Leaving the community

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:K7iid.294493$wV.71039@attbi_s54...

I agree with you there, but it's my belief that Bush was ideologically
vulnerable, and that a guy closer to the center (ala Gebhardt) would have at
least grabbed enough of the popular vote (and people like me, who weren't
100% enthused with Bush) to have tipped the scales his way.

If either party is able to nominate a centerist, they have an
excellent shot at the presidency. The problem is that both parties
are largely influenced by their more extreme factions. In the primary
system, these folks are the ones who have the most influence (and
money) to determine who will ultimately represent their party. Also,
look at the difference in voter participation between primaries and
general elections. You know that the hard-core left and right is
going to participate, but I'll wager that the center is
under-represented at that stage. What you end up with in a general
election is usually a choice between the least scary of two extremes.

In this past election, a strong centerist candiate (from either
party) would have resulted in a landslide, rather that what we got.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

Jay Honeck wrote:

Mark my words: If they nominate Hillary next time around -- as they appear
to be angling toward -- it will set the Democratic Party back 50 years.
They won't see the White House again in our lifetime.

And now, back to flying!

I agree on both counts! Now if it just wasn't so cold here in PA already.


Matt

I'm not sure I agree... I think Gephardt lost out because of nothing
short of a lack of charisma. I don't think people were paying that much

When Gephardt and Lieberman and other Democrats who are toward the central
of the political spectrum "dropped" out, there was a feeling the GWB was
unbeatable. When they dropped by the wayside, further left of center to
dominate the selection process.

Unfortunately / fortunately depending on one's political perspective, the
DNC has not put forward a candidate who could pull voters from the center
and right of center except for Kennedy and Clinton. Dukas was a "old style"
Eastern Liberal. Gore was an "heir apparent" because he serviced with
Clinton but move to the left of center during the campaign and lost the
center votes he needed.

No party can win the poplar vote unless they can pull voters from the other
side of center from their base. Be too far to the extremes of the spectrum
and they loose the cross over vote.

Judah wrote:

snip


No, I think the biggest problem in this election was simply that there
was not much difference at all between the two candidates, or if there
was, it was so clouded by nonessential issues that the general public was
left to vote on whether they are more comfortable with or without change,
and not much else.

I think you've hit it exactly right.

If there is one thing I that both sides agree on it is the lack of real,
open discourse on real issues. The "two party" system is really just one
big self serving machine.

One thing that will improve the situation is for all of us "we the people"
to work to allow more third party ideas into the debate. It does us all a
great disservice when not all the voices are heard.

I heard some good ideas from several of the third party candidates (and some
pretty looney ones too). Injecting them into the mix might have forced
Kerry/Bush to be more specific. It certainly would go a long way to
"un-polarizing" the country.

snip

--
Frank....H

Jay Honeck wrote:

These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."


That is SO ironic.

If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close.
The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
percentage points.


Heck, if Bush was anywhere near the middle of the road, I might have
considered voting for him.


I actually had a very unusual experience this election. One of the
minor statewide offices here (Chairman of the State Agriculture
Commission) had two candidates that had almost identical experience
and who held almost identical views regarding the position they were
running for. What really made it strange, though, was the fact that I
agreed with their positions! It's extremely unusual for there to be
one candidate in a contest that I feel I can vote _for_, but two????
I almost didn't know what to do.

Rich Lemert

Jay Honeck wrote:

These people are mad Kerry didn't run a liberal campaign and can't stand
that he "was just as pro-war as Bush."


That is SO ironic.

If the Democrats has nominated a middle-of-the-road guy to run against
Bush -- say, Dick Gephardt -- this election would not have even been close.
The Democrats would have swept the nation, and never by less than 25
percentage points.

Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the left of
Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.

There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included -- who
would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But there
was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.

The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to run
for president again.


Agreed. I don't like everything about Bush but there was no way I was
going to vote for a guy claiming he will fight a smarter war on terror
and defend the country at the same time he takes a poll to see how he
should respond to the latest Bin Laden video.

Bush at least has firm beliefs in how things should be handled.

And now I am getting too political so I will end by saying I wish more
of my friends would try flying.