http://standupdemocrats.org/ideas/

[GSTamral]

So this site is taking ideas of what they can do to beat Bush, and/or what they interpret as the far right conservatives.

Here were my suggestions:

1) Nominate a competent person to run for office. When running against a perceived incompetant, having incompetance on your own side doesn't help the cause.
2) Nominate someone who isn't a complete asshat liar to run against an incumbent asshat liar.
3) Don't nominate a tree hugger. While some people are fanatically so, the majority of America does not rank the environment over consumption needs.
4) Don't nominate a liberal from assachusetts. That has about as much crossover appeal as Brittney Spears would have in a crowd of real musicians. Also, when battling the extreme of the other side, someone in the middle is usually the answer, not someone even further off the deep end of the other track.
5) Don't nominate someone uglier than Howard Stern. Since the TV age, no truly ugly candidate has ever won the office of president.
6) Don't nominate someone who got rich by marrying rich women, who then complains that the rich live too easily. He didn't earn a dime in his life.
7) Don't nominate someone that veterans, for the most part, rally against. People look up to real war heroes. John Kerry is no Ike, and everyone knew it.
8) Quiet Michael Moore, he's costing you more votes than you can possibly imagine with his lies. Very few people actually listen to hollywood when it comes to political views, because the perception is still that hollywood is a bunch of overpaid pot smoking idiots.
9) 9 out of 10 random people off the street could have beaten Bush in this election, especially considering how low his popularity and approval rating were going into the election. When the approval rating for the other candidate goes UP after your convention, you are doing something really bad. Democrats need better education so that they can pinpoint the one in 10 who can't and NOT nominate them.
10) 7 out of 10 Americans still have a grudge against people of homosexual orientation. Don't embrace them with promises of marriage, because they are already voting for you. You preach to a choir that already stands behind you, but in doing so, you put into limelight something that a MAJORITY can rally against. People end up voting who would not otherwise do so.
11) Stop making comments about pharmaceuticals and HMOs unless you're ready to take the step against lawyers and unlimited damages. Cheap health care isn't an option without that happening first. You don't complain that the house isn't secure when you refused to build the fourth side of the wall.

[Wezas]

12) Keep hoping that people who write nothing but Conservative Political threads on message boards don't vote for President again in 4 years.

[Parkbandit]

Did you submit those ideas Tamral?

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by GSTamral
So this site is taking ideas of what they can do to beat Bush, and/or what they interpret as the far right conservatives.


Win approximately 2% more of the vote. :wow:

Jorddyn

[GSTamral]

J, aka Jaelus, showed me the link and asked me to come up with some stuff for him. He is a tree hugging PETA guy, but being my best friend, I wrote some stuff for him. He submitted them, but yea, I wrote em.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by GSTamral
So this site is taking ideas of what they can do to beat Bush, and/or what they interpret as the far right conservatives.


Win approximately 2% more of the vote. :wow:

Jorddyn

2%?

Here:

[Back]

13) Disolve the democratic party. Join the republican party. Change it from the inside.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
13) Disolve the democratic party. Join the republican party. Change it from the inside.

FUCKING INFILTRATOR ALERT!!!

[Warriorbird]

I could probably pull it off to a minor degree. The problem is, I'd get bought out by the big money interests too. It appeals too much. I'm not a real Democrat. Not that most of the "real" Democrats are, however, which poses a problem for them.

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I could probably pull it off to a minor degree. The problem is, I'd get bought out by the big money interests too. It appeals too much. I'm not a real Democrat. Not that most of the "real" Democrats are, however, which poses a problem for them.

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by Warriorbird]

You're not a "real" Democrat because you've allowed the kook fringe to seize power and communicate their platform.

My advice? Stop trying to pacify the extremists and move more towards the center and towards the common American values. Hollywood values do not translate well to most of us.

[GSTamral]

<<<
Win approximately 2% more of the vote.

Jorddyn
>>>

When you consider that democrats had the support of all of the pop stars, Alec Baldwin, and the vast majority of media, as well as all of the outside groups spending millions of dollars in negative advertising, the fact that they LOST ground, and a lot of it, as compared with Gore vs Bush, the problem lies far deeper than the easy method of saying we can just win 2% more of the vote. When you add onto that someone like Rudy G running in 2008, someone who has far greater crossover appeal, not to mention the popularity he won in cleaning up NYC, plus the fact that he is a far better public speaker, debator, and has a reputation as a pit bull in campaigning, well, I'd say the problem could be far greater than just trying to win back 2%.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Jorddyn

Originally posted by GSTamral
So this site is taking ideas of what they can do to beat Bush, and/or what they interpret as the far right conservatives.


Win approximately 2% more of the vote. :wow:

Jorddyn

2%?

Here:

That map ignores both margin and population density, so it is rather worthless.

This...

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/PurpleAmericaPosterAll50_small.gif

... is a bit more useful, but still ignores population density.

Additionally, Bush won approximately 60,600,000 votes. Kerry won approximately 57,200,000. That makes the total number of votes approximately 127,800,000.

2% of that is approximately 2,556,000 votes. Had Kerry won those votes, he would have ended with 59,756,000 votes to Bush's 58,044,000 votes.

So, yes, to win, the Democrats needed 2% more of the votes.

Jorddyn

[Warriorbird]

Eh, dunno if Giuliani will be running with his personal issues. Then again, Bush brushed past a coke habit.

I agree with Tamral though (shock, horror!) the Democrats need to step up.

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by GSTamral
When you consider that democrats had the support of all of the pop stars, Alec Baldwin, and the vast majority of media, as well as all of the outside groups spending millions of dollars in negative advertising, the fact that they LOST ground, and a lot of it,


8) Quiet Michael Moore, he's costing you more votes than you can possibly imagine with his lies. Very few people actually listen to hollywood when it comes to political views, because the perception is still that hollywood is a bunch of overpaid pot smoking idiots.

:?:

Anyway.


When you add onto that someone like Rudy G running in 2008, someone who has far greater crossover appeal, not to mention the popularity he won in cleaning up NYC, plus the fact that he is a far better public speaker, debator, and has a reputation as a pit bull in campaigning, well, I'd say the problem could be far greater than just trying to win back 2%.

The problem, as I see it, is that we have right wing nut job versus left wing tree hugger, and the right wing nut job had Karl Rove on salary. I stand by my statement that 2% more of the vote would win us the election :)

Jorddyn, left wing tree hugger

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. I think Kerry could've won it if he was more ballsy. Not that I liked him much, if ever.

[Back]

I disagree Democrats need to be more moderate. If anything, they need to be more extreme. They really need a revolutionary. Someone who will call the GOP and the Administration on all their bullshit. Kerry didn’t do enough of that.

I mean... if I can sit down at the internet and find legitimite stories on how manipulative this administration and the GOP are, who ever the dems pick as their next candidate should shout about these things loud and clear.

Then again, I like my other idea on dissolving the democratic party entirely. It would dismantle the bipartisan system, put everyone on the same page and bring some much needed unity BACK to our country. :eek:

[GSTamral]

Actually my point is not that Democrats need to embrace these areas where they lost votes heavily, but rather they need to educate America as to why their way is better. If they go out and compromise their own views, such as by abandoning the homosexual vote, which they do believe in, but act against it to win votes, then they might as well disolve their own party. Jimmy Carter was a genuinely good man who stood up for what he believed in, and people respected and trusted him, even if they did not agree with him, something that sticks with him to this day. FDR died an American Hero, this despite the fact that many Americans did not approve of his way of handling things at first. He proved to them why he was better, and won the people over by implementing things in an organized and clear manner, and with good intentions at heart. Many people disagreed with Reagan's social agenda, but he was respected and loved by most anyway, because they knew he had good intentions at heart. Every democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter has been an absolute douchebag, this despite the fact that on many of those occasions a non douchebag was running.

1984
Walter Mondale (douchebag) nominated over Cisneros (non douchebag)
1988
Dukakis (complete and utter douchebag) over Gore (total douchebag), Jesse Jackson (lying scum douchebag), and Gephardt (douchebag to this day), sorry nothing but douchebags in this election for Dems.
1992
Clinton (the biggest douchebag in the history of American Politics) over Tsongas (non douchebag, but kinda tree huggerish, at least I give him credit for standing up for what he believed in) and Brown (douchebag)
1996
Clinton (he's superdouche)
2000
Gore (son of total douchebag) over Bradley (A geniunely good man with plenty of crossover appeal)
2004
Kerry (asshat douchebag) over Dean (loudmouth scary douchebag) and Clark (another genuinely good man, and a real vets hero)

[GSTamral]

<<
I disagree Democrats need to be more moderate. If anything, they need to be more extreme. They really need a revolutionary. Someone who will call the GOP and the Administration on all their bullshit. Kerry didn’t do enough of that.
>>

Chad, man that would only lose them even more votes. Socialism doesn't work as merrily as you might think. Look at Europe right now, and then try to say we have it bad. Germany has thrice our unemployment rate, and those who are working are working shorter hours. For less money. With no upward mobility.

[Warriorbird]

I think your views show there, hey. You call Clinton a douchebag yet he won.

[Back]

Originally posted by GSTamral
Actually my point is not that Democrats need to embrace these areas where they lost votes heavily, but rather they need to educate America as to why their way is better.

Agreed on this. But where did I say anything about Socialism? Besides, isn’t Social Security a socialist concept? I don’t think Kerry was vocal enough about the distortions of this Administration.

[DeV]

Democrats need to really step up and get on attack mode. They need to adopt some Republican tactics. Get bold.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

You're not a "real" Democrat because you've allowed the kook fringe to seize power and communicate their platform.




Funny when I first read this, I immediately thought that's exactly what we have now - except it's the Republicans who allowed the kooks from the fringe to take control. :lol:

As for your points, Tamral. Too bad half of them were conjecture - and the other about people's appearance and other completely irrelevent things (and par for your course - nothing you can back up with any hard numbers.) that basically rendered your entire post nothing but a poor attempt at humor.

Wezas wins by a landslide.

[Back]

I just submitted this to StandUpDemocats (http://standupdemocrats.org/ideas/).org.


The Democratic Party needs to dissolve then join the Republican Party. This will accomplish many goals of the Democratic Party. It will end bipartisan politics. It will unify the nation when it needs it the most. It will allow the public to see alternative views. And it will piss the Republicans off to no end.

This is entirely possible and a brilliant idea on my part if I say so myself.

Thanks for your time.

[Back]

You know... those maps. First thanks PB and Jorddyn for posting those...

There are small democratic spots surrounded in seas of red. I have to wonder... what are those counties? Who lives there? When was that blue county founded and by whom? It would be great to know.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash
I mean... if I can sit down at the internet and find legitimite stories on how manipulative this administration and the GOP are, who ever the dems pick as their next candidate should shout about these things loud and clear.

The thing is.... most of your stories are either a) BS, or b) completely one-sided (not that you purposely get stories like this.)

If they were brought out on the national stage the people with the means to research what you're saying would do so.

It's not hard to find stories that are talking about things that a regular person cannot or does not care enough to research and debunk.

If what you found was actually worthwhile material, it would be used by people trying to gain jobs via elections.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Backlash
I mean... if I can sit down at the internet and find legitimite stories on how manipulative this administration and the GOP are, who ever the dems pick as their next candidate should shout about these things loud and clear.

The thing is.... most of your stories are either a) BS, or b) completely one-sided (not that you purposely get stories like this.)

If they were brought out on the national stage the people with the means to research what you're saying would do so.

It's not hard to find stories that are talking about things that a regular person cannot or does not care enough to research and debunk.

If what you found was actually worthwhile material, it would be used by people trying to gain jobs via elections.

C’mon, Hulk. You are studying journalism. Are you going to argue that the industry isn’t compromised at the moment by the media conglomerates?

The real news is out there. Thank god (mankind) for the internet. The internet is the last refuge in this corporate world for the real journalist.

How are my stories BS and the administrations aren’t? Tell you what. Show me a WMD in Iraq and I’ll shut up.

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Backlash]

[DeV]

It's BS because most people can't handle knowing the truth so they rely on their blissful ignorance to keep them sane.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Backlash
C’mon, Hulk. You are studying journalism. Are you going to argue that the industry isn’t compromised at the moment by the media conglomerates?

They are controlled by conglomerates, I'm not saying otherwise.

Whether what is and isn't reported is aiding the GOP is what I don't agree with.

My point is that a democrat, specifically those with the exposure of Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, etc, would put forth these stories if they were sufficiently accurate and legitimate.

I don't mean any disrespect by calling the stories BS, it's not a knock on you.

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Hulkein]

[Warriorbird]

Nah. The party still has a "don't get your hands dirty" mentality.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Backlash
C’mon, Hulk. You are studying journalism. Are you going to argue that the industry isn’t compromised at the moment by the media conglomerates?

They are controlled by conglomerates, I'm not saying otherwise.

Whether what is and isn't reported is aiding the GOP is what I don't agree with.

My point is that a democrat, specifically those with the exposure of Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, etc, would put forth these stories if they were sufficiently accurate and legitimate.

I don't mean any disrespect by calling the stories BS, it's not a knock on you.

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Hulkein]

WB hit the nail on the head. Also...

I’ve bolded a statement in your post because it bears closer examination. How can you say the media is compromised in one sentence then turn around and say is has no effect in the next?

I agree that it is the blissful condition of the good consumer to not recognize certain issues, but isn’t there also a responsibility of the media to make them aware? That is to say, if its not getting told, no one will hear it?

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, it was pretty offensive. My friend Billy and I went to summer Governor's school for the arts and humanities in Virginia. We got visits from both the Democratic and Republican parties, including the then governor and several members of the state legislature. The Democratic party was severely unorganized and limp wristed in debates. They dimissed my friend Billy's political future as a disabled person (this is the Democratic Party of Virginia too, mind). The Republican Party was incredibly organized and receptive to our questions even if they were freakish religious zealots, they made an impression of unity and weren't afraid to call out their opponents on their faults.

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Backlash
You know... those maps. First thanks PB and Jorddyn for posting those...

There are small democratic spots surrounded in seas of red. I have to wonder... what are those counties? Who lives there? When was that blue county founded and by whom? It would be great to know.

I was thinking the same thing. I find that kind of thing totally fascinating... especially in areas where I'd never expect like the Dakotas or Texas. I'm guessing they are probably cities? :shrug: Still interesting though.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Backlash
You know... those maps. First thanks PB and Jorddyn for posting those...

There are small democratic spots surrounded in seas of red. I have to wonder... what are those counties? Who lives there? When was that blue county founded and by whom? It would be great to know.

The bluest county in Iowa is mine :D

Jorddyn, :heart: Iowa City