There Is Hope For The Democratic Party

There’s an old saying in politics, at any time there is one political party in trouble the other is headed for trouble.  It often plays out that way because the party which wins for a few elections starts to take its ideas beyond what the public wants.

For various reasons, we could say the Republican Party is in trouble, today, and Democratic Party, because it has had success in the Presidency and in the Senate, is headed for trouble. The question is, which of our parties is headed in the public’s direction and which away from the public.

We have to admit at the start, politics is an art.  So, to guess where the public is going is like trying to guess what kind of music teenagers will like a few years from now.

Nevertheless, the continuous movement toward more liberal social ideas does not seem to be slowing.  We have a system of governance in the U. S. that favors Democrats in these circumstances.

The reason is because the House of Representatives is filled with people who have little reelection competition.  We can see from the behavior of conservative House Republicans they see no advantage in their own reelections to change their approach to gay marriage or abortion.  They are even resisting immigration reform.  They are the national face of the GOP.

This gives hope to the Democratic Party.  Democratic Presidential and Senate candidates, representing broader constituencies, may look good by comparison.

19 Responses

  1. Oh, please call the Democrats by their right name. George W. Bush was forced to apologize for calling them the “Democrat Party”. The Democrats are members of the Democratic Party. The shortened name got it’s start because disgruntled Republicans felt jealous of them having the word “democratic” in their name even though it is their legal name. The misnomer is used widely among far-right Republicans and it has become common among people who either don’t care or don’t know what the real name is.

    Regarding the substance of your remarks, I feel that the Democrats have a leading edge among groups who are growing (Hispanics) as well as among groups who vote regularly (women), and those who are ideologically in tune with liberals (gays, young people). The only groups who have been identified as reliable GOP voters are older white men, the very rich and tea party supporters. I believe the Republican party will continue it’s death spiral at the national level for these reasons. As a result, the Democrats have benefitted by the self-destruction of the Republican party, sometime without actually deserving it. In the future, the Democrats will not suffer as much of a swing because of the train wreck the GOP has become. It’s ability to draw voters has been diminished significantly without an end in sight. Is there hope for the Democrats? Of course, they are in a very strong position to win the next few presidential elections. Doesn’t get any stronger than that.

    1. realist 12:58 Sorry–I’ve been at Dem NPL Conventions where I heard Democrats refer to our party as the “Democrat Party”. For some reason it stuck in by brain tonight.

      I agree with your analysis of the two Parties. It’s just that in politics, things often are not quite what they seem. Not my favorite guy, Ronald Reagan, said, “Politics is a place where the unexpected often happens.”

  2. Brad

    Calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party” is a deliberate jab at Democrats. They like the sound of it because it has “rat” at the end, which helps them express their hatred for Democrats. To me it just sounds dumb, but coming from a gang of dummies it’s appropriate.

    The Republican party is in a no win situation nationally, but because of the gerrymandering of congressional districts they are still in good shape in the house of MIS-Representatives. Even though the Democrats actually won a popular majority in the House races nationwide, the Republicans held their majority because they have the districts rigged so that they can’t lose.

    Republicans can only win by rigging the system because their ideas are immensely unpopular and their recent track record is absolutely hideous. Aside from gerrymandering, they have to prevent the opposition from voting through passing voter suppression laws or through deliberately understaffing the polling places or by reducing the number of polling places.

    1. StanB

      Brad, you talk like only republicans garrymander. Have you seen some of the districts created to create Democratc party strong holds? Some aren’t even contiguous, they have two or three seperate entities combined into one district.

      1. Brad

        That’s probably true, but Republicans are the ones who have prevailed in gerrymandering the congressional districts. And the way they did it was by winning state elections. It is a brilliant strategy. Evil, but brilliant.

    1. Long John 12:01 “We get plenty of politics elsewhere.”

      Thanks for that suggestion. It is true if you watch news much there is more than enough politics elsewhere. I’ll keep that in mind. I’ve had a couple of personal messages from people who especially like the political blogs. One thing I find I need to do to keep the blogging fun for myself is write about different topics sometimes. I appreciate it you and all readers are here.

      1. Brad

        I like the political topics. Any sight that is centered around freethinking should have topics of both religion and politics. In some cases they are one in the same, as the GOP is constantly trying to merge church and state.

  3. Wolfy32

    I agree the republicans are on a downward spiral, however, the big question is… Does money = Power?

    I had a sociology professor ask this question. Is Bill Gates powerful? Does he have authority because he’s got a nearly endless supply of money. Depends on the stance, how many congressmen can be bought? How many have the funds to wage their campaigns that get them elected? Same with presidents. Could there be a highly charismatic leader that is able to win peoples votes for president?

    I agree, from a politics stand point, the republicans have done nothing to favor themselves. However, they retain power through other means, whether it’s constituents, lobbists, etc. I don’t think the party is dead, I do think it needs to reinvigurate itself. And at times I think the presidency was a setup to allow Democratic Presidents to win. For example, McCain? Seriously? Everyone knew, even republicans, that he didn’t have a chance. Well, when you put dumbArses up against an average person… It’s like putting your slowest car in the Indy 500 to allow the average car to win.

    I would define democracy as: A system of government in which, people are given the illusion of choice, however, the choices have been made for them, they just don’t know it.

    1. Interesting idea that Republicans are losing on purpose, but I think Romney was really trying to win. If what you say is true generally that people are just given the illusion of choice then I suggest that Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic candidate instead of Obama. I believe all the wheeler dealers in the Democratic party backed Hillary. Obama’s winning was an upset which contradicts your take on choices having been made for people. I do think that after being elected, the overwhelming baggage of the presidency can not be overcome by any individual candidate ergo Obama’s continuation of Bush policies. I think the power in the military and intelligence agencies to convince any new president to do their bidding is enormous. He may be commander in chief, but certain things are forced on him. That’s where the money comes into play. The military industrial complex has a huge stake in what the president decides to do and they do their best to guarantee their own best interests.

      1. Wolfy32

        I don’t know that I’d say they’re losing on purpose “perse”.

        After all, if it doesn’t look like a good show, it’s not well, people won’t be entertained or stay interested and some people could figure it out. I saw news releases that flight TWA800 may have been shot down in the 1990s. Shock! A jet didn’t just burst into a ball of flames by itself in the sky.

        I guess, without going into conspiracies, there’s an illusion of choice, but much of it may be predetermined. I saw with the last election there was studies being done on the impact of the poll results on the public’s voting. The question was, if the poll statistics show one side or the other leading significantly, will people switch sides to cast their vote with the majority?
        Could media actually determine who’s going to win simply by releasing projections of who’s going to win?

        I believe the republican candidates “tried”: Romney, McCain, etc, but, the powers that selected them, did they truly believe any of them had a chance, even hardcore conservatives, didn’t feel McCain or Romney had much of a chance. Romney more of a chance than McCain, but, not much.

        The other possibility is, they are so disconnected with reality, they don’t know how to choose a winning candidate anymore.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          I see yesterday in Christian Post, that the National Assn. of Evangelicals are determined to become even more politically active. Headline; “Evangelical Political Activism Will Increase”. Google “Member denominations of the NAE.”. Put them all in a basket, shake it up and grab one-any one. There is the heart of the problem for the GOP.

          1. Wanna 9:34 “There is the problem for the GOP.”

            Well said, indeed. I don’t have the same level of disrepect for people in politics and it seems most folks do. Of course, I biased becauese I was in the business for so long. But, it has to have both rules and guidelines. We can’t say to people, please don’t vote twice, but we’re not check on you. That won’t work.

            In religion, however, we kind of have to ask, but not pass many laws. Religious people should vote and express themselves. As a favor to all of us, I wish none of them, or either party, would say, or even hint, their political views are the same as Jesus, and, God asked them to run.

          2. The Evangelicals were wooed long and hard by the GOP, but now they have to deal with all the crazies. They can’t tick them off in the process of trying to control their far-out rhetoric so it’s a delicate job, but in the end, it’s impossible to muzzle them. Karl Rove thought he was creating a permanent majority when he sold the soul of the GOP to the religious right, but he was so wrong.

  4. David

    I would be curious to hear anyone’s thoughts on how they view where the country is headed. Is the government and the state of country more progressive or more conservative. I don’t mean with regard to people’s personal feelings. I mean with regard to the way the country is headed. I think most conservatives would suggest that the country has been moving ever leftward since the 1930’s, with only a brief slowdown in the 1980’s. In short I think the Progressives are winning in a route since the 1930’s.

    1. I think the world generally is moving “leftward” if by that you mean incrementally changing social mores so that minorities, women and the poor are more evenly represented in the power structures of countries. I’ve always felt that conservative values were based on turning back the clock on so many things from women’s rights to going back to the gold standard. Even the emphasis on gun ownership conjures up an era when we all defended our own turf. If you examine each idea contained in, let’s say, the GOP party platform, you would find most are taking their inspiration from an earlier era. Home schooling, anti-immigration, denying rights of minorities, anti-labor all come from earlier times. The problems is that citizens demand a government that is aware of their real concerns and many citizens are not willing to go back to an earlier time. The Democratic party seems to have been able to recognize the Zeitgeist while the GOP has committed itself to pining away for an earlier era rather than responding to the new and real issues of the day.

Comments are closed.