main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

The United States Elections/Political Party Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by liberalmaverick, Mar 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kol_Skywalker

    Kol_Skywalker Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Now that the election is over, can a MOD start a thread about the 2008 Presidential election?
     
  2. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    I'd have to say that out of all the candidates, Tammy Duckworth was probably the most openly left sitting, and she was one of the few who ended up loosing. Duckworth-disabled veteran-served in Iraq, should have been a shoe-in.

    She lost by just over two percentage points in a district that has been under Republican control for the past 32 years. It is Henry Hyde?s district. She was certainly not a shoe-in.

    Again, the Democrats did a better job of recruiting candidates appropriate for each region. Just like conservatives have difficulty winning in the Northeast and West, moderates generally win in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain states, while conservatives tend to win in the South. As many, including myself have said, the Democrats have long needed to nominate candidates appropriate for each state/district and not have them beholden to every single interest group and/or a national platform. As Chuck Schumer said, the days of candidates having to complete a checklist is over. If the Democrats continue to do this, they will be more likely to be successful.

    Gonk

    at the same time isn't it still far more likely for a Republican to find himself elected in New England today than a Democrat to find himself elected in the South?

    Probably, but that window is closing too, because even if a moderate to liberal Republican can be tied to Bush, he can be defeated. Chafee had a high approval rating, and he still lost.
     
  3. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    duckworth had been leading in the polls, got several high-profile endorsements and the endorsement of at least a few newspapers.
     
  4. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    That's what I'm saying KW.

    I was able to vote in the Duckworth/Roskam election, because I'm in Henry Hyde's old district, and got to experience the explosion of yard signs for both.

    Claiming "it's Hyde's old district" isn't exactly an excuse..

    The problem with Duckworth was that it seemed like she ran for everyone but the people who would be electing her. She ran for the editorial staff at the Chicago Tribune, the leadership of the police union, and it seemed like everyone else except the actual voters. In short, she ran a 2004 democratic campaign.

    Roskam, even though he was labeled as an insider, would still meet people at the Hinsdale or Wheaton train stations. He would stop by a famous local ice cream shop. Instead of telling people what he wanted, he asked them what they wanted him to do. It ended up being a crucial difference. Duckworth didn't even live inside the 6th district, and while it's not a requirement by law, it certainly mattered in perception.

    As DS pointed out, it was still close, but Duckworth didn't capture the swing voters like other races did. Literally, "water cooler" talk would revolve around what Duckworth would do as a Senator. No one knew, even as she was capturing these high profile endorsements.
     
  5. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Mr44

    I?ll take your word for it since you live there. However, like usual, I have a few comments [face_mischief]?

    She ran for the editorial staff at the Chicago Tribune, the leadership of the police union, and it seemed like everyone else except the actual voters. In short, she ran a 2004 democratic campaign.

    I think here we, including KW, are saying the same thing, she (based on what you say) ran a broad campaign instead of a focused campaign. In other words, she tried to appeal based solely on national issues with broad platitudes and because of this, came up short.

    But it is interesting isn?t it?how a swing of just a few percentage points can turn someone into a genius who ran a brilliant campaign or someone who blew it.
     
  6. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    shinjo
    What he fails, and many Republicans fail, to realize is that they are simply more conservative than many of their Democratic counterparts, making them, say it with me now, moderate.

    And what you fail to realize is that many more winners on Tuesday than the ones mentioned Webb/Shuler, were conservative.

    Does Jon Tester: pro-life, pro-gun, anti-illegal immigration, sound liberal to you?

    The "center" is what mainstream traditional conservatism was 30 years ago.

    Bush gave you the wrong interpretation of conservatism so it's no surprise you think his loss means a repudiation of conservatism.

    And did you mention the initiatives and propositions?

    Overwhelmingly in favour of conservative principles.

    [face_cowboy]

    edit
    And that article Jedi Flyer posted is very short-sighted. Since when is being anti-war and pro-choice not conservative?

    Examine the part affiliation of all the presidents who got us into wars last century. What party were they of? ;)
     
  7. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    she (based on what you say) ran a broad campaign instead of a focused campaign.

    More closer to the truth, I suppose. I think the overwleming sentiment was that she was simply planted into the 6th district just to get elected, insted of actually caring about the constituents.

    That kind of thing might work in New York, hypothetically speaking... [face_mischief] but not here in the Chicagoland area...

    Not that it is automatically true, but it formed a good deal of people's perception.
     
  8. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    That kind of thing might work in New York, hypothetically speaking

    What did Billary end up with %-wisw anyway. Can we stop talking about her for president now? She got less of a percentage of her vote in New York, after spending the most out of any single candidate, than the libertarian Ron Paul in Texas, who was basically ignored by the GOP apparachiks in DC.

    She cannot win nationwide.
     
  9. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    Probably, but that window is closing too, because even if a moderate to liberal Republican can be tied to Bush, he can be defeated. Chafee had a high approval rating, and he still lost.

    I wouldn't say that at all. Yes, it's true that even moderate republicans have been defeated in this election: but that only lasts as long as Bush lasts because his leadership is seen as incompatable. Once Bush goes, it stands to reason republicans will have an easier time once again.

    The faring of Democrats in the south has no bearing on any particular leader. In two years it will be the same as it is now. So, as I said, Bush notwithstanding, Democratic voters from Democratic stringholds are more likely to consider options from the other party than Republican voters in Republican strongholds are likely to consider options from the other party. And for some reason I doubt it has very much to do with the parties themselves but what they represent -- and when I mean what the parties represent, I really mean what the Democrats seem to represent in the south: "unmanly".
     
  10. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Gonk

    I wouldn't say that at all. Yes, it's true that even moderate republicans have been defeated in this election: but that only lasts as long as Bush lasts because his leadership is seen as incompatable. Once Bush goes, it stands to reason republicans will have an easier time once again.

    IF the Republicans put up someone whose values and politics are more compatible with the Northeast, then yes. Otherwise, I?d say so long as the religious right holds considerable sway within the Republican party, then no.

    The faring of Democrats in the south has no bearing on any particular leader. In two years it will be the same as it is now. So, as I said, Bush notwithstanding, Democratic voters from Democratic stringholds are more likely to consider options from the other party than Republican voters in Republican strongholds are likely to consider options from the other party. And for some reason I doubt it has very much to do with the parties themselves but what they represent -- and when I mean what the parties represent, I really mean what the Democrats seem to represent in the south: "unmanly".

    I?d agree with this analysis.

    Mr44

    I think the overwleming sentiment was that she was simply planted into the 6th district just to get elected, insted of actually caring about the constituents.

    Probably.

    That kind of thing might work in New York, hypothetically speaking

    What do you mean? **cough**Bobby Kennedy**cough**

    ShaneP

    She got less of a percentage of her vote in New York, after spending the most out of any single candidate, than the libertarian Ron Paul in Texas, who was basically ignored by the GOP apparachiks in DC.

    I don?t think this really says anything regarding her national prospects. She received 67% of the vote, certainly a very high percentage. But I agree that she would not win a national election. IMO she could maintain the Northeast, probably the West coast?and would lose virtually everywhere else.

    That said...lets bring on the 2008 Presidential thread! In fact, I'd be willing to start it. :)
     
  11. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    obama is the future of the democratic party, or at least its 2008 presidential hopes. he was campaigning as much as bill clinton, and got the same rock star treatment. and for good reason: he's magnetic, charismatic, a great speaker and was able to rally the base.

    his lack of experience is no minus in my eyes, because i think the lack of experience can lead to fresh perspectives, unattached to the old ways, and he also hasn't had his record sullied by various out of context votes.
     
  12. Jabbadabbado

    Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 1999
    Harper's ran a somewhat unflattering cover story on Obama last month, basically bemoaning how his appeal has been compromised a bit by his efforts to attract the really big campaign bucks.

    Harper's decided the time was right to target Obama for a reality check. It was a reminder that Obama is first and foremost a politician and he's not necessarily the unassailable candidate and shoe in for the presidency that Democrats are hoping for.
     
  13. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Except unfortunately, Obama is part of the Rezko-pension scandal that is devleoping here in IL. So far, 90% of the focus of the investigation has been on Blagojevich, but how much Obama is tainted by this is still unknown.

    At least Obama has taken steps to admitting his role, and I think the public accepts those who admit their wrongdoing more than those who try and cover it up.
     
  14. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    At least Obama has taken steps to admitting his role, and I think the public accepts those who admit their wrongdoing more than those who try and cover it up.

    yet another sign that he is an astute politician.
     
  15. Gonk

    Gonk Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1998
    IF the Republicans put up someone whose values and politics are more compatible with the Northeast, then yes. Otherwise, I?d say so long as the religious right holds considerable sway within the Republican party, then no.

    I don't think this is as big an if as you do -- I think the christian conservative wing has really lost it with Bush: I mean, he was "thier man", so to speak. A lot of people here are talking about the Republicans coming back to thier roots... but this confuses me a little, becuase if you're a christian-conservative, Bush is, and always HAS been, at his roots. If you're a Libertarian like ShaneP, or a realist in the mind of Bush the elder, or an economic/military isolationist like Pat Buchannan then yes most certainly the Republican party has lost touch with THOSE roots.

    But if you think about it, are those the real roots of "the south"? It would seem to me the major Republican stronghold is less concerned about those issues. America as a lone nation seems ok with the south, but America as an empire seems to suit the south just fine as well -- it certainly didn't keep them from protesting about the start of the Iraq war, even though it was the northwest that was targeted. Is Libertarianism really a big deal in the South, or is that a MidWest concern? Is the economy any more a big deal in the south than it is anywhere else? Clinton had a better deficit record than either Reagan or Bush Jr, and was from the south to boot (which at least Reagan wasn't), but it wasn't like the South rallied around him.

    It would seem to me the "roots" of the south have been consistent all the way though this administration -- it was only with the latest scandals in congress where it seemed to falter. But geez, that was only in the past few month or two. What roots are there to come back to there?

    Terry Sheivo, John Bolten, gay-marriage ban... all these things seem to me to be very much the Republicans sticking to "old school conservatism" if you're a southern conservative.

    So this leads me back to why I don't think your if is very big: Bush represented everything the South wanted. He was thier man. From his religious views to his "manly" dealing with other "wussy" countries. It's pretty hard to say where he differs from the epitimome of the southern conservative ideal.

    And he got his ass handed to him. And it was handed to him because he was all those things.

    He didn't lose congress because of it -- that was because of the scandals -- but he would have if there had been different seats outside the south up for grabs. Montana didn't throw thier man out because of congressional scandal to my knowledge. The very fact people are talking about the Republican party becoming just a southern party reflects this: the losses in the south were a rejection of the conressional scandals. The losses elsewhere were a rejection of Southern-brand conservatism, and what it values.

    And as I've said before, what perhaps a "core-roots" conservative in the Midwest is not what it is in the south -- and the values of a "core-roots" conservative in the Midwest plays a lot easier in the northeast and on the west coast. The gun thing maybe not so much, but otherwise.

    To me this signifies that while the Republican party cannot obviously survive by not pandering on some level to the religious conservatives of the south, they cannot afford, probably ever again, to have someone who is so hardcore south as the leader of the party -- becuase they'll eventually lose. It's the same way that a Massachusetts Senator has such a hard time running for President these days unless he goes out there and says he's not going to force his values on the rest of the country.

    well, that's what Bush, to some extent, tried to do. And he tried to do it to some extent on the rest of the world as well. This was the result.
     
  16. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Rezko-pension scandal

    Never heard of it...what is this?

    EDIT:

    Jabba

    Harper's decided the time was right to target Obama for a reality check. It was a reminder that Obama is first and foremost a politician and he's not necessarily the unassailable candidate and shoe in for the presidency that Democrats are hoping for.

    Agreed, which is what will happen to McCain and even moreso to Guiliani. Both receive very positive news coverage, but once they officially become candidates, and in McCain's case a frontrunner, then what is build up will be torn down. It happens to all of em.
     
  17. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    This is an interesting thread, and should be left open for some time. Much analysis and talk of the recent elections is still being held, both here and across the nation.
     
  18. shinjo_jedi

    shinjo_jedi Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    What I'm trying to say is that they were conservative for being Democrats, but they weren't conservative in general. I could be wrong, but many of then, Webb, Shuler, Tester, Casey, were simply sitting on the side side of the Democratic Party, and therefore labeled "conservative Democrats", for they are, in fact, conservative, but only on certain issues (and liberal on the rest). Are they conservative in the sense that Rick Santorum, or George Allen, or Bill Frist are? Nope. You can point out the issues they have conservative views on, but for every one someone can show you a liberal view, which in the end makes them moderate. I'm just trying to say that it isn't correct to say they were conservatives, when they are just as liberal as they are conservative, and people seem to be forgetting that. Being partially conservative doesn't make you "conservative", it makes you "moderate".

    That makes him (basically) a social conservative, but not a conservative in general, and such values are what brings him to the center, and to the right side of the Democratic Party - but not a general, typical conservative. It only makes him conservative when it comes to being a Democrat, and they're still, typically, left of center. Hell, I'm pro-life, support the second amendment (to an extent, but we won't get into that), and I'm anti-illegal immigration. And I strongly identify myself with the Democratic Party, because it's my other values and principles which I have that ultimately align myself wtih the them. To balance it out, he also wants the Patriot Act repealed, wants to raise the minimum wage, supports stem cell research, opposes privatizing Social Security, opposes George Bush's tax cuts, and is critical of the War in Iraq. Sound like a conservative to you? Nope - he sounds like a conservative Democrat, or a "moderate".
     
  19. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    shinjo
    To balance it out, he also wants the Patriot Act repealed, wants to raise the minimum wage, supports stem cell research, opposes privatizing Social Security, opposes George Bush's tax cuts, and is critical of the War in Iraq. Sound like a conservative to you? Nope - he sounds like a conservative Democrat, or a "moderate".

    My point was earlier on, and still is, that Bush's brand of conservatism,i.e spend, deficit, and war to spread democracy, isn't very conservative at all.

    Quite the antithesis actually.

    And Tester opposes the tax cuts without spending reductions or being offset by spending reductions. That is traditionally conservative.

    He also believes in reforming social security but opposes privatizing it because of the large transition costs.

    And minimum wage is what could be termed a populist issue, not a liberal one.

    I favor raising it btw. We could have a lead-in time though to allow employers to train their new hires without having to pay them the minimum right away. Say a graduated scale over a period of weeks to work up to the minimum. Might help offset the costs to employers the wage increase would mean.

    edit

    Gonk
    Is Libertarianism really a big deal in the South, or is that a MidWest concern?

    It's not a midwest concern. It's a nowhere concern. There really is no libertarian "movement" or region so to speak. To paraphrase Kevin Phillips, the Libertarian Party is really all chiefs and no indians.

    IMHO, libertarians strength has always been in pointing out the failures and shortcoming of different statist schemes from both left and right while offering up alternative solutions. It's the ideas that matter, not the "movement" because there is no movement.
     
  20. Kol_Skywalker

    Kol_Skywalker Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2006
    I never mentioned that this thread had to close as well. It would be great to discuss the potential candidates for the Big Job in 2008 in a seperate thread.
     
  21. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Rezko-pension scandal

    Never heard of it...what is this?


    Ah,woops...maybe I should have included a brief background:

    Basically, Antoin Rezko is a real estate mogoul in the Chicago area who was appointed the chief fundraiser for Blagojevich's campaign. Rezko used this connection to obtain a position on the IL teacher's pension fund, and proceeded to extort personal money from the companies who wished to invest in the fund.

    As it is unfolding, Rezko would secure these public investments if the companies paid him kickbacks, some of which would also be returned into the re-election campaigns of certain politicians.

    example

    and a copy of the series of indictments:

    HERE(it's a 65 page file)

    Rezko made the news after he was indicted, when he exited the US to go to Syria on a "business trip," and was unsure when he would return. Rezko did return, and I think he is facing 4 criminal counts ranging from fraud, money laundering, and theft.

    Rezko is mostly tied with Blagojevich, but Barak Obama admitted he conducted some real estate deals with Rezko in which Rezko's portion was turned around and sold for quick profit. How involved these schemes were hasn't been revealed, but they may come back to haunt Obama, especially if the money ended up somewhere else, or was part of the "extorted cash."
     
  22. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    Well we certainly wouldn't want to elect someone as president who was involved in a real estate scandal!
     
  23. dizfactor

    dizfactor Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2002
    In my experience, that's not entirely true. People in the tech industry, especially programmers and engineers, are disproportionately libertarian, and in tech hubs like the Bay Area (especially in the South Bay and Silicon Valley), Seattle, Austin, etc., libertarianism is gaining more ground. There are a lot of people in those areas who are solidly libertarian on economic issues and vehemently opposed to Democratic social welfare programs, but who are even more vehemently opposed to Republican social conservatism, military adventurism, anti-scientific bias, and civil liberties violations in the name of the Wars on Drugs and Terror, and have little confidence in the GOP's real determination to enforce fiscal responsibility or cut spending.

    They usually either hold their noses and vote Democrat now, or refrain from voting at all, but a solid libertarian candidate, who was young, queer-friendly, tech savvy, and opposed to the War on Drugs, could set the tech hubs on fire politically.
     
  24. Dark Lady Mara

    Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 19, 1999
    You said it yourself. Until libertarians start voting for their own candidates and taking a few prominent offices somewhere, they won't really be powerful on the national scale. There would have to be a libertarian candidate in either California or the northeast whom a lot of these people really wanted to vote for.

    ... and this country could very much benefit from a powerful third party right now, given how polarizing the two party system tends to be and how much it gives rise to bashing of the opponents instead of serious talk about issues.
     
  25. Jediflyer

    Jediflyer Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2001
    A sustained third party is impossible in the electoral structure of the United States. To pin ones hopes on a third party is the epitome of foolishness.

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.