― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:29 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:32 (eighteen years ago) link
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
xpost
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link
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
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:50 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link
Back to square one...
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:02 (eighteen years ago) link
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
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:10 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:16 (eighteen years ago) link
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
― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:20 (eighteen years ago) link
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
At any rate, he could've given up Colorado, Nevada, Louisiana, Georgia, AND Ohio to Bush and still would've won the election.
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:23 (eighteen years ago) link
no, you're the one with the 'what if' scenarios that involve something other than Clinton winning 96 by 8.5% of the vote.
and o. nate raises an interesting point. are Dem popular vote percentages directly proportional to moderation?
Truman - 50%Stevenson '52 - 44%Stevenson '56 - 42%Kennedy - 50%Johnson - 61%Humphrey - 43%McGovern - 38%Carter '76 - 51%Carter '80 - 41%Mondale - 41% Dukakis - 46%Clinton 92 - 43%Clinton 96 - 49%Gore - 48%Kerry - 48%
I'd say no. But they do seem pretty proportional to how comparatively Southern the Dem ticket was.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:25 (eighteen years ago) link
so your point is that Clinton would have lost if Perot hadn't run because more people voted for Dole + Perot + Nader + Harry Browne + write-ins than voted for Clinton, never mind that Dole + Perot were not > Clinton (and somehow imagining that the popular vote winner is automatically the EC winner)?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:28 (eighteen years ago) link
what they need to do is just start ignoring that shit. define themselves, and say "i don't care what blowhard bullies like bill o'reilly or dick cheney says, those guys are full of shit." right now, they seem so scared of what people say about them, which is a bad position to be in when the opposition controls talk radio and owns its own cable news network.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:28 (eighteen years ago) link
again you're counting votes for Perot as votes for Clinton?! why do you keep doing this? Clinton - 49.2%. Dole - 40.7%. Perot - 8.4%. % for Clinton = 49.2. % against Clinton = 49.1%. That is not an 8.5% margin of victory.
*bangs head against wall*
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:28 (eighteen years ago) link
Stevenson - 44%Stevenson - 42%Kennedy - 50%Johnson - 61%Humphrey - 47%McGovern - 38%Carter - 51%Carter - 43%Mondale - 41% Dukakis - 46%Clinton - 49%Clinton - 52%
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:36 (eighteen years ago) link
no, % against Clinton, following your logic, was 50.77%. but you know that if you argue that Clinton actually would have lost, rather than that Clinton actually won by a tiny percentage, your argument would fall apart under its own weight.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:40 (eighteen years ago) link
Dewey - 47%Ike - 55%Ike - 57%Nixon - 50%Goldwater - 38%Nixon - 48%Nixon - 61%Ford - 48%Reagan - 55%Reagan - 59%Bush I - 53%Bush I - 50%Dole - 46%Bush II - 48%Bush II - 51%
seem pretty proportional to non-wussiness + perceived centrism to me
oh, and look at these numbers and tell me we're losing because we aren't far left enough
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:09 (eighteen years ago) link
I think Bush has taken more trouble to burnish his centrist credentials than y'all are giving him credit for: boosting federal education spending, giving prescription drug benefits to seniors, nominating minorities to prominent administration positions - none of these are actions that would align him with the stereotypical image of the reactionary right.
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:11 (eighteen years ago) link
On the face of it that would seem to be disgusting partisanship during a time of war. But I'm only going by what I've read on certain blogs. Is there some fundamental difference between the use of executive privilege by Clinton and Bush that I'm not aware of?
― slb, Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:14 (eighteen years ago) link
which is exactly the same thing as centrism + non-wussiness. totally otm.
it's important to be centrist-appearing in policy as well, but it's the personal style and attitudes that stand in for ideology with middle of the road voters that come first.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:24 (eighteen years ago) link
xpost- ok, well, good luck on election day. May Dem lack of gutsiness or inspiration serve them well.
Back to Perot for a second - he did prove that, yeah, sometimes people want to hear something outside the limited framework of what's deemed acceptable. The Dems would do well to at least take a lesson from his willingness to say things nobody else was at the time. People respond to that.
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:30 (eighteen years ago) link
OTM.
If Democrats just went out and told the truth, they'd have a lot easier time getting those who don't typically vote and are disillusioned with the system (about half the country) to make up for the conservative base. Hell, they'd probably pull a few republicans while they're at it. But as long as they choose "safe" candidates over good candidates, fuck it, its tough for me to get behind them (no matter how bad the republican party is).
― Alan Conceicao (Alan Conceicao), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:35 (eighteen years ago) link
you still don't get it
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:49 (eighteen years ago) link
It must be difficult being the bearer of truth when nobody wants to listen. Don't give up though.
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 27 January 2006 00:06 (eighteen years ago) link
this is because Feingold is very good at doing exactly what I argue for on this thread - arguing his position to voters in the middle or on the other side in respectful but firm language that reflects conviction that his ideas are right and in the center, but not attacking or being histrionically angry. he would conceivably be my top prez or veep choice (other than the fact that he isn't in an executive position and can't point to many accomplishments) if he weren't twice-divorced and Jewish, which I'm afraid are sufficient for enough voters to say he isn't for the things I'm for.
but the idea that he wins because he's the down-the-line leftist and Kerry isn't is ridiculous. which one of these guys voted for Roberts?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 27 January 2006 00:07 (eighteen years ago) link