quote:

---

Increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies have improved the political landscape for the Democrats as the 2008 presidential campaign gets underway.

At the same time, many of the key trends that nurtured the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s have moderated, according to Pew's longitudinal measures of the public's basic political, social and economic values. The proportion of Americans who support traditional social values has edged downward since 1994, while the proportion of Americans expressing strong personal religious commitment also has declined modestly.

---

1)Get the Bushoids out.

2)Use the space this creates to push for real change.

Nobody down here is saying that just voting Dem will create Utopia. But it is also true that, until we get electoral reform in place, voting for minor parties above the level of say, U.S. House races, achieves nothing.

Ralph Nader's last two campaigns(the first of which I supported)achieved nothing. In the end, it became clear that the man wasn't about anything but punishing the Democrats for not listening to him. Now, the Dems SHOULD have listened to him(and should embrace his agenda now), but his campaigns were never going to lead to concessions from that party and Ralph knew it.

Considering the heavy institutional factors that played against Nader, he did very well in 2000. Obviously, nobody though he was going to win, so those votes were protest votes against a Democratic party that people felt was no longer distinguishing itself from their so-called opposition.

These people wanted a place to put their votes and Nader gave them that. This is what democracy's all about. It always irritates me when somebody says you shouldn't be running because you'll create a "bad" result. The voters decide what the reasult is and they should have all the options open to them that is possible for them to have. If somebody really "shouldn't run", then that will be reflected in the fact that nobody votes for them. Clearly that wasn't the case for Nader.

[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]

[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
If the Democrats hadn't run and gave all their corporate bribes, er, donations, to Nader, he probably would have won.

---

No.

The democrats don't need to run a socialist to win, but they do need to stop appearing embarrased to be liberals. When you stop advertising your own platform and start simply trying to earn popularity, you've already lost. Its why the party lost an election they should have won by a substantial margin. That and Karl Rove.

In 2008, whoever the candidate is can not back down from advocating for a withdrawl from Iraq, period. Its the only way they can lose in my mind.

And for the love of god, please stop saying that Democrats are the same as Republicans. I know the Democratic Party is frustratingly sluggish, centrist at best on our political compass, but they aren't Republicans.

[ 17 July 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]