Home› A Moving Train

What Are Democrats Thinking?

onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
edited March 2007 in A Moving Train
from the current polls; it looks like the democrats will be hitching their wagon to a lame horse for the race to the white house. instead of finding a good strong candidate most likely to sway republican votes in their favour; they again find candidates outcast by many in their own party. the democrats that knew kerry for what he was; voted against him. it looks like 2008 will be the same. people will not vote for the best candidate; but vote against the worst.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    from the current polls; it looks like the democrats will be hitching their wagon to a lame horse for the race to the white house. instead of finding a good strong candidate most likely to sway republican votes in their favour; they again find candidates outcast by many in their own party. the democrats that knew kerry for what he was; voted against him. it looks like 2008 will be the same. people will not vote for the best candidate; but vote against the worst.


    Got to hate wasting the vote on a third party to make a real statement. :rolleyes:

    What is the problem down there with not buying into the bs line of wasting a vote. Are the people that gullable?
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    onelongsong wrote:
    from the current polls; it looks like the democrats will be hitching their wagon to a lame horse for the race to the white house. instead of finding a good strong candidate most likely to sway republican votes in their favour; they again find candidates outcast by many in their own party. the democrats that knew kerry for what he was; voted against him. it looks like 2008 will be the same. people will not vote for the best candidate; but vote against the worst.

    oh i highly disagree with that. i don't know about the 'current polls' nor do i care, but i know of at least one democratic candidate who is getting a lot of new democrat and republican-identified support.

    and i think that for the first time in my personal political history, 2008 will be different and exciting.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    even flow? wrote:
    Got to hate wasting the vote on a third party to make a real statement. :rolleyes:

    What is the problem down there with not buying into the bs line of wasting a vote. Are the people that gullable?


    Yes.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    I'm not interested in a candidate that appeals to Republicans. If I were, I'd be voting Republican. We need to sway independents, which is hardly the same thing, and there are at least a couple out there that may be able to do that.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Sometimes it is just an unpopularity contest, that's how we got Harper.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Pacomc79Pacomc79 Posts: 9,404
    even flow? wrote:
    Got to hate wasting the vote on a third party to make a real statement. :rolleyes:

    What is the problem down there with not buying into the bs line of wasting a vote. Are the people that gullable?


    *waves* current and future vote waster checking in.
    My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    hippiemom wrote:
    I'm not interested in a candidate that appeals to Republicans. If I were, I'd be voting Republican. We need to sway independents, which is hardly the same thing, and there are at least a couple out there that may be able to do that.

    and start swaying the huge amounts of apathetic non-voters. Give them something worth going out to the polls.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • jeffbrjeffbr Posts: 7,177
    Pacomc79 wrote:
    *waves* current and future vote waster checking in.

    Count me in. Not sure why people see 2008 as ultimately being any different than the previous few presidential elections.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Sometimes it is just an unpopularity contest, that's how we got Harper.


    ha ha ha ha ha The smile won't leave my face!
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    hippiemom wrote:
    I'm not interested in a candidate that appeals to Republicans. If I were, I'd be voting Republican. We need to sway independents, which is hardly the same thing, and there are at least a couple out there that may be able to do that.

    i think there are many things happening concurrently, one being that more people are starting to identify as independent--and some of those are 'former' republicans. but not all republicans are the same, just as not all democrats are the same (which is also why there seems to be more of an 'independent' identifier going on too) and there seems to be a lot of change happening, albeit slowly.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    and start swaying the huge amounts of apathetic non-voters. Give them something worth going out to the polls.
    YES! We need to get the younger people reason to go out and vote, since they seem to be the majority of the non-voters.
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    Jeanwah wrote:
    YES! We need to get the younger people reason to go out and vote, since they seem to be the majority of the non-voters.

    this generation y or 'next' or whatever (24-25 and under) are the most politically active generation, according to a bunch of news things i've read and seen lately.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    VictoryGin wrote:
    oh i highly disagree with that. i don't know about the 'current polls' nor do i care, but i know of at least one democratic candidate who is getting a lot of new democrat and republican-identified support.

    and i think that for the first time in my personal political history, 2008 will be different and exciting.

    my best friend is a democratic congressman who says he'll vote against any woman running. behind closed doors he's backing gulliani. most of small town america will vote against any black or woman candidate. their motives may differ but as we see on this board; not everyone is a progressive thinker. gulliani is the "likeable; old fashion president type". very popular with women with a strong political background. he's proven himself in times of crisis and disaster. 2008 will be interesting. but i had thought that it would be a fight between strong candidates in a battle for the whitehouse.
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    onelongsong wrote:
    my best friend is a democratic congressman who says he'll vote against any woman running. behind closed doors he's backing gulliani. most of small town america will vote against any black or woman candidate. their motives may differ but as we see on this board; not everyone is a progressive thinker. gulliani is the "likeable; old fashion president type". very popular with women with a strong political background. he's proven himself in times of crisis and disaster. 2008 will be interesting. but i had thought that it would be a fight between strong candidates in a battle for the whitehouse.

    yeah not everyone is a progressive thinker, but i can counter every one of your stories with one of mine--such as one of a extremely traditional republican county in illinois that is organizing in amazing amounts for a black democratic candidate.

    giuliani sucks hard.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • Dustin51Dustin51 Posts: 222
    onelongsong wrote:
    from the current polls; it looks like the democrats will be hitching their wagon to a lame horse for the race to the white house. instead of finding a good strong candidate most likely to sway republican votes in their favour; they again find candidates outcast by many in their own party. the democrats that knew kerry for what he was; voted against him. it looks like 2008 will be the same. people will not vote for the best candidate; but vote against the worst.

    I'm assuming you are refering to Hillary? I honestly believe she can beat anyone in a National election except Guilianni. The problem for Dems is I dont think anyone can beat Guilianni in a National election. Should be a lot of fun though. I'm really looking forward to this election. I even wrote an article about it if anyone cares to take a look at it.

    http://www.theobservationist.com/story.php?id=319&PHPSESSID=86781f6adbd4bdf4a37209869b6acd1b
    Be excellent to each other
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    and start swaying the huge amounts of apathetic non-voters. Give them something worth going out to the polls.

    i think that's happening. groups like the arian nation are pushing registration to "keep the wrong person out".
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    onelongsong wrote:
    my best friend is a democratic congressman who says he'll vote against any woman running. behind closed doors he's backing gulliani. most of small town america will vote against any black or woman candidate. their motives may differ but as we see on this board; not everyone is a progressive thinker. gulliani is the "likeable; old fashion president type". very popular with women with a strong political background. he's proven himself in times of crisis and disaster. 2008 will be interesting. but i had thought that it would be a fight between strong candidates in a battle for the whitehouse.
    I predict he falls apart quickly once he's under that national spotlight. Right now, to most of America he's Mr. 9/11, that's all they know of him. Middle America is not going to like his three marriages, his nasty divorces, the fact that his kids barely speak to him. The whole Bernard Kerik thing is going to come up again. There's just too much baggage, I don't think he'll hold up. He'd better enjoy this honeymoon period now. He's just one of many candidates and no one is taking any serious hits yet. If he starts to look like the bona fide front-runner, that's when the media feeding frenzy will start.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    hippiemom wrote:
    I predict he falls apart quickly once he's under that national spotlight. Right now, to most of America he's Mr. 9/11, that's all they know of him. Middle America is not going to like his three marriages, his nasty divorces, the fact that his kids barely speak to him. The whole Bernard Kerik thing is going to come up again. There's just too much baggage, I don't think he'll hold up. He'd better enjoy this honeymoon period now. He's just one of many candidates and no one is taking any serious hits yet. If he starts to look like the bona fide front-runner, that's when the media feeding frenzy will start.

    and he wasn't well-liked in ny before 9/11. some of his policies were awful. there was a great, long article on him in the nation a few years ago about everything.

    and if he loses evangelical support, would he have enough to beat the dem? i doubt it.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Dustin51 wrote:
    I'm assuming you are refering to Hillary? I honestly believe she can beat anyone in a National election except Guilianni. The problem for Dems is I dont think anyone can beat Guilianni in a National election. Should be a lot of fun though. I'm really looking forward to this election. I even wrote an article about it if anyone cares to take a look at it.

    http://www.theobservationist.com/story.php?id=319&PHPSESSID=86781f6adbd4bdf4a37209869b6acd1b

    keep in mind that you are a progressive thinker and living in an area where things are different. your world doesn't portray all of america. neither does mine. o'l bubba who's "maybe" heard of the internet is going to put pants on and come out of the woods and vote to make sure we "don't have no lady or negro" president.
    it will be interesting though.
  • onelongsongonelongsong Posts: 3,517
    hippiemom wrote:
    I predict he falls apart quickly once he's under that national spotlight. Right now, to most of America he's Mr. 9/11, that's all they know of him. Middle America is not going to like his three marriages, his nasty divorces, the fact that his kids barely speak to him. The whole Bernard Kerik thing is going to come up again. There's just too much baggage, I don't think he'll hold up. He'd better enjoy this honeymoon period now. He's just one of many candidates and no one is taking any serious hits yet. If he starts to look like the bona fide front-runner, that's when the media feeding frenzy will start.

    then the same people won't like the disgrace bill brought to the presidentcy and hillary's "acceptance" of his indiscretions. the door swings both ways.
  • SPEEDY MCCREADYSPEEDY MCCREADY Posts: 25,598
    has jeb bush announced his candidacy yet???
    Take me piece by piece.....
    Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    VictoryGin wrote:
    this generation y or 'next' or whatever (24-25 and under) are the most politically active generation, according to a bunch of news things i've read and seen lately.
    Although it does seem that way, the stats from the last election shows that there's a huge absence of younger voters actually going to the polls. I talk to people I work with that have that "my vote doesn't do anything so why bother?" They seem to be the younger generation.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    onelongsong wrote:
    then the same people won't like the disgrace bill brought to the presidentcy and hillary's "acceptance" of his indiscretions. the door swings both ways.
    I said a few days ago that even though I don't want either of them to be president, I think a Clinton-Giuliani race would in some ways be refreshing because at least neither side would be able to launch a family-values attack and they'd perhaps focus on more substantive issues. The downside, of course, would be that at the end of the refreshing campaign, we'd be stuck with one of them for four years.

    But if either one of them have to run against anyone else, all the family values bullshit is likely to be an issue.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • AbuskedtiAbuskedti Posts: 1,917
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    and start swaying the huge amounts of apathetic non-voters. Give them something worth going out to the polls.

    :) thats me!
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    onelongsong wrote:
    my best friend is a democratic congressman who says he'll vote against any woman running. behind closed doors he's backing gulliani. most of small town america will vote against any black or woman candidate. their motives may differ but as we see on this board; not everyone is a progressive thinker. gulliani is the "likeable; old fashion president type". very popular with women with a strong political background. he's proven himself in times of crisis and disaster. 2008 will be interesting. but i had thought that it would be a fight between strong candidates in a battle for the whitehouse.

    The best thing that the dems have going for them in beating Guliani is the fact that he has to get the republican nomination, and I just don't see that happening.

    Hilary won't cut it either.... if she wins it will be by the slightest of margins (or a "mandate" in rove-speak). Hilary may get the democratic faithful out, but won't do much for independents or apathetic voters (like kerry).... the only thing that will get them out in any numbers is someone charismatic and a change or an outsider... that's why Obama has the best shot in my mind.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Abuskedti wrote:
    :) thats me!

    I know :)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    VictoryGin wrote:
    and he wasn't well-liked in ny before 9/11. some of his policies were awful. there was a great, long article on him in the nation a few years ago about everything.

    and if he loses evangelical support, would he have enough to beat the dem? i doubt it.
    Yeah, it seemed that the better New Yorkers got to know him, the less they liked him. I suspect it would be the same nationally.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    hippiemom wrote:
    I said a few days ago that even though I don't want either of them to be president, I think a Clinton-Giuliani race would in some ways be refreshing because at least neither side would be able to launch a family-values attack and they'd perhaps focus on more substantive issues. The downside, of course, would be that at the end of the refreshing campaign, we'd be stuck with one of them for four years.

    But if either one of them have to run against anyone else, all the family values bullshit is likely to be an issue.

    For entertainment value and for actual debates, I would love to see a Giuliani and Biden get the nomination. Biden never will, but with those two going, we could actually have a chance that both canidates will actually answer questions, and not be so afraid to say the wrong thing that they just speak in focus group tested soundbyte language.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    hippiemom wrote:
    Yeah, it seemed that the better New Yorkers got to know him, the less they liked him. I suspect it would be the same nationally.

    because after all, aren't we all new yorkers? or wait, was that palestineans . . .

    ;)
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    hippiemom wrote:
    Yeah, it seemed that the better New Yorkers got to know him, the less they liked him. I suspect it would be the same nationally.
    I just want to mention that I live in NY and while Rudy did an incredible job w/ 9/11, it's obvious that his supporters are from other states when it come to a Presidential bid. I don't live in the City, but yeah, the love for him here has waned. On the other hand, Hillary won her re-election to Senate for NYS by a landslide. She's done great work on the Senate front. The majority of her haters are from other states.
Sign In or Register to comment.