TripleB's Official 2006 Election Thread

J-Rod

I?m doing well. Busy. But all is well.

Do you really think it is fair that the unions can use your money to champion any cause they believe in?

My understanding is that if I were to belong to a union, I can opt out. The new law would?ve required permission first. However, as a stockholder, I don?t believe corporations are required to get my permission before they donate to a cause.

Either both should require permission first, or neither.

diz

The idea that government intervention could be anything other than harmful (unless it's to help pay for the abortion, which is something else we need to work on

I don?t see it as ?government intervention?. I see it as allowing parents to be able to help their children with an extremely important decision.

Parents are required to get approval for their kids for all sorts of things. And I?m not even voting for approval, rather notification.

the bottom line is that abortion is a private decision to be made by the pregnant woman and the pregnant woman only, regardless of how old she is.

I agree that the final decision should be left to the woman/girl. But again, notifying parents is a different story.

ShaneP's post was a blanket attack on the intelligence and rationality of Californians.

Perhaps, but it was kinda funny. And besides, ShaneP is man enough to take it in return?provided I ever find out where he is from and I can think of an appropriate retort

 

-Yes, but the retort was suspiciously edited out by the mods, who are currently under investigation by the special prosecutor for bias...

 

The two important implications of the Virgina elections is that:
1. Warner has been proven yet again to be a powerful force in their political scene. If Kaine had lost this; Warner wouldn't have much chance in 2008. This gives some fuel to his presidental ambitions.
2. Bush worked wonders in the mid-term elections of his first term--that may not work again.

Traditionally voters dislike it when Presidents become involved in Congressional elections (this was the case with FDR.) In the post 911 world, they saw his involvement as a bold and strong move. With the current political climate, I can only believe that the President will hurt the GOP.

Republicans control all three branches of government. Whenever something goes wrong, the blame is really placed on them. Delay, Frist, Libby, and Rove are all in some legal troubles, this all adds up with Iraq, Katrina, gas prices, etc.

I'm not saying the Democrats will take 2006.
They need a platform. It is my suggestion that they need to mobilize the base rather then appealing to the middle (which worked for Bill Clinton.) A more Howard Dean approach seems needed in the current system. Democrats need to stand up for their traditional domestic issues and more moderate policies regarding Iraq. Democrats can't be the anti-Bush party, they need to be passionate about their own issues.

If they were to establish a solid platform, they can take 2006 and 2008.

-Seldon

 

This is interesting.

If the Dems have so much momentum, why can't they raise any money? We'll know for sur next year, but I'm thinkin' the Reps didn't vote this time. I read an article saying how they stayed home Tuesday in CA.

The Dems won this round by simply showing up.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2005/10/17/daily20.html

Things may be looking more up for Democrats than you think. With a handful of high profile Republicans under criminal investigations, and polls showing approval ratings at an all-time low, it may be that Americans are getting sick of Republicans. If the Schiavo stunt proves anything, it's that Republicans neither respect the sanctity of marriage, nor the principle of "limited government," which this blatantly violated. The affect that that will have on next year's election is speculative at best at this point. But the current string of scandals isn't helping the GOP, and current Democratic victories may just be what the DNC needs to start raking in the funds they need.

 

Republicans are elected in part because of their social policies and moral values. It is interesting however that while they control all three branches of government, they do nothing to change social policy. The GOP has a coalition of the poor and rich. The lower classes vote for the social issues (which are never changed in policy) while the wealthy are voting on economic policy (which does work in their favor.) Logically it would make more sense for these lower class Americans to vote for economic interests rather than social ones which aren't changed.

-Seldon

 

Republicans are elected in part because of their social policies and moral values.

The values I hear them talking about are usually family, hard work, education, and the like. All of which I agree with. All of which my democratic friends agree with. Why then are they portrayed as exclusively conservative values? Currently it appears that they are attempting to sieze these values for themselves, as well as faith, by simply declaring them to be "conservative" values. It's their form of Newspeak, when they used these values that really cross political lines, and try to declare a monopoly on them.

The flipside is that "cultural" issues like homosexuality, are declared moral issues and used to divide the public.

 

You forgot that pro-family and pro-homosexuality are pretty much mutually exlusive.

You can't be for the (traditional) family and for something that destroys it. I like how you tried to relabel homosexuality as "cultural" but it is not a culture, it is a moral or ethic value. There isn't a crusade to get rid of rainbows and short shorts.

I am actually economically liberal and would agree that the Republicans benefit the rich, and although one day I might be rich right now I ain't so I would vote for Dems if they came back to the center and stopped the push for gay marriage and abortion and focused on immigration, labor, jobs, and socially responsible ways to help people who need it without making them dependent on the government. Also I would like them to renew the social contract by helping us poor kids pay for a college education that will soon be out of reach for lower class Americans.

 

In America, maybe.

Otherwise, with reference to psychological tests, PPOR.

E_S

 

Maybe we should leave the gay-bashing for the gay bashing thread.

 

I don't see how such tests would be relevant in a political discussion when near all that make such tests are liberal. And I guess I was assuming that because this was about 2006 elections we were talking about American politics.

Besides you should know that in politics science isn't the only basis for which judgements are made. In fact if it were that would just be a new kind of tyranny.

 

Kerry tried to appeal to moderates and attempted to run from the center (as Clinton had done.) Though I doubt you voted for him. His record might have been fairly liberal, but his presidental run was very moderate.

How does homosexuality destroy families? It is basically giving all people the same rights. There is no reason why they should be taxed differently. But oh yeah I forgot about that traditional family--I suppose the divorce rates clouded my memory.

There are two ways to run for President--to appeal to the moderates or moblilize the base. Clinton's strategy was to grab the moderates, Bush mobilizes the christian conservative base, Kerry tried to be moderate, Dean attempted to move the base. The Kerry strategy wasn't enough in the end and I really wonder if a Dean approach would work better.

 

There are two ways to run for President--to appeal to the moderates or moblilize the base. Clinton's strategy was to grab the moderates, Bush mobilizes the christian conservative base, Kerry tried to be moderate, Dean attempted to move the base. The Kerry strategy wasn't enough in the end and I really wonder if a Dean approach would work better.

I?m not so sure. Its not like Bush ran on a staunchly pro-life, anti-gun control platform. Sure he paid lip service on some of these issues, but I?d say he ran, at least overtly, to the center (especially on issues like NCLB and the Prescription Drug plan) as much as Kerry did. As I said in the other thread, the gay marriage issue severly hurt the Democrats, but based on the voting results in the 11 states (or so) that banned gay marriage, I wouldn?t say opposing gay marriage is a far-right opinion. It seems like a whole lot of people oppose it from all over the political spectrum.

The problem with a Dean approach is that, as stated in another thread, the liberal base is much smaller than the conservative base. By default, the Dems need to attract more moderates than the Repubs do.

Mods - Is it possible to combine these two 2006 election threads?

 

There are some facts that you're choosing to leave out and ignore, however. It is also stated in the article that in the past election years, that aren't mid-terms or presidential election years, that the Democrats raised $30 million - compared to the Republicans raising $80 million. This time around, the Democrats raised $40 million, while the Republicans stayed consistent at $80 million.

In the previous election cycle, the DNC had raised $31 million, compared with the RNC's $80 million, at this point in 2003.

From January through September, the Republican National Committee raised $81.5 million, with $34 million remaining in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, by contrast, showed $42 million raised and $6.8 million in the bank.

The Democrats, under Howard Dean, are doing a lot better than you're giving them credit for - based on that alone, they raised the bar on their total by $10 million, while the Republicans didn't gain any more. If I recall correctly, Howard Dean is also putting a good sum of money into the banks of state Democratic Parties, which wouldn't contribute to the total listed above.

 

I didn't vote in 2004, I wasn't living in the US at the time and really had no idea what was going on.

I don't think I would have voted for Kerry because he had too liberal of a record, and just because somebody moves to the center during the election, that doesn't mean much to me except that they are willing to compromise their values to win. Gore lost because he was a crappy candiate, everything was going great under Clinton except for the moral stuff and he didn't even have anything to do with that. Kerry seemed much more stuffy than Bush, Bush is a rich guy who doesn't act like one. The polls showed the number one issue was the morals, and the Dems have ignored that and keep on going with their far left agenda. The Dems need to stick to the economic issues, if they actually had an agenda instead of blocking the GOP they would be much better off. So far it has been that Bush sucks, and even now that it appears to be true, it really doesn't give me a reason to go to them. They have the possiblity to win HUGE in 2006 IF they play their cards right, but as they don't have a strong leader I don't know that it will happen.

 

The polls showed the number one issue was the morals, and the Dems have ignored that and keep on going with their far left agenda.

False. The number one issue was terrorism and domestic security, followed by Iraq. Bush was seen as more reliable than Kerry on these intertwined issues, and this was the biggest reason he won.

Why else would Bush's poll numbers be falling so precipitously? People have largely turned against his Iraq policies, and this is costing Republicans nationwide.

Also, could you give some examples of this alleged "far-left" agenda?

 

Agreed completely.
Karl Rove might want you to think that "morals" and "values" was the number one issue but it isn't really even close. Granted they shape the election and energize social conservatives--but they aren't the number one issue. Kerry's weakness is that he had continual changing opinions on Iraq. Before the Dean rhetoric he supported the war, then he noticed the growing discontent and tried to contrast with the administration about the issue. President Bush was painted as a stubborn and determined leader who would stay the course--Kerry became an unpredictable flip flop that relied on public opinion. Neither view is accurate but they became politically important to the majority of Americans. The President had also gained some trust by leading us through 911--he was the guy standing on the rubble yelling into the megaphone. We are at war and the people decided to continue with the current leader (despite his faults.)

I just wanted to address the claim that Gore was a poor candidate. It is seldom that a politician can win the popular vote and be a bad candidate. He made bad decisions; namely the distancing from Clinton. If Gore had only exploited the 8 tranquil Clinton years, and allowed Bill to campaign, then he would've won the electoral college too. He didn't have the most dynamic personality and made large misnomers in the debates but he still ran a good campaign.

The Democrats haven't debated on "morals." Those values are brought into the election to energize social christian conservatives and to force a greater wedge in the American people--it is a tactic of division. Democrats haven't been acknowledging this Rove strategy and have tried to stay on the real issues.

-Seldon

 

But the Democratic Party has very strong and very capable leaders at their reigns. Harry Reid, Howard Dean, & Rahm Emanuel are three of the brightest voices in modern politics, and are brilliant when it comes to political strategy. I don't know where Congressman Emanuel was in the 2004 Elections, but Harry Reid & Howard Dean were not where they will be next year - and they will all be key players.

And it also looks like one of the only members of the GOP that is brilliant could be sitting out next year, for some crimes he'll be charged of - Karl Rove.

I'm completely confident that the Democrats will play their cards right, and that 2006 is going to be one happy year for the Democrats of the country. Just look at everything that's going on right now - Bush's poll numbers is dropping faster than the temperature, Republicans are distancing himself from them, the Democrats won the two governers seats up in 2005, Karl Rove, Bill Frist, & Tom DeLay are all facing law suits, and the Bush Administration has failed on every major issue since summer. Let's see...Hurricane Katrine, Iraq, Harriet Myers, Karl Rove, the economy... And the economy deal is only going to get 10x worse, when the country realized what a crisis we're in, and where we are going to have to do something about it, other than giving even more tax breaks to large corporations and the wealthy (which is one of the reasons we're in this mess to begin with). I'm ranting now, sorry.

 

You forgot that pro-family and pro-homosexuality are pretty much mutually exlusive.

Only to Republicans. Having a gay family member (me) hasn't destroyed my family. We're as close as we've ever been. I've been in a stable, committed, monogamous relationship with my boyfriend for 2.5 years, and my parents have all but adopted him as a second son. Many gay people have successfully formed families of their own--including raising children by fostering, adopting, or artificial insemination. Gays are not anti-family and are not involved in a conspiracy to destroy the family. They want to be able to form their own without people like Anita Bryant scaring people by saying that we want to recruit their children, which we don't.

You can't be for the (traditional) family and for something that destroys it. I like how you tried to relabel homosexuality as "cultural" but it is not a culture, it is a moral or ethic value. There isn't a crusade to get rid of rainbows and short shorts.

Homosexuality doesn't destroy families. You could argue that divorce does, but divorces on account of homosexuality are hardly any different than divorces for other reasons, and make up a small percentage of divorces. I never said there was a crusade against rainbows or short shorts. But being attracted to, and having sexual relationships with members of the same gender isn't a moral issue, it's a religious one. It's one that doesn't affect most peoples' lives one way or the other, but one that Republicans use to mobilize Bible-thumpers. Allowing gay to have a "non-traditional" family does not destroy families that are "traditional."

 

It is my sincere hope, after the comments he made on Hurricane Katrina, that Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania will be voted out of office next year.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

The man is regarded as a first-class jerk around here, in suburban Philadelphia.

Peace,

V-03

 

having sexual relationships with members of the same gender isn't a moral issue, it's a religious one

Since when was sexual relations not part of morality?

You can think that way, but what I am argueing isn't the facts of the case, but the fact that the majority of Americans beleive that homosexual marriage is morally wrong. You don't have to agree with the reasons why people vote the way they do, but if the left insists on keeping the far left agenda they will never win. As of now, gay marriage is far left, and like it or not most people aren't for it so when the left goes off about it they aren't just turning off the "bible-thumpers" but the independents that they desperatly need.

I like how the left can go off on all the name-calling they want.

Look, Harry Reid wouldn't be all that bad of a choice, I might vote for him just to get a Mormon in the Oval Office, but I would rather have Romney, but definately not Hatch.

I would probably be a Dem if they weren't so vocal about the liberal social policy. When they made the party almost exclusively pro-abortion it turned off a lot of people that they would otherwise have.

 

Since when was sexual relations not part of morality?

You can think that way, but what I am argueing isn't the facts of the case, but the fact that the majority of Americans beleive that homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

Morality is not determined by the gender you have those relations with. And the majority of the American people, while they may oppose homosexual marriage, do not oppose homosexuality itself. It does not, as you have argued, destroy families. Gays aren't anti-family, nor are those who support gays. If you're trying to accuse us of destroying families, then you are arguing the case--sadly, without valid facts. It's an issue that doesn't affect most people directly, but which is used to divide the culture.

Look at it this way: Rick Perry is losing a lot of support here in Texas. His big issue on the agenda has been lowering property taxes without lowering revenue to school districts. So far, he hasn't been able to get it, or much else constructive, done. But he calls summer sessions to gerrymander Texas, and signed the gay-marriage-amendment bill, which didn't even require his signature, at a parochial school in Dallas. For a governor as inconsequential as he has been, does this look like an attempt to preserve "values," or a way to mobilize voters when he has no other major accomplishments to run on?

 

You can think that way, but what I am argueing isn't the facts of the case, but the fact that the majority of Americans beleive that homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

A majority that will decline until it becomes a minority, and then a small minority.

 

That claim is dubious at best, KW.

Even in the 'blue' States the measure generally passes overwhelmingly. You can't get Americans to agree that much on anything, but the preservation of traditional marriage is one thing that is generally agreed upon by society.