Why isn't the Democratic Party Less Popular?

[The idea]

I think that this party is controlled by people who, on most major issues, lack common sense. It would make a good third party. Any ideas on why there is so much support for Democrats?

[corplinx]

Better haircuts than republicans.

[Skeptical Greg]

A lot of people like the idea of being taken care of... ( or that there are many who need to be .. )

This is in contrast to Republicans who are under the illusion that they are not... ( being taken care of... )

[boomer6]

Originally posted by Diogenes
A lot of people like the idea of being taken care of... ( or that there are many who need to be .. )

This is in contrast to Republicans who are under the illusion that they are not... ( being taken care of... )



?what?

[BTox]

Originally posted by boomer6




?what?

Exactly - that's one of the reasons. ;)

[Nasarius]

Their stance doesn't lack common sense (whatever that is). It's just barely distinguishable from the Republican stance. I'd love to see them replaced by a truly liberal party, like the Greens.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by The idea
I think that this party is controlled by people who, on most major issues, lack common sense. It would make a good third party. Any ideas on why there is so much support for Democrats?

So Republicans won't get elected. :p

[boomer6]

Originally posted by aerosolben


So Republicans won't get elected. :p


why?

[KelvinG]

Why isn't the Republican Party Less Popular?

I think that this party is controlled by people who, on most major issues, lack common sense. It would make a good third party. Any ideas on why there is so much support for Republicans?

There we go. Now it makes more sense.

[DavidJames]

"There we go. Now it makes more sense"

Yup, I think "The idea" simply made a "typo"

[American]

Originally posted by The idea
I think that this party is controlled by people who, on most major issues, lack common sense. It would make a good third party. Any ideas on why there is so much support for Democrats?


As Ayn Rand contended, socialist parties are headed by elitists. Ted Kennedy will always be a millionaire with a fleet of yachts, the Clintons will always make money from their Ivy League law degrees. Their goal is to trap the losers of the world (ie, the pouty michael moore democrats, unions (especially teachers unions), and unmotivated or angry minority groups) within the welfare state, thus retaining their power and wealth.

They try to get the "lower and middle class" (note their constant use of class warfare) addicted to government entitlement programs, be it welfare or bloated contracts (think- Big Dig/Mass Turnpike authority (private agency? yeah right)).

Does anything ever change for the loser groups? Never. They are forced to remain right where they are while the Senators who keep them in the ghetto sail laps around Martha's Vineyard.

Republicans promise nothing to the loser groups, not even recognition. As an individual, you have equal protection of law. Don't tell me you're a fag and need special fag laws to be protected- nobody has a right to harass you for any reason, queer or straight.

We are not going to trap losers by giving hand-outs that don't motivate, or rewarding bad behavior. It's better to use postitve and negative reinforcement methods to better good people's lives and punish the leeches and criminals who prey on ordinary decent citizens.



The point is- they do NOT lack common sense. They know exactly what they are doing to this country, and that's not even counting the 1960s ideals that help bind the party together at various levels.

[fishbob]

why there is so much support for Democrats? Not Republicans.

I don't think that the Reps had a particularly bad reputation until Nixon and CREEP (committee to re-elect the president). Buried deep in the subconscious of many people is the image of the Nixon crony Reps as sleazebags. And of course Bush Sr. was involved with the Nixon Administration, and with the Reagan Administration, and the Bush administration, and the other Bush administration.

Some people like the Dems simply because they are the viable alternative to the Reps. And they have better haircuts (tribute to another fine Corpx turn of phrase).

[Zero]

I'm surprised that the Democrats are as popular as they are, considering that they don't sell quasi-religious fairy tales like the Republicans do...I guess reality is popular with some people, huh?

[Jude]

Originally posted by Zero
I'm surprised that the Democrats are as popular as they are, considering that they don't sell quasi-religious fairy tales like the Republicans do...I guess reality is popular with some people, huh?
Hypocrite: The fallacy of entitlement (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33522)
Originally posted by Zero
Jesus Harold Christ, more nonsense about a fake, made up position that you claim "liberals" hold? *yawn*

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by American



As Ayn Rand contended, socialist parties are headed by elitists. Who heads nonsocialist parties? If an "elitist" is merely someone with access to a lot of money, then it appears that both of our major political parties are in the hands of elitists. Are both parties socialist?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by The idea
I think that this party is controlled by people who, on most major issues, lack common sense. It would make a good third party. Any ideas on why there is so much support for Democrats?

The Democrats sure do have some problems all right, but the USA has always been pretty much a two-party nation and until there is some other party that can attract a good base of support like the Democrats do (about 35% of the electorate), then I expect that the Democratic party will continue well into the future.

[Michael Redman]

Resorting to the explanation that the other half believes what it does because it's ignorant, stupid, evil, hateful, etc. is always easy (just ask Ann Coulter), but in the end it always an intellectually bankrupt approach.

The leadership of much of the western democracies is more in line with the Dems thinking that with the Repubs. Is it likely that most of the free people of the west are clueless? And only American conservatives know what's going on? Or is it more likely that the Dems ideas do not lack common sense, but are simply based on different assumptions and priorities?

It may be satisfying to think that you belong to an intellectually elite group that has sole possession true understanding, but I think taking that position shows a lack of common sense.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Jude

Hypocrite: The fallacy of entitlement (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33522)
Buy a dictionary, chum.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Resorting to the explanation that the other half believes what it does because it's ignorant, stupid, evil, hateful, etc. is always easy (just ask Ann Coulter), but in the end it always an intellectually bankrupt approach.

The leadership of much of the western democracies is more in line with the Dems thinking that with the Repubs. Is it likely that most of the free people of the west are clueless? And only American conservatives know what's going on? Or is it more likely that the Dems ideas do not lack common sense, but are simply based on different assumptions and priorities?

It may be satisfying to think that you belong to an intellectually elite group that has sole possession true understanding, but I think taking that position shows a lack of common sense. The American population is also generally in line with Dems on most issues. The problem is that Dems generally tell a little more truth than Repugs(not the whole truth, they ARE politicians, after all) For instance, you cannot spend hundreds of billions of dollars more than last year and cut taxes by hundreds of billions at the same time without cutting vital services and running up a huge unpayable debt. This is common sense, but it sucks to have to tell people this...the Republicans simply don't advertise the practical results of policies like this, which makes it easier to get elected.

[American]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Who heads nonsocialist parties? If an "elitist" is merely someone with access to a lot of money, then it appears that both of our major political parties are in the hands of elitists. Are both parties socialist?


Excellent question. The repubs, too, are headed by an elite class. The difference is providing the opportunity for the grass roots of the party (or anyone in the country) to climb from where they came, or for that matter allowing the elitists' kids to end up losers and slackers, unlike their parents, because they didn't try hard enough in life. We all know at least a few of those kids with rich parents who do absolutely nothing with their lives, despite coming from privilege.

[Zero]

Originally posted by American



Excellent question. The repubs, too, are headed by an elite class. The difference is providing the opportunity for the grass roots of the party (or anyone in the country) to climb from where they came, or for that matter allowing the elitists' kids to end up losers and slackers, unlike their parents, because they didn't try hard enough in life. We all know at least a few of those kids with rich parents who do absolutely nothing with their lives, despite coming from privilege. Bush? LOL, really though, this is a perfect description of your president up until the last couple of years...and even then, his political career feels like Poppy sat him down and said "look, boy, this is it, I'm cutting you off if you don't GET A JOB! I'm pulling all the strings, but this is it...next time you spend all the money I get you on blow and strippers, you are done!" And since they turned him down for baseball commissioner, Poppy bought him Texas!:p

[Doubt]

It there really such a thing as common sense? Different people perceive things based on their values and history. That which is common in terms of perspective is generally that which is simple:

Food is good.
Dying is bad.

Political issues tend to be complicated. The idea that common sense applies to complex issues does not appear to be a useful notion. You could almost make the case that common sense and politics are mutually exclusive.

Just because a political party shares the same point of view that you do does not mean that either you or the party have any common sense at all. It does mean that you and the party in question have a similar perspective.

If a US political party could claim to have the support of a sizable majority of the public, they could make a claim about some sort of localized common perspective. But such a majority does not exist. This would not make this version of common sense an accurate view of reality. The majority is not always right.

[Tmy]

Theres nothing wrong with the Dems. Politics like the economy is cyclical. Wehn a party has been in control for a while people get sick of them and want a change. The Repubs will face this problem in the fall were Dems will make a comeback.

While the Dems may lack common sense, the Repubs tend to be clueless to reality. The Repubs belive that if your not a millionaire, then its your own lazy fault. All you have to do is get A's in school and your all set. They dont realize all the factors that can effect a persons life from day 1, factors that can lead to hard times and difficulties.

[Snide]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Resorting to the explanation that the other half believes what it does because it's ignorant, stupid, evil, hateful, etc. is always easy (just ask Ann Coulter), but in the end it always an intellectually bankrupt approach.

The leadership of much of the western democracies is more in line with the Dems thinking that with the Repubs. Is it likely that most of the free people of the west are clueless? And only American conservatives know what's going on? Or is it more likely that the Dems ideas do not lack common sense, but are simply based on different assumptions and priorities?

It may be satisfying to think that you belong to an intellectually elite group that has sole possession true understanding, but I think taking that position shows a lack of common sense. I was getting nauseous reading this thread, until this post. Thanks...it was a much needed pill. I feel better now.

[Suddenly]

"Common sense" is at it's core a fallacious concept, one that seems to assume some sort of universal truth about things, that there is a "truth" out there that all "normal" people "understand."

It really is just an excuse to leave behind critical thinking and make an assumption based on unidentified data. This isn't so bad when we say something like "water flows downhill," but things get a bid sticky when someone atrributes something like "the world is so complex, there must be a God" to that same common sense. They in their mind think that such a conclusion is obvious to them, but they can't rationally explain it. Thus, common sense is a handy thing to cite, rather than recognizing the real reasons for the conclusions, such as that person's past personal observations, and cultural and social enviroment.

I'ts just "common sense" simply isn't a legitimate response to any contention. If that is the best you can come up with when someone questions your position on something it would be a good idea to re-examine that position, as it is possible you haven't thought it through and are just refusing to face up to the fact that your position may be the product of something other than a reasoned examination of fact and evidence.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I'ts just "common sense" simply isn't a legitimate response to any contention. If that is the best you can come up with when someone questions your position on something it would be a good idea to re-examine that position, as it is possible you haven't thought it through and are just refusing to face up to the fact that your position may be the product of something other than a reasoned examination of fact and evidence.

I agree. In fact, I think you have displayed a great deal of common sense here.

:D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Snide
I was getting nauseous reading this thread, until this post. Thanks...it was a much needed pill. I feel better now.

Heck, I thought the discussion was over after the ' haircut ' post...:D

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by The idea
I think that this party is controlled by people who, on most major issues, lack common sense. It would make a good third party. Any ideas on why there is so much support for Democrats?

Republicans spend a lot of money on PR that tells people that they are the party of "common sense." The Republicans do seem to be more effective at PR than Democrats.

It doesn't help that most mass media generally sticks to scripts that shape the perception of the candidates. Remember, Al Gore was the "liar" and Bush was "dumb but honest." It's easier than reporting facts, you know....

What's Howard Dean's characterization? You can already see it: He's "quick to anger," or some such stuff.

[aerocontrols]

I find it helpful to separate the people I meet into three groups:

1) Someone who encounters another who doesn't agree with them and thinks "He must be stupid or misinformed. I'll tell him why he is wrong. If he doesn't then agree, I'll explain again, ONLY LOUDER."

2) Someone who encounters another who doesn't agree with them and thinks "It's possible that he is stupid or misinformed, or it may be true that I am stupid or misinformed. I should examine his positions and my own carefully and see if I can find a flaw."

3) Someone who encounters another who doesn't agree with them and thinks "It's possible that he is stupid or misinformed, or it may be true that I am stupid or misinformed. Then again, people are quite different. It may be that both he and I are intelligent and well-informed, but we simply have different beliefs and priorities, which lead to disagreement."

So to answer your question, the reason that there is so much support for the Democrats is because there are a lot of people who have different beliefs and priorities than you do.

MattJ

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Suddenly
This isn't so bad when we say something like "water flows downhill," ...
And even your "easy" example is fraught with exceptions. In many cases, water flows uphill, due to such forces as capillary pressure. You could state that water flows downhill when gravity is the only force acting on it, but in the real world, this never happens. I know for a fact that when I take a bath, some of the water manages to move up over the edge of the tub and then back down onto the floor. ;)

I think this, as much as anything, illustrates that the "it's just common sense" argument does not allow for varying situations and is only used by those who are intellectually lazy.

[patnray]

Well said, aerocontrols. I think to even ask the question one has to belong to your group 1.

There are only two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are only two kinds of people in the world, and those who don't....

[American]

Originally posted by Zero
Bush? LOL, really though, this is a perfect description of your president up until the last couple of years...and even then, his political career feels like Poppy sat him down and said "look, boy, this is it, I'm cutting you off if you don't GET A JOB! I'm pulling all the strings, but this is it...next time you spend all the money I get you on blow and strippers, you are done!" And since they turned him down for baseball commissioner, Poppy bought him Texas!:p


The part I wrote about "loser groups" would include.... well you choose the name "Zero". :p

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by The idea
I think that this party is controlled by people who, on most major issues, lack common sense. It would make a good third party. Any ideas on why there is so much support for Democrats?
As an outsider looking in I suggest:


Just opt for a one party system and force everyone's allegiance to the one party. Anyone that doesn't pledge allegience to the party, label as unpatriotic.

Those that disagee with the party and want to maintain an Opposition : round them up, shoot them all. Disagreement is labelled dissent.

Those with differing views than the one party, charge with treason.

Minorities/groups feeling oppressed and protesting? Jail them as they are inciting riot.

If some don't fall in line with the one party's ideologies, use any means necessary to ensure their dangerous views are quieted.

[The idea]

The first post in this thread had a structure similar that of the first post of the thread "Why isn't the Libertarian Party more popular?", but the two threads have developed quite differently.


I think that this party has a lot of common sense on most issues, and would make a legitamite third party. Any ideas on why there is so little support for Libertarians?


If the popularity of a party can be measured by the number of T-shirts being worn that carry the party's logo, then all parties can simultaneously become more popular. However, if popularity is measured by votes as a percentage of total votes for all parties, then an increase in popularity for one party (such as the Libertarian party) would have to come at the cost of a decreased popularity for at least one other party.

Perhaps those extra votes for the Libertarians will be siphoned off from the Egyptian Mau Maoist Pyramid Party?

[The idea]

Vote For Me-ow!
http://www.cfainc.org/breeds/profiles/jpgs-bob/mau.jpg

[Luke T.]

Let me start with the disclaimer that I am a conservative Republican who has voted for only one Democrat my entire life.

Okay. Now let me move on to say that there are good Democrats and there are bad Democrats. You could say the same about Republicans, but we are talking about Democrats here, and why they are so danged popular.

Democratic Congressman from the South used to be counted upon to be very pro-defense, so they had that going for them.

Another thing is that sometimes, a person loses their job. Or their father dies. Or something bad happens. And the Democrats are much better at throwing you a bone in these situations than the Republicans are.

edited to add: And who is down and out more than blacks? Is it any wonder the Dems are popular with the black community?

Who started Social Security? FDR. A Democrat. Who started the idea of government support for widows and orphans? FDR, that's who. Who started a cornucopia of social welfare programs? FDR, again. Hey, it may look like FDR was pretty busy, but he had a little over three terms do throw a lot of bones to a lot of people.

Then you have the Civil Rights Act, passed on a wave of homage for JFK, another Democrat. This caused the black community to forget it was a Republican who freed them.

Okay. I'm being a little facetious. But there has been some revising in this country about what a great guy Lincoln was. Some even try to say he was okay with slavery!

Democrats get elected to Congress more than Republicans, because they are great at local politics and making sure the big fat government contracts come to their home turf.

I am of the opinion that Democrats are responsible for the reflex question whenever something goes wrong, "What is the government going to do about it?"

This was unheard of before FDR.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by The idea
I think that this party is controlled by people who, on most major issues, lack common sense. It would make a good third party. Any ideas on why there is so much support for Democrats?

If you look at some of the recent psychological research on the Five Factor Model (FFM) of Personality; you'll find that Conservatives and Liberals differ most on the Openness factor. Liberals show more Openness (to new experience) and Conservatives show more Closedness.

[Luke T.]

Oh, yeah. One more thing the Dems have over the GOP. They are big sinners. Yes (*sigh*), so are Republicans, but the Dems are big on forgiveness.

It's hard to be mad at a guy for fooling around on his wife if you have fooled around on your wife, too. Dems like to think we should elect "one of the guys," while Republicans think we should elect moral leaders. The problem with this is that moral leaders have one terrible flaw. They are human!

edited to add: YOu will see the presidential Democratic candidates try to outdo each other to prove to you they are "one of the guys." Just listen to them trying to make you believe they grew up poor. Except the black candidates. They don't do that. They know that you know since they are black, they had a rough go.