- Cannot speak to the south. (Clinton was an exception, not the rule.)
- Produces candidates that are uninspiring to the people. (Let's face it. Few of us cared about Kerry, we hated Bush)
- Lets itself be pinned into corners. (Kerry wasn't pro-gay or pro-abortion, and yet the Bush people smeared him on both of those issues)
- Has no uniting issues, and many dividing one. (How many democrats are prolife? Lots. How many democrats are for the Iraq war? Enough. How many Republicans are prochoice? Damn near zero. How many Republicans are against the Iraq war? Damn near zero.)
The Democratic Party
Author
Already I'm hearing some speculation about who the Democrats should have run in 2008.
I think that the question should be what party will be running against Republicans in 2008.
The Democratic party: (hopefully html lists work on this forum)
Clinton-Obama will happen in '08, and be stomped into paste by Jeb Bush and Giuliani or something similar. Maybe even Jeb Bush/Cheney.
I think it's either time for a new Populist party, or the Democratic party needs to become one. Go moderate all the way, with a hint of liberalism for hardcore lefties like myself. Since the Republican party seems to have drifted further to the right in the last decade, this shouldn't be hard to do and attract more voters.
By Populist, I mean a party that represents things that are good for all people in the country. Such as:
1) Defense/Homeland Security
2) Lower Healthcare costs, higher coverage
3) Better economic spending, with a healthy dose of fiscal responsibility.
4) Re-engagement in world politics. Or I guess I should say, co-operation with other world entities.
5) Higher education spending, more money for teachers, higher standards for kids (not necessarily more tests, but maybe more difficult ones).
6) Protecting + fixing the Social Security and Medicare problems
I think a large majority of people could stand behind those ideals. Of course, without some serious changes in the way that the media does things, the same nasty campaigning will be done again the next time around. I'd like to see the media question one side or the other when the parties in question make these ludicrous statements about their opposition. We need a factcheck.org kind of organization for the media. Like, they should have to have a factcheck guy working for them who got to speak after any political story to let you know what was bullshit and what wasn't.
By Populist, I mean a party that represents things that are good for all people in the country. Such as:
1) Defense/Homeland Security
2) Lower Healthcare costs, higher coverage
3) Better economic spending, with a healthy dose of fiscal responsibility.
4) Re-engagement in world politics. Or I guess I should say, co-operation with other world entities.
5) Higher education spending, more money for teachers, higher standards for kids (not necessarily more tests, but maybe more difficult ones).
6) Protecting + fixing the Social Security and Medicare problems
I think a large majority of people could stand behind those ideals. Of course, without some serious changes in the way that the media does things, the same nasty campaigning will be done again the next time around. I'd like to see the media question one side or the other when the parties in question make these ludicrous statements about their opposition. We need a factcheck.org kind of organization for the media. Like, they should have to have a factcheck guy working for them who got to speak after any political story to let you know what was bullshit and what wasn't.
Quote:Original post by C-JunkieWay too early to ask that. If you asked that question in 2000 right after Gore lost, did anyone think that Kerry is going to represent Democrats in 2004 (and still fail to make it "inspiring" and "energetic")?
who could possibly take the Democratic party platform and lead and inspiring and energetic campaign in 2008?
I wouldn't be so sure about Clinton-Obama getting stomped. They'd make a pretty convincing pair, especially with the former being a woman and the latter being black. IMO a significant portion of the population would vote for them based just on those facts.
Clinton-Obama is definitely an interesting combination. I'd probably vote for them.
Quote:Original post by ZulAgreed.
I think it's either time for a new Populist party, or the Democratic party needs to become one.[snip]
Quote:Original post by ZulI'd love to see a similar organization for political ads, especially those endorsed by the presidential candidates. Ads expressing opinions about the candidates are one thing, but when you have ads that contain outright falsehoods, I think that a great disservice is being done to the American people.
We need a factcheck.org kind of organization for the media.
Damn...you even get a custom post icon. Me? Oh, I'm a compassionate conservative. [wink]
I don't think the Democrats will have anyone in the White House until at least 2012 or 2016. I think McCain is obviously going to win in 2008. Does anyone disagree?
Btw, I’d really like to see Obama run sometime in the future. He was the only Person I voted for this time around. He tried to introduce a bill into the Illinois senate for IRV and that is the one issue that I really care about.
Btw, I’d really like to see Obama run sometime in the future. He was the only Person I voted for this time around. He tried to introduce a bill into the Illinois senate for IRV and that is the one issue that I really care about.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
