rick wrote:
"riverman" wrote in message
...



snippage...



First, CocaCola presents a program quite to the liking of about
9/10th of the world, but that sure doesn't make it GOOD for
them. So the fact that more people bought Bush's campaign does
not really mean much beyond, well, that more people voted for
him. To us nonBush supporters, you sound like someone trying
their damndest to explain why Coke is good for you.
==================
Then present an argument on WHY Pepsi/Mt. Dew/Sprite is better,
instead of just saying Coke is bad. There is the problem, in a
nutshell. People that believe Coke is better don't need someone
to convince them of that. If you want them to consider the other
drinks, if you want to convince them that other drinks are
better, YOU have to present a reason why they should, not just
claim Coke is bad. I've yet to hear that argument.


snips...

Now this is precisely the point. Instead of blaming the
"Fundamentalist" or "Evangelical" Christians, the influence of which
has been vastly overrated (voter demographics just done lie),
the Democrats need to look at why they are not getting their message
across. Since I follow politics as a spectator sport, my take is that
they have become sidetracked by social issues that either aren't
relavent or distasteful to the voting population. While I disliked Bill
Clinton, politically I had to admire the way that he skillfully coopted
any popular conservative program as his own, which is why he was
elelcted twice during a time when the rest of the Democratic Party was
sucking, while managing to avoid most of these issues (except Gun
Control). The first time you have a Democratic candidate the can
distance himself from Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Gun Control, you are
probably going to have another Democrat in the White House. I really
don't see this happening since the DNC is wedded to certain special
interest groups that won't allow these changes.