions. Obviously, in addition to the 27% of male smokers in Washington who are "presumed" to have voted against the Washington Clean Air Act...there may have been an additional 10% of socalled "conservatives" who voted with them based on the momentum of thinking it was a "conservative cause". But apparently 26% of Republicans completely abandoned their fellow "conservatives" on the smoking issue. In terms of a federal law proposal...it could spell disaster to Republicans if the Democrats were intelligent enough to use a popular cause like anti-smoking instead of a treasonous cause like anti-war. Because you could count on 26% of Republicans, especially the women and younger people, to abandon anyone who pretends that smoking is a human right protected by any constitution. Again, it doesn't matter how I feel: the statistics are there to show you that this is not a fight Republicans want to be on the wrong side of.

[GermanBusiness]

Sorry, I forgot to use HTML:

[I believe the constitution says otherwise. What you outlined is an argument for local and state elected officials. But nationally they can't pass a smoking ban.]

You are only emphasizing my point that the Democrats could rip the Republicans a new one if they did decide to drop the anti-war nonsense and replace it with something wildly popular like anti-smoking laws. The fact that you hate smoking but are willing to go to bat for smokers...shows only that you would apparently stand on the ship as it goes into battle and go down with it.

Your advice would lead a naive candidate to "stick up for the constitution" which, by the way, is something you see at DailyKOS every day (the leftists always show photos of the constitution on their pathetic websites).

The younger Republicans will not follow you here.

For the newer generations, smoking is considered a disgusting imposition on others, like assault.

There is no constitutional right for a bar owner to allow some of their customers to assault other customers.

Besides, all studies show that, wherever food and drink is served, food and drink sales revenues go way up when smoking is banned.

Cigarettes are an appetite suppressant. Bar-owners are cutting their revenue off by allowing smoking.

Check out Smoke Free Seattle to see what Republican voters helped pass recently in Washington State.

The vote, 3 months ago, was 63% statewide in favor of banning smoking in all "workplaces"...to protect employees (it is unfair to say that some jobs, like waitressing or bartending, should only be for those who are willing to breathe smoke-this can directly impoverish someone in that profession who finally decides that he or she can't stand smoke but still needs to earn a living).

We all know that Republicans and Democrats were 50:50 in Seattle for the election of the governor. But it was 63:37 in favor of banning smoking in every business including bars and casinos with no exceptions.

Obviously, in addition to the 27% of male smokers in Washington who are "presumed" to have voted against the Washington Clean Air Act...there may have been an additional 10% of socalled "conservatives" who voted with them based on the momentum of thinking it was a "conservative cause".

But apparently 26% of Republicans completely abandoned their fellow "conservatives" on the smoking issue.

In terms of a federal law proposal...it could spell disaster to Republicans if the Democrats were intelligent enough to use a popular cause like anti-smoking instead of a treasonous cause like anti-war.

Because you could count on 26% of Republicans, especially the women and younger people, abandoning anyone who pretends that smoking is a human right protected by any constitution. Defending nicotine while condemning marijuana is, in addition, seen by the new generation as outrageously hypocritical.

Again, it doesn't matter how I feel: the statistics are there to show you that this is not a fight Republicans want to be on the wrong side of.

If the Democrats had any brains, they would be thinking of other topics besides their treason in the WOT.

[HopefulPatriot]

"I mean the US net worth is in the plus."

1. You may be under esitmating the net present value of the unfunded liabilities.
2. You may be over estimating the price of the land when sold in a forced sale.
3. And you may be greatly over estimating how many Americans would consider selling such a huge chunk of America to foreigners.
4. And you may be dramatically over estimating how many Americans would be willing turn their own cash into land where foreigners own more of America than Americans.
5. A lot of Americans would be asking, "Just whose country is it? And whose country is it going to be?"