Today I heard the left wing of the Democratic party supporting Kerry, one was Progress for America and one was Democracy Corps ( I think but the names escape me ) were holding meetings and a conference to determine where to go from here. The leader of one of those groups said that the
Democrats in order to win cannnot let the Republicans make moral and religious values theirs to own. He said, " I think Democrats have to go to Bible School for a while". I think what he meant is that the Party has to address religious and cultural issues in order to attract more moderate evangelicals and people of faith as well as rural and small town voters.
Jimmy Carter was the first politician to talk about being Evangelical and
he
garned the Evangelical vote. The trouble was he could not get those people out to vote in large percentages as Rove can for Republicans.
Things were different then, people voted on the economy and domestic issues. Maybe what he was saying, is that in order to win, we have to understand the overwhelming movement sweeping the country and not
join them but find ways for them to see that not all liberals are amoral,
unethical, pagans. As he is concerned Dems not only Evangelicals, Catholics and 25 pct of the Jewish vote.....but that even some nonreligious people of small town and rural America felt their concerns, feelings, way of life is looked down on by Democrats. They see Democrats as elite and looking down our noses on their conservative lifestyles but yet they are unhappy with Bush outsourcing jobs and the economy but said they thought Democrats too liberal on values issues.
I wish I could find an article and if I do , I will post the URL. I heard this on TV this afternoon. But it was interesting to the media because this is not the moderate wing of the Democratic Party but the Liberal wing saying perhaps they have to understand the values issues as being so important to Americans. Clinton did not get all the Evangelical vote but he got the moderate evangelicals and the Catholics as did Carter his first time around. I know several moderate Evangelicals who voted Kerry Edwards but their numbers were too small.

But the conference was highlighting how even some nonreligious people said they were voting for Bush on moral issues. Interesting part of the figures they are studying is that many of Bush supporters are not happy about Iraq, not happy about the lost jobs, and have some doubts about his policies overall but they voted for him ONLY On Religious issues...
86 percent of his Voters said the President's strong religious faith is important to them and trumps other issues.

They were seeing that southern governors and southern politicians do much better with rural, small town America in the midwest and the south. There is a lot of talk about Hilllary not being able to relate to them either as she is from the North, is a NY Senator, is controversial and that Edwards, Warner, Vilsack, Easley and the North Dakota Governor as well as Evan Bayh will be broader appealing candidates.

This type of talk coming from our own party makes me ill.

If we try to pretend to be something we are not, we are alienating everyone and everything we encompass. Besides that, we'd be seen as nothing but pandering for votes or hypocrits.

I am a spiritual and religious person, altho I do not impose my view on others. This is how I was brought up and I'm going to stay that way.

That is what the repugs want from us, give up on everything that has made us a success. Don't fall for it.

We could possibly frame our issues better to appeal to the southern vote. We are the moral party! But it's hard to fight religious zealots like Falwell.

If you look at the map you will see mostly red. The reason for this is not because there are absolutely no dems in the south, it is because they did not go out to vote because they felt it would not matter because they would be the `30-40`% or minority. In doing this, they gave the repubs what "looks" like a mandate.

Hopefully people have learned their lessons to never, ever ever take your vote for granted. Altho you would have thought we had this down 4 years ago!

In saying all of this, i am not convinced that this is the only reason. I believe there was some voter fraud involved here as well.

is well and good when talking about future elections, but ultimately that was NOT the problem this year.

The problem was fraud, just as it was in 2002, just as it was in 2000.

We need to get our ducks in a row, and we NEED to focus on the electoral fraud. NONE of the rest matters if elections are always rigged to benefit the Republicans.

The "morals" excuse is just total garbage to obscure the fact the election was rigged.

NO WAY did Bush get a majority, let alone 8 million more votes this year than in 2000. NO CONCEIVABLE WAY.

[quote=SusanNunes]is well and good when talking about future elections, but ultimately that was NOT the problem this year.

The problem was fraud, just as it was in 2002, just as it was in 2000.

We need to get our ducks in a row, and we NEED to focus on the electoral fraud. NONE of the rest matters if elections are always rigged to benefit the Republicans.

The "morals" excuse is just total garbage to obscure the fact the election was rigged.

NO WAY did Bush get a majority, let alone 8 million more votes this year than in 2000. NO CONCEIVABLE WAY.[/quote]

Right on, Susan! I'm frankly getting a little irritated with all this talk of "what did the Democrats do wrong?" The only thing we did wrong was to fail to nail Bushco on the election fraud in 2000 when it first started. Every election since then has been a fraud.

It's fine to talk about strategy going forward, but the cornerstone and largest piece of that strategy has GOT TO BE finding ways to ELIMINATE FRAUD. Otherwise we can try all kinds of strategies and all of them will fail.

I agree with you both. What we need to do is take back the media and fight for verifiable voting. In time, rabid fundamentalism will run its course as BushCo destroys the American Empire. Meanwhile, we need to stay true to the Constitution and to social justice so that when people start waking up, they will know where to find us. I really believe that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. And some kinds of success are not worth having.

I don't think its totally about religion....I do believe that we need to do what it takes to get into the rural counties....thats where the fraud is occurring! We have to create a Democratic presence in these places to prevent it....we have to show them that us "city folk" all aren't trying to take their guns and rape their sons....they have to see that we are normal people. Its not OUR fault that they have these ideas, but we have to stop letting the media and Republicans so define us....that isn't "moving to the center" but rather taking the left to those who probably are the center but have been brainwashed.

The "wackos" we have to leave alone....can't get anywhere with them....but come on, according to some surveys at least 60 percent or so of the population is `pro-choice` and believes there is a place for civil unions...we just need to offer a power structure in the places that these people are.

[quote=Teresa22]I don't think its totally about religion....I do believe that we need to do what it takes to get into the rural counties....thats where the fraud is occurring! We have to create a Democratic presence in these places to prevent it....we have to show them that us "city folk" all aren't trying to take their guns and rape their sons....they have to see that we are normal people. Its not OUR fault that they have these ideas, but we have to stop letting the media and Republicans so define us....that isn't "moving to the center" but rather taking the left to those who probably are the center but have been brainwashed.

The "wackos" we have to leave alone....can't get anywhere with them....but come on, according to some surveys at least 60 percent or so of the population is `pro-choice` and believes there is a place for civil unions...we just need to offer a power structure in the places that these people are.[/quote]

It is only the wacko element that lives in these places that actually believes this. It would be smart to work with the `non-wacko` republicans in these areas to try and stop the fraud. They are equally as interested in free and fair elections as we are. The `wacko-republicans` define the Democrats that way. mainstream and moderate republicans do not. For example, in my republican group we just disagree with Democrats we do not paint them as sub human and I do not see this in the people from rurlal counties that I know. These republicans at least in IL are more moderate. Our radical sey is in the 6th, 8th, and 14 congressional districts (northern IL). These are suburban, not rural communities.

While it is in the Republicans' best interest, we have to think of our own party. If we draw the Republicans away from their party, so be it. People do change affiliations all the time.

I don't believe that 70 percent of those voting for Bush were of the religious fanatic crowd. There is no data to suggest that they account for anywhere near that much of the vote. They are "culturally vulnerable", though....perhaps less educated and willing to fall prey to propaganda....we need to sort out between these two groups. Thats what I think the democratic strategists are trying to say.

[quote=Teresa22]While it is in the Republicans' best interest, we have to think of our own party. If we draw the Republicans away from their party, so be it. People do change affiliations all the time.

I don't believe that 70 percent of those voting for Bush were of the religious fanatic crowd. There is no data to suggest that they account for anywhere near that much of the vote. They are "culturally vulnerable", though....perhaps less educated and willing to fall prey to propaganda....we need to sort out between these two groups. Thats what I think the democratic strategists are trying to say.[/quote]

Waht is in the Republicans best interest? I do not have a problem with people changing parties, because opions do change.

I think that aout 20% of the Bush Vote were these religious wackos. I do not believe that even all Evangelicals fit in the wacko crowd, most quietly observe their faith and may also decide to vote based on it, but don't shove it down our throats. I would agree with that. Most of theae "vulnerables" are in rural counties that tend to be less economically successful.

Its actually in the best interest of those living in rural counties to have representation by both parties.

I can't speak about what's best for Republicans, but, I do know alot of people are becoming part of the Republican structure in these places because its the only vehicle they have to serve in public office. I do believe that we Democrats should work at giving them an option.

[quote=Teresa22]Its actually in the best interest of those living in rural counties to have representation by both parties.

I can't speak about what's best for Republicans, but, I do know alot of people are becoming part of the Republican structure in these places because its the only vehicle they have to serve in public office. I do believe that we Democrats should work at giving them an option.[/quote]

I agree that there should be a healthy Democratic prty in these places to give residents an option. The balance of ideas is also just plain healthy.

`Susan-I` recommend this article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-749394,00.html

If we want to get the voters with strong `anti-elitist` feelings, we shouldn't pick people like the Kerrys. It is that simple.

[quote]I think Democrats have to go to Bible School for a while". I think what he meant is that the Party has to address religious and cultural issues in order to attract more moderate evangelicals and people of faith as well as rural and small town voters.
Jimmy Carter was the first politician to talk about being Evangelical and
he
garned the Evangelical vote. [/quote]

NO! We don't need to change anything! Especially religion. Why can't we get past this religious bull crap. You know if you were to run for office in Europe and say god told you to run(like Bush) you would not only lose, you would be locked in a mental hospital. Excuse my language, but screw the evangelicals. Their policies are bad, and are hurting this country. Are we going to take on those hurtful policies just for the votes of a few nut jobs?

Here is what Democrats need to do: sit down with Bill Clinton, and get his advice!

Bill was the first Democrat to win 2 terms since FDR, and he received over 300 electoral votes, which is just about impossible for a Democrat to do now a days. All of the democrats are ignoring Clinton cause of the whole Monica thing, well that was 6 years ago. He's not in office anymore, the country needs to get over it.

We don't need to change our message....our message is correct. We just have to get into the right places to fight the Right Wing's propoganda. These people believe that Bush is for raising the minimum wage, for crying out loud! They believe he is a strong union supporter!

Think about it...you live in a small town, you never see a "big city" newspaper with columnists of all kinds, you get a small, local paper that carries syndicated columnists like Safire and Sowell...you get to hear Rush and Hannity on the radio all day....if you happen to get an education you have to leave because of lack of any kind of economic opportunity! Therefore, young people have no liberal role models....and, to top it off....you are so convinced that everyone around you is telling the truth if you get to the point of working with the county you would probably be willing to stuff a few voting boxes to get a little ways ahead! THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO FIGHT!

Clinton though is one advising the same thing about not letting
the Republican party own faith. He was the one who told John Kerry
to come in favor of banning gay marriage in those 11 states.
Bill Clinton said in the south it is important to understand where
they are coming from and relate to their beliefs and show them
the Democrats' beliefs and what they can do to help people
is the answer.

I don't presume to speak for Clinton, but I believe he meant that in states that had voted to ban gay marriage Kerry should have said that he supported their right to do so....this backs up his position that marriage should be left to the states to decide upon. I don't see this as catering to the homophobic or religious right.

Exactly, and about the south...I believe he means that we can't keep looking down on them. I'm from the south and I do it! You don't know how many times I've called people down here stupid, ignorant, idiots. And that is what a majority of them are, but...you must find something to connect with them on. Bill Clinton had that natural caring style to him and thats why people voted. John Kerry's biggest mistake was that he let Bush frame the campaign around whatever Bush wanted. Kerry should have taken control first.