Democrats are slow to connect with voters

St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | 08/13/2005 | Bill Lambrecht

[rwa265]

Some interesting reading. One piece of advice in the article is that Democrats "have to convey to married people with families, to rural voters and to red state voters that they do, in fact, share their values." Kind of hard to do when the Dims in fact do not share those values.

[madprof98]

Kind of hard to do when the Dims in fact do not share those values.

The problem in a nutshell.

[OneLoyalAmerican]

After their shellacking in November, Democratic politicians promised to do a better job of telling voters about their moral values.

Methinks demoRats have done a better job of promoting their amoral values.

[JennysCool]

Democrats are slow

You don't need the rest of the headline.

[EagleUSA]

How do SOCIALISTS connect with voters of a free nation?? They don't. They just keep lying as to what and who they are.

[longtermmemmory]

The headline does not "get it".

It is the fault of the voters for beeing to slow to grasp what democrats are saying.

(s)If the public is too slow to agree with democrats then society should look at ways to have voters agree with democrats faster. Perhaps vote tutors to make sure people vote correctly when in the booth. Perhaps pre filled ballots.

[IronJack]

Democratic politicians promised to do a better job of telling voters about their moral values.

They have none.

[kstewskis]

The Damnocrats are just slow to begin with....

[longtermmemmory]

no voters are supposed to connect with socialists NOT the other way around.

For the left loyalty flows UP, not down.

[mewzilla]

After their shellacking in November, Democratic politicians promised to do a better job of telling voters about their moral values.

Oh, I'd say the Dems have done just fine.

One problem, however: Most Americans' hearts and souls DO NOT reside in a cesspool.

[IronJack]

After I thought about my flippant reply, I realized there was more substance to this than first meets the eye.

The fact is, it is not hard to beat the Democrats on a moral battleground. It's the shakiest possible platform for them to build on. They have spent years -- decades -- trying to promote a relativist agenda, only to find out that it doesn't sell. Now, they want to reclaim the high ground.

But their moral abdication is a matter of history now. It's in the record for all to see. Their only hope now is to portray the Right's morality as "extreme" or hopelessly out of date. And that is precisely their strategy. Sadly for them, that's not working either, because another one of the legacies America inherited from their revisionist gibberish is a mistrust of political rhetoric.

The delicious irony of all this is that they're now reaping the fruits of their own labors.

[pollyannaish]

Exactly.

In addition, I am not sure how insulting Republicans is good strategy. Why would we not take it personally and just dig in?

[aaronbeth]

Yeah, it's kind of hard to connect when you don't believe in God, think it is okey dokey to deliver a viable child and kill the child in the name of choice, and to take money away from the people who earn it and give it to drug addicts becuase they are 'disabled.' If you half pay attention to Dems, you can see their biggest problem is "framing" the debate to make it seem like they share "red" values without alienating their kook base.

[monocle]

The Democrats will dig their hole ever deeper by talking about their "values" and then acting and voting in the completely opposite direction. Acting in this fashion Democrats will only appear to be even more hypocritical.

[jmaroneps37]

Heres a suggestion: The next time the rats open a convention they should have a witch give an incantation to cast a spell over the voters. That's about the only way they can get people to believe they have anything but the lowest of morals.

[SkyPilot]

This is why the Democrats will never, ever connect with Conservative Jews and Christians:

1. Abortion

2. Sodomy

Dear MSM--please reread points 1 and 2 if it does not register in you skulls.

[IronJack]

You've both described exactly the paradox the Democrats confront: what legion of hypocrites allows women to kill their children but demands wealth untold for programs to "protect" children?; gives blacks preference in hiring for certain positions, but then gets all misty over Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, in which he sees "an America in which a man is judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin"; promises to "liberate" women from the tyranny of domestic oppression, then walks away from those women whose lives are unfulfilled, loveless shams; talks about "inclusion" and "tolerance" yet preaches a gospel of hatred against Christians or anyone they consider part of the mythical "religious right"; advances a sexual perversion rejected by nearly every society for millennia, while still mouthing pious words and clutching unused Bibles to its breast?

How can one paint a picture of Nothing? You can't give it shape. You can't give it color. And you sure can't make it pretty.

[still_learning]

Their premise is that the voters were stupid and if they can only show Americans how stupid they were to vote for the GOP then they will win.

They never ask if they need to reevaluate their positions.

[marvlus]

With their tight connection to the ACLU, it's going to be hard for Democrats to convince voters that they are the party of religious values.

[OldPossum]

Extremely good summation, IronJack.