Keeping it civil instead of returning to our dark ways

[SlaveNoMore]

ThurgreedMarshall
You think Ham Sandwich would have beaten Ashcroft too?

TM

Probably. But then who would be Senator? Mrs. Sandwich?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by LessinSF
How would it have been different under Gore?

My belief -- less deficit spending, more attention to economic stimuli, less money wasted on Iraq, stronger economy resulting

Besides which, having a President beholden to the tech industry instead of oil is much preferable

How would it have been different under Gore? No fair answering that we wouldn't have gone to war, because Kerry's arguments don't allow for that, see prior post.

On Iraq? Big difference - with a focus in Afghanistan and an assumption that if we went into Iraq it would be with a broader coalition after more diplomacy -- plus continued adherence to the successfull Powell doctrine instead of the half-assed Rumsfeld Doctrine --

big difference.

No harm to you, though, just no benefit.

OK, you got me there. No harm getting lied to.

You would rather have heard Gore speechifying? ;o)

Easier to sleep to.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Probably. But then who would be Senator? Mrs. Sandwich?

MMMMM. Can I change my vote to Ham Sammy?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Hagel v Edwards in 2008.

Is you deaf?

Hagel would repeat Lamar Alexander's successes in the GOP primaries, if not his plaid shirts.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by dtb
Willful ignorance is something to be encouraged? Dems have not lost "all traction" in huge chunks of the country (unless you're talking about the middle swath of Dakotas to Texas and Idaho/Montana -- but they didn't have much there to begin with). This wasn't an electoral landslide, or even a popular vote landslide. This wasn't a Reagan re-election, but at least it was a real election.

The willful pig ignorance is on the part of the Dems who dismiss lowly red-staters as ignorant and misled.

It wasn't a landslide, but it was decisive, and my casual impression of the returns last night was that a whole lot of the red states WERE landslides, but most of the blue states were not. Whether Dems had any presence in the great middle of the country to begin with or not, they had better stop writing it off and figure out how to get it, because, if this election demonstrates anything, it is that the "anybody but Bush" vote is smaller than the "anybody but the Dem" vote. It should be really, really distressing to the party faithful that so many people who really disliked Bush held their noses because the Dems were even more objectionable.

RT - I still plan to send my "why I voted for Badnarik" letter to both party committees, but I am just sick to my stomach that, given last night's results, I don't think they'll give a shit. I dislike the feeling that we need to wait for 65-70% of our citizens to die off to establish what should be a no-brainer basic civil right.

[Shape Shifter]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
I am asking them this morning (and I am surrounded by people that seem practically clinically depressed) to name three things that Bush did to harm your average Joe in Ohio, Florida or Colorado in a concrete way.

(1) As you noted, Bush has run up huge deficits, but spent this money in a way particularly poorly tailored to create jobs, meaning that your average Joe is more likely to be unemployed.

(2) Your average Joe may be dying in Iraq.

(3) Joe faces more risks from terrorism in the future than he would have if we had fought the war on terror instead of invading Iraq.

(4) Joe's parents are stumped by the Medicare drug benefit, and Joe probably doesn't have much stock in the pharma companies benefiting from it.

(5) If Joe likes to hike or breath clean air, he's bumming.

(6) Joe's children are getting left behind.

(7) Joe's gay brother is bumming.

And so on.

Let's not re-open the argument on all of these, but let's also not pretend that there were no policy differences between Kerry and Bush.

[sgtclub]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041103/1/3o8sn.html

EU seems to be sending a signal to Washington, but I can't read between the lines.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
If I might just point out - the complete and willful pig ignorance of what is going on in the majority of the country known as "flyover land" is one major reason why the Dems have basically lost all traction in huge chunks of the country. In contrast, I noted last night that the Repubs have managed to remain a comparatively significant presence in a lot of Dem strongholds. People justifiably expect their representatives (and those representatives' water-carriers) to have respect for them. Part of that is to recognize that people can understand your position perfectly and still disagree with you. Even people without college, French or sunken-concrete foundations to their homes.

The Dems have got to figure out how to connect with and appeal to the 70% of the population of the country that you consider white trash. Simply swapping out Kerry with a less obviously elitist replacement isn't sufficient.

In other words, dumb it down, dummy. Doesn't it seem just a tad fucked up for you to suggest that the informed act like circus monkeys for dolts instead of asking the dolts to rise up to our level?

Jesus, we've gone from the Great Communicator to "the Master of Red State Ebonics" in 16 years. Will fart jokes and a Hail Mary get me elected in 2012? I think I can burp the Star Spangled Banner... Sec of State maybe?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
It wasn't a landslide, but it was decisive, and my casual impression of the returns last night was that a whole lot of the red states WERE landslides, but most of the blue states were not.

Well, that's not accurate (easily verifiable on any major news outlet's website). Some blue were close; some red were close. Some blue were by a mile; some red were by a mile. As long as the group of voters you're referring to keeps voting on the basis of cultural/religious preferences/beliefs (in this instance, gay marriage), I don't think there's any way of reaching them.

Were that it were not so, but there it is.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In other words, dumb it down, dummy. Doesn't it seem just a tad fucked up for you to suggest that the informed act like circus monkeys for dolts instead of asking the dolts to rise up to our level?

Jesus, we've gone from the Great Communicator to "the Master of Red State Ebonics" in 16 years. Will fart jokes and a Hail Mary get me elected in 2012? I think I can burp the Star Spangled Banner... Sec of State maybe?

You're a shoo-in, dude. If you can do that thing where you make a noise by flapping one arm and putting the hand from your other arm in your flapping arm's armpit -- I think your political future is GOLDEN!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by dtb
Dems have not lost "all traction" in huge chunks of the country (unless you're talking about the middle swath of Dakotas to Texas and Idaho/Montana -- but they didn't have much there to begin with).

What are you both talking about? A Democrat was elected governor of Montana yesterday. Two Dems represent North Dakota in the Senate. Even with Thune beating Daschle -- 2% in a year of record turnout and Bush getting 61% of the vote -- in South Dakota, Stephanie Herseth won a state-wide race for Congress in South Dakota. And so on. Even in these areas, the Democrats can compete in state-wide races. The problem is that the last two presidential candidates haven't competed in these states, but that is a different problem than pig-headed ignorance.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In other words, dumb it down, dummy.

No - stop seeing them as dummies, and stop treating them like dummies by telling them they should support crap that they can plainly see is nothing but your fucked-up and uninformed idea of what their concerns should be as seen by you from on high.

Doesn't it seem just a tad fucked up for you to suggest that the informed act like circus monkeys for dolts instead of asking the dolts to rise up to our level?

The "dolts" are at your level already. My suggestion is that you recognize who has actually been the dolt, get yourself informed and start dealing with them as your equals. 'Cause they are.

BR(I think they have proved themselves sadly biggoted, but that doesn't mean they are stupid)C

eta: I just realized I have just posted a "taking it way too seriously" post here. I am going home in shame.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What are you both talking about? A Democrat was elected governor of Montana yesterday. Two Dems represent North Dakota in the Senate. Even with Thune beating Daschle -- 2% in a year of record turnout and Bush getting 61% of the vote -- in South Dakota, Stephanie Herseth won a state-wide race for Congress in South Dakota. And so on. Even in these areas, the Democrats can compete in state-wide races. The problem is that the last two presidential candidates haven't competed in these states, but that is a different problem than pig-headed ignorance.

I was talking about presidential candidates. I was surprised at Montana. What happened in Alaska?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
My suggestion is that you recognize who has actually been the dolt, get yourself informed and start dealing with them as your equals. 'Cause they are.

I think they have proved themselves sadly biggoted, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

That is a load of bunk. Being "sadly biggoted" does indeed mean they are stupid, and not the equal of someone who isn't. There's no excuse for that shit in this day and age.