Willravel

51% think the Dems are "Very Favorable" or Mostly Favorable". 39% for the GOP. The mostly unfavorable areas both are hovering around 30%, though. So, yet again, we see that the Dems are the lesser of two evils.

As an interesting aside, 58% think a third party is needed. Heh. Go figure.

albania

Sorry to interject into a serious debate, just thought I'd share a quote from the Simpsons. Whenever statistics are brought up I'm reminded of it, and it always brings a smile to my face:

Kent: Mr. Simpson, how do you respond to the charges that petty
vandalism such as graffiti is down eighty percent, while heavy
sack-beatings are up a shocking nine hundred percent?

Homer: Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent.
Forty percent of all people know that.

djtestudo

This thread is a pretty good microcosm of why the Democrats have such a problem; there is no real unity.

For better or worse (and even as a Republican, I will say it is too often for the worse) the Republicans as a party are far more united then the Democrats.

Once you get past certain issues, mostly having to do with opposing the Republicans, the Democratic Party splits into smaller, almost sub-parties, with their own agendas within the larger one. It can be racial (blacks, latinos, etc.), or over national issues (abortion, environment, war), but those smaller groups bring about a lot of in-fighting.

There is a little bit of that within the Republican Party, mostly along religious lines, but not as much, and that unity allows them to stick together.

Just the fact that only "two-thirds" of congressional Democrats voted party-line on the two issues being discussed, which were the two general reasons for the Democrats winning their majorities anyway, should be enough proof of that.

That is where the problem lies. It is both the advantage and the curse of the party, because it allows for dissent and change within the party, but also doesn't allow a small majority to mean as much.

(And no, that isn't why I'm a Republican.)

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

albania

I suppose I should add something more constructive to the thread. I’m inclined to agree with Will on the lesser of two evils issue. I don’t think it’s feasible to expect to choose the good party when you have a two party system in such a big country, you always have to go with the one that sucks less at the moment. The way I perceive things is this, on most things both parties agree using different words. On the things they do disagree, most of the time there doesn’t seem to be a true difference in policy no matter who gets elected.

dc_dux

I agree with you completely about the diversity of opinion within the Democratic party on how to achieve their common goals.

It is an advantage in that it allows for more independent thinking and a challenge in that it makes it more difficult to govern. But that is what I like about the Democratic party.

Will....your interpretation of the results is interesting but unsupportable... you assume that the 51% who have a "favorable opinion of Dems think the Dems are the lesser of two evils. I am among that 51% and I believe the Dems are the best hope, not the lesser evil. Why do you conclude others among that 51% dont share my belief?

I am also not surprised by the 58% who believe a third party is needed. I am clearly in the minority on this issue.

The problem you have is that many of those 58% are too lazy and apathetic to get off their ass and do anything more that bitch about the status quo.

I dont see anything positive coming out of a Congress with three or more parties, none of which is a majority. The result would likely be vote trading between the parties on an issue by issue basis in order to form large enough blocks to get legislation passed (I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine). And I cant even imagine how committees would be structured (without a majority...who would chair which committees - more voting trading to decide?) and business conducted....it would be chaos. What a way to govern!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

A lot of it comes form the fact that I'm surrounded by Democrats here. Another part of it comes from the fact that you and host both portray the Dems as the lesser of two evils often. Judging purely by your posts, I think that you believe that the Dems are the lesser of two evils. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post history is littered with speech that convinced me you believe this.
Honestly, it's the majority of this 58% that's the clear disappointment. These cowards aren't willing to vote for who would best represent them.
Exactly. Those lazy assholes are a big part of what's maintaining the two party system.
Congress would have to adapt to a 3 or more party system. The 2/3 majority bullshit would have to end immediately except when it comes to things like war. They'd have to rewrite the rules.

Id' be fine with a functional two party system. If w can make the Dems and GOP into two different parties with two different platforms and who aren't filled with crazy people or murderers.... yeah that's not gonna happen.

dc_dux

Will...I certainly cant speak for host, but I dont believe my post history is littered with portrayals of the Democrats as the lesser of two evils. I have said repeatedly that I believe and support the Democratic party goals and ideals, while occasionally expressing frustration with their methods and recent shortcomings as a party.

I have spent much of my adult life, both professionally and personally, working for and supporting the Democratic party. During that time, I have worked with, and interacted with, thousands of people who share that ideal and not the misguided concept of lesser of evils.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

guyy

I think that perception of the Deeper Problem affects how people see Democrats. There's frustration with them for being passive/complicit in the runup to the Iraq debacle. It is at least partly in that sense that they are being held responsible. That frustration goes back to at least '02, and has fueled, among other things, the campaign against that formerly Democratic Senator from Conn. and the opposition to HRC's presidential campaign. Perhaps they didn't have the votes to defeat the Iraq war measures, but did they have to vote FOR them? The "bum intelligence" excuse doesn't cut it. Anyone with half a brain knew it was bogus. Many Democrats were trying to align themselves with what they imagined to be a national consensus.

This desire to be aligned with an imagined national mood made oversight impossible. At least half of the official opposition was too timid to oppose, even symbolically. Of course, this desire to be One with the Nation wasn't peculiar to Democratic pols. On the whole, US journalists were reluctant to debunk the shabby case for the war. Even "just folks" were afraid to criticise the course of events without previous signals from their conversation partners that dissent was OK.