Sinkster 0 #1 November 5, 2004 From Reuters: "The Democrats are going to have to get used to permanent minority status for a generation or two," said Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County." That's at least 25 years. The Article Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StevePhelps 0 #2 November 5, 2004 one could only hope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #3 November 5, 2004 Quote That's at least 25 years. You won't last 25 years spending the way you are today. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #4 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuote That's at least 25 years. You won't last 25 years spending the way you are today. t You know, you're right. I have to stop treating myself to so many $5.50 DVDs on those late-night trips to Walmart! I just can't keep on like this! -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #5 November 5, 2004 I think it's time that party took a long look at itself and changed its direction. If the Republicans win a supermajority in '06, look out! Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #6 November 5, 2004 QuoteI think it's time that party took a long look at itself and changed its direction. If the Republicans win a supermajority in '06, look out! The mind boggles... But I think 2006 will result in the House and Senate coming more towards the center (I don't know how many Senate seats will be up in 2006), as in 1994, when they shifted to the right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #7 November 5, 2004 That could possibly happen as well, Mark. I think it highly dependent on both which senators are up for reelection and how the national/local parties react to the election. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #8 November 5, 2004 It doesn't matter to me which party has a complete stronghold on government, the scary part is that a stronghold on government reduces us to virtually a one party system instead of having at least some degree of checks. It is bad enough that there are only 2 parties now. Jen Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #9 November 5, 2004 Here is a breakdown of who is up for re-election for the Senate in 2006: Democrats Akaka, Daniel Bingaman, Jeff Byrd, Robert Cantwell, Maria Carper, Thomas Clinton, Hillary Conrad, Kent Corzine, Jon Dayton, Mark Feinstein, Dianne Kennedy, Edward Kohl, Herb Lieberman, Joseph Nelson, Ben Nelson, Bill Sarbanes, Paul Stabenow, Debbie Republicans Allen, George Burns, Conrad Chafee, Lincoln DeWine, Mike Ensign, John Frist, Bill Hatch, Orrin Hutchison, Kay Kyl, Jon Lott, Trent Lugar, Richard Santorum, Rick Snowe, Olympia Talent, James Thomas, Craig Independents Jeffords, JamesYesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sinkster 0 #10 November 5, 2004 why should there be so called "checks" when the other party is wrong :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 November 5, 2004 QuoteThe mind boggles... But I think 2006 will result in the House and Senate coming more towards the center (I don't know how many Senate seats will be up in 2006), as in 1994, when they shifted to the right. You think the Senate has shifted to the right??? I think 1994 was a good start because it slowed down the skid to the left, but IMO I would hardly call the Senate even in the center. I just think they lean a little less to the left than they used to. My hope is we can actually lean a little to the right eventually. I'd be happy with that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #12 November 5, 2004 This is a certainty if their continued response to their loss is to call the folks who voted for Bush stupid. Something I keep hearing. I mean they used to limit the name calling to the candidate (and Bush while inarticulate is no dummy), when you start calling the electorate stupid you've wandered off the reservation. You don't change someone's mind by derriding them, you just isolate yourself. The party still doesn't get why they lost and are playing up the values thing because it fits their view of the 'idiots' who voted for Bush. They believe their own hype saying Bush F*cked up the economy, the war in Iraq is a disaster etc. Many who voted for Bush interpret the facts differently and so just don't agree on the substance. Blaming a single issue is as usual an over simplification. Radicalizing your base might have felt good in the short term but after a while the only folks listening to the sermon are in the chior. QuoteFrom Reuters: "The Democrats are going to have to get used to permanent minority status for a generation or two," said Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County." That's at least 25 years. The Article Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #13 November 5, 2004 QuoteI mean they used to limit the name calling to the candidate (and Bush while inarticulate is no dummy), when you start calling the electorate stupid you've wandered off the reservation. You don't change someone's mind by derriding them, you just isolate yourself. Don't even try to claim that's partisan. There are also the constant cries of "liberal idiots" coming from the right. QuoteRadicalizing your base might have felt good in the short term but after a while the only folks listening to the sermon are in the chior. That's kind of like "reaching out to those who share your goals." That's not really reaching out, now is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dingley 0 #14 November 5, 2004 Well, here's a limey view - Firstly, I agree that it's a dodgy tactic to keep calling Bush supporters stupid. I'm well aware that name-calling applies to both sides, but the balance of power is now with the 'stupids'. However, I don't think it'll be long before some of those supporters begin to feel like victims. The defecit can't be ignored, and it'll hit the poor first. Tax cuts won't help, and it's hard to see how they could even be considered if Bush carries on spending (so much for small government, but that's another story). Also, many will feel that they've been conned. The whole world could see what a vicious campaign this was, and the Republicans gave up on talking policy months ago. Whatever your beliefs, God won't save them when the money dries up, and they'll have to provide some answers. All of this looks strangely familiar to me. As you know (or not, hey, we're 'somewhere else') we (not me) shamed ourselves by electing Margaret Thatcher three times over. She went on a mission to destroy and denigrate everything good about our country and our culture, and eventually paid the price. Anyway, it's easier to find a Bush supporter in Britain now than it is to find someone who'll admit to ever voting for her. More pertinently, the conservative party is now a running joke, without a hope of power (that's why Blair's not been kicked into touch). People don't forget, and they eventually get even. So, the Democrats may well fumble around for a few years. They may even consider choosing the wrong candidate again, although you could forgive them for thinking that a tree would be enough to beat the incumbent. Personally, though, I think it's more likely that this administration will fall apart, and do long-term damage to the prospects of the Republicans. I don't think that their rump of support will disappear, but that won't be enough to win elections. We shall see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #15 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteI mean they used to limit the name calling to the candidate (and Bush while inarticulate is no dummy), when you start calling the electorate stupid you've wandered off the reservation. You don't change someone's mind by derriding them, you just isolate yourself. Don't even try to claim that's partisan. There are also the constant cries of "liberal idiots" coming from the right. QuoteRadicalizing your base might have felt good in the short term but after a while the only folks listening to the sermon are in the chior. That's kind of like "reaching out to those who share your goals." That's not really reaching out, now is it? It's called winning an election. Your comment is a complete non sequitur but let's run with it. I don't recall anyone mentioning reaching out when Clinton won, but for the record Bush has tried this IMHO with folks like Ted Kennedy on education. He may do it again but his policies have been so mischaracterized and slandered there's not much common ground left. One thing's for sure, there's no reaching out to many of the left because they believe the Moore propaganda that's demonstrably false. That's what I mean by radicalizing your base. As for name calling, I do see it as partisan, it's palpable I've seen & heard the constant accusations from folks on the left that Bush is an idiot (despite strong evidence to the contrary), and nothing similar about Kerry from anyone. Now I'm hearing it about anyone who voted for Bush, I don't recall hearing anyone in the mainstream characterize the entire electorate on the left as stupid. What I do see is the "elites" label applied to the left from the right. A response no doubt to accusations of stupidity and bigotry. There is a sense on the right that folks on the left see themselves as intellectually superior and I think it is more than merely perception by the right, if you were honest you'd admit that. It's why we have a lot of this distain for this "dumb Bush cowboy". You pretending it's the same on both sides of the aisle doesn't change the reality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #16 November 5, 2004 So you never heard of "sKerry" huh?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #17 November 5, 2004 QuoteSo you never heard of "sKerry" huh? Is he any relation to Flipper? Or Herman Munster? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 November 5, 2004 Yep, that's not just a limey perspective. It's pretty much the perspective of most of us who were against Bush and willing to vote for someone too far to the left instead. Your predictions are what we see as coming to pass as well. The hope was that negating the all right wing executive and legislature that we could stop the momentum toward the extreme right and eventual backlash. No, it's not the end of the world that Bush won. But it's going to be painful to correct what will be the eventual problems that will manifest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #19 November 5, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo you never heard of "sKerry" huh? Is he any relation to Flipper? Or Herman Munster? Blues, Dave This is where your judgement is unfortunately clouded. There were many names called, but I'm specifically referring to seriously intended accusations of stupidity. Calling a candidate flipper because he flips on policy or mocking his appearance because he's vain enough to get Botox injections (or some other procedure that radically altered his face) is not even in the same league as repeatedly calling Bush stupid for 4 years, let alone calling everyone who voted for him dumb. Trust me on this guys, calling half the electorate stupid ain't gonna work for you, even if you're displeased that they called your cartwheeling candidate a flip-flopper. At some point the facts play a role and people don't like being insulted because they didn't do what you wanted them to do. Calling over half the voters stupid is just amazing, they wouldn't elect the guy who took both sides of every issue and griped constantly about how bad things were and you call them dumb because you hate Bush and believe Moore's propaganda. Great job, hearts & minds, hearts & minds! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 November 5, 2004 QuoteFrom Reuters: "The Democrats are going to have to get used to permanent minority status for a generation or two," said Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County." That's at least 25 years. Of course, it was only 12 years ago that the Democrats were oh so close to having the white house and 60 members in the Senate. It can quickly turn, as it did only 2 years later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakyrat 1 #21 November 5, 2004 I just read where Lincoln Chaffe is thinking of switching parties and becoming a Democrat. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
