Why Democrats Will Never Be President In Our Lifetime

Wachs on the Web ^ | 9-17-04 | Larry Wachs

[Arkinsaw]

The pendulum swings whether we think it will or not.

[inquest]

If it's true that no Democrat in the forseeable future will be president, then it's only nominally true. If someone like McCain gets into the White House, then it'll be the same as having a Democrat.

[theDentist]

I think that every president we have for the rest of our lives will be Republican.

I'll put that premonition up there with "Man will never fly" and "The World will end on 1/1/200".

[WOSG]

Silly comment ... If the election were held in May, April, or early August, Kerry would have won.

If you want to make the GOP a majority party and Democrats a minority party, you've got to work to make it happen.

[umgud]

If the dems hadn't put forth their most lib candidate, this race might have been theirs. Don't forget; Bill Clinton was able to be packaged as a moderate. Not so with kerry.

[The Real Indepman]

"The Democrats are not so much a party as a cult. I don't see them changing their devious behavior anytime soon."

There are few liberals around anymore, I find it difficult to even think of anyone who fits the definition of "liberal" these days. Instead what we have are subliberals. In that, I mean they claim to be "liberals" but, are so filled with hate they cannot even discuss issues without calling someone with an opposing opinion an idiot or a moron....

[JayRay]

Well of course. Because the Republicans weren't drawing attention to themselves at the time. We were just coming out of the Democratic Primaries and John Kerry was trying (and still is) to define himself...as soon as the Republicans started campaigning, things began the turnaround. If the election were held in May, the Republicans would have started campaigning in January and we might be looking at the same polls we are now.

In any event, while I don't agree with the original poster that we'll never see a Democratic President in our lifetime (I have a hard time swallowing that after seeing Clinton get re-elected), I do agree that WHEN they lose in November, it'll be a long-term blow to them. They will have to redefine their party to get the message out that voters want to hear...and one that doesn't change from day to day. If they cannot do that, they will continue to lose.

People are not quite comfortable with the far right policies but they are LESS comfortable with far left policies. Further, the eleite Democrat Circle, doesn't seem to want to let in anyone who is NOT liberal. Case-in-point, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, and other like them are the power in the Democratic party. Whereas the Republicans have Bush, Cheney, Powell, Frist, and others with sider ranging views. More people can relate to them.

The elite left have to promote their moderates like Lieberman in order to start making a larger connection to the American Demographic.

[slim mackerel]

If it's true that no Democrat in the forseeable future will be president, then it's only nominally true. If someone like McCain gets into the White House, then it'll be the same as having a Democrat. No. McCain's record will reveal him. He will not get in even as a nominal Republican.

[WOSG]

"In any event, while I don't agree with the original poster that we'll never see a Democratic President in our lifetime (I have a hard time swallowing that after seeing Clinton get re-elected), I do agree that WHEN they lose in November, it'll be a long-term blow to them. They will have to redefine their party to get the message out that voters want to hear...and one that doesn't change from day to day. If they cannot do that, they will continue to lose. "

I hope you are right.

[inquest]

The only part of McCain's record that will be "revealed" will be that which the press allows the people to see. And as it is, the press loves him. He is an extreme danger which we can not afford to be complacent about.

[slim mackerel]

Silly comment ... If the election were held in May, April, or early August, Kerry would have won. Your point is on par with, "if the NFL played 3 quarters, last years Super Bowl may have had a different outcome." The silly comment is yours. Are you saying that sometime in the future, we will abruptly have a call for elections prematurely? Which form of government will get us to that point? I think you'd have to get a Dem monopoly in the White House, Senate, and House to get even close to that point.

[slim mackerel]

The only part of McCain's record that will be "revealed" will be that which the press allows the people to see. And as it is, the press loves him. He is an extreme danger which we can not afford to be complacent about.

That's exactly one of the points of the above article: The "press" that loves McCain doesn't have the power or influence it once did. RINOs/Democrats must be dishonest, intellectually or otherwise to push forth their ideas. This dishonesty is more difficult to pull off on an electable scale when you've got an explosion of information sources available to the voter.

[inquest]

The "press" that loves McCain doesn't have the power or influence it once did.

The article doesn't back up that point. You may get your news from alternative sources, but that doesn't mean that the vast majority of the Soccer Moms do. They still get most of their attitudes from the MSM, if for no other reason that they don't have the time or inclination to dig deeper for their information.

Just look at this whole brouhaha over "assault weapons". The Internet abounds with information devastating to the whole basis for the attitude surrounding them, yet most people still assume that "assault weapon" is a bona fide generic description, and that the sunsetting of the ban will have terrible consequences. It's clear that there has been no measurable diminution of the press's power over public opinion.

[diamond6]

I don't know about this... the 2000 election was pretty darn close. But, hope you're right.

[JayRay]

I am a Bush supporter and I fell for the liberal media crap on that ban too. When I discovered myself AGREEING with John Kerry, I knew something was wrong so I started to do a little more research and discovered the truth that these weapons aren't really assault weapons at all, at least, not the way we generalize the definition of assault weapons.

Good point!

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "I don’t see how it’s avoidable, so I think that every president we have for the rest of our lives will be Republican. The Democrats are not so much a party as a cult. I don't see them changing their devious behavior anytime soon."

They don't have to change to win an election and it can happen in 2008 if the GOP is not careful. Consider:

1) Hillary Clinton runs in 2008. 40% of the country is willing to vote for her tomorrow, you know it, she knows it.

2) The GOP picks a pro-abortion candidate such as Pataki or Giuliani. 20% of the population (mostly Republican voters) will not vote for an abortion candidate. You know it and you can bet the DNC knows it. What are the odds they will be supporting such a candidate behind the scenes? What are the odds such a candidate will get the support of Big Media outright and in the open (that is until the primary season is over)?

3) A third party candidate will get double digits for the first time since Anderson.

[WOSG]

My point is very basic - if it were impossible for Democrats to win, they would *never* be ahead in the polls. Yet sometimes they are. The fact that the race was close until August, should tell you something. The Democrats can convince the majority to vote for them at certain times and on certain issues. You seem to forget that in 1992,1996 and 2000, the Dems managed to get more popular vote than the Repubs.

You also seem to forget that the 2004 election hasnt happened yet, and the lead Bush has, while strong, is not insurmountable.

Your comment is on a par with watching the first two games of the season and declaring who will win the superbowl on that basis. We don't even know for sure that 2004 is in the bag, so let's not call the next generation of elections prematurely.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "There are few liberals around anymore, I find it difficult to even think of anyone who fits the definition of "liberal" these days"

Not true they are everywhere you just do not call them that nor do they see themselves as liberal.

Examples:

It is 1990 and someone wants to give the public prescription drug benefits. Those who support this are called liberals and the ones who do not are called conservatives. That does not fit so neatly today.

1980 someone wants to ban partial birth abortion. Those who support the ban are conservative and those against are liberal. Does this hold as clearly today?

1970 the issue is abortion. How many people in good standing in the GOP want to call themselves conservative today but support "choice"? Would they have been able to hold that title in 1970?

Pick a topic, desegregation, social security, environmental law, international trade such as NAFTA, immigration, cloning, stem cell research, open adoption, Internet porn or porn in general, TV subject matter, out of wedlock birth, gay marriage, I could drone on and on but you get the picture. See yourself, see your friends, you should because in at least a few of these topics the drift has gone to the left even in the GOP, even among folks who think they have been consistently conservative. HA! it is to laugh.

We are not holding the line and we are not teaching our children to hold the line. What are the odds that many of you have a child who is gay or is living with a "lover", I guess the conservatives among us are living with a person of the opposite sex while the liberals are living with their gay lover that is until 2014 when I will be called a troglodyte for suggesting there is something wrong here. How soon before McCain and Spector represent the conservative wing of the GOP? It is closer than you think.

[gcruse]

There will always be a party in opposition to purveyors of big government, whether they get elected or not. If the Libertarian Party would drop their insane open borders and isolationist policy (no foreign entanglements, but let all the foreigners come here), they would be the choice for replacing the Democratic party.

However, don't drown in your own Kool-Aid. As long as half the country believes more government is the answer to our problems, there will always be another Democratic president.