Daily Kos

View Story | 16 comments

  •  Re: Labor Markets and Elections, Then and Now (none / 1)

    Good analysis and comparison.  But in 1992, the SCLM was not as geared up as it is now to trumpet "good" news and RNC talking points to make people vote against their interest.  Now, no matter how many jobs are not gained back, whatever measure is positive (e.g., GDP) will be trumpeted as vindication for Bush.  That's why Dean was onto something in his artless Confed. flag comment.  How can the Dems. reach people who are voting drastically against their own interests?  They're doing it because:

    (1) false perception of the economy caused by SCLM distortion or reality (see above).
    (2) appeals to fear post 9/11
    (3) racism (see Flag, Confed.)
    (4) fundamentalism and/or pro-life perspective.

    (1) and (2) are reachable through education by the candidates.  (3) and (4) constitute an unreachable GPO base, unless economic conditions are truly egregious.

    Don't get me started . . .

    by Upper West on Fri Nov 28, 2003 at 05:16:15 PM PDT

    •  Re: Labor Markets and Elections, Then and Now (none / 1)

      4 is unreacheable regardless.  If you're that much of a hardcore religious zealot you're going to expect the almighty to reach down and give you food, not vote for an infidel for President.  

      Don't like XOM and OPEC? What have YOU done to reduce your oil consumption? Hot air does NOT constitute a renewable resource!

      by Asak on Fri Nov 28, 2003 at 11:55:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Labor Markets and Elections, Then and Now (none / 1)

        hardcore fundamentalists, yes, but there are anti-abortion Democrats (e.g., Harry Reid of Nev.)

        Don't get me started . . .

        by Upper West on Sat Nov 29, 2003 at 12:05:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Labor Markets and Elections, Then and Now (none / 0)

        There are rabid fundamentalists, and then there are the devout. There are a lot less of  the former than the latter, and the latter CAN be separated from the fold. Not everyone with a religious belief is a drooling moron; far from it, in fact.

        Not many of the Dems have made an issue of their faith, except perhaps Lieberman, and to a much lesser degree Clark, but they are nearly all religiously devout, pious, churchgoing people. Dems may be much more competitive for the votes of those considered to be firmly in Bush's "base" than expected. I myself have met people who though very Republican and devout within a "fundamentalist" tradition or sect, are seriously considering crossing the aisle and voting Dem this time. Of course, anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but it doesn't take that many switching sides in so evenly divided an electorate as ours to make substantial in-roads on the other party's support.

View Story | 16 comments