Speak for yourself! Bill Clinton was hugely popular across the country, including the South and Midwest. If anything, Hillary is even more popular than hubby Bill. And Jesse Jackson not popular in the South? Check your history! Jackson won Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Virginia in the 1988 primary. He's also very popular in the two biggest Midwest states, Illinois and Michigan.

We are so ignorant that somehow I stumbled onto this site thinking it was a forum for Democrats to get together - gotta get outa here! BTW - at least we got rid of Zell Miller! And I don't need to wonder why you, as a Republican, align yourself with someone like Ann Coulter - I think she must either be your idol, or maybe you ARE Ann Coulter. Didn't realize how freaky these places were.........

I would disagree. Its not that they are ignorant. Hillary, though unpopular in conservative states (what democrat isnt?) has set herself up to be a strong contenter. She could very well run, but I would think it unwise for the Democrats even in 2008. Why? well for one thing the key to a democratic win in 08 is to narrow the gap in America, Hillary is too different for conservatives to accept her. The fact that she is a woman could work for or against her. I can see alot of women voting for her, but if you look at our presidents to date they have all been white men. A change would be nice though. I wish Colin Powell would have run for President.

I think the the Democratic party needs to start right now finding a candidate that can appeal to both Republicans and Democrats. This candidate needs to find a middle ground (tough thing to do) that will make him wildly popular. I personally liked John Edwards. A southerner, very charming and honest. I think he was a better presidential contender than Kerry. ---I liked Howard Dean too...

I think a great platform for 08 would be John Edwards and John McCain. Now thats a powerhouse!

Hi.

I am as disappointed as you are! I did not like the way Kerry just gave up. I would never have done that. Anyway, I have a question for you. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans in every state. For example, in New York Demos may outnumber Repubs by 100:1 and in Wisconsin registered Demo's might outnumber Repubs by 2:1. The point is that there are many many more registered Democrats than Repubs. So how did Bush pull 51.00%? Convenient huh? and How did Edwards lose his home state?

I want to try to show election fraud. This could be accomplished by showing that the number of votes cast did not match the number of registered voters who turned out to vote for example.

How can I get the % of registered Democrats and Repubs for each state? I mean, where can I find these statistics. This would be a good start.

Let's fight back!

Regards,

twilightcity@aol.com

What happened, and what many here apparently can't seem to grasp, is that conservative Democrats voted for Bush.
That's it. That's all there is. There is no shadowy "election-stealing" conspiracy. The GOP handed the Democratic party its hat, and it was all those "registered Democrats" that allowed them to show us the door out.
And as far as Hillary is concerned, you have to be out of your ever-lovin' MIND to think she stands a snowball's chance in hell of becoming an American president.
I can think of no other woman in America who has been so thoroughly politically villified as Hillary (well...Martha Stewart, maybe...). She will NEVER appeal to conservative Democrats.
Fact is, the entire party platform needs serious revision. A democratic Rove needs to be found, and everyone here needs to realize this will be the work of GENERATIONS, not years. Don't expect a victory in 2008. As a matter of fact don't even THINK about 2008.
2006 is right around the corner...and if we can't stop the hemmoraging in congress...well, it's all over, baby.

With the government in republican hands for another 2 years you can all rest assured that the country will tire of the right wing bullshit, and the swing voters will swing back to the democratic party. its what they do. its why they are called swing voters. in 1972 the democratic party was pronounced dead, and then we won in 1976. its the way things go. there is probably 1/3 of the country that are loyal republicans, and another 1/3 that are loyal democrats. the rest swing back and forth and back and forth, its like a tennis game that never ends-- sometime your up and sometimes you're down. hopefully we'll stick to our core beliefs and ride out the storm.

I guess it is inevitable that in a stagnant pond the scum is gathering at the top. What is not so easy to understand is why some of it washes this way and presumes to lecture Democrats on what or what is not "a good idea". I happen to think a backward nation such as this has no capacity to consider a candidate as intelligent and capable as Hillary. But the fact that gun nuts and abortion zealots dislike Hillary is of no significance at all. But these are the people who are compelled to shoot of their mouths rather than let the world GUESS that they are ignorant.

By continuing to think they are the educational elite and everyone else in America is a quivering idiotic mass of brainless protoplasm that can be "enlightened" if we just listen to them. Basically it comes easy for them. They are SO FUCKING STUPID AS TO THINK THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO HOLD AN EDUCATIONAL GRASP ON WHAT IT IS AMERICA NEEDS. BASICALLY THEY HAVE BEEN FUCKING STUPID FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS, IT IS JUST FINALLY CATCHING UP TO THEM. THING IS THEY ARE TOO SMUG AND SELF RIGHTIOUS TO REALIZE HOW STUPID THEY REALLY ARE.

I'm dissapointed in that democrats on this forum, claiming to be intellectuals would flaunt this "superiority" they claim to possess and put down republicans. For a party claiming to be honest, truthful and show that they are for equality, you all are very quick to stereotype republicans as religious zelots with guns living in trailer homes and having nothing greater than a 5 grade education. I am a republican, yes I am a Christian, but I am not a zealot. I hate reigion, ritualism and anything that closes people off. My faith is one of acceptance and love. I also have no guns, as I feel that their primary use would be for hunting, and the only place I hunt at is Walmart, and its already dead there. And as for my education, I am a university graduate with a degree in Digital Media Studies, and am currently working on my masters. I don't fit this stereotype people here seem to have of republicans.
As I am sure most of you do not fit any stereotype of democrats that many people have.

I read on one of these threads that someone said that democrats outnumber republicans in every state. that is untrue.
And as for Michael Moore for 08, that would only cause more alienation and division in the country. I stand by my belief that a more moderate candidate is what is needed. The only way to mend the wounds is this nation is compromise. You don't want republican (conservative) beliefs and ideals forced upon you, likewise I wouldn't want democratic (liberal) beliefs and ideals forced upon me. If as a nation we cannot learn to work together and find middle ground then America will not make it for much longer!

Why do republicans register to post on a site on which the rules clearly state that one must be a democrat to post here? What is your purpose in being here? Are you here to change minds? Do you really entertain the thought that you're going to change a few minds when it's quite clear that you've misrepresented yourself before you even got past the registration process?

Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If

Well I am sorry that I registered and posted. But I feel that I am not harming, nor am I trying to silence anyone. As for what you have said. I agree. I would love to sweep out any and all corruption in our government, even if that means losing Republican seats and/or a republican president. This is a nation of the people for the people and by the people. So we should be calling the shots. Also I am frightend by the lack of checks and balances with such a heavy republican control of... EVERYTHING.

Extremes are bad, I want a place where you and I can decided together and make things work for the greater good of all of us.

it is good to see some rational Republicans. Your sentiments are being echoed right now by Republicans like Lincoln Chaffee...and some others...who are considering change.

On the old Dems.Com site, we frequently wondered how many moderate 'pugs' were out there. They are so frequently hushed up by their more vocifious and decidedly fascist brothers and sisters.

For the initiator of this thread I have this to say: We did nothing wrong in this election...except possibly to move too far toward the center. The center is not where we belong. Women's rights, minority rights, and a policy of inclusion is where we belong...after all, it was the Dems who were successful in opening opportunity to the great masses of our people. We are the party of education for all, health care, decent and safe working conditions, truth in lending laws, and so much more. Our acceptance of 'choice' as the most humane solution to the human condition is mandated. Our acceptance of those who are different or live outside the mainstream is inclusive, not exclusive. Our constant attempts to use logic and reason to search for better ways to make our society grow and prosper are the only way we see to make the playing field level for all of us.

Compare that to the present fascists who believe they own the government and we the people. Their record is that of a group of madmen and women.

Legitimate dialog between the two parties is to be encourage. The garbage should be taken out as it occurs. Watching the Bush regime in action is a garbage-laden experience.

As to the recent election, seems strange to see it being called a mandate. So far, over 2,000,000 ballots have been thrown out in Florida as spoiled. In a little town in Ohio, Gehanna, one precinct showed some 4,238 votes for Bush. Problem is that there are only 628 voters in that precinct. About 250 of those 628 voters voted for Kerry. This situation appears to carry through most of the rural counties in Ohio. This naturally leads any rational person to believe that Republicans are good at only three things: Lying, Cheating, and stealing.

Insofar as discussing our next candidate, it is a bit premature dont you think? Republicans are so terribly afraid of bright intelligent women...they prefer their women to return to the days when they were just so many breeding machines and homemakers.

Food for thought.

How can we be so ignorant? Well, it's pretty hard work, Skippy-Bob. I, for instance, get up real early in the morning, stick a large bucket on my head and pound it repeatedly into a nearby retaining wall. After that, I take an air-compressor and insert the nozzle into my ear, turning it up all the way! Whooooo-eeee! I generally like to follow this up by memorizing passages from Mad Magazine and chanting them, as if they were some sacred mantra. I keep my body in shape for stupidity by slamming junk food -- Spam, Cheese Whiz, etc. Then, I like to take a six-hour nap in a soiled cat litter box. All of this nearly prepares me to challenge the GOP's level of ignorance. It's hard, hard work, I know, but don't misunderestimate me.

If you wonder why we are supposedly so ignorant, all we have to do is listen to Dubya, or any other Republican take, because they are genuinely TRUELY Ignorant people

I would personally favor a ticket with Edwards and Obama in 2008.

Both are very charismatic, and would play well in more conservative areas while at the same time maintaining the liberal progressivism that our party sometimes seems to have forgotten. Both were able to illustrate how taking care of our fellow Americans is the morally right thing to do. Thus we get the benefits of gaining in the "Morality Department" while still being progressive and liberal.

Look at Obama's performance in the more staunchly conservative parts of Illinois. He did very well statewide even before Alan Keyes was his opponent, he was comfortably in the lead over Jack Ryan all over the state.

The only knock that some people would have is that Obama is black. That means that some people, in all parts of the country I might add, just wouldn't vote for him.

I think that the risks involved would be far outweighed by the benefits. He could unite the minority communities across the country like no other candidate in recent history. Plus he has great crossover appeal to white voters also.

And that's just the VP candidate. Except for the last part, sounds a lot like what we were saying about Edwards doesn't it? Same benefits. Plus you get the Southerner and Mid-Westerner on the same ticket. Maybe the closest we'll get in a long time to a JFK type candidate, except it would be on both parts of the ticket. It would also be symbolic in helping to bridge some of the racial divides that still hurt our country.

Anyway that's just my thoughts. Being a Democrat in Texas, sometimes it gets a little lonely. Thanks for listening.

From what I've seen, it seems to be mostly repugs that want Hillary to run (they seem to be on this bizare monarchy kick anyway. I almost feel sorry for Bush Sr., his place in history has been changed from a mediocre 1 termer to the father of the worst president in American history bar none)
We have a large stable of available and highly viable potential candidates running the gammut from true blue liberal to pragmatic centrist.
I just hope we have a country left in 2008 to start the healing.

All I care is that democrats give me a moral alternative to vote for. Bush and his followers are so extemely immoral I think democrats need to focus on the moral high ground - peace, help the poor, protect creation, etc. It is a novel approach. Instead of claiming to be a Christian like Bush and then doing everything the opposite of what Jesus would do I think democrats should refrain from claiming to be Christian but instead prove by our actions that we are moral.

and there seem to be an equal number of trolls who take great delight in choosing our stands and candidates for us. They have been doing this for at least the past 12 years. Lets examine their candidate of choice for a minute: George Bush. A failure all his life at everything he has ever attempted(documented). A legacy at two of the best schools in the country--but failed to learn how to write or speak in English. Has shown us how to debate by using a radio transmitter and coaches to help him through the rough spots(documented), a deserter from the Texas Air Guard's Champagne Unit when drug testing became a mandatory part of annual flight physicals(documented). The kind of man who preferred to read "MY PET GOAT" while his country was being attacked. The sort of individual who has destroyed the economy of our country in just over 3 years. Should I continue? Now, since the Republican choice as 'great leader' is so undeniably poor, why should we allow 'them' to define we liberals...or our choices for leadership? The answer is that we shouldn't, we won't, and should they continue, they just might have to settle for going back to the yahoo or aol boards or any other sewer from whence they came. Republicans cannot lead. They cannot operate a national economy. They cannot be allowed control of our armed forces. And they most certainly should not be allowed anywhere in the vicinity of our nu-ku-lar[sic] triggers.

On the Hillary issue...is it out of this world to fathom it? I sure as hell thought there was no way Bush would steal a second term.

I am moving the post from Juan Cole to this forum. Everybody made great suggestions, but we need a clearer perspective on the red state mentality.
posted by Juan @ 11/5/2004 06:25:39 AM

Thursday, November 04, 2004
Meet Bubba

Readers argued with me about this during the Democratic primary, but I maintained then that I thought it would be very difficult for a non-Southern Democratic candidate to get any southern state, and that without any of the South it would be difficult to win the election.

Since Jack Kennedy was shot in 1963, all successful Democratic presidential candidates have been southerners: Johnson, Carter, Clinton.

This is because image and marketing matter more in US presidential elections than substance, and white male southerners just mostly are only going to vote for one of their own.

My family has roots in Virginia and I apologize about this, but Virginia is just not going to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008, unless Bush has so driven the country into the ground that Americans want anything but a Republican.

The Democrats need to find a southern governor with a southern accent who is a Baptist. (I don't mean the Deep South. Its upper stretches are more malleable).

They also need to start defusing deadly cultural and "moral" issues that have been so effective for the Republicans. And they need to be sly about it.

For instance, a lot of Democrats would like to see gay marriage or at least civil gay unions passed into law. This is a matter of equity, since gay partners can't even get into a hospital to see an ill partner because hospitals limit visits to close family.

This issue scares the bejesus out of the red states.

But if Democrats were sly, there is a way out. The Baptist southern presidential candidate should start a campaign to get the goddamn Federal and state governments out of the marriage business. It has to be framed that way. Marriage should be a faith-based institution and we should turn it over to the churches. If someone doesn't want to be married in a church, then the state government can offer them a legal civil contract (this is a better name for it than civil union). That's not a marriage and the candidate could solemnly observe that they are taking their salvation in their own hands if they go that route, but that is their business. But marriage is sacred and the churches should be in charge of it.

If you succeeded in getting the government out of the marriage business, then the whole issue would collapse on the Republicans. You appeal to populist sentiments against the Feds and to the long Baptist tradition of support for the US first amendment enshrining separation of religion and state.

But the final result would be to depoliticize gay marriage, because the Federal government wouldn't be the arena for arguing about it. If states didn't marry people, then there wouldn't be any point in arguing about it in Congress. The states could offer gays the same civil contract status as it offers straight people who want to shack up legally but without the sanction of a church. As for gays who wanted a church marriage, that would be between them and their church (remember, the government is not in the business, but would go on recognizing church-performed marriages as equivalent legally to the civil contract). The Unitarian Universalists could arrange it for them. The red states' populations can be hostile to the UUists all they like, it wouldn't translate into a victory at the polls for a Republican president.

The final outcome would be both more progressive (the government should not in fact be solemnizing a religioius ceremony like marriage) and also advantageous to the Democrats, and it would leave gays actually better off.

There are other such strategies that could be adopted. But it seems clear. In 2008, the Democrats have to find a way to get back a couple of big red states. They can't do that unless they find canny ways to defuse the cultural issues the Republicans have been deploying so effectively.

And actually they don't need to win entire states. In Ohio, it would probably be a matter of a few counties. Why don't the Democrats have county data bases as good as Karl Rove's?

posted by Juan @ 11/4/2004 10:45:05 AM