Democrat Anger

[Le Jacquelope]

In the US if a presidential candidate gets 55% of the vote it's considered a landslide election. That leaves 45% of the population ticked off. The nice thing is that all we have to do is wait a few years and we can try to replace them.

If the other 45% of the population is sufficiently ticked off they'll vote the opposing party in the Congressional off season 2 years later. That's why the President's party typically loses in the off election; and it also explains the absolute stomping that Congressional Democrats got in 1994, after Clinton was first elected.

 

[ruminator]

I think a lot of what is perceived as anger from the Democrats is actually frustration. Even on a close split for majority in the legislative bodies some policies have survived bipartisan opposition. This is nothing that the Democrats haven't done before, but the Republicans have been very successfull lately.

It's interesting too that in many of these cases, pressure from the White House has pushed against bipartisan opposition to pass bills. Some Republicans are also unhappy with some of the Rep leaders.

On a general note, (I'm Independent), I've noticed that the Rep party inherently has more unity because it has less variety in being conservative. To define Liberal, generally Democrat, a large number of small groups with diverse interests are included.

Due to cutbacks in the Federal budget, among many other reasons, there's a new trend toward some States not having traditional Primaries. This could have mixed results and in many cases, no effect at all.

 

[teddybear4play]

A lot of people miss the point when they talk about "anger" in politics.

There's nothing wrong with anger, as long as it's focused and into a message that remains generally positive. The 2000 election featured voters called "Broken-Glass Republicans" because they were so angry at Bill Clinton and so willing to vote in George W. Bush that you'd have thought they'd walk barefoot on broken glass to the polling booth to go vote. And in 1994, the Republicans channeled Clintonian anger into the Contract With America, producing an unprecedented Congressional upheaval.

The problem the Republicans had in between those points is what may (and in my opinion, will) bite the Democrats in the ass in '04: they were so busy shouting "Clinton sucks!" (er, poor choice of words) that they lost their message, were perceived as bitter and partisan, and lost a lot of their gains in the 1998 midterm elections.

If the Democrats can't come up with anything better than "Bush sucks!" (and, again, I don't think they will, even if they could, and I don't think they even can), they'll be humiliated next November.

TB4p

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The Democrats need focus, focus, focus.