Does anyone else find this Democrat offensive?

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Most in a party will share a similar ideology - to a greater of lesser degree depending on the party. Because most voters are affiliated with a party, I would suggest that most voters vote on the basis of ideology.

However, it is the 20-30% who aren't affiliated with a party who more often than not decide elections. I would expect that ideology is less important to that portion of the electorate.

Two things I don't understand: How much do you distinguish between agenda and ideology? I don't see a lot of difference. Next, are you suggesting that voters should rely more on experience and agenda (perhaps including ideology) than they do on the ability to communicate and/or charisma? As a general rule, I would agree with that too.


Regards,

D-Ray

Good points... One of the problems with ideology that is overlooked in the USA, is that with only two major parties, it is too broad. There are some conservative Democrats who are more conservative than some Republicans. There are liberal Republicans who are more liberal than some Democrats.

The various ideologies of five, six, or seven, major political parties elsewhere are being pressed into two. Unfortunately, while the parties themselves are both quite centrist, some elements conspire to push them apart. Elements, which disenfranchise some voters in that they are trying to mold the whole in their image. This is why you also have "independents" who can run the extreme spectrum from far left to far right, yet without party affiliation, yet most are also quite centrist.

The problem with the Tea Party (a more right-centrist arm of the GOP) is that it challenges the equally far from center governing faction of the DNC, (aptly represented by Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid) which has become the norm in Washington. Why was there no Tea Party when Clinton was President? Because he, leading the DNC, took a very much centrist course. The current course of the DNC, is well to the left of center and was highlighted by the election of one of them most liberal members of the Congress, Barrack Obama, as President.

Obama hasn't changed, neither has the electorate. It is just that the latter group now understands his policies (and those of the ruling Democrats) and are not amused as they are not centrist. Thus you have the 2010 midterm elections, which were referendum on Obama's policies who have fallen from favor even more since then.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Thus you have the 2010 midterm elections, which were referendum on Obama's policies who have fallen from favor even more since then.

You keep referring to this midterm but this might be misleading. It is my observation that dems especially blacks do not vote in mid terms. The repugs know this and in modern times have always start to hammer a dem president from day one: using their media advantage especially on AM radio. The result is a mid term with a energised and commited repug elerment willing to go out and vote while the dem base is fallen asleep. It happened with Clinton when he was hit mid term with "Contract With America".

[painter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I'm not completely following here, but I'll try.

Are you suggesting that party politics is about ideology, but that electoral politics is not? We might be close to agreement. Most in a party will share a similar ideology - to a greater of lesser degree depending on the party. Because most voters are affiliated with a party, I would suggest that most voters vote on the basis of ideology.

However, it is the 20-30% who aren't affiliated with a party who more often than not decide elections. I would expect that ideology is less important to that portion of the electorate.

Two things I don't understand: How much do you distinguish between agenda and ideology? I don't see a lot of difference. Next, are you suggesting that voters should rely more on experience and agenda (perhaps including ideology) than they do on the ability to communicate and/or charisma? As a general rule, I would agree with that too.

For me, Ideology/agenda are the most important factors to consider in casting a vote. It just makes sense to consider a candidate's ideas about the proper role of government before placing him or her in that government. (The ability to lead and communicate are also important, because an unrealized ideology doesn't do anyone much good.)

Regards,

D-Ray

The problem with working and posting is...you tend to mince words.
I'll go with your response.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by painter

The problem with working and posting is...you tend to mince words.
I'll go with your response.

You mean that part where I said that I think I agree with you? I think that you had a valid point and stated it succinctly. (On the other hand, I doubt that anyone in these parts will ever accuse me of mincing words. ) It is unfortunate that we are unlikely to ever again have a president who is not telegenic. (I think Paul Simon of Ill. would have made a fine president, but . . . ) Hence, I don't waste much time dreaming of a career in politics.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

[Edit: this joke was so bad, to save humanity I had to print it, mark it out, shred it, then burn the shards. I'm afraid something might have survived]

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Good points... One of the problems with ideology that is overlooked in the USA, is that with only two major parties, it is too broad. There are some conservative Democrats who are more conservative than some Republicans. There are liberal Republicans who are more liberal than some Democrats.

The various ideologies of five, six, or seven, major political parties elsewhere are being pressed into two. Unfortunately, while the parties themselves are both quite centrist, some elements conspire to push them apart. Elements, which disenfranchise some voters in that they are trying to mold the whole in their image. This is why you also have "independents" who can run the extreme spectrum from far left to far right, yet without party affiliation, yet most are also quite centrist.

The problem with the Tea Party (a more right-centrist arm of the GOP) is that it challenges the equally far from center governing faction of the DNC, (aptly represented by Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid) which has become the norm in Washington. Why was there no Tea Party when Clinton was President? Because he, leading the DNC, took a very much centrist course. The current course of the DNC, is well to the left of center and was highlighted by the election of one of them most liberal members of the Congress, Barrack Obama, as President.

Obama hasn't changed, neither has the electorate. It is just that the latter group now understands his policies (and those of the ruling Democrats) and are not amused as they are not centrist. Thus you have the 2010 midterm elections, which were referendum on Obama's policies who have fallen from favor even more since then.

We most certainly exist in different political universes. I do not occupy a universe in which the Tea Party bears any semblance to being centrist, and in which Obama operates in close proximity to the left wing. Pete loves to give us concrete examples of the many ways in which Obama has been maddenly centrist. Moreover, liberal Republicans have gone the way of the stegosaurus. They are a thing of the past.

Bill Clinton engaged in his presidency as a moderate Republican. The primal ooze, which would later take life as the tea party, was bubbling during his presidency. This was aptly demonstrated by those engaged in an irrational hatred of and fervent desire to bring down that moderate southern boy.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

[Edit: this joke was so bad, to save humanity I had to print it, mark it out, shred it, then burn the shards. I'm afraid something might have survived]

Pete

It wasn't this one was it, Pete?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I wish! I've never seen that skit before.

Btw, I'm not pointing out that Obama is a centrist. I'm pointing out that Obama is, um, FOS

Seriously, is a centrist hope and change?

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Seriously, is a centrist hope and change?

Pete

Compared to a right-wing war-mongering doofus, yes.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I wish! I've never seen that skit before.

Btw, I'm not pointing out that Obama is a centrist. I'm pointing out that Obama is, um, FOS

Seriously, is a centrist hope and change?

Pete

I was going to post to a YouTube clip of the skit, but I didn't want you to feel left out.

Pete, I wasn't suggesting that you approve of Obama, just that you have pointed out some of the more centrist/conservative moves that he has made.

There was plenty of hope that a change from Bush would be for the better, and to that extent hope has been realized. As far as centrist positions, any move to the left of Bush was a move toward the center. As has been pointed out by some occupants, the middle of the road still appears to be in the middle of Wall Street. Unfortunately, there is no viable left of center candidate.

Regards,

D-Ray