Replies

And the left has stuck to nothing but old, tired and worn out ideas from the 1940's and 1960's. More and more voters know these universal, one size fits all, top down controlled government programs do not work.

When the GOP forced Clinton to sign welfare reform in 1996 after he vetoed two previous bills (the first he called too draconian, the second he just babbled nonsense about and the third, which was closer to the first, he finally signed) voters could see that the old government model was wrong. Report after report they read of women being forced to quit school or lose welfare money or stop running a small business like braiding hair or lose all welfare money, etc. (But of course, after whining about welfare reform and focusing their entire 1996 convention around "fixing reform", the Dems took credit for it's success)

So now these voters are usually more receptible to listen to new ideas about Socical Security, Medicare, etc. This is why, in my opinion, the one size fits all, universal, top down underestimated prescription drug program isn't still the #1 topic of the day. You can't get lower middle class and poor voters to care about a program when they are told billionares over the age of 67 would also get free drugs.

Why the Dems just don't allow the free market reforms the GOP wants and means test the prescription drugs is silly to me. They can claim credit with the Republicans and show bipartisanship. But instead, they stick to the old 1965 Medicare model.

My father is 68 and a lifelong Democrat (he did vote for Nixon in 1972 though) and does not and will not participate in Medicare. He would rather work 32-35 hours a week to get health coverage for him and my mom. This cuts into his measly Soc Sec money thanks to Bill Clinton's 1993 tax bill and since my mom never worked much she doesn't get hardly any. And he knows the premiums charged for Medicare Part B are ungodly.

When I talk to him about privatization and free market reforms, he's all for the ideas and wish he had those options. So now, even though he's getting out voted living in Portland, OR, he'll more than likely vote GOP.

My mom is a lost cause! lol She still thinks Soc Sec should be paying her $1,500 a month or more and all of her health insurance even though she hardly worked outside the home!

If there has been a realignment, it is because conservatives have continued to talk about what they want and for what the stand, while liberals have become more and more shrill, more dependant on the smear

I disagree on two points.... First, I don't think there's been an "ideological" (conservatives, liberals) realignment. The parties have realigned because they've both moved LEFT over the past 10-20 years, placing Republicans in the center.

Look back a mere 10 years to the Gingrich Revolution. Then, the GOP rode to power promising to eliminate 4 cabinet departments, slash federal spending etc. Today, the GOP Congress with a GOP President have expanded spending faster than at anytime since LBJ. That's moving to the Left my friends.

Similarly, Dems have moved socially Left bigtime in the past 10 years. A decade ago, gay marriage was unthinkable to anyone Left or Right. Today, support for gay civil unions are part of the standard Democratic creed. Similarly, 10 years ago the Dems claimed to be the party of the middle-class-- backing middle-class tax-cuts (a Clinton 92 campaign promise which he broke), free trade, and middle-class entitlements such as college aid. Today, the Dems are increasingly the party of single-issue seperatists--- victim feminists, victim minority activists, cooky environmentalists who preach over and over again a message about how America and the West are evil, imperialist, racist, etc. That's a message the mainstream American center doesn't buy.