Can Democrats win elections in the current system?

[0rganism]

The 2006 election is coming up fast.

Large corporations, including military contractors, still own much of the media.

Voting machines have no more public accountability now than they did in 2004.

"Swiftboat" smear tactics have been so successful, the GOP is applying them to relatively minor races.

Despite apparent dissatisfaction with bush and the republican-led congress, Sen. McCain polls 20 points higher than Sen. Clinton or Kerry in a head-to-head general-election race, according to Zogby.

Ronald Reagan was voted the "Greatest American" in the recent Discovery Channel poll.

The teamsters and the service employees have split from the AFL-CIO.

Is there a way for Democrats to win with the current campaign ethics, do we need to shift tactics to match the republican filth-slinging and illegal fundraising, or is something radical and "outside" required to change the system? Pick the answer closest to your opinion.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. I put more than one. 4 out of the last 5...

[lvx35]

2. None of the above.

How about: A change is needed and Democrats are making it happen!

[0rganism]

4. Sort of a number 3, then?

That's the closest one, and in keeping with what I intended with that option.

[lvx35]

5. If it said big change, yeah number three would work. :) nt

[number6]

3. two words, The Media (pro Rethuglican)

Democrats need their own noise machine.

pro Democrat talk Radio in every market
Cable TV and Nation wide media ...

[bridgit]

6. welcome to 'the plan' ~ Infiltrating Bilderberg 2005

http://www.counterpunch.com/estulin05272005.html

[wli]

9. unfortunately this is little more than you could obtain from inference

The article seems to indicate that the Bilderbergers are not much more than businessmen, some operating under the aegis of politics, colluding to make more money in the tired old carpetbagger fashion. The "New World Order" schtick is little more than orchestrating moneymaking or loss-preventing global conditions and pondering too little, too late about how to survive Peak Oil.

[bridgit]

11. 'the plan' is by no means observed...

from any one source, it is a quilted & long enduring effort on the parts of certain elements you've only mentioned in-passing & with not nearly enough emphasis; which is not dissimilar from your notion that, by extension, 'the carlyle group' is merely a group of businessmen looking for a 'good return'

my thoughts are elsewhere while considering the dissemblance of democracy while in the name of democracy by people who could & often do care far less for it ~

[wli]

14. yet nothing truly smacks of an over-arching plan

Did Saddam offer up his own country to bombardment with depleted uranium? Did the French march in lockstep with the US against Iraq when it was going to accept payment directly in Euros for oil? No. There are factions, and there are whole countries singled out as victims. There is no global plan. This whole "New World Order" affair is riddled with contradictions at the most basic levels.

A group of businessmen looking for a good return is accurate, but incomplete. These are interactions, meetings between such groups, and these groups are not benign, they're greedy and possibly corrupt and/or criminal. It doesn't take a vast, far-flung conspiracy to do bad things, and it doesn't take a "secret world government" to speculate about world affairs or attempt to influence them.

[bridgit]

15. there is no 'over arching' viewpoint that leads only...

to the atrocities being presently perpetrated upon iraq; that is current events. this desembling of democracy has been occuring for decades. the occident has fought for the oil fields of mosul since WWII & a string of puppet tyrants only secured our access to it, the borders of iraq itself were carved by outside forces years ago & long since before saddam. as was the plan to funnel monies into the region via petro dollars that now, supposedly, threatens our future = it is all about boogeymen too. yet, saddam himself was already in a box with a see through glass top. i hear you suggesting; there was no other reason to depose saddam but for the same reason a dog licks his balls.

to ignore the inertia of unseen events is imo folly, which is to rather suggest here: there is a global plan & it is unfolding before our eyes ~

http://watch.pair.com/mason.html

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Yes we need big changes a la

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm

[rumpel]

12. Agree.

[Snotcicles]

8. No chance until we have, as ANDY would say

Voter Verified Paper Ballots

[rumpel]

13. add tabulation systems that can not be compromised, hand count

[wli]

10. you probably need something about electoral fraud

[Independent_Liberal]

16. In order to win, we must get rid of all e-voting...

If we work now, we can have the process cleaned up by 2006. I believe Montana outlawed e-voting. Have any other states outlawed it?

[Prism]

17. Better Candidates

That's about the sum of it. I'm sorry, but Kerry made me cringe. The minute I heard "I voted for the war before I . . ." I shook my head and immediately thought of Dukakis for some reason.

The party needs a strong candidate who states unequivocably what he/she believes in and makes no apologies for it.

If someone's going to triangulate or straddle issues like Kerry attempted, they'd better have something really special going for them (like Clinton's charmisa), otherwise it's just begging for a loss.

51% vs 49%? A better candidate would've won the thing.

[OrlandoGator]

18. No other issues matter if you can't verify election results.

Frankly, it's shocking to me that Congressional Democrats haven't brought this issue front-and-center. Makes me almost feel like they are in cahoots.