11-04-2004, 08:16 AM
This has been an interesting thread to read.
It isn't the point of my post, so let me get this out of the way first: my choice went to Bush. I wasn't very thrilled about any of the choices we had, but Bush seemed to be the best of a poor lot. The situation in Iraq, which seems to be the basis of many of the opinions of those outside the US, played a part in my choice (and counted against Bush), but wasn't anywhere near the only thing that did. Quite frankly, I take affront to those outside the US who think that our decision should have been made strictly on that. Would any of you elect a leader based on just one of many issues facing your country?
Let me get on to the point of this post, which is simply that this result was almost inevitable. In order for Kerry to have won, it would have required him to appeal to people the democratic party has long since alienated. What's more, unless things change the same thing will happen to the democratic party again in 4 years.
I've spent the day reading quite a few forums and talking to people I know who are staunch democrats. The response of those people I talked to was pretty revealing to me. Almost across the board, they gave the reason for what can only be described as the politcal spanking they took yesterday as being ignorance. That's also the general message I got from listening to interviews with democratic leaders I watched during the day. One lady I talked to mentioned that it was due to people just voting the same way their parents always had rather than making the choice on their own. When I mentioned to her the increased percentage of women who voted for Bush, her reaction was that they "just must not understand what this means for women's rights". Often said was that the religous right was responsible and comments, such as the one earlier in this thread, about their being uninformed and blind were the norm. Also included in that one were comments about the midwest and southern rural areas being dumb. The point being that the overall opinion was if they don't agree with us, they must be stupid.
The idea that people might just not agree with them and are entitled to that opinion was never mentioned. At a time when you would think that democrats would be stopping to think about how they can better appeal to more people, the reaction was instead one of arrogance and elitism. Considering the increased percentages of groups traditionally considered to be hugely democratic who voted for Bush, that's not a good omen for the democratic party. You simply can't talk down to 30% of the voters and hope to win.
The republicans having a broader appeal seems to mostly be mentioned in a derogatory fashion. The question I would ask is why in the world would that be a bad thing if you want to win elections. The democrats can keep sticking to what they consider their high ground and tell themselves they are above that, but they shouldn't expect to win elections at the same time.
There are moderates in the democratic party who could have won the election yesterday, but they are rarely allowed to make it through the primary process and gain the nomination. What happens instead is that candidates with a liberal record get the nomination and then try to make themselves moderates during the campaign. It's no suprise that they come off looking indecisive.
Over the next four years, the democratic party is going to have to become more flexible and willing to compromise and change or the next election is also already inevitable.
jrichard
It isn't the point of my post, so let me get this out of the way first: my choice went to Bush. I wasn't very thrilled about any of the choices we had, but Bush seemed to be the best of a poor lot. The situation in Iraq, which seems to be the basis of many of the opinions of those outside the US, played a part in my choice (and counted against Bush), but wasn't anywhere near the only thing that did. Quite frankly, I take affront to those outside the US who think that our decision should have been made strictly on that. Would any of you elect a leader based on just one of many issues facing your country?
Let me get on to the point of this post, which is simply that this result was almost inevitable. In order for Kerry to have won, it would have required him to appeal to people the democratic party has long since alienated. What's more, unless things change the same thing will happen to the democratic party again in 4 years.
I've spent the day reading quite a few forums and talking to people I know who are staunch democrats. The response of those people I talked to was pretty revealing to me. Almost across the board, they gave the reason for what can only be described as the politcal spanking they took yesterday as being ignorance. That's also the general message I got from listening to interviews with democratic leaders I watched during the day. One lady I talked to mentioned that it was due to people just voting the same way their parents always had rather than making the choice on their own. When I mentioned to her the increased percentage of women who voted for Bush, her reaction was that they "just must not understand what this means for women's rights". Often said was that the religous right was responsible and comments, such as the one earlier in this thread, about their being uninformed and blind were the norm. Also included in that one were comments about the midwest and southern rural areas being dumb. The point being that the overall opinion was if they don't agree with us, they must be stupid.
The idea that people might just not agree with them and are entitled to that opinion was never mentioned. At a time when you would think that democrats would be stopping to think about how they can better appeal to more people, the reaction was instead one of arrogance and elitism. Considering the increased percentages of groups traditionally considered to be hugely democratic who voted for Bush, that's not a good omen for the democratic party. You simply can't talk down to 30% of the voters and hope to win.
The republicans having a broader appeal seems to mostly be mentioned in a derogatory fashion. The question I would ask is why in the world would that be a bad thing if you want to win elections. The democrats can keep sticking to what they consider their high ground and tell themselves they are above that, but they shouldn't expect to win elections at the same time.
There are moderates in the democratic party who could have won the election yesterday, but they are rarely allowed to make it through the primary process and gain the nomination. What happens instead is that candidates with a liberal record get the nomination and then try to make themselves moderates during the campaign. It's no suprise that they come off looking indecisive.
Over the next four years, the democratic party is going to have to become more flexible and willing to compromise and change or the next election is also already inevitable.
jrichard