The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

[Ishmael]

The Democratic party is poised to 'implode' in 2004 and it appears that there is little that little to be done in avoiding this implosion.

Two factors are at work here that will trigger this implosion. The first is the parties fringe left hatred for President Bush and the second in the, apparently, unstoppable nomination of Dr. Howard Dean as the standard bearer for the party in 2004.

Dealing with Dr. Dean first, here we have a candidate that has the centrist portion of the party, that portion that carried President Clinton to victory in two elections, worried. Very worried. No less a rabid Democratic partisan as James Carville said, "I'm scared to death that this guy just says anything. It feels like he's undergone some kind of a political lobotomy here." This statement was made on National Television.

Dean’s gaffes over the holiday season are one on top of the other. But that has not moved his support one iota.

There are two telling indications of Dean's character that will cost the Democrats the elections and will undoubtedly by a large enough margin that close races in the house and senate will swing towards the Republicans favor. The first is his 'cry baby' attitude towards McAuliffe, the DNC chairman. Dean's statement regarding the attacks by his fellow Democratic opponents, "If Ron Brown were the chairman, this wouldn't be happening.” are not only not likely to garner him any favor with the DNC staff, but are more likely to work against him. Especially considering his playing fast and loose with the truth here. Ron Brown didn't lift a finger to protect president, then candidate, Clinton from charges and attacks by his Democratic challengers in '92. And Clinton was savaged by a few challengers.

The second was his none to thinly veiled threat to run as a third party candidate. (A threat that Dr. Dean would probably carry out.) This threat is not being received well by the party centrists either. Dean probably does have enough support and enough of an energized base to start a third party challenge, a challenge that would cost the Democrats dearly in the national election.

What does this all mean? It means that the Democratic Party is probably going to be railroaded into fielding a candidate whose entire campaign is based on hatred of the sitting president. This is not going to move the independents or the 'undecided' voter in the middle towards the Democratic challenger. If anything, one could not ask for a better platform to drive them away.

The vast numbers of centrist Democrats are either going to vote for Bush or stay home and not vote at all. They will be disenfranchised over this election season and are going to react to this disenfranchisement in a manner not in the best interests of the party.

Then there are Dean's statements regarding the capture of Saddam and the more recent one of his brother being in the military. Again I quote Carville, "He seems to not appreciate the glory of the unspoken thought."

Dean will not pivot to the 'center' as most pundits have proposed. He won't because he is incapable of separating himself from himself. These statements were not made to energize the fringe left of the party, nor are any of his other statements. Dean just isn't that shrewd a politician. These statements are him. That's who he is and who he is is a lot more like a spoiled liberal from the upper West Side of New York City. He can't go to the center because the Republicans aren't going to let him. He is a 'bug on a pin' and is going to be stuck forever in the hole that he's dug for himself. Unlike Clinton, he's just not smart enough to walk out of a "Sister Solja(sp)" recital.

The fringe left of the party are reveling in the new found power that they think they are wielding via their anointed candidate, Dr. Dean. They are going to loose that power after the election and loose it badly. Can they form a strong enough coalition to field their own candidate in 2008; the Republicans can only hope so. The Democrats are going to have to do a serious house cleaning after the elections if they want to be competitive in 2008. I fear that it is too late for them, as a party, to do anything about it now.

There are only two candidates that the Democrats could field that would be competitive in the general election. Either Lieberman or Clark and I'm not all that sure about Clark. Lieberman could, and would, give Bush a run for his money. Dean couldn't be a better choice for a challenger to Bush than if Bush were allowed to hand pick his opponent.

If Dean is nominated the election is over baring an unforeseen catastrophe. The only thing of interest is going to be watching the Democratic Party trying to pick up the pieces and become competitive in the arena of ideas again.

Ishmael

 

[ubertroll]

Lacking any actual end to criticism of George Bush, given a FIELD of eminantly more qualified Chief Executives than the incumbant, given the fact that the country is, by majority, far closer to the Democratic party than the Republican party, the GOP and its cronies, both witting and unwitting, have decided to perpetrate a mass myth--that of the Conservative Juggernaught.

Some of the tendrils of this myth permeate every media outlet--even the 'liberally biased' ones. For instance

* "George W. Bush's election is inevitable" even though more people [48%] say they intend to definately vote against him than say [46%] they will definately vote for him, according to a reccent Gallup poll. Of course, even when more people voted against him than for him, his father's appointees still managed to get him into office, so maybe this point is a wash.

* "The media has a liberal bias" patently untrue. A simple study of the 2000 election will reveal no significant liberal bias--quite the contrary, most mainstream media organizations tend to swing slightly CONSERVATIVE [because EDITORS, as opposed to journalists, are vastly more Conservative than the population as a whole], and, in addition to that, there exists a small but dedicated [FoxNews, New York Post, Washington Times, American Spectator, etc...] faction of news organizations that delibrately and with malice attempts to propagate a Conservative idealogogy, irregardless, and often DESPITE, the facts.




The Democratic Party is stronger than the GOP--the only difference is the GOP has a more favorable media syndicate, and is, in general, more willing to break both law and ethics in order to achieve it's goals of enriching its own leadership and chief supporters. 2004, Bush will lose [I'd bet 4-1 against his reelection], and odds are the GOP will lose at least one house of Congress [2-1 against the GOP keeping both].

 

[ubertroll]

If any of the Democratic candidates, save for Kucinich, Sharpton, or Mosely-Braun [all of whom have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning] went head to head against Bush, I'd place at least even money on the Dem. And I'd win.

 

[HeavyStick]

The Democratic Party is stronger than the GOP--the only difference is the GOP has a more favorable media syndicate, and is, in general, more willing to break both law and ethics in order to achieve it's goals of enriching its own leadership and chief supporters.

So Clinton never broke any laws.... hillary turned a 10K investment into 1million in the commodity market? WTFE.... democrats are against the constitution when it hurts their ideals... and call the Rep's hawks when the dems have a chance to embrace the document.

There is just as much leftist media as there is right. You only choose to bitch about the right.

 

[RoryN]

The Democratic party is poised to 'implode' in 2004 and it appears that there is little that little to be done in avoiding this implosion.

AFAIC, it doesn't matter. I don't trust that the average American can differentiate between "good" & "bad" candidates anyhow.

That's an affront to the democratic process, I know. But I think we're being trained to be indifferent and dumb. Worse yet, we're not fighting back very hard anymore.

 

[Ishmael]

Lacking any actual end to criticism of George Bush, given a FIELD of eminantly more qualified Chief Executives than the incumbant, given the fact that the country is, by majority, far closer to the Democratic party than the Republican party, the GOP and its cronies, both witting and unwitting, have decided to perpetrate a mass myth--that of the Conservative Juggernaught.

Some of the tendrils of this myth permeate every media outlet--even the 'liberally biased' ones. For instance

* "George W. Bush's election is inevitable" even though more people [48%] say they intend to definately vote against him than say [46%] they will definately vote for him, according to a reccent Gallup poll. Of course, even when more people voted against him than for him, his father's appointees still managed to get him into office, so maybe this point is a wash.

* "The media has a liberal bias" patently untrue. A simple study of the 2000 election will reveal no significant liberal bias--quite the contrary, most mainstream media organizations tend to swing slightly CONSERVATIVE [because EDITORS, as opposed to journalists, are vastly more Conservative than the population as a whole], and, in addition to that, there exists a small but dedicated [FoxNews, New York Post, Washington Times, American Spectator, etc...] faction of news organizations that delibrately and with malice attempts to propagate a Conservative idealogogy, irregardless, and often DESPITE, the facts.




The Democratic Party is stronger than the GOP--the only difference is the GOP has a more favorable media syndicate, and is, in general, more willing to break both law and ethics in order to achieve it's goals of enriching its own leadership and chief supporters. 2004, Bush will lose [I'd bet 4-1 against his reelection], and odds are the GOP will lose at least one house of Congress [2-1 against the GOP keeping both].

You are making statements of 'fact' that just aren't true. Poll after poll has shown that the country is moving to the right and has been for 20 years now. Slowly, but inexorably so.

Second, you mistake registration with voting records. You are correct in pointing out the Democrats lead in registered voters. Unfortunately for the Democrats that has not manifested itself in the elections.

Grasping at the media straw is the last refuge of the left. It's always someone elses fault.

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats haven't had a good idea in decades. 1965 was probably the last year they did.

The best that they've been able to do is bullheadedly defend the status quo. Particularly unsustainable proframs like Medicare and Social Security.

Inorder to secure election even Clinton had to run on Republican ideas. And was even forced into implementing a few.

Nice rhetoric, but no substance in your post.

Dean is going to lose big if nominated. If not nominated, it's likely he'll turn sour grapes and form a third party. It doesn't make a difference at all in the long run. The centrists will be forced to vote for Bush or not at all. Either of those choices suit the Republicans just fine.

The only salvation I see for the Democrats is for Lieberman to be nominated and Dean to go home and shut up.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

That's an affront to the democratic process, I know. But I think we're being trained to be indifferent and dumb. Worse yet, we're not fighting back very hard anymore.

Yup, it's the public schools.

Ishmael

 

[ubertroll]

So Clinton never broke any laws.... hillary turned a 10K investment into 1million in the commodity market? WTFE.... democrats are against the constitution when it hurts their ideals... and call the Rep's hawks when the dems have a chance to embrace the document.

There is just as much leftist media as there is right. You only choose to bitch about the right.

Clinton was never convincted of breaking any laws, and our Constitution enshires the presumption of innocence. Prove it in a court of law, or it ain't true.


Hillary turned 10k into 1 mil in the market. Damn straight. How many people under the Clinton presidency made similar feats? There were MANY inquiries into her investments by investigators chosen by arch-Clinton-hater Newt Gingrich, and all found no wrongdoing by the former President.


Democrats aren't against the Constitution when it hurts us--we might get pissed when the Electoral College fucks us over, but that was NEVER what the election dispute was about. What it was ABOUT was illegal, and unconstitutional voter fraud perpetrated by Jeb Bush and his state government in order to, literally, rig the election of the President of the United States! The only personal guilt of opposing the Constitution in that whole mess belongs in GOP hands!


And the Reps are hawks. Sometimes a damn good thing, too. But that doesn't, and never was, related to obeyance of the Constitution--something the Bush government ISN'T doing, particularly in regards to amendments 1, 4, and 7.

 

[miles]

.

Democrats aren't against the Constitution when it hurts us--we might get pissed when the Electoral College fucks us over, but that was NEVER what the election dispute was about. What it was ABOUT was illegal, and unconstitutional voter fraud perpetrated by Jeb Bush and his state government in order to, literally, rig the election of the President of the United States! The only personal guilt of opposing the Constitution in that whole mess belongs in GOP hands!

What voter fraud?

 

[Problem Child]

Clinton was never convincted of breaking any laws, and our Constitution enshires the presumption of innocence. Prove it in a court of law, or it ain't true.



Democrats aren't against the Constitution when it hurts us--we might get pissed when the Electoral College fucks us over, but that was NEVER what the election dispute was about. What it was ABOUT was illegal, and unconstitutional voter fraud perpetrated by Jeb Bush and his state government in order to, literally, rig the election of the President of the United States! The only personal guilt of opposing the Constitution in that whole mess belongs in GOP hands!

Wow, my head's spinning after that little bit of hypocrisy.

 

[Ishmael]

Clinton was never convincted of breaking any laws, and our Constitution enshires the presumption of innocence. Prove it in a court of law, or it ain't true.


Hillary turned 10k into 1 mil in the market. Damn straight. How many people under the Clinton presidency made similar feats? There were MANY inquiries into her investments by investigators chosen by arch-Clinton-hater Newt Gingrich, and all found no wrongdoing by the former President.


Democrats aren't against the Constitution when it hurts us--we might get pissed when the Electoral College fucks us over, but that was NEVER what the election dispute was about. What it was ABOUT was illegal, and unconstitutional voter fraud perpetrated by Jeb Bush and his state government in order to, literally, rig the election of the President of the United States! The only personal guilt of opposing the Constitution in that whole mess belongs in GOP hands!


And the Reps are hawks. Sometimes a damn good thing, too. But that doesn't, and never was, related to obeyance of the Constitution--something the Bush government ISN'T doing, particularly in regards to amendments 1, 4, and 7.

Valium might help with those problems you seem to be having.

Ishmael

 

[RoryN]

The only salvation I see for the Democrats is for Lieberman to be nominated and Dean to go home and shut up.

Lieberman offers the Democrats no chance of winning, and would be a blemish to the party as their candidate, much in the same way Dean would be. I'm sure you know that.

 

[Ham Murabi]

* "George W. Bush's election is inevitable" even though more people [48%] say they intend to definately vote against him than say [46%] they will definately vote for him, according to a reccent Gallup poll. Of course, even when more people voted against him than for him, his father's appointees still managed to get him into office, so maybe this point is a wash.

George Sr. may be old, but I don't think he had any hand in appointing anyone who created the electoral college.
Those who like to complain about the "stolen" election always conveniently forget that Bush did win the popular vote in Florida. He even won when the media got together and counted all those ballots, every hanging and pregnant chad, after Bush was in office.
Just think. If Gore would have carried his home state of Tennessee of Clinton's home state of Arkansas, Gore would be president today.

 

[HeavyStick]

Lacking any actual end to criticism of George Bush, given a FIELD of eminantly more qualified Chief Executives than the incumbant, given the fact that the country is, by majority, far closer to the Democratic party than the Republican party, the GOP and its cronies, both witting and unwitting, have decided to perpetrate a mass myth--that of the Conservative Juggernaught.

Some of the tendrils of this myth permeate every media outlet--even the 'liberally biased' ones. For instance

* "George W. Bush's election is inevitable" even though more people [48%] say they intend to definately vote against him than say [46%] they will definately vote for him, according to a reccent Gallup poll. Of course, even when more people voted against him than for him, his father's appointees still managed to get him into office, so maybe this point is a wash.

* "The media has a liberal bias" patently untrue. A simple study of the 2000 election will reveal no significant liberal bias--quite the contrary, most mainstream media organizations tend to swing slightly CONSERVATIVE [because EDITORS, as opposed to journalists, are vastly more Conservative than the population as a whole], and, in addition to that, there exists a small but dedicated [FoxNews, New York Post, Washington Times, American Spectator, etc...] faction of news organizations that delibrately and with malice attempts to propagate a Conservative idealogogy, irregardless, and often DESPITE, the facts.




The Democratic Party is stronger than the GOP--the only difference is the GOP has a more favorable media syndicate, and is, in general, more willing to break both law and ethics in order to achieve it's goals of enriching its own leadership and chief supporters. 2004, Bush will lose [I'd bet 4-1 against his reelection], and odds are the GOP will lose at least one house of Congress [2-1 against the GOP keeping both].

Prove it in a court of law, or it ain't true.


HA

 

[RoryN]

Re: Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

Yup, it's the public schools.

Mmmhmm. Now, work a little harder. The public schools are "dumbing down" the kids...why?

 

[Ishmael]

Lieberman offers the Democrats no chance of winning, and would be a blemish to the party as their candidate, much in the same way Dean would be. I'm sure you know that.

Actually I don't. Lieberman fairs very well in match ups against Bush.

Unfortunately he's been unable to articulate his positions. I don't understand that at all. Possibly because as the "new kid in town" Dean is getting more than his share of media attention. Dean also has a knack for saying things that draws press much like McCain in '00.

I have a lot of respect of Lieberman. I don't share his views on many things but he isn't lacking in integrity. He is also, politically, much shrewder than Dean.

Unfortunately it probably won't make a bit of a difference.

Ishmael

 

[RoryN]

Actually I don't. Lieberman fairs very well in match ups against Bush.

Says who??
He has zero charisma, and he's got unpopular stances. Yeah - he matches up well against Bush if you're a Bush fan...

Unfortunately he's been unable to articulate his positions.

That's called a "red flag". He's had plenty of chances to do so.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

Mmmhmm. Now, work a little harder. The public schools are "dumbing down" the kids...why?

Hmmmmm, "work harder?"

I have two years worth of threads here concerning the public schools and the education system. Rather than repeat myself off topic in this thread, you might want to do some research.

Ishmael

 

[Wrong Element]

There isn't going to be any implosion--which isn't to say I expect Dean/the Democratic candidate to be elected. The odds are against it, if only because presidents are re-elected more often than not.

But right now the country is divided in such a way that it makes landslides pretty difficult to achieve. Gore won California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey (the #1, #3, #5, and #9 states in population) by more than 10 percentage points. That's over 2/5 of the way to getting elected right there. It would take an extraordinarily weak Democratic candidate to lose that sort of margin in 4 years time.

And whatever you think of Dean--and I'm far from sold on the guy myself--he must have some political talent to go from nowhere to leading the Democratic pack in 12 months time. Certainly Bush never had to climb a similar obstacle.

I remember people writing off the Republicans as a serious party after the 1974 elections. I also remember intelligent people saying (after Reagan and Bush I) that the Republicans had an unbreakable lock on the electoral college. Wrong, and wrong. There's a very strong 2-party dynamic in the U.S. that figures to survive the 2004 campaign.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You are making statements of 'fact' that just aren't true. Poll after poll has shown that the country is moving to the right and has been for 20 years now. Slowly, but inexorably so.

Quoting directly from the Harris Poll site:

"When asked whether they are conservative, moderate or liberal, a 40% plurality self-identify as moderates, four points ahead of the 36% who self identify as conservatives. Only 19% self identify as liberals. For much of the last thirty years, these numbers have barely changed. Since 1978, the conservatives have never been lower than 34% and never higher than 38%. Moderates have varied only between 39% and 42% and liberals have varied only between 17% and 20%. It is hard to think of another set of attitudinal questions that have been so extraordinarily stable."

 

[Ishmael]

Quoting directly from the Harris Poll site:

"When asked whether they are conservative, moderate or liberal, a 40% plurality self-identify as moderates, four points ahead of the 36% who self identify as conservatives. Only 19% self identify as liberals. For much of the last thirty years, these numbers have barely changed. Since 1978, the conservatives have never been lower than 34% and never higher than 38%. Moderates have varied only between 39% and 42% and liberals have varied only between 17% and 20%. It is hard to think of another set of attitudinal questions that have been so extraordinarily stable."

I have to agree with the poll. But you and I are both well aware that self-descripiton does not necessarily translate into voting patterns. It's the difference between perception and reality.

The other polls were more specific in nature dealing with issues. And of course we see the movement of the states and congress as the ultimate outward expression of the mood of the people.

For the time being the country is moving to the right. In time that too may change, but those are the facts as they are expressed today by results.

Ishmael

 

[RoryN]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

Hmmmmm, "work harder?"

I have two years worth of threads here concerning the public schools and the education system. Rather than repeat myself off topic in this thread, you might want to do some research.

Nah. I asked for answers, not a Lit resume.

I don't care if you're Prof. Sykes and have published volumes of material on the subject; if you're going to toss off a generalization like "it's the public schools", the comment is worth expanding on in real-time. Not doing so is typical of a Conservative "black and white" mentality, and I don't do well around personalities who adhere to stereotypes.

 

[Ishmael]

There isn't going to be any implosion--which isn't to say I expect Dean/the Democratic candidate to be elected. The odds are against it, if only because presidents are re-elected more often than not.

But right now the country is divided in such a way that it makes landslides pretty difficult to achieve. Gore won California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey (the #1, #3, #5, and #9 states in population) by more than 10 percentage points. That's over 2/5 of the way to getting elected right there. It would take an extraordinarily weak Democratic candidate to lose that sort of margin in 4 years time.

And whatever you think of Dean--and I'm far from sold on the guy myself--he must have some political talent to go from nowhere to leading the Democratic pack in 12 months time. Certainly Bush never had to climb a similar obstacle.

I remember people writing off the Republicans as a serious party after the 1974 elections. I also remember intelligent people saying (after Reagan and Bush I) that the Republicans had an unbreakable lock on the electoral college. Wrong, and wrong. There's a very strong 2-party dynamic in the U.S. that figures to survive the 2004 campaign.

OK WE, want to make a friendly wager? I'll wager that if Dean is nominated, Bush will carry at least 45 states and close to 60% of the popular vote. That is a landslide by any definition.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

Nah. I asked for answers, not a Lit resume.

I don't care if you're Prof. Sykes and have published volumes of material on the subject; if you're going to toss off a generalization like "it's the public schools", the comment is worth expanding on in real-time. Not doing so is typical of a Conservative "black and white" mentality, and I don't do well around personalities who adhere to stereotypes.

You started with the "throw offs". You get in kind.

Go start a thread on the subject. I'll post. It's obvioulsy a 'hot button' with you. But it isn't the subject of this thread. Has nothing to do with this thread.

Ishmael

 

[RoryN]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The "Implosion" of the Democratic Party

You started with the "throw offs". You get in kind.

Not true. I've offered reasons for my opinions in this thread. Yeah, I know I unfairly trolled you...it's just so damn easy to do with you Conservative blowhards. The average Liberal could give someone like Rush or Imus a heart attack just by hugging a tree in front of him.

I'm sorry for exploiting a weakness.

Go start a thread on the subject. I'll post. It's obvioulsy a 'hot button' with you. But it isn't the subject of this thread. Has nothing to do with this thread.

This doesn't sound like an answer to my question. Sounds more like a cop-out. I've already posed the question to you - there's no need for me to pose it again, or to refer to something I've written previously without proper framework (hint hint).

Bye.