Will losing in '04 destroy the dems completely?

[vi5]

O.K. I'm being somewhat hyperbolic here, but I can't help thinking:

If they end up going the safe, DLC/DNC route and emphasize centrist moderation and whoever the candidate loses then I can imagine the scenario of the liberal/left/progressive wing being furious and abandoning the party since it refused to listen to them and in their eyes will have cost the election.

Conversely if they do take a chance on a slash and burn campaign with the candidate emphasizing progressive themes and bashing the admin at every conceivable opportunity and THAT candidate loses then the same splintering will conceivably happen from the opposite side.

Obviously I don't want either scenario to happen. I want to win. But this relentless, acrimonious struggle seems like something worse than I've ever seen within this party (or even compared to the repub primaries in the past) and I can't imagine us weathering a loss with anything less than complete and utter turmoil.

Thoughts? And please don't use this thread to preach to me about a particular candidate. I'm talking in general about the state of the party itself not any one particular candidate.

[mumon]

1. No, not at all. Unless they go Repuke-lite.

As Blake said, "If the fool persisted in his folly, he would become wise."

If Americans are too foolish to vote for real change in this country, they will eventually wise up.

Of course, they might have to man the barricades by then, but the Republican hegemony is nothing if not ephemeral.

And one other thing: if the Repukes take all, and ramrod their agenda down the people's throats, they will eat their own and spit out the waste like a cherrystone.

[vi5]

5. This kind of what I'm talking about....

People taking a "the only path is this one" approach to the whole thing.

[poskonig]

2. No.

We've been in worse shape before, e.g. the 1920s. In addition, the GOP looked destroyed after Goldwater and look at them now.

Work your ass off, never give up, and hope for the best.

[el_gato]

3. the upside

if you can call this an upside:

rethugs policies require the massive suffering of the people of the world and in this country. there will always be some type of resistance. However, it may happen that the DLC types run the party into the ground and it dissolves.

[chadm]

4. Keep in mind that

it could be fraud that helps them win again. If the Dems are unwilling to fight the fraud then they will likely continue to lose even while getting more votes.

[tom_paine]

8. That knowledge is never far from mind these degenerate days

n/t

[imhotep]

6. who gives a shit.

There are more important things than "the party."

[Minstrel Boy]

7. No, but it could

destroy what remains of the United States. And not just the US.

I forget who said it, but "these are not normal Republicans." They need to be defeated, and decisively, or the "New American Century" will be even bloodier than the last.

[w4rma]

24. Yup, I think you're right. These Republicans will destroy the U.S.A.

not the Democratic Party. These Republicans will transfer all of America's wealth to a few wealthy individuals who will persist in moving the employees of the big buisnesses offshore until their whole buisness and themselves have left our nation. Then they'll loot more countries with the help of the U.S. armed forces and an extremely poor, brainwashed and desperate American people.

The Democratic Party must try to stop this outcome. And the Democratic Party must try to slow down this outcome until folks can open their eyes.

[SharonAnn]

41. Yes, they have already destroyed a few other countries and

are well advanced in some others.

Check out what they did to Argentina.

[tuck]

9. i think yes ... which might be a good thing

if bush wins running on the "look out! terrorists!" mantra, then i think that will be the way of things for a long time to come.

if our policies abroad do not change, then we can indeed expect more terrorism. which will in turn beget a greater involvement in the middle east (and elsewhere) which will in turn beget more terrorism.

and the republicans will take advantage of it the whole way.

this will, i think (cuz i'm infinitely knowledgeable, ya know:crazy:)either cause the democrats to become a branch of the republican party in a pathetic effort to pander to public opinion, or it will cause the democrats to spiro agnew, if ya know what i mean, (no offense to the lovely women out there who are ballsier than i will ever be.)

should this happen, we moght once again have a democratic majority to be proud of.

[The_Golden_Child]

10. Perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing...

The party leaders have moved so much to the center it is hard to sometimes see the difference between them and moderate Repugs. Even Bill Clinton, one of our best and brightest, played to the middle of the aisle quite prettily.

The thought I'm fighting back all the time is that the Dems are no longer a truly liberal party-- yet they just count up the liberal votes in this country and stick them in the bank because they know we would never vote Repug. They get our votes, and give us a little lip-service in return-- but not much more. It's like they say to us behind closed doors, "We're liberal and we'll fight hard for progressive ideas." But when they get in front of the masses, it's, "We're not liberal, we're nice and soft and moderate. Why, we're just like you, Farmer Brown."

If they continue in this direction, we have no choice but to jump ship, en masse, and form/join another party.

[jfkennedy]

18. I agree

I voted the Democratic Party line up until 2000 even though the leaders and my representatives in the Democratic Party had as much contempt for me because I was a liberal as the Republicans.

But after the 2000 Selection, when not one Democrat in the Senate opposed the vote, I knew the party was over, so I left the Democratic Party, because the same thing that happened to the Liberal Party of New York is happening to the Democratic Party.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/liberal.party.ap/

The move to support the Republican Giuliani in three straight New York mayoral races angered Democrats. The Working Families Party formed out of that disagreement, pulling members away from the Liberal Party, which Cuomo pointed to as the beginning of the end.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0246/robbins.php

By the time the Liberal Party finally bit the dust in last week's electoral drubbing, it had few friends and allies left to bemoan its demise.

Even the New York Post, proving that its favorite pastime remains kicking those who are down, chose the moment to run its first editorial denunciation of the party, calling it "little more than a patronage mill." Allowing that the liberals deserved credit for the election of Rudy Giuliani as mayor in 1993, the Post hit squad went on to chide party boss Ray Harding, stating that the loss "was the inevitable end result when a political party no longer stands for anything but its own leaders' personal interests."

[quinnox]

11. No, but

if it did, I'm sure a new party will form, possibly made up of DU members.

[Skittles]

12. it will destroy the country completely

I truly believe.

[Dob Bole]

13. Dems will never die...

We have the mad survivor skills.

[Keithpotkin]

39. the dems may have "survivor skills"

but their "survival" might rely on them turning into repukes...

but on the upside...despite what ann coulter thinks...we all know history (let alone science, common sense, and most likely God if there is one) is on the side of the left.

[ArkDem]

14. Short term it will but in the longrun will redefine the party

much like what happened with the republicans and Goldwater in 1964. Short Term it killed them, long term set up the Regaen run in 1980 which ultimately got rid of republican moderates.

[SharonAnn]

42. In that case, because of McGovern in 1972, we should be

quite advanced in our rebuilding effort. If it only took the Republicans from 1964 to 1994 (30 years) to retake the House, then we should've retaken the house in 2002.

We have not done yet the things necessary to refocus and rebuild.

I don't know about other areas but around here we've locally gone from a Democratic majority of local elected officials to Republican dominated local elected officials. However, our local party leaders are still acting as if they're the "patronage machine" even though they have no "patronage" to give any longer.

[hunter]

15. The Republican party as you know it will die in California

Okay, maybe my optimism today is unwarranted, but if you think the Democrats are in "utter turmoil," you ought to see the Republicans. It's going to be like watching an episode of "Survivor."

[jfkennedy]

16. The 2000 SS election destroyed Democracy

They had to steal the election in 2000 because it was in the cards. They never expected a liberal to win, so when the people voted in Gore, they knew that the only way they could divide the party was to destroy democracy itself, and the Democratic Party all in one day. Democracy is dead.

The only one that can raise it from the dead is General Clark.


http://antiwarmonger.com

[LouKYDem]

17. No, BUT...

but it is certain to (for the time being) destroy every Democratic principle that is left in this country. However, I think that the typical American would quickly discover that the far right is WAY wrong and vote them out, and then the Democrats would come back... of course, I still have high hopes that we can get that idiot back in Texas in 2004 (and I don't really care which candidate goes up against him, as long as he is beaten, we are probably much better off... I do have my favorite Democratic candidate in mind though!)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

19. do you know how most Americans see politics?

They see two old white rich guys on tv arrguing about stuff they never heard of, and most likely don't care. They have problems at work - and the Democrats and Republicans offer the same advice - find a new job :) They pay a lot of taxes - and the Republicans say cut taxes on the rich, and Democrats say don't cut taxes. They are paying more for housing, heath care, education, and transportation - and Republicans and Democrats talk about tweaking this program or cutting this program. They are worried about haveing their job exported or outsourced - and the Republicans and Democrats say more corporate "free trade" is the answer.

Most people don't care about the Democratic party because the leaders of the Democratic party have given us lip service for years, and sometimes not even that. Want to solve the problem? Want to win elections? Want to be the majority party?

We already know how to do that, FDR, LBJ, and even Clinton in some ways showed us - take a stand for the powerless against the powerful. If you want to take the centrist approach and rake in the corporate cash and donations from rich people, don't complain when people tune you out.

Americans might not be as stupid as some think they are - they know when a slick politician is feeding them a line of BS. Why should they waste their time?

[rucky]

23. Please post this one more often!

...we need to be reminded from time to time.

[CMT]

20. no

for one reason these things go in cycles. We actually won three presidential elections in a row ('92,96,00). the Dems even if they lose in '04 (god forbid) will come back.

[greekspeak]

21. The Democratic Party as it is right now may cease

I could see this happening. Eventually, party leaders, with their "I am a Republican too"-ism are going to cause enough people to bolt the party that a new party might form or other third party might emerge. So you might get a little democratic party husk and the remainder of the party might go their ways. But the new political entities will eventually gain ground again with populist/ progressive/liberal ideas.

I saw someone in this thread (cannot remember now who it was) cite the state of the Republican party after Goldwater as evidence for a party bouncing back. Certainly, it is possible that the party could bounce back. But be careful in taking the solidarity of the democratic party for granted, like the party leaders are taking for granted traditional constituencies, as they regurgitate whatever Republicans say.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Did losing in 92 destroy Repubs completely?

[ulysses]

25. nsma

It's a fair point, but the GOP is controlled by fighters - of course 1992 didn't destroy the Repukes, and if they fought back dirty and lowered the national political discourse, at least they fought back. They're still doing it where you are.

The Democratic Party, for several election cycles, has been controlled largely by assimilators, not fighters. I don't think we're looking at the death of the party, but we've got a ways to go before we achieve anything like unity.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. That to me is the irony of the situation

We as liberals ARE assimilators but when the principle is used in politics it fails.

We as Democrats usually take the HIGH road on social policy but when we take the high road publicly it fails.

It is possible that Repubs benefited from the hundredth monkey theory and once a critical mass of Repubs started shitting on the dinner table, everyone turned the dinner table into a toilet...but maybe once we remind a critical mass of people that such a meal can make you sick, they will once again begin washing their sweet potatos

[ulysses]

29. gotcha here

We as liberals ARE assimilators but when the principle is used in politics it fails.

Don't gotcha here...

We as Democrats usually take the HIGH road on social policy but when we take the high road publicly it fails.

To take a purely Machiavellian stance, and as an example - the Democratic position on civil rights lost much of the white south to the Dems, but gained much of the black vote.

Besides which, if we'll ever get over our fear of the class war in which we're already engaged, economics will alleviate much more than social stances alienate.

but maybe once we remind a critical mass of people that such a meal can make you sick, they will once again begin washing their sweet potatos

I love it when you're allegorical. :D

More seriously - maybe what we should be doing is offering them something besides yams.

[BansheeBarbie]

34. Poppycock! The Democrats Don't Take The "High Road"

They took the incompetent road or pretty much just sat in the middle of the road waiting to get squashed.

The rhetoric and policy coming out the Democratic Party, by and large, has been pathetic!

They have shown a complete inability to frame a debate...

To make an idea easily graspable...

To turn the GOP's myopic, reptialian view of life back on itself.

Most people are more sympathetic to Liberal causes than are against them.

Public Education
Public Transportation
Affordable Health Care
Social Security
Clean Environment
Regulating Multinationals.

The only two possible excuses for the Democrats NOT to have a larger majority of the voting public behind them:

Incompetence
Corruption

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Which of these is NOT part of the Dem platform?

Public Education
Public Transportation
Affordable Health Care
Social Security
Clean Environment
Regulating Multinationals

[LiberalEconomist]

30. I beg to differ with some

It is simple. The neocons win the next election and game over. That's it folks. Kiss democracy and your asses goodbye. These people do not respect our democratic values. For them a dictatorship is the final solution. Just like Hitler stamped out elections in Germany in the 1930s, so will the Neo-conservatives/Christian Right in the United States. Now is no time to screw around. It is time to stop our squabbles and get rid of these monsters. We will plenty of time to kill ourselves afterwards. Understand?

[ulysses]

31. I do understand, more than you think.

If we have plenty of time to kill ourselves afterwards, it will only be because the current, corporatist direction of much of the Democratic Party is only delaying what the neocons want.

Yes, I understand. If you think I'm screwing around, hang around for a while.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. All very good points but how to enact is the question..for instance

How do we set aside our differences with the wing of the party that would take away a woman's right to choose at the expense of the female vote or demonize the accomplishments of feminism and roll us back?

How do we resolve our differences with the pro corporate laisse faire economics side of the party at the expense of labor unions and environmentalists?

How do we resolve our differences with the PRO center side of the party that will continue to make concessions to win a small percent of a small percent?

[TheBigGuy]

27. I think there will still be a Congressional delegation...

...the Democrats are bigger than just a presidential election every four years.

I think there are solid Democratic congressional districts and regions, and states where the Democrats remain competitive statewide.

So no i don't see that losing in 2004 will be the 'end" of the Demcorats...not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. NO

!

[Iverson]

32. not destroy: Republicanize

The "centrist" Dems of the DLC already want the left purged from the party, and they produce articles on their webiste and for Blueprint magazine that advocate further Democratic abandonment of the left.

Considering that lefties themselves aren't welcome, just their silence and votes, the process is already well underway. If this strategy succeeds, Democrats will effectively function as the pro-choice wing of the Republican Party.

I don't want to see this happen. However, the evidence is not just on ndol and the DLC; it's here on DU. The venom directed at the left is reflexive, and too often the critiques of the right show no understanding of policy; it's just kindergarten-level ridicule of Bush as a chimp or a potshot at Ann Coulter's sexuality. Meanwhile, Dems who back Bush's preventive war get a free pass.

Until the evidence changes, I have to conclude that the self-destruction is both underway and programmatic. The converse is unlikely to happen because the left wing of the Democratic Party seems to be fighting just to get a seat at the table.

[tom_paine]

38. Well said, Iverson

Although I do disagree with your assessment of some of the leftist hyperbole. People are angry and have to let off steam. Everyone who makes a juvenile stab at the Busheviks doesn't necessarily fail to grasp the nuances and policy details of the situation.

Further, in any large, diverse group you are going to find all levels of awareness and wonkishness.

[dolstein]

36. That seems to be what the Greens are counting on . . .

NT

[Davis_X_Machina]

37. Objection, your Honor, compound question. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

40. I don't know what will happen to the Democratic Party....

but one thing that is certain, if Bush is elected in 2004, he will destroy this country in such a way that there is no way we can ever recover.

I am moving to Canada, and this is no hyperbole!