Democratic (Party) Direction

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

Wtf are you seriously talking about?

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.

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.

At any rate, he could've given up Colorado, Nevada, Louisiana, Georgia, AND Ohio to Bush and still would've won the election.

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.

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)?

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.

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*

Stevenson - 44%
Stevenson - 42%
Kennedy - 50%
Johnson - 61%
Humphrey - 47%
McGovern - 38%
Carter - 51%
Carter - 43%
Mondale - 41%
Dukakis - 46%
Clinton - 49%
Clinton - 52%

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

you still don't get it

It must be difficult being the bearer of truth when nobody wants to listen. Don't give up though.

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?

Well, the only way I can see them wooing any of the half of America who can't care to vote is by admitting that they've made their fair share of mistakes along with being honest and straightforward. This is a country in which 20% of the voting populace (in an election that saw fairly impressive turnout too) voted for Ross Perot; the people are there to cast the votes. They just need to make a half decent attempt at moving towards them. It may take someone from outside the traditional political machine to do this for the Democrats, really.

the Republicans are totally foaming at the mouth hoping Hillary will run. (and no I wasn't necessarily referring to you gabnebb - tho I don't particularly find Warner or Obama all that great, as I've said. I don't know anything about Schweitzer. I do know I'm not voting for anyone who was stupid enough to be pro-war. I held my nose and did it for Kerry and I won't do it again.)

That wasn't my point in using that example - just the opposite, that he wins by a landslide despite being perceived as being the most leftist senator. The example is meant to poke a hole in your idea that one must be this, or one must be that; that's just marketing research nonsense, people don't think that way. People don't care about "centrist" or "far left," which is obv when it can only be the case that people who voted Bush ALSO voted Feingold. There's no point in trying to cling to an ever-shifting and vague idea of what is centrist. Take a stand on the issues, period. Dems who do this do well. Who really misses Daschle? Despite nobody wanting Bush as prez, is anybody really crushed that Kerry isn't?

Re Hillary, her early numbers are embarrassing. Romney v Clinton? Hahahah, I'll stay home.

this is why she has no serious opponent. but part of me thinks she's playing a double game - she's building up the presidential prospect in order to get a bye into another 6 years in the Senate.

People don't care about "centrist" or "far left,"

I agree, as a matter of ideology. But I'm using 'center' and 'left' as stand-ins for deviations from the cultural/attitudinal middle. I'm not arguing for clinging to an ideological center, I'm arguing for giving an attitudinally-centrist frame to your positions and programs (which need not change very much, though they might change at the margins).

That's the kind of myopc attitude that lets the Karl Roves of this world eat you up. There are fringes to the party, sure, but the more obvious they are the more they are used against you.

But I'm using 'center' and 'left' as stand-ins for deviations from the cultural/attitudinal middle. I'm not arguing for clinging to an ideological center, I'm arguing for giving an attitudinally-centrist frame to your positions and programs (which need not change very much, though they might change at the margins)

Is this triangulation with a new haircut?

What it seems you're saying is that if a reguarl tough guy candidate avoids polarizing moments of ego and clings to Senate life raft of compromise politics, then that is the winning formula.

this is so wrong! the democrats don't get hammered for being fringey or lefty, they get hammered for being Pussies Who Can't Keep You Safe From the Boogeyman!

The only thing that's stopping the Democrats gaining power is that they seem weak on national security during a time of war. And, in that context, whining on about wire-tapping terrorists is, in terms of their chance of ever gaining power again, the worst thing they could possibly do.

In addition, i) unlike those two 'great' presidents, Bush hasn't jailed his critics, suspended habeous corpus, or interned those of the same race as the enemy, so by precedent, has not behaved in the exteme fashion which was tolerated by former presidents the Democrats profess to revere.

and ii) It's not even clear that he even broke the law at all.

And (to repeat what I said above) even if he did, how can Democrats not seem to be disgustingly partisan during a time of national crisis when they condemn Bush's okay-ing the warrantless wire-tapping of people's phone conversations with members of a group that have explicitly declared war against America, but did not say a word that Clinton's okaying of warrantless wire-tapping of US citizens who merely had connections with members of organised crime?

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?

By whom? A majority of Americans are open to impeachment proceedings if he broke the law, and it seems clear he did. I'd call this another missed opportunity -- Dems sit on their asses afraid of being called any number of things and the moment passes. And no, there's no difference between Clinton and Bush in regards to abuse of executive privilege -- in fact Bush deserves some credit for being more candid -- but that doesn't change the grim reality or let Bush off the hook. That seems like a no brainer.

race, religion - ahhh whodafuckcares?!

But, leaving that aside, I think if the Dems want to persue this line of attack, their only chance of having it pay off would be to simultaneously bring legal proceedings against Clinton for the same crime. Anything less is going to get called treasonous opportunistic partisanship, whether it is or not. They're not going to do that, obviously. So they should just drop this and start playing to their strengths.