Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (9811 of them)

xxpost - And Reagan trounced Carter in 80, so much for his centrist appeal. I think you can definitely make the case that Perot tipped the balance to Clinton in 92. Yeah, people play with numbers both ways though.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:33 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost - Ha, great cover. Am Con has definitely been critical of Bush all along and they remind people that there's more to conservativism than the neo variety.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:34 (eighteen years ago) link

I just realized that there are little particulate bits falling from the crushed building. Nice touch.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:35 (eighteen years ago) link

and in '96:

Clinton - 49.2%
Dole - 40.7%
Perot - 8.4&

do the math.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:36 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean come on, that puts Clinton's margin of victory at less than a single perecentage point.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link

You're making the assumption that everyone who voted Perot would've went immediately to Dole. I'm not going to say it's a bad assumption but it's still an assumption with minimal backup from those statistics.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:40 (eighteen years ago) link

sure. 40.7 + 8.4 = 49.1 < 49.2

did you have some other math in mind?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link

But to be fair, Perot wasn't only pulling votes from Bush and Dole.

xxpost - In the same issue they run a pro-Gene McCarthy piece, a piece about Mencken, and a piece critical of Greenspan. Like I said, I don't think it's an easy magazine to pigeonhole and although I don't have a sub I always check in.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link

Sure we're getting into conjecture here - but my larger point is that this polite centrism thing has never resulted in stunning victories for the Dems. Not the way, say, heavy-handed right-wing candidates (Reagan, Dubya) have totally crushed their centrist Dem opponents. Saying the strategy is a time-tested antidote to current woes is just myopic.

But back to gabbneb and his "obstructionist binaries" and focus group claptrap...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:42 (eighteen years ago) link

Yes, def true

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:43 (eighteen years ago) link

Reagan is one thing but GWB didn't even win the popular vote in his first election; that's not exactly a "crushing" defeat of centralism any more than Clinton's victories were a shining example of centralism's virtue.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link

In fact, I think in 92 Perot took votes almost equally from both of them - where it mattered of course was in the key states where he helped Clinton.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean, Clinton didn't win a plurality ever but at least the other dude didn't actually win more votes than he did and get sonned by technicalities. That's a terrible example! xpost

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:46 (eighteen years ago) link

in 96, Clinton went above 50% in Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Iowa. How was that Perot's influence, again?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:49 (eighteen years ago) link

I was thinking more of Dubya beating Kerry with more than 50% of the vote (not Gore - which I agree is not a good example)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:49 (eighteen years ago) link

oh yeah, the closest reelection in history in which exit polls forecast the loser winning = totally crushing the opponent

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:52 (eighteen years ago) link

50.7 to 48. something. That's a better margin than yr centrist hero Clinton's re-election.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:57 (eighteen years ago) link

judging successful campaigns by exit polling = Democratic focus-group myopia par excellence.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:58 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, no, technically it's not. xpost

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:59 (eighteen years ago) link

That's a better margin than yr centrist hero Clinton's re-election.

uh, actually it's not. Clinton 96 got 49.23. Gore 2000 got 48.38. Kerry got 48.27.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Carter 76 got 50.08

"do the math"

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:02 (eighteen years ago) link

I think there's something in the larger point though of "saying the strategy is a time-tested antidote to current woes is just myopic." Anyway, "centrism" is red-herring. Sirota (again): "From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash. Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of 'centrism' while allowing the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist Democrats as far-left extremists. Worse, the mainstream media follow suit, characterizing progressive positions on everything from trade to healthcare to taxes as ultra-liberal. As the AP recently claimed, 'party liberals argue that the party must energize its base by moving to the left' while 'the DLC and other centrist groups argue that the party must court moderates and find a way to compete in the Midwest and South."

In other words, whose "centrism" are you talking about?

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:02 (eighteen years ago) link

the only election in the modern era in which a Democrat has won by more than a hair was Johnson, who ran as a moderate against an admitted extremist

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:06 (eighteen years ago) link

"uh, actually it's not. Clinton 96 got 49.23."

sorry, I'm still including Perot's numbers. I know how you hate that. Total votes for other candidates vs. total votes for Clinton = Clinton won by a tenth of a percentage point.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:18 (eighteen years ago) link

"From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash.

and? these corporations give millions to both parties (3 of the 4 are among the top 100 soft money contributors 89-02). they favor Repubs because Repubs are more on their side.

Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of 'centrism'

this is the sleight of hand Sirota specializes in. he doesn't say that the DLC is doing the corps' bidding, but he tries to make it sound that way. I see no reason to ascribe nefarious motives to the DLC any more than the party itself.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link

And again, Carter in '76 was coasting on the unbelievable damage the Reps had done to themselves with Nixon (and Ford's subsequent pardon).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link

so you're willing to believe that voting for Perot meant there's no way you were going to vote for Clinton, but completely unwilling to believe that voting for Perot meant there's no way you were going to vote for Bush or Dole. nice 'logic'. has it occurred to you that, even if you ignore the fact that 100% of Perot voters could have voted for Dole and he still would have lost, it's possible that every Perot or other third party voter would have stayed home if there were 2 candidates? at which point Clinton would have won 54.7-45.3?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:29 (eighteen years ago) link

I haven't made any such claims. All I pointed out was the correct margin of victory for Clinton against other candidates in '96. I'm not dealing in conjecture or speculation about what people "might have" done.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:32 (eighteen years ago) link

In other words, whose "centrism" are you talking about?

This is what is kind of confusing me.

Rahmneb, are you saying that Democrats need to claim ownership of the center and then define later what the center is? Or do Democrats claim ownership of centrist concepts and by default claim the center?

And do they claim the center by crying BUSHCO IS THE MOST EXTREME ADMINSITRATION EVAH by default or does the party just claim the center and then let the electorate figger out how EXTREMIST Bushco is?

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:34 (eighteen years ago) link

Gab- I don't think he's made that claim. I think it's fair to say that a lot of potential Clinton votes went to Perot and at the same time safely conclude that Perot cost Bush (and maybe Dole) the election.

xpost

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link

ok, i give. shakey, i don't have a fucking clue what you're saying. i first read you (wrongly) as saying that 'Kerry did better than Clinton'. now, the only reading i can come up with is that you've reached the conclusion that Bill Clinton didn't run far enough to the left because he didn't win by as much as the far-right-wing George W. Bush.

I think it's fair to say that a lot of potential Clinton votes went to Perot and at the same time safely conclude that Perot cost Bush (and maybe Dole) the election.

really? in 96? you want to explain with the numbers?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:43 (eighteen years ago) link

this whole "who might people have voted for" speculation is completely beside the point. The point is that an actual vote cast for Perot WAS NOT A VOTE FOR CLINTON. And Clinton's actual margin of victory in both elections was super-tiny - in '96 is what by a tenth of a percentage point, and in '92 he didn't even get a plurality of the vote at all. These are the facts. These are how people actually voted. Speculation is not necessary. "Centrism" is not a proven strategy for victory.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:43 (eighteen years ago) link

you're being incoherent. first you say speculation is unnecessary. then you deem Clinton's "actual margin of victory" in 96 to be the margin by which Clinton votes exceeded Dole plus Perot votes, thus assuming that all Perot voters would have voted for Dole. if you want to have a coherent argument, you have to argue that Clinton would have lost both times because in neither case did he get 50%. you also have to completely ignore the existence of the electoral college.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:48 (eighteen years ago) link

in plain English, your prized Democratic centrism has never appealed to a plurality of the American public, and has only resulted in electoral successes when there were already other (rather large) mitigating factors at work.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:49 (eighteen years ago) link

there's none of this "would have" bullshit! A vote for Perot is not a vote for Clinton OR Dole OR Bush, its a vote for Perot!! Why is this so hard to understand.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:50 (eighteen years ago) link

haha, in plain english, you have no response to actual numbers

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:50 (eighteen years ago) link

I'm the one dealing in actual numbers, your the one with the "what if" scenarios.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:53 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, could we see some numbers for the non-centrist Democratic presidential candidates, assuming there have been any? What kind of numbers did McGovern pull down? Never mind, I looked it up: 38%.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link

Except that centrism is a proven strategy for percentage-victory because Clinton still won the percentage?? I mean whether it is by .1% or by 100%, he still won the percentage majority of votes??? Gabbneb's right, you aren't making any sense.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link

but Clinton only won those margins because Perot was there to upset the electorate!

Back to square one...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:59 (eighteen years ago) link

if you look at how many people voted for Clinton's centrism - it is not a plurality. Ergo, the majority of American people didn't buy off on it.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:59 (eighteen years ago) link

Actually reading about the McGovern campaign gives me hope for the Dems. Suddenly 48% for Kerry doesn't seem so bad! If they seem lost in the woods now, think how lost they were back then.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:02 (eighteen years ago) link

No, Shakey, it's not back to square one, because whether or not Perot stole votes from XYZ, you're not going to gain MORE voters had Perot not run. I'm doing the same thing you are. Here is the percentage of people who voted for X. Here is the percentage of people who DIDN'T vote for X. X is greater than Y here. No matter how you want to spin it!

And yeah, far-leftist-candidates always do fantastic!

Wtf are you seriously talking about?

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:04 (eighteen years ago) link

In '91 more people voted AGAINST Clinton than for him. In '96, the percentage of people that voted for Clinton is only .1% larger than those that voted against him. I dunno how many more times I can repeat these obvious facts before you numbskulls get that Clinton's centrism did not impress >50% of the voting populace in either election. This would seem to rather clearly indicate that this brand of centrism is not really all that popular.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:09 (eighteen years ago) link

"In '91" should be "in '92" duh.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:09 (eighteen years ago) link

but y'know what I give up, you can have your useless, lost, ineffectual party. Enjoy!

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:10 (eighteen years ago) link

I think part of the problem is that we use words like 'centrist' and 'far-left' and assume that they're clearly defined positions, and we assume that the electorate buys these notions as well. Like I said before, you find numerous examples in the last election alone of things like Feingold winning by a landslide, Kerry winning by a sliver in WI. Ohio went to Bush yet it also elected 'far-left' reps like Kaptur and Kucinich. I do give people credit for thinking beyond terms like 'centrist,' 'far-right,' 'far-left' etc. Plenty of people (and how about people that don't vote that could be brought on board?) are willing to listen to candidates espouse 'far-left' positions like, say, corporate responsibility, bringing the troops home, etc. The point was made previously, it's more important that the candidate clearly stand for something - call that 'far-left' if you will, though 'far-left' to me will always mean SWP, IWW, etc.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:16 (eighteen years ago) link

Nobody in the fucking world besides you claimed that PEOPLE MUST ALWAYS GET A MAJORITY, NOT A PLURALITY, OF VOTES before the idea that "centrism (whatever it is at the time) is probably for best" becomes valid. Who the hell would use that as a marker for anything? The important thing is getting the most votes, right? Not impressing the entire world with your credentials.

xpost that's the thing, it'd be nice if SOMEONE on this thread would define their definitions of far this or far that or blah blah blah cos I'm not really sure how quite a few of the republicans being bandied around as democrat nemesises don't qualify as "centrist" in some way.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:19 (eighteen years ago) link

Also let's get one fucking thing straight here, you retard, I am not defending Clinton's brand of centrism one bit. I am instead pointing out that you are TALKING IN CIRCLES, NOT MAKING A SINGLE FUCKING POINT OR ESPOUSING ONE (1) IDEA BESIDES "GABBNEB IS WRONG." So, I guess you're a bit more of a centrist modern Democrat than you thought ha ha ha.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:20 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost I agree. "Centrist" is a meaningless term -- Dems should find ways of making their positions sound reasonable and centrist, "define" the center, etc.

But I wouldn't count to heavily on bringing non-voters on board. It's a nice bonus, and something to work hard on for the long term, but in any given election it seems to be a relatively minor factor unless you're running Arnold Schwarzenegger.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:21 (eighteen years ago) link

Skipping 9711 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.