Post a response to this discussion thread
...It can't be about Bush, it can't be about how 'out of touch' the red states are, it can't be about Republicans at all.
I honestly don't know if I voted more FOR Bush, or simply voted more in opposition the narrow-minded ultra- leftist hyper-reactionary overly-emotional ramblings of the anti-Bush folk.
Not to mention, as much as Democrats hate to accept the obvious, they can't run anyone who can be easily painted with the 'liberal' brush. To borrow a phrase, a Democat who can run as a 'Uniter not a divider' would be able to get some traction.
The hard-core liberal lefties are going to vote Democrat no matter what, and they aren't a big enough base to center a campaign around. So if the Democrats want some semblence of power back. I think they need to run more of a centrist, who can just throw an occassional bone to the left to keep them happy, but should stay closer to center and lean towards the right on one or two issues.
I'd also stay away from giving the Hollywood political pundit wannabe's a front row seat, because they're fuckin' idiots. Those same Hollywood types, not only will they never vote Republican, they'll also continue to give the Democrats money no matter what, so once again, throw them a bone, but keep them in the background.
Kind of like Bush does with the fiscal conservatives.
However, if the Democrats want to continue down their current path towards irrelevance, then they're going to have to wait for the Republicans to split off into 'Fiscal conservative/Socially liberal' Republicans, 'Spend- happy/Social conservative Republicans' and 'Fiscal/Social Conservative' factions.
Post a response to this discussion thread
And check this out: The Top Posters' Page