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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (171223)	9/27/2005 2:02:07 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi stockman scott; Re: "None dare call it stolen". The article compared 1968 with 2004, in that both years saw high turnout while unpopular wars were being fought. The article notes that the big difference is that in 2004 the party in power retained power. But a more accurate way of describing it is to say that in both years, the Republicans won. The left wing side of this country is rather well politicized and votes at a fairly high rate. Of the people who do not generally vote, there is a tendency towards conservatism. High turnouts favor the Republicans. The largest percentage of people who don't vote are the lower middle class. If you think that the lower middle class are liberal then you just haven't spent very much time with them. Where do you think the neonazi skinheads come from? Those are mostly lower middle class kids who look up to Hitler as a hero because Hitler was a nobody who became somebody. They generally don't vote, but when they do, they certainly aren't going to vote Democratic. Try wandering into a few auto repair shops or other places where blue collar men fix the things that your lilly white hands never get near. My observation is that they very frequently have Rush Limbaugh on the radio. In addition to the cultural issues associated with the rare voters, it is generally thought that Republicans are more inclined towards the military than the Democrats. When we get in an unpopular war (which usually means a war that we do not appear to be making progress in), the population is therefore more likely to vote Republican. The Democrats "loathe the military" and can hardly be trusted to run a war correctly. Nor have the Democrats been claiming that they'd do much different than Bush anyway. The Republicans can also screw up a war, but the Iraq screw-up pales by comparison to Vietnam. And it was the Democrats that were voted out of office in 1968 partly for their crappy war, and partly because they let the hippies take control over their party. Now it's nearly 2006 and the Democrats have let the (modern equivalent of the) hippies take over their party again. These are not good days for the Democrats and these are not good days for the USA. This country needs a healthy two party system. Having only one party in power (at the state, local or federal level) tends to breed corruption. Right now, to help this country, that means that the left wing of the Democrats have to bite the bullet and shut up. The best thing that Bush could do for the Democrats is to help the Supreme court reverse Roe V. Wade. But of the two parties, the Republicans are a bit more devoted to obtaining party (and personal) power while the Democrats are a bit more devoted to righting (perceived) wrongs. So I suspect that the Republicans will not let the Supreme court put the Democrats back in power. To get back in power, the Democrats are going to have to find leaders that are at least as middle of the road as Clinton. With the increase in international violence and the perceived threats to the nation, I would think that even Clinton will be perceived as too left wing and that the Democrats will have to go quite some ways to the right of Clinton in 2008. It doesn't appear to me that they are going to be able to pull it together. 2006 should give a clue. But my guess is that in 2008, it will again be the left wing of the Democratic party that runs the show and any sort of reasonable Republican will beat them. If the voters are not ready for your stupid ideas, you have to spend your time educating them. Until then, to keep this country better governed, try choosing more balanced candidates for office. Putting up leaders who share your extreme and stupid ideas just loses elections. And whining about it for years afterwards isn't going to win you any votes. It just makes you look that much more extreme. Look at it from a practical point of view. At this time, the majority belief in this country is that the election of 2004 was fair. If you want the majority population of the country to agree with you, you should claim likewise. Hey, if it turns out that some evidence comes up that proves otherwise you should swing your opinion around when the rest of the country does. Until then, you're probably just wasting your breath. Look at it realistically. The same claims, or more, were made about the 2000 presidential election. Five years went by and it didn't buy you diddly squat. How many years are you going to keep thrashing that long dead horse before you give up and move on to something useful? I mean it's reasonable to try and educate the voters, but you've been trying to educate them for 5 long years. Why not simply accept the voters ineducable opinions, and move on to the issues of 2005 or 2006? Or is it the case that the Democrats really don't have anything to offer the public other than not being Republicans? Kind of reminds me of the Republican party before Reagan. Carl