"If the playing field was level--particularly in regards to access and political contributions--and if the Democrats were to make concessions on issues such as abortion and gay rights, there is absolutely no reason why the Democrats could not be a permanent majority."
Again, I'm not saying I agree with this; I just want to hear your opinions and reasoning about this.
2006-11-12 04:08:47 · 9 answers · asked by hotstepper2100 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This is not such a far-fetched statement. Democrats were originally the nation's Conservative party before concessions to sway Northern Republicans were made, and it is not unreasonable to think that a party would want to establish permancy (as frightening as that may be).
2006-11-12 04:30:48 · update #1
If the Democrats were to make concessions on those issues they'd be Republicans. Nothing else needs to be said.
2006-11-12 04:11:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
One thing I have learned from working in politics, nothing in permanent. In the South, a little over half of the Democrats are pro-life, called the "Blue Dogs." Additionally, I would say that a majority of Americans do not vote on moral issues, this past election is a good example of that. Because of changing times, the American people will have changing needs; therefore, the Democrats will most definitely not be a permanent majority. Democrats are not great for the economy and are not as forceful on foreign relations just as Republicans are not great for education or depending on your view, social justice.
If you were to look at the results of all 504 races of this past election, you will see that most of the time where Democrats did ditch an incumbent, it was by an extremely small margin. There are still 7 undecided races in the House.
2006-11-12 04:19:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i do not comprehend why Gore or Obama should be no longer conceivable for Hillary to triumph over. At this degree, the eventual nominees should be human beings nevertheless less than the radar. Pataki makes Gore look very almost alive through evaluation. Pataki & Guiliani are too liberal on social themes for most Rep accepted electorate, even with the actuality that i imagine Rudy can be a very smart selection.
2016-10-16 08:41:09 · answer #3 · answered by pellenz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The majority of Americans support freedom of choice and equal rights for all regardless of sexual orientation. The numbers supporting these will only increase over time.
I think the Repubs have to make concessions to stay afloat.
2006-11-12 04:19:41 · answer #4 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Frightening thought.
Since the Democrat Goal has always been a Communist/Socialist Nation.
Could be correct.
2006-11-12 04:20:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
In the short term, perhaps, however, they would be alienating women and homosexuals, depending on what "concessions" were made in regards to abortion rights and gay rights.
2006-11-12 04:16:09 · answer #6 · answered by sparky52881 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
In other words lets back up say a hundred years.
2006-11-12 04:45:19 · answer #7 · answered by kman1830 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most people are liberal leaning anyway. They just need to be aware that they are voting against their own interests when they vote Repub. The Repubs represent the very rich and big business. They don't give a damn about the middle class.
2006-11-12 04:13:03 · answer #8 · answered by notyou311 7 · 5⤊ 3⤋
actually that sounds a little like Marxist.
2006-11-12 04:21:47 · answer #9 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋