|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Nov 9th, 2004 04:56 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
Quote:
And it's fals to say the GOP hasn't switched gears or moved into other territories. Look at New Mexico, look at the tight races in Minnesota and Wisconsin, look at even Hawaii, for God's sake. Heck, look at the vote disparity in New York. THAT WAS TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT! Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 8th, 2004 04:38 PM | ||||
| kellychaos | The democrats failed in selecting a weak campaign manager (at first), projecting a too liberal face and going after the wrong voting demographic. Besides, it's hard to run in an atmosphere where republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate. The cards were stacked against Kerry in a number of ways. They'll recover as long as you "ckicken littles" lift your little wings up and keep the sky from falling. | |||
| Nov 6th, 2004 09:39 PM | ||||
| El Blanco |
The Democrats will be fine, although Hillary has too much baggage and stepped on too many toes to become president. The Republicans survived the early 90s with a Dem controled House, Senate, Supreme Court and presidency. Same as the late 70s. They didn't switch gears in order to win the North East or PacWest. I also think the morals issues thing is over blown. Remember, these were the same exit polls that were telling us that Kerry was winning handily early on 11-2 |
|||
| Nov 4th, 2004 05:54 AM | ||||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
The people of the US? The democrat party wont pull apart every mistake the republican party makes; if they were in power they would be doing the same thing, they would be making blunders and they would be making idiot worthy speeches. Kerry would point fingers, but he hopes to be like Bush one day, and he doesn't want the next republican candidate pointing fingers at him. |
|||
| Nov 4th, 2004 04:19 AM | ||||
| FS |
I've been fairly ticked off with the American democratic party since what happened yesterday. I think that despite the marginal difference with which Bush managed to make his victory is still massively due to the fact that Kerry was not Bush. I think the Democracts utterly failed in putting forth a strong leader. I shudder to think if, way back when this all started, they actually considered the fact that Kerry's initials were JFK as a point of merit. The Democrats seem to have largely lost touch with what the American people want. To me they come across as indecisive and insecure, and in a time where Republicans are holding pretty much all the cards in the US, that's disturbing. It's high time they shape up, because with four more years of Bush, someone's going to have to give him hell for every stupid mistake he makes, and they haven't done a convincing enough job so far. |
|||
| Nov 4th, 2004 01:33 AM | ||||
| Brandon |
I have no idea what the Democrats should do at this point -- the party is in serious trouble if these cultural trends continue. They should NOT more further left, though. Association with leftism seems to be poisonous right now for American politicians. I think they should be taking cues from Obama and Salazar. |
|||
| Nov 4th, 2004 12:11 AM | ||||
| Burger Lord | well, I think the south is a lost cause for the democrats, people here actually go out of their way to not think or speak about liberal issues. Unless religion somehow becomes outlawed, southerners are only going to vote for the side their preachers order them to vote for. | |||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 11:50 PM | ||||
| racialslur |
Quote:
|
|||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 10:40 PM | ||||
| Mr. Oysterhead | Emmigration is an excellent idea; and Bill Richardson is white white white. He just rules mexicans. | |||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 08:54 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | I'm not sure, that's why I started the thread. :/ | |||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 08:51 PM | ||||
| MLE | what do you think is the right idea? | |||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 08:49 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | I don't think emmigration is the right idea. | |||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 08:47 PM | ||||
| Anonymous |
The left coast, too. It'd at least keep the fighting over here. |
|||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 08:46 PM | ||||
| MLE | i would stay if that happened. | |||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 08:45 PM | ||||
| AChimp |
I say move left, have the Northeast secede from the Union and join Canada. 
|
|||
| Nov 3rd, 2004 08:39 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I have a couple of questions.... One is for conservatives (so basically just Ronnie), and the other is a general question. 1. How will George W. Bush unite a country that is more ideologically divided than it has been since the Civil War? After all, despite the rantings and yelling of the GOP, this was certainly no mandate. Bush won the popular vote by roughly 3.5 million. He won nearly 4.5 in Texas alone. 3.5 million people isn't a whole lot. How will the man who ran (and lied) as a uniter in 2000 actually go about doing what he promised in 2004-2007? 2. Where does the Democratic Party go from here? Does it accept the fact that many exit polls have shown moral/social issues such as abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage took priority over jobs, healthcare, and war? What approach does the party take for 2008? Do they run a Tom Vilsack, or even a Harry Reid? Should they run a woman (ie. Senator Clinton) or a minority (ie. Barack Obama or Bill Richardson)? I don't know that the South and the midwest would have any tolerance for that. Must all Democrats be reactionary idiots like Zell Miller? Must the party become GOP-lite in order to break into the South? How can the Democrats develope their own "Southern strategy," much like the GOP did in the 1970s....? Or, does the party swing to the Left? Do they embrace the Deans of the world? Does the party fully embrace the label of "progressives" and run louder, more "resolute" populists...? So those were a few questions. |
|||
