Hey, Democrats! Want to win an election? Try this :

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he's still looking...

[/ QUOTE ]

Shoot, then I'll kick to give him some more time.

[coffeecrazy1]

I wasn't exaggerating...those are the actual voting numbers...or were you exaggerating? I'm confused...but, at any rate, it's six of one, half a dozen of another...when it came time to vote, 57M registered voters selected John Kerry rather than any other candidate.

I'm not saying I support Kerry or Bush(in fact, I supported Badnarik [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), but I disagreed with the OP's implication that the Democrats were hapless and could not win an election without resorting to bribery and other forms of trickery.

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to recall that the Democrats held the White House for the majority of the 90's, so it's not like ancient history when the Democrats were successful...these things go in cycles...that's all I'm saying.

[FishHooks]

Since JFK the dems have only had one reelected president. I do think the dems revert to trickery in a way, but not entirely. The canidates do switch their platforms all the time, not for trickery necessarly but to appeal to the democratic base. The republican base is very similar, you can look on this forum most conservatives agree on most issues. However there are more extreme sides of the democratic party and the canidates are trying to appeal to mainstream while trying to get the funding from the extreme parts of the party like Moore, Soros, etc. Also democrats just hate being called liberals, sometimes I think they are even ashamed.

[coffeecrazy1]

Well...reelected, yes, but not elected, period. Again, I was refuting the OP's implication. I agree with you that the Democrats appeal to the more marginal parts of their demographic, but I believe the Republicans do this, as well(you don't honestly believe the entire Republican party is composed of evangelical Christians, right?)

As to hating being called liberals, I'd say that some Democrats hate it, not all. For instance, I would be fairly confident that Joe Lieberman would not like being called a liberal, because it is a fairly inaccurate label to describe him, a rigid, orthodox Jew(not an insult...that's what he is). But...labeling all things non-Republican as liberal does a disservice not only to the Democrats(as well as other party members), but also to the liberal members of the Republican Party(and yes, they exist...for instance, all the log cabin Republicans). Some posters on this forum have a tendency to rush to using that word to describe anything they find unappealing, and I believe that it is foolhardy and ignorant to do so. Label things what they are, I say, and not what fits into an extremely broad definition.

Sorry for the thread hijack.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
Since FDR the dems have only had one reelected president.

[/ QUOTE ]


FYP

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]

Since FDR the dems have only had one reelected president.



[/ QUOTE ]

Because of the small sample size and the fact that this sample is spread out over a relatively long period of time, stats like this have very little value. Just so you know.

[FishHooks]

I just kinda lumped JFK and LBJ into one presidency, 1960-1968, I think there is no doubt JFK would of been reelected. But yea your right.

[bobman0330]

Hmm. Most successful Democrats of the last 75 years or so: FDR, JFK, and Clinton. Maybe Kerry and Gore's problem was that they didn't screw around on their wives enough?

[coffeecrazy1]

That's such a retarded statement.

[bobman0330]

Don't be so serious. A hilarious commonality.