Why it's boring to be a Republican right now...

[A Soporific]

Every single bit of Political news is about Bush and the Republicans, normally this is a bad thing for those Republican debators on sites like this. It's just that this lack of any news at all on Democrats at all in on the Federal level of government is a big deal. It means that they have, officially, shot themselves in the foot worse than us Republicans did in choosing George W. Bush. There are no Democratic Target in the arena because there isn't a single player on the Democratic side who has the clout to step forward into a leadership role. They did such a good job decapitating themselves this past presidential election that the only speculation worth making is about Clinton, and even she looses in most polls to Dr. Rice.

I think that the Democrats need to rethink their platform, get new blood on the national stage, and I pray to God that they do so before the interim election. They need to retake the House or Senate or I fear that they may be relegated to a minority party role, which would suck in ways that I can't begin to explain for everyone involved. Republicans need Democrats to keep them honest, and the Democrats haven't been keeping their end of the bargan.

[Vryko Lakas]

Why does the Democratic party need to have a cohesive appearance with a frontman/woman?

[NightdollRavenwing]

Vryko Lakas

Why does the Democratic party need to have a cohesive appearance with a frontman/woman?

Why do we need parties at all xd

[JLbass]

As foreign watcher of your country's politics, I think you are right. Democrats need to rebuild their party. They have lost so much by now... and you are lso right, the republicans need them, that is how democracy works, with feedback of the opposition.

[A Soporific]

Vryko Lakas

Why does the Democratic party need to have a cohesive appearance with a frontman/woman?

I never said anything about a frontman/woman, I am saying that they don't have anyone who can fill a leadership position. What I am saying is that they need to work things out and actually gain control of a house of congress or a branch of government or something. As it is now, they don't even have a widely popular candidate for their 2008 primary other than Mrs. Clinton. I am reasonably certain that even the Democratic Party can do better than that.

[Vryko Lakas]

A Soporific

I never said anything about a frontman/woman, ... As it is now, they don't even have a widely popular candidate...

Again, I ask why they need a frontman/woman.

[ShadowJim]

Hey, you screwed yourselves over by turning your backs on Howard Dean. You made your bed now lie in it.

I havn't gotten over that, I liked Dean.

[A Soporific]

Vryko Lakas

A Soporific

I never said anything about a frontman/woman, ... As it is now, they don't even have a widely popular candidate...

Again, I ask why they need a frontman/woman.

Because far too many people deal with image politics and not issue-driven campaigns ever since Slick Willy was elected. The Democrats will be far behind in a game such as that if they don't start burnishing someone's armor pretty soon.

In any event, that frontperson was only one element that I commented upon. I think that the more important thing would be the development of new politicians and stratgeties locally that would lead to the Democratic party regaining seats in Congress. They NEED at least a toe-hold in federal politics or the chain of experience that streches back to 1800 would be broken, and it would require that the new breed of Democrats learn how to survive in Washington D.C. essentially from scratch.

[Alchemist7]

dont tell me you like politics a guy at my school thats all he talks about and we make fun of him ha ah blaugh

[Puerilass The Perverted]

A Soporific

Every single bit of Political news is about Bush and the Republicans, normally this is a bad thing for those Republican debators on sites like this. It's just that this lack of any news at all on Democrats at all in on the Federal level of government is a big deal. It means that they have, officially, shot themselves in the foot worse than us Republicans did in choosing George W. Bush. There are no Democratic Target in the arena because there isn't a single player on the Democratic side who has the clout to step forward into a leadership role. They did such a good job decapitating themselves this past presidential election that the only speculation worth making is about Clinton, and even she looses in most polls to Dr. Rice.

I think that the Democrats need to rethink their platform, get new blood on the national stage, and I pray to God that they do so before the interim election. They need to retake the House or Senate or I fear that they may be relegated to a minority party role, which would suck in ways that I can't begin to explain for everyone involved. Republicans need Democrats to keep them honest, and the Democrats haven't been keeping their end of the bargan.

I still stick by my McCain/Gulliani as who we pit against which ever dem in 08

[Vryko Lakas]

A Soporific

Because far too many people deal with image politics and not issue-driven campaigns ever since Slick Willy was elected.

Looking at the past election, I'm not quite sure that's the case. Major focus was given to the more divisive issues (homosexual politics and abortion especially), even if both sides did reach "new" heights for facade. (Nothing compared to what went on post-Colonial days, though). Setting up yet another Face to focus on will not help alleviate the Image-Driven situation, will it?

It seems to me that the only "advantage" to having a popular frontman in a party is so that the others have a target to aim at. It's much harder to attack a group as a whole with credibility than it is to attack a popular face for the group.

Quote:

In any event, that frontperson was only one element that I commented upon. I think that the more important thing would be the development of new politicians and stratgeties locally that would lead to the Democratic party regaining seats in Congress. They NEED at least a toe-hold in federal politics or the chain of experience that streches back to 1800 would be broken, and it would require that the new breed of Democrats learn how to survive in Washington D.C. essentially from scratch.

The way you previously described this "leadership rolefiller" certainly made no indication that it should be anybody other than a frontman, an easily charicatured focal point that is actually more vulnerable to criticism than a party as a whole. You didn't emphasize the importance of maintaining party cohesion or direction, and you didn't mention anything about long-standing traditions (which are not necessarily something most Democrats or their party focus on themselves).

[A Soporific]

First of all, I wasn't making a speech about how we should change the way that politics work. I am fully aware that most attempts at doing so is an exercise in futility, so I was only suggesting that Democrats get someone who can win by the political rules as the currently appear. Don't worry about it, though, people will sicken of image-driven politics en masse and move on to something else, they always have before.

I accept responsiblity for being unclear as to your second point. I assumed too much would be conveyed in the phrase "leadership". I didn't think that it would mean "figure head" as much as "Catalyst for the direction of the party". I left out key bits of explination after I thought I had, a sure sign that I have posted this too many times in too many places without using cut/paste. I hope that my clarification aided in your understanding of my commentary.

[Vryko Lakas]

Yes, that does help clarify things somewhat. I'm still not sure it's an overly great suggestion though. In party politics, having lots of negative attention given to one party can be even more effective than being popular yourselves.

[A Soporific]

Vryko Lakas

Yes, that does help clarify things somewhat. I'm still not sure it's an overly great suggestion though. In party politics, having lots of negative attention given to one party can be even more effective than being popular yourselves.

My arguement is not that I want a Democratic lightning rod to throw pent-up anger and resentment at. It's just that the Democratic party has faltered in such a way that it threatens the balance of power, a side effect is that I don't get my politican-who-shouldn't-be-there-so-is-too-easy-of-a-target. I would like to see the Democratic party do better, both so reestablish them as the alternative to the Republican Party and to give me some targets to mock and make fun of.

[Vryko Lakas]

A Soporific

It's just that the Democratic party has faltered in such a way that it threatens the balance of power...

Or maybe the Republican party touts views on certain issues that more people support.