Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106870)	3/31/2005 10:27:02 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Security is an important question. IMO, the Democrats need to have a message if they want to be trusted with power again. You are actually talking about a different issue than Bradley is. At the presidential level, the one you are talking about, we are still, basically, a 50/50 nation. A few votes one way or the other would have given the last election to Kerry, even though he campaigned badly. So a Dem can get elected president with a slight tweaking of the candidate. At that level, whatever the voters read as the Dems position on security issues won't keep them from electing a president. At that level, also taking one issue and thinking elections are about that one, is a mistake. It may well have been that the Reps finally figured out the turn out problem. Bradley addresses the much more serious problem of non presidential elections. Security is far less of an issue, maybe even a non-issue in those elections. That's where the structure Bradley has in mind comes into play.