Long term effects of the election?

[riverflush]

The current Democratic Party is not selling anywhere in "fly over" America. They've got a huge identity/credibility problem to deal with in these parts. In order to make any inroads, they've got to move their rhetoric closer to the center (especially on the somewhat vague 'values' issue). This is simply a hard political reality that they must face. It could cause a vivid split between the Michael Moore wing and the 'old school' Dems (conservative labor voters) - and send one faction to a small third party.

Expect the mainstream Dems to push heavily for Presidential candidates that look much more like this:


Indiana Senator Evan Bayh - a "New" Democrat (note: most successful Indiana Democrats are of this variety)

They desperately need someone who will play in the south and "southern" midwest states like KY, TN, IN, OH (south) - farm and ranch country. Kerry may have said the right things, but people from these areas can sniff out a New England/Easterner a mile away. They see political platitudes coming from the East as patronizing and unrealistic.

Expect an internal war between the split ideologies of each side. Hillary is going to have a tough time playing in these areas, unlike Bubba, who could speak to both crowds with ease.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
But here I don't know if I totally disagree. If you mean fiscally conservative, then yes, I agree. If you mean socially conservative, I'm not so convinced. A lot of people who voted for Bush disagree with his social policies (i.e. his stances on gay marriage and abortion) but saw him as a stronger leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the stubborness thinking that is causing the democrats to continue to lose the elections. If you really want to know how the country leans, go back and look at how the ballot initiatives preformed.

Stu

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
3. A resolved, consistent, determined fight against global terrorism as well as the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no democracy in the Middle East, and there probably never will be. Not even in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Great Britain and France tried unsuccesfully for decades to "impose" democracy in the Middle East.

You don't "spread" or "deliver" democracy to a country. Democracy is born through the toil and passion of its citizens, not through some third party surrogate.

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry may have said the right things, but people from these areas can sniff out a New England/Easterner a mile away. They see political platitudes coming from the East as patronizing and unrealistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

The south disagreed with most of Kerry's positions and saw him as too liberal. If someone from Massachusetts stands up for things that southerners deem important, they will vote for him.

[El Barto]

A mistake on the map - Alabama was split between Kennedy/Byrd not Nixon/Byrd.

On Elwood's original post:
Liberals have mainstream media outlets, conservatives have radio - I don't expect much change.

2006 will be bad for the GOP, the 6th year usually is. 2008 could go either way depending on the current situation (the economy could be booming by then - who knows).

Yes, red state governors will continue to dominate Presidential politics as they have for 40 years (CA used to be red).

[goldcowboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you are correct regarding the Dems red state recruitment. I also think the Republicans will try a left coast or northeast member of the ticket in '08.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and his name is Giuliani.

[GuyOnTilt]

Predictions (please feel free to add your own --- also, they don't actually have to be long-term effects):

I don't know why guys are bothering with your petty predictions. John Titor already told us what was going to happen in the 12 months following the 2004 elecction. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

GoT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't "spread" or "deliver" democracy to a country. Democracy is born through the toil and passion of its citizens, not through some third party surrogate.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely the kind of fairly baseless assertion we hear all the time (along with some others such as "peace is never brought about down the barrel of a gun"). For instance, we did bring democracy to Japan after the war.

Not that I think democracy will take quick hold or flourish easily in Iraq, if at all. I just don't like these types of (usually baseless) assertions.

[nicky g]

This is slightly tangential but democracy in Japan has not really flourished. It had what was effectively a one-party system for a good 40 years. Of course no comparison with Imperial Japan or Ba'athist Iraq, but it is not anything like as democratic a country as people think.