<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with democrats and USPolitics</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/democrats+USPolitics</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'democrats' and 'USPolitics' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:52:43 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:52:43 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Swing State</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/33874/Swing%2DState</link>
		<description> In the swing states, &lt;a href=&quot;http://slate.msn.com/id/2102496/entry/2102497/&quot;&gt;it&apos;s not just the economy anymore, stupid.&lt;/a&gt; &quot;The more you talk to West Virginians, the more you stop wondering how Democrats lost the state four years ago and start wondering how they ever won it.&quot;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.33874</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:52:43 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Democrats</category>
		<category>Election2004</category>
		<category>JohnKerry</category>
		<category>Slate</category>
		<category>USPolitics</category>
		<category>WestVirginia</category>
		<dc:creator>PrinceValium</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Republicans for Dean</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/28333/Republicans%2Dfor%2DDean</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/opinion/16BROO.html?ex=1064721095&amp;amp;ei=1&amp;amp;en=3b395a00aa145ca5"&gt;Republicans for Dean...&lt;/a&gt; but not in the way you might think.  An interesting op-ed piece by David Brooks on why a Dean candidacy might be good news for the Bush team.  (NYTimes, but no registration required.)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.28333</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:29:09 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>AmericanPolitics</category>
		<category>Bush</category>
		<category>Dean</category>
		<category>Democrats</category>
		<category>elections</category>
		<category>GOP</category>
		<category>HowardDean</category>
		<category>PresidentialPolitics</category>
		<category>Republicans</category>
		<category>USPolitics</category>
		<dc:creator>UKnowForKids</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/20709/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3631-2002Oct9.html"&gt;Not standing up to Bush on Iraq is costing the Democrasts money.&lt;/a&gt; I work fund raising for the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC, and all three have seen a drop in fund raising dollars over the last two months.  The Dems claim it&apos;s a good year no matter what the numbers say, but I beg to differ, as a person working the frontline of their telemarketing campaigns the callers are hearing serious complaints from the donors, and we in middle management are getting no response on what to tell the donors.  With the House having voted for Bush&apos;s resolution, and the Senate set to pass it, is it too late to save face with their donors?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.20709</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 19:14:42 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>Democrats</category>
		<category>DNC</category>
		<category>funding</category>
		<category>IraqWar</category>
		<category>opposition</category>
		<category>USPolitics</category>
		<category>WaPo</category>
		<category>WashingtonPost</category>
		<dc:creator>jbou</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/20436/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=250867"&gt;The Rise of the Ideopolis&lt;/a&gt; &quot;Democrats have been gaining strength in areas where the production of ideas and services has either redefined or replaced an economy dependent on manufacturing, agriculture, and resource extraction. Many of these areas are in the North and West, but they are also in states like Florida and Virginia. Republicans are strongest in areas where the transition to postindustrial society has lagged. Many of these are in the Deep South and Prairie States. As Democratic politics has evolved over the last decade, it has increasingly reflected the socially liberal, fiscally moderate priorities of these new areas -- what we call a politics of progressive centrism. Republicans have continued to espouse an anti-government credo closely identified with business and the religious right -- a politics that plays well in parts of the Deep South but not in a new postindustrial America.&quot; (Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rollcall.com/pages/columns/rothenberg/00/2002/roth0919.html&quot;&gt;what&apos;s going on in Illinois&lt;/a&gt;). If that doesn&apos;t work, there&apos;s always the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/15/magazine/15STRATET.html?pagewanted=all&amp;position=top&quot;&gt;NASCAR Democrats&lt;/a&gt;.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.20436</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2002 19:13:32 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>2004elections</category>
		<category>bluestates</category>
		<category>democraticparty</category>
		<category>democrats</category>
		<category>elections</category>
		<category>redstates</category>
		<category>uspolitics</category>
		<dc:creator>owillis</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/8641/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2001-06-26-newdemocrats.shtml"&gt;New Democrats or Old?&lt;/a&gt; On one hand you have the New Democrats (Clinton, Gore), who&apos;s agendas are more centrist (some would say right leaning) but have had victories (Clinton being elected twice). On the other hand, the more liberal wings  seem to say that it&apos;s better to stand on principle and convince the populace to come over to your side.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.8641</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:10:28 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>AlGore</category>
		<category>BillClinton</category>
		<category>centrism</category>
		<category>centrist</category>
		<category>DemocraticParty</category>
		<category>Democrats</category>
		<category>LeftWing</category>
		<category>liberal</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>PopPolitics</category>
		<category>USPolitics</category>
		<dc:creator>owillis</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


