The country is 80% Christians with another 10% saying they don't have a preference. 1% state they are athiest, 1% agnostic, and small percentages for other religions. The statistics should split down the middle within a percentage or 2 between both parties. Republicans will comprise of 90% Christians as well. I bet even the Athiests split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans. I'm sure a majority percentage of evangelicals are are Republican, but Democrats obviously need to change it.
For some population statistics, you can look at this site: Largest Religious Groups in the United States of America. The only solace I have in those statistics is that there is a slight downward trend for those who call themselves Christian, but that appears to be in trade for other sorts of religions, if it wasn't a margin error shift in the first place.
There are some problems with your analysis. First, we're talking about a specific group of people: Practicing Christians who are also active voters, or at least voted in this election. They supported Bush, and it's important to look at why. It's not that they and their churches need to change. That seems to be your position and it's one I find to literally be laughable. I'm not sure if you are advocating some sort of campaign of gettting Dems to influenetial positions within the churches, but it sounds like it. It would seem to me that this plan is pretty result-oriented. Democrats have every right to get invloved in their churches, but to advocate change for the sake of election demographics seems a bit disingenuous to say the least. It would be much easier and more productive to simply adopt a representative and winning agenda, would it not?
The Democratic party is controlled by conservative Democrats with no message and no strategy. They rejected the liberal Democratic presedential candidate they had. Not only that, many of the extreme left wing have left the party for the Greens.
On your point about the leadership of the party not representing the ideals of the mainstream Dems, your right. But it's because mainstream Dems want their candidates to fight and represent them, not to triangulate to the middle.
I don't agree. Leaders like Pelosi and Daschle are not conservative Democrats. Joe Lieberman is a conservative Democrat. Zell Miller is a conservative Democrat. I also think that this time, unlike in 2002, there WAS a message (though there was not with regards to Iraq). The message was that we needed to raise taxes to pay off the debt and deficit, invest more in education and healthcare, allow gay marrriages in contradiction to state law, pull out of Iraq in fairly short order, raise small business taxes, reregulate, and that Bush was a lying sack of shit. Don't forget that last one. People just rejected that message, and that's really all there is to say about it. Perhaps leftist Dems wanted a Dean, but Dean was not electable. The leadership knew enough to sink him, but not enough to find someone better than Kerry.
Yes, that's my position. It's vital for Democrats to counterbalance the conservative machine in the area of Churches and evangelicals. They need to influence, to educate, to redefine, to participate, to get into their Churches again. How's that different from my comments that you quoted? Not only do they have to improve their message-making, educating, at the level of Churches, they also have to do it at all levels of politics and media.
The "conservative machine" in churches was not created by Republicans. The Democratic party has strayed from the values of its constituients. The reason, again, that church goers went for Bush is that they believe Bush represents their values better. Getting into the churches to change people's core beliefs is not the answer. Now, if you mean that church goers should be educated about Democrats, that might be different. However, the people choose the leaders with the message they identify with. The leaders don't change the will of the electorate so it suits their agenda that has been previously rejected.
We're are negotiating with Gaddafi. We didn't even have to invade Libya, yet he opened up the table. And don't be surprised if NK comes out of the negotiations with the exact same deal they had with Clinton.
We didn't invade Libya because we had attacked him, then cut him off from the world, then showed him the video of American cruise missles reigning down on Bagdhad. Oh, and then he saw Saddam crawl out of a spider hole. Gaddafi said in a public statement that this weighed on his mind. Negotiating is not the same as accepting a non-military settlement. As for Nort Korea, I would highly doubt that you'll see a similar and disastrous deal.
Not wrong. It's the way things are done in life. The Republicans do it wonderfully. Democrats need to be just as good at it.
Christians will also change. They have been changing ever since the time Christians came to be known as Christians.
That doesn't even make sense. Republicans did not form some sort of "infliltration team" over the last 40 years to instruct Christians what to believe. They did a good job of getting out their message as to why they represented the group well. They crafted their agenda so it fit the beleifs OF the religous right. Sure, they have used it to their political advantage. No argument there...but if Democrats want to claim that voting block, the PARTY must change.
I keep coming back to the central point you are making. I hope that others here see this debate and enter it because I think it is very important. A political party has lost an election pretty soundly. They have been on a downard path for about 10 years. Yet, your argument is that this party must convince people they are right, instead of changing to fit the will of the electorate. This is not only fundamentally wrong, it is also a recipe for continued Republican control for quite some time.