What do you think of these poll results?

[spooky3]

They (reported in July 2003) were commissioned by the DLC, and I'm amazed that the detailed results (but not methodology) are on the web for all to see. If they are an accurate representation of "likely voters'" views, I find them really depressing, especially with respect to white males and married people with children at home.

"Fifteen months from the 2004 election, President Bush appears vulnerable,presenting Democrats with a real opportunity. But in order to take back the White House, Democrats must make inroads among suburban and middle class families with children. This growing segment of the population holds the bulk of swing voters -- and favors Republicans by increasingly wide margins. In fact, in terms of raw numbers of voters who identify themselves as Democrats, the Democratic Party is currently in its weakestposition since the dawn of the New Deal. Exciting the Democratic base alone will not bring enough voters into the Democratic fold. The heart of themiddle class -- suburban parents -- will decide whether a Democrat can defeat George W. Bush in 2004.

Apart from the expanding Latino population, the natural trends of growth in the electorate -- the decline of manufacturing jobs and the shift from cities to suburbs and exurbs, and the dramatic increases in college education and white-collar and professional jobs -- do not favor the Democrats. Quite the contrary; those trends have generally helped the Republicans, and will continue to do so unless the Democratic Party broadens its appeal. While the Democratic Party is seen as having the best platform for blue-collar workers and members of labor unions, they are not seen as a party with a program for suburbanites, white-collar workers, and professionals.

The good news is Democrats already have a set of principles that appeal to all of these groups: The New Democrat agenda.

Moderate and liberal Democrats alike support the centrist solutions proposed in the New Democrat agenda. So do married, suburban swing voters. If the party rallies behind New Democratic principles,.."

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251929&kaid=127&subid=269

[Punkingal]

1. I find it demoralizing.....

I am a Democrat, not a RepublicanLite, and our party had better go back to their roots and let people know there is something better.

[Julien Sorel]

4. What are 'our roots?'

[izzie]

2. I do not see them doing it ......

Talked to someone else that had sort of gone over to Bush. A man who should be Dem so I really heard what he said. It was for a reason that I feel you will find all over. I see it in the op-ed letters and calls to c-span and they are the most one sided in their beliefs but the ones that say they were Dem and are now for Bush. It is this. Bush may be right and we have had no big thing happen since the war, and 911.They think force is working and Bush is for force .The quote that 'these' people understand nothing but force always seems to turn up. White male and force and revenge goes together like duck to water and all know that. You know Hitory enough to know that is hard to beat even if peace has worked better. Gop will keep this on the front burner for sure.

[rfranklin]

3. Exactly...Bush is in SE Asis now beating the terrorism drum...

While the other participants are seeking economic agreements, Bush is on the WOT (War on Terrorism) bandwagon. It's almost comical, because it's so out of tune with the focus of the rest of the world, but the Bushistas are using the 9/11 trauma to keep people focused on the only thing they seem to succeed at (even though we know that there has been no success, only the destruction of two basically defenseless countries.)

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. Just watch and see what happens to the "New Labour" agenda in the UK...

I can tell you that here in NZ, Labour was almost destroyed by it once the people realised what it meant. It seems the same thing is happening in the UK, and if the Dems continue down this path, the US too.