Democratic (Party) Direction

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.

You haven't got a leg to stand on.

Democrats are really on a mission to nowhere if they think anything positive is going to come from this line of attack.

Does that mean you think I'm wrong?

How confident are you? How about this -

I'll give you 2 to 1 that Bush won't be successfully impeached. Nevermind whether a Democratic presidency will follow. I.e. you lay down any amount of money with a third party and I'll lay down double. If Bush is successfully impeached you win the lot, if he isn't I win the lot.

I can afford up to £1000 for this bet. (to be held by a third party)

well yes, but what it really means is i think you can go have your bogus white house talking points debunked on about 75,000 liberal blogs, and it would be pointless to regurgitate the argument here. or, conversely, you can go have them applauded on about 75,000 rightwing blogs.

1) "After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants. Do you approve or disapprove of this?"

2) "After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants, saying this was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of this?"

To question #1, 46% approve and 50% disapprove. To question #2, 53% approve and 46% disapprove. So it sounds like as long as Bush continues to harp on the terrorism angle, public opinion is likely to remain on his side - which makes impeachment seem rather unlikely.

Yes, Democrats should make an issue, but they MUST MUST MUST harp on the potential for ABUSE and not just the illegality.

Dems have to make an issue out of it in order to be a credible opposition party (and besides, it's the right thing to do), but also should not expect it to be an election-winning issue and should in no way make it the focus of any campaign.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134929/

Liberals are not nearly so rare and so culturally isolated as the official map would suggest. This is little comfort to Democrats when it comes to the math of winning elections. But it does suggest that endless self-flagellation about their values and beliefs may not be the best strategy for turning things around.

This is not an argument for complacency. Obviously the party that has lost the White House, both houses of Congress, and now the courts needs some new ideas and new energy. But it seems undeniably true to me — though many deny it — that the Republicans simply play the game better. You're not supposed to say that. At Pundit School they teach you: Always go for the deeper explanation, not the shallower one. Never suggest that people (let alone "the" people) can be duped.

First, it failed the party. People are more reluctant to identify themselves as liberals or propgressives than they wre in 1988 and one of the reasons is that people like Al From and his boys helped the Republicans degrade the label to such an extent that people don't want to be associated with it. It is one thing to criticize your brothers; it's another to sully the family name. They continue to do this by talking about purging Michael Moore and Move-On and generally showing such a lack of respect for the grassroots that you wonder why they don't just call us all filthy rabble and tell us to eat cake. The lesson here is to never employ GOP rhetoric about the Democratic Party, ever. This is one thing that simply has got to stop.

I agree with don't-distance-yourself-from-the-party. But look at his examples - neither Moore nor MoveOn is actually part of the party. I'm ok with distancing yourself from allies who you think don't understand the playbook and insist on running the wrong plays. That's exactly what the left blogosphere does to Lieberman, et al all the time, and it's hypocritical to suggest otherwise. And maybe we even benefit from this division, the way the GOP does from its Wall Street and fundy division at the lower levels. But at some point, to come up with a national message, one side is probably going to have to give on which playbook is right, because unity on the wrong strategy may be preferable to division - Kerry and Gore were arguably easy to paint as wafflers because they spent a lot of time trying to avoid picking sides, Hillary will probably be easy to paint in the same light because she appears to be trying to pick both sides simultaneously, and Warner or some similarly fresh equivalent is arguably the best choice in 08 because they can be another Clintonian rorschach test. But what I've been trying to do on this thread, and I think a lot of people in the party are trying to do, is to come up with a third way that unites the two playbooks.

As to the DLC boogeyman, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Al From is some evil dude, but all I really see in support of that contention is the certainty of the speaker, not much substantive evidence.

But most of the people they engage are. Exactly what were the fruits of Clinton's "fourth way" (first I've heard of it)?