Good article on why Dems keep losing elections

[volinbham]

FT.com / Columnists / Clive Crook - Democrats must learn some respect

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power.

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.

Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.

If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve.

They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.

 

[615 Vol]

Good read, thanks for posting.

 

[BigPapaVol]

FT.com / Columnists / Clive Crook - Democrats must learn some respect

dammit, our playbook is now out there for the high-minded elite left to understand why the keep losing.

Although he thinks the pity for the downtrodden thing is more of a factor than it really is. Much of blue collar America has a healthy disdain for the welfare state and that drives many to vote R, who probably should vote D.

 

[Fine Vol]

Might be because we cant even vote correctly.

 

[VolByBirth]

dammit, our playbook is now out there for the high-minded elite left to understand why the keep losing.

Although he thinks the pity for the downtrodden thing is more of a factor than it really is. Much of blue collar America has a healthy disdain for the welfare state and that drives many to vote R, who probably should vote D.

Putting personal opinion on policy aside, Republicans are far superior politicians (and when I say politician, I mean the ability to garner votes and win elections). The key to the Republican Party is they pick as issue, choose an easily defineable and defendable side, and stick with it relentlessly. This power of knowing where a party stands is severely underestimated by the Dems.

Dems on the other hand delve into the gray area of an issue where one persons stance may slightly differ from another (let's be honest, define Pro-Choice -- this is different for nearly every person you speak to). Pro-Life has little if any gray area. This is crippling and Dems often lack the backbone to stand up for exactly what they feel (for fear of not encompassing everyone that might need to be included). It's politics -- you will undoubtedly step on toes. Get over it.

A great example of Republican politicking was in Bush's last election. Gay marriage had been an issue, but relatively unimportant on the priority list of either side. However, in the 2004 election the Republicans knew all to well how to divide the blue collar base and brought this issue to the forefront. It's simple - create an issue where a subsection of voters have to choose about their economic or moral preference. As BPV stated, blue collar America probably should vote Dem, but their religious background could never allow them to back gay marriage. Brilliant move.

It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it -- it is what it is. And while I'm most likely to vote Dem this election I can easily say it has more to do with the utter meltdown in the previous adminstration that it does with "hope" or BO. I agree with gun ownership, but I also agree with restrictions and elimination of certain gun types -- that makes me a gray area Democrat and hard to nail down. Republicans are Pro-gun with no restrictions -- their stance is clear and easier for people to associate with.

 

[volinbham]

Putting personal opinion on policy aside, Republicans are far superior politicians (and when I say politician, I mean the ability to garner votes and win elections). The key to the Republican Party is they pick as issue, choose an easily defineable and defendable side, and stick with it relentlessly. This power of knowing where a party stands is severely underestimated by the Dems.

Dems on the other hand delve into the gray area of an issue where one persons stance may slightly differ from another (let's be honest, define Pro-Choice -- this is different for nearly every person you speak to). Pro-Life has little if any gray area. This is crippling and Dems often lack the backbone to stand up for exactly what they feel (for fear of not encompassing everyone that might need to be included). It's politics -- you will undoubtedly step on toes. Get over it.

A great example of Republican politicking was in Bush's last election. Gay marriage had been an issue, but relatively unimportant on the priority list of either side. However, in the 2004 election the Republicans knew all to well how to divide the blue collar base and brought this issue to the forefront. It's simple - create an issue where a subsection of voters have to choose about their economic or moral preference. As BPV stated, blue collar America probably should vote Dem, but their religious background could never allow them to back gay marriage. Brilliant move.

It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it -- it is what it is. And while I'm most likely to vote Dem this election I can easily say it has more to do with the utter meltdown in the previous adminstration that it does with "hope" or BO. I agree with gun ownership, but I also agree with restrictions and elimination of certain gun types -- that makes me a gray area Democrat and hard to nail down. Republicans are Pro-gun with no restrictions -- their stance is clear and easier for people to associate with.

The rich should pay more - where's the gray area?

Big Oil is making too much profit, we should take it from them - where's the gray area?

No offshore drilling - where's the gray area?

I understand your point but the Dem side definitely takes hard, black and white stances too.

Take your abortion example - McCain and many Republicans are pro-life in philosophy but not for banning all abortions in practice. Many Dems are pro-choice in philosophy but recognize that some restrictions make sense.

Candidates take hard positions to appeal to the base but across each party you'll find much variation on those positions.

 

[VolByBirth]

The rich should pay more - where's the gray area?

This is not a political platform, this is an interpretation of policy. No one stands up there and says the rich should pay more. They use awful terms to circumvent this and try to justify higher taxes. Republicans just say "lower taxes". Winner - Republicans.

Big Oil is making too much profit, we should take it from them - where's the gray area?

Again, gray area because their is no policy around this. It's a vague stance with no real way of implementing. It's an idiotic stance nonetheless.

No offshore drilling - where's the gray area?

You and I both know this is primarily an environmental issue on the Dems side and again, that inherently makes it gray. What harm would it really do, etc etc.

I understand your point but the Dem side definitely takes hard, black and white stances too.

Certainly - but look through this and see that when asked to define or implement their ideas it becomes a web of undiscernible gray areas. Personally, on the large issues -- I believe the Republicans choose a side that has little gray area....and they are smarter for it.

Take your abortion example - McCain and many Republicans are pro-life in philosophy but not for banning all abortions in practice. Many Dems are pro-choice in philosophy but recognize that some restrictions make sense.

I would still argue the Pro-Life range of differences is tiny in comparison to the Pro-Choice differences. Interestingly, I would argue the majority of people only slightly lean one way or the other and are far closer to center than the heat around the issue seems to illustrate.

Candidates take hard positions to appeal to the base but across each party you'll find much variation on those positions.

Personally, I think these illustrate exacly what I was talking about. But the more I talk about it, the more involved I can see this post becoming.

On the other hand, maybe I just lean more Dem and therefore see it this way. The bottom line still stands -- the Republicans are better politicians and know how to win an election.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The democrats absolutely and unequivocally say the rich should be taxed more. Obama says it with pride.

 

[VolByBirth]

The democrats absolutely and unequivocally say the rich should be taxed more. Obama says it with pride.

I was waiting for this response. I hit submit on that post and said, "actually, i think the first part is wrong, I think Obama explicitly has said this." Oh well, no one is perfect.

What is the definition of rich anyway?

 

[volinbham]

I don't see how you can suggest that increasing taxes on the rich is not a political platform and that no one stands up and says that. That is exactly what Obama has been saying. There is no gray there - he directly states he will raise their taxes so they can pay their fair share.

Likewise, the WPT is a specific policy statement.

Not sure how an environmental issue is a defacto gray area. Claiming an initiative (drilling) should be opposed because it is bad for the environment is clearly making a simple, black and white statement.

The Republicans may know how to win elections but if you don't recognize the dogma and ideological rigidness of the Democratic party then the Republicans will continue to win elections. People are as much voting against Dem ideology as they are voting for Rep ideology and vice versa.

Finally, to say that Reps using simple arguments sways voters is exactly the point of the article posted - it is under estimation of the American populace that they are simple and can only digest simple, well-defined issues.

 

[volinbham]

What is the definition of rich anyway?

Variable. The fact that it is described as a monolithic state shows the black and white view.

 

[BigPapaVol]

What is the definition of rich anyway?

according to Obama's backwards thinking, rich is about annual income level. His number is $250K per annum. Wonder how that meshes with his picture of Biden? Biden's net worth looked pitiful a couple of weeks ago and he makes $250K per year and doesn't have to worry with retirement.

 

[notverycrucial]

I disagree that Republicans are far superior politicians compared to Democrats. I think Americans believe Republicans have better ideas, and are therefore willing to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt. Familiarity is a huge boon to Republicans. That's why they have dominated Washington for nearly 30 years.

 

[notverycrucial]

according to Obama's backwards thinking, rich is about annual income level. His number is $250K per annum. Wonder how that meshes with his picture of Biden? Biden's net worth looked pitiful a couple of weeks ago and he makes $250K per year and doesn't have to worry with retirement.

In defense of Obama, he never described $250,000 a year as being "rich." What Obama said was that people making $250,000 would have their taxcuts rolled back to the previous level under Clinton. He was very careful (like any skilled politician) to avoid describing those people as rich -- because he knows that in many cases they aren't.

For the record: McCain never said that people who make less than $5 million are middle class either.