Democrat Prospects For 2012 Are Terrible

Eric left a link to this article on Facebook so I thought I'd give it a shot. The article is Left Behind: How Democrats Are Losing the Political Center. Most of you know the bad news about the Democrats so I'm not going to dwell on it (read the article if you want details). What I'm going to focus on is the point they made on how the Ds might turn it around.

Political scientists have long observed that Americans are more liberal on particulars than they are in general—ideologically conservative but operationally liberal. (Surveys have shown majority support for most individual elements of the president’s jobs and budget packages.) And the Republicans could undermine their chances by nominating a presidential candidate who is simply too hard-edged conservative for moderates and Independents to stomach.

In the face of widespread skepticism and disillusion, it will be an uphill battle for Democrats to persuade key voting blocks that government can really make their lives better. But if they fail, the public will continue to equate public spending with waste, the anti-government message will continue to resonate, and Democrats will be in dire straits when heading into what is shaping up as a pivotal election.

So how do they shore up their base, bring over independents, be anti-government, and bring over a few votes from the Right?

Let us start with some stats. According to the article 57% of the electorate is either moderate or liberal. According to numbers I have seen around, anywhere from 67% to 85% of Americans say Drug Prohibition is not working. Something like 80% of Americans support medical marijuana.

All that points back to something I wrote recently.

The Democrat's 2012 Victory Plan

The Republicans can lose this thing if they don't get on the right side of this issue.

We will get a good read on things following the airing on PBS of the Ken Burns movie "Prohibition" which is about Alcohol Prohibition. It starts on Sunday 2 October and will be on for two hours each following night. Which means that we should have a pretty good read by the 10th of October. Enough time for editorials and the Democrat Media Machine to make their point and then see what changes it has wrought.

T -6 days and counting.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Higher Math

Republicans added to the debt. Democrats multiplied it. Obviously Democrats are smarter. They can do higher math.

The Wrong Parties

It should probably be the "wronged parties", but then we would be talking about citizens. Which will come up eventually but not quite in that context. And what is the context? Obviously some one is getting it. What the heck am I gibbering about? The inevitable political season wheeze that "we need to punish a given political party by seeing it defeated" in order to make it live up to its principles. Radly Balko is the latest purveyor of this trash.

Which brings me back to why the Republicans need to get throttled: A humiliated, decimated GOP that rejuvenates and rebuilds around the principles of limited government, free markets, and rugged individualism is really the only chance for voters to possibly get a real choice in federal elections down the road.

What Radly fails to take into account is that it is the voters who choose the candidates. If you are trying to win in a conservative district you had better be running conservative candidates. (See Democrats, Blue Dog) So Radly, we don't have a government of the Parties. We have a government of the people. Want better candidates (according to your lights)? Get better people.

Radly: for good or ill we get the government we deserve. And for the Radlys of the world the answer is always the same: we need a better party. The Libertarians have been improving their party for 30+ years. So far the results are minimal. I propose a different tack. A long march through the institutions. Work to get a libertarian people. The libertarian government will follow shortly thereafter.

OH, yeah. Palin has more libertarian tendencies than I have seen in any other politician currently on the national scene. I'm voting McCain/Palin to give her a chance to show her stuff.

I ♥ Sarah'cudda and Johnny Mac

And for those of you who are a little short of love for the Republican ticket may I suggest:

Don't give it to him. Make him steal it.

I think people who try to steal elections (ahem, ACORN, hem) ought to be denied a victory on principle. It sets a bad precedent.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

The Macho Response

I just came across The Macho Response. A lovely blog post that describes the writer's journey from Democrat to Republican. There are lots of pretty pictures illustrating his story. What he looks at with a particularly bright eye is the occultism that is at the core of the Democrat world view today.

Democrats Keep Digging

It looks like the Democrats are trying hard to straddle two horses. I predict severe rips in the crotch area.

WASHINGTON - Democrats are debating whether to approve $50 billion to $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, a quarter to less than half of President Bush’s $196 billion request but enough to keep the wars afloat for several more months.

Such a move would satisfy party members who want to spare the Pentagon from a painful budget dance and support the troops as Congress considers its next major step on Iraq.

But it would also irritate scores of other Democrats, who want to pay only to bring troops home and who say their leadership is not doing enough to end the war.

“I cannot vote for another dollar that will be used to continue the president’s occupation of Iraq,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

Democratic leaders caution that no decisions have been made, including whether to approve any money for the wars at all. Also uncertain is which spending bill might contain the war money.

But on the table are estimates of $40 billion to $70 billion—with $50 billion considered the most likely scenario. The final amount would depend on how many months of combat that Democrats would want to support, and how much money they think the Pentagon needs to buy new bomb-resistant vehicles that protect troops from roadside blasts.

The article does take a dig at congressional supporters of "an unpopular war". I don't think they are reading it right. Losing is the most unpopular position. Say. Doesn't that describe the Democrat leadership - in favor of losing? You would think that the Democrats would stop digging. I guess they have the same problem many newspapers and TV reporters have.

They can't stop digging.

Riots At The Democrat Convention

I'm giving myself another opportunity to make myself look stupid. (It's a hobby) I'm predicting that if the Democrat Congress doesn't shut down the war (they won't) there will be massive riots at the Democrat Nominating Convention in Denver.

So let me see. What I need are a few sock puppets and access to some lefty blogs. Maybe a catchy song "Won't You Please Come To Denver". We can save the world.

Lieberman IS Independent

Joe Lieberrman is going to do what most non-partisans will do in '08.

"I'm going to do what most independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country," Lieberman said Sunday.

"So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned," said the three-term lawmaker who caucuses with Senate Democrats.

Lieberman is an ally of GOP Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, a 2008 hopeful, and supports President Bush's new Iraq strategy. Lieberman won re-election as an independent last fall when Democrats backed an anti-war candidate who won the party primary.

I'm sure the Democrats are really glad they gave Joe the back of their hand.

What about a McCain/Lieberman ticket? I'd vote for them.

"Obviously, the positions that some candidates have taken in Iraq troubles me. Obviously, I will be looking at what positions they take in the larger war against Islamist terrorism."

He added, "I am genuinely an independent. I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."

The senator said he wanted to select someone "I believe is best for the future of our country. ... Party is important, but more important is the national interest. And that's the basis that I will decide whom to support for president."

So he wants to do what is best for the country. Now that really is a novel approach.

H/T Instapundit