Politics The New Democratic Party

Spike

Cadet
A lot of the members on this site are Democrats. But it's become fairly obvious that our current dogmas, or those from November 2004, are simply not as appealing to the electorate as we felt they were. I felt Democrats and Republicans should have a place to discuss ways to mend the Democratic party. Maybe this could be some sort of think tank. I just felt it would be interesting to see the different views people have on ways to regain majorities in Congress and the Presidency.

In my opinion, Democrats have got to stop talking about Gay Marriage. Yeah the democrats are the party that supports Gay Marriage, but let's be frank. For the next few years it's a losing battle. Until the current youth movement takes power Gay Marriage simply won't be a reality. However, in 20 years I can guarantee that it Gay Marriage will be legal. Second we have to avoid hotbed issues such as abortion. It's such a controversial issue that any debate over it will not lead to any sort of compromise but only fierce schisms. Abortion may always be an issue but Roe vs. Wade has already been passed lets start fighting battles that need to be fought. Let's raise awareness on the facts of stem cell research and the plight of poverty within the lower classes. We have to return to the ideology that made the democratic party so seductive in the 60s and under Clinton.

Your thoughts?
 
The party needs to differentiate itself from people like Micheal Moore and Al Franken becasue they are extremeists.

The party is really a bunch of small groups such as the sierra club, green peace, youth, the elderly, and anti-ameican sympathizers all banded into a hodgepodge assortment of fringe groups (well, i'd hardly call youth "fringe", rather, just rebellious). Not to mention others.

Finally, you are losing the battle of ideas. People don't agree with you liberals (not democrats). All of the screaming and bush bashing in the last 4 years has only alienated people.


Your representatives believe that results don't matter, rather, only their intentions matter.

For example, the great society. It did hardly nothing to address the problem of poverty (the same way the war on drugs was worthless), yet, dems still point to that as a solution.


Oh, and tell your reps to stop screaming and start thinking up some ideas.
 
Alright you bring some valid points. We are losing a battle of ideas and this is clear in the results of last November's election. We need to re-evaluate our ideas and return to what worked so well for us in the 1990s. We need to re-attach ourselves to fights we know we can win not ideological stalemates.

But what I don't respect is you claiming the democrats harbor Anti-American sympathizers. We're all patriots here and you claiming that we aren't alienates the populace more than screaming for change ever will. In addition, the youth movement may be rebellious but they are also the force that is behind progress and change. Civil Rights and the Anti Vietnam movement were all spearheaded by the youth movement of their respective times.
 
AliasHombre said:
The party needs to differentiate itself from people like Micheal Moore and Al Franken becasue they are extremeists. 

The party is really a bunch of small groups such as the sierra club, green peace, youth, the elderly, and anti-ameican sympathizers all banded into a hodgepodge assortment of fringe groups (well, i'd hardly call youth "fringe", rather, just rebellious).  Not to mention others.

Finally, you are losing the battle of ideas.  People don't agree with you liberals (not democrats).  All of the screaming and bush bashing in the last 4 years has only alienated people.
Your representatives believe that results don't matter, rather, only their intentions matter.

For example, the great society.  It did hardly nothing to address the problem of poverty (the same way the war on drugs was worthless), yet, dems still point to that as a solution.
Oh, and tell your reps to stop screaming and start thinking up some ideas.
[post="1300398"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


Why has the word "liberal" gotten such a bad rap? My personal view of the world "liberal" is someone who is not only democrat but has very strong democratic views...being liberal ISN'T BAD!! (And just for your information...Michael Moore isn't a democrat).

Obviously your opinion about the Democratic party is going to be biased...it's obvious you are a republican and quite staunch in your believes as such. (And it's not only democratic reps who 'scream and don't think up ideas' Republicans do it too).

The party isn't just a bunch of those "small groups", which really aren't all that small. The party makes up a great portion of this country...obviously.

Anyways, ways to help the democratic party?

Well I don't know if backing down from gay marriage and abortion is the way to go. Maybe we shouldn't make them our main platform, but they are important issues...and if they Republicans are going to keep using them, then we need to as well.

I think the problem in 2004 was with our Presidential candidate...not so much the party in general. Of course we need to do some things (like actually standing up for what our party believes in and not being so wishy washy). But with a much stronger democratic candidate, we definitely would've stood a chance.
 
Those movements were smaller than you think, only being magnified by the liberal dominated media (which no longer exists :smiley: ).

Anti-Americans was not the best chouce of words, but i was referring to people who think that we are unjustified in retaliating to attacks made aginst us.

Remember the 90's, cause i vaguely do. I recall 3 big terrorists attacks, plus Ok. City, as well as the biggest scandal in the history of the presidency, and how the party hemmoraged seats in Congress in 1994, only to be bailed out when COntrace With America flopped. The debt rose, the market did boom, but it is controversial why. There was another failed peace attempt in the middle east, Clinton took a pass on Osama Bin Laden, and oh yeah, the attempt to fix health care failed. Oh and by the way, why were there so many claims that social security was broken, followed by nothing being done, followed by now the GOP saying theres a problem and the dems saying there isn't a problem all of the sudden.
 
Jamison said:
Why has the word "liberal" gotten such a bad rap?  My personal view of the world "liberal" is someone who is not only democrat but has very strong democratic views...being liberal ISN'T BAD!!  (And just for your information...Michael Moore isn't a democrat).

Obviously your opinion about the Democratic party is going to be biased...it's obvious you are a republican and quite staunch in your believes as such.  (And it's not only democratic reps who 'scream and don't think up ideas' Republicans do it too).

The party isn't just a bunch of those "small groups", which really aren't all that small.  The party makes up a great portion of this country...obviously.

Anyways, ways to help the democratic party?

Well I don't know if backing down from gay marriage and abortion is the way to go.  Maybe we shouldn't make them our main platform, but they are important issues...and if they Republicans are going to keep using them, then we need to as well.

I think the problem in 2004 was with our Presidential candidate...not so much the party in general.  Of course we need to do some things (like actually standing up for what our party believes in and not being so wishy washy).  But with a much stronger democratic candidate, we definitely would've stood a chance.
[post="1300419"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
The pary is obviously a bunch of small (relatively) groups becasue as you said, your message was very wishy-washy.

Michael Moore is a douche bag, not a democrat, but so many people attached themselves to him during the campaign, which alienated people who think he is a little wierd. His message paralleled your platform in 2004...
 
AliasHombre said:
Those movements were smaller than you think, only being magnified by the liberal dominated media (which no longer exists :smiley: ).

Anti-Americans was not the best chouce of words, but i was referring to people who think that we are unjustified in retaliating to attacks made aginst us.

Remember the 90's, cause i vaguely do.  I recall 3 big terrorists attacks, plus Ok. City, as well as the biggest scandal in the history of the presidency, and how the party hemmoraged seats in Congress in 1994, only to be bailed out when COntrace With America flopped.  The debt rose, the market did boom, but it is controversial why.  There was another failed peace attempt in the middle east, Clinton took a pass on Osama Bin Laden, and oh yeah, the attempt to fix health care failed.  Oh and by the way, why were there so many claims that social security was broken, followed by nothing being done, followed by now the GOP saying theres a problem and the dems saying there isn't a problem all of the sudden.
[post="1300420"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


Whoa...so at first you were saying that people that thought we were unjustified in retaliating against the attack made against us were Anti-American. Does that include the war in Iraq. Because I'm throughly against and disgusted with that...but I am NOT anti-American. That is an awful, awful generalization.

Don't think the Clinton scandal was the "biggest scanadal in the history of the presidency"...that would belong to Nixon...

There have also been failed peace attempts in the middle east with Bush as our leader...

And let's not forget the 'pass' George Bush Sr. took on Sadaam Hussein.


Michael Moore is a douche bag, not a democrat, but so many people attached themselves to him during the campaign, which alienated people who think he is a little wierd. His message paralleled your platform in 2004...

What an awful personal attack. Do you not have any actual reasons why you don't like him other than your opinion that he's a 'douche bag'...disgusting.

And just because his message paralled our platform in 2004 doesn't mean he's a Democrat. He was disgusted with Bush and tends to go with more Democratic idealologys...but he is not a democrat.
 
Alright AliasHombre no need to call anyone a douche bag. I'm not calling Bill O'Reilly a douche bag even though I think he is. The thread is meanto to promote ideas on how to help the democratic party, it's not a bashing thread.

Clinton erased the debt and freated a projected surplus in the 90s. The market boomed because Clinton raised taxes, not for anyother reason. Clinton made huge mistake with Lewinsky, but please Watergate was much bigger. Nixon was a criminal Clinton was just an adulterer.

Let's keep thinking about ways to reinvent the party. To be effective within the government we've got to start appealing to small town American (The Red Staes). How do you guys thing we could do that?
 
I'm sorry, I am so accustomed to people just trashing everything this country does where i live that i get a little pissed off. I don't mean to stereotype you. But know this, i know several people (educated too) who despise democracy and capitalism in their purest forms and believe that this is the worst place in the world to live.


Lets settle for a push on the scandals.

You are so against this war, but you jump on George Sr. for not continuing on to Bagdad in 1991, with, what I believe would have been less justified than what his son is doing.
 
Spike said:
Alright AliasHombre no need to call anyone a douche bag. I'm not calling Bill O'Reilly a douche bag even though I think he is. The thread is meanto to promote ideas on how to help the democratic party, it's not a bashing thread.

Clinton erased the debt and freated a projected surplus in the 90s. The market boomed because Clinton raised taxes, not for anyother reason. Clinton made huge mistake with Lewinsky, but please Watergate was much bigger. Nixon was a criminal Clinton was just an adulterer.

Let's keep thinking about ways to reinvent the party. To be effective within the government we've got to start appealing to small town American (The Red Staes). How do you guys thing we could do that?
[post="1300431"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
OK. Last arguement. I promise.

To say that raising taxes helped the economy is wrong. Several factors did it, The fall of Communism, Reagan tax cuts, and the technology boom to name a few. Taking money out of the hands of the people just so the government can re-allocate it to the lazy is not an economy booster.

As for the party, you need to unite and push people like Teddy Kennedy to the background. You need fresh faces.
 
AliasHombre said:
I'm sorry, I am so accustomed to people just trashing everything this country does where i live that i get a little pissed off. I don't mean to stereotype you.  But know this, i know several people (educated too) who despise democracy and capitalism in their purest forms and believe that this is the worst place in the world to live.
Lets settle for a push on the scandals.

You are so against this war, but you jump on George Sr. for not continuing on to Bagdad in 1991, with, what I believe would have been less justified than what his son is doing.
[post="1300436"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I was just bringing up a point. I never said I was for the war in 1991, and I don't pretend like I know much about it...I was 5.

I was just saying if you're going to get on Clinton's case for 'passing' on Usama Bin Laden when he had the chance, then you can't forget that Bush Sr. did the same thing with Sadaam.

And I am totally against all aspects of this war...but that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.


And to address Spike's question...I come from a very red, red state.

And honestly I don't think the Democratic party can ever really reach people here. Being in the bible belt, most people use their religion as justification for who they're voting for. For example many people from my hometown voted for Bush because he's a strong Christian man.

I'm sorry, I am so accustomed to people just trashing everything this country does where i live that i get a little pissed off. I don't mean to stereotype you. But know this, i know several people (educated too) who despise democracy and capitalism in their purest forms and believe that this is the worst place in the world to live.

Well, trust me, the vast majority of Democrats don't think like that, and I certainly don't. I have a deep love for this country...even if I don't have a deep love for the current government in office.
 
I disagree with a lot of what you've said, Spike. Number 1, the Democratic Party is not now, nor has it ever been for gay marriage. You might find a few lone Congressmen who'll admit they are, but those are few and far between. Yes, Kerry was for civil unions, but that's not the same. Number 2, we can't back down on a woman's right to choose, although the Democratic Leadership's certainly trying to downplay it. After all, the Senate Minority Leader's Anti-Choice. The Democratic Party needs to stop being weak and wishy-washy as a whole and stand up and lead. Moving to the right is not the answer.

The Republicans won this last election by appealing to their Religious Right base, while the Democrats moved to the center. Who won? What lesson does that teach? Energize your base, or you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
 
xdancer said:
I disagree with a lot of what you've said, Spike.  Number 1, the Democratic Party is not now, nor has it ever been for gay marriage.  You might find a few lone Congressmen who'll admit they are, but those are few and far between.  Yes, Kerry was for civil unions, but that's not the same.  Number 2, we can't back down on a woman's right to choose, although the Democratic Leadership's certainly trying to downplay it.  After all, the Senate Minority Leader's Anti-Choice.  The Democratic Party needs to stop being weak and wishy-washy as a whole and stand up and lead.  Moving to the right is not the answer.

The Republicans won this last election by appealing to their Religious Right base, while the Democrats moved to the center.  Who won?  What lesson does that teach?  Energize your base, or you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
[post="1300502"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


Exactly. We need to stick to our guns. Being more and more like the Republican party isn't going to help anything.

And no, democrats aren't technically for gay marriage. Democrats believe it should be left up to the states, and are against a constitutional ban against gay marriage...and that's taken directly from the party platform at democrats.org.
 
excellent topic. check out this book. most of it is great, but there are parts that are too conservative for my taste.

basically, the Democrat are losing minority loyalty b/c Asians, African-Americans, and even Latinos are becoming wealthier, so that sucks support. Also, Democrats are very centre-of-the-road. the Republicans have their conservative stance, but democrats are just "liberal" Republicans. there is a growing trend of democrats swaying towards the Greens. Democrats also have clearly lost their homebase in the South. Without the South, the party's future is looking very much like the Whigs.
 
the_alliance said:
excellent topic. check out this book. most of it is great, but there are parts that are too conservative for my taste.
[post="1300531"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
sorry, but especially since the republican convention, i think anything zell miller says is pure unadulterated felgercarb. he may call himself a democrat, but i bet you could count on one hand the number of times he's voted that way. ok, that may be an exaggeration, but you get my point.
 
I'm not saying we abandon our stance on Gay Marriage or Abortion, but we have to stay off the topic. The Republicans garnered "the moral vote" by addressing these issues. We have to come to the realization that the current youth movement will be much more accepting of current democratic ideals, but they won't be in power for another 10-15 years. Until then we can't keep playing the same strategy. When confronted with these divisive issues we ahve to take a moderate tone. We have to do exactly what Clinton did when faced with the issues. On abortion he made it extremely clear he was Pro Choice no "Pro Abortion". He said that abortion has to be available, safe, and most importatnly rare. Now Gay Marriage is a whole new game. I think we have to promote civil unions until the current youth movement comes into power. At that point a stronger and more realistic push for Gay Marriage can be made.
 
No matter how coherant or even right your arguement is you will never win the moral arguement, the Republicans have that one cornered.

Something extreamly positive that came out of 2004 was the mobilsation of youth which will in years to come serve the Democratic Party well. I agree with Spike, you need to keep away from the conterversy. Don't make it an issue. Make it the agreed line, when Roe v Wade is threatened kick of then.

The worrying thing especially with Dean as party chairperson is I can see strong parrells with Labour in the 1980's Labour lost the 1979 election and thought "thats because we weren't left wing enough" when it was entirely the opposite. If you look they only won after modernisation and centralisation some even say a shift to the right. Thats the way to go. Back to the centre.
 
I don't think going to the center is a good idea. Why make ourselves look more like the Republicans? The majority of the Democrats I know, are Democrats because we are so separate from the Republicans. Going closer to the center isn't going to help anything...we need to stick to our guns. I think part of the problem with Kerry was that he was so wishy washy and wasn't that 'left' or whatever you want to call it.

I think people would have much more respect for the Democratic party if they had clear position on everything, and separated themselves from the Republicans.
 
You won't be any less democrats because you've moved to the centre but understanding republican concerns about gay marriage and abortion might make them a little more receptive.

If Democrats move to the left significantly they will make themselves unelectable.
 
noggi16 said:
You won't be any less democrats because you've moved to the centre but understanding republican concerns about gay marriage and abortion might make them a little more receptive.

If Democrats move to the left significantly they will make themselves unelectable.
[post="1301403"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​


I disagree. I mean, of course we can't move so far to the left that we're teetering on the edge. But moving to the center is not going help, in my opinion.

Let's be honest...people hardly ever change their minds when it comes to their party affiliation. It does happen (my grandfather is an example of it happening...he had been a registered Republican his whole life, but in 2004 officially changed to Democrat), but it's rare that someone will suddenly switch all of their beliefs and switch to another political party.

Right now we should be concerned with the youth vote...especially the kids that won't be able to vote for the next few years. A lot of the youth that I know, who couldn't vote in this last election would've voted for Kerry. They believe in a lot of things the democratic party stands for...and moving more to the center is going to make it harder to tell the difference between the two.

We're never going to get the vote of the bible belt. Even if we suddenly didn't make abortion our main issue, people would still know that democrats are pro-choice, and that right there determines who many people vote for...especially in the south (and I know, I live right in the heart of it all).
 
Back
Top