You’re right, and I think it’s a good point, but … this election may be a little different for the Dems in the sense that the electoral theft in 2000 has really got the Democratic faithful energized and angry, whereas to the center it’s another political yawner.
I think if the Dem candidates totally ignore their core, they may risk losing them not just in the primaries buy in the general election too. I mean, the Dems lost a LOT of voters to the Greens last year. If some centrist booby like Lieberman gets elected, a lot of folks will be looking very hard at the Greens and any other third party candidates that present themselves. So to my mind the risk lies in playing too hard to the center, who are going to vote primarily on economics issues and threat issues anyway.
We all know any Repub administration is going to be worse than any Dem administration overall, but when the Dems don’t pay any more attention to their core constituency than the Repubs do, third parties get REALLY attractive. The Dems need to work very hard at not looking like Republicrats.
Oh, and another question, which lie do you leftists spout right now?
Did Nader steal the election from Gore because “the Dems lost a LOT of voters to the Greens” or did Nader’s presence in the race really make no difference? You leftists have got to keep your lies straight.
I’ll accept the last sentence as being correct, i.e. “Given that sober diplomatic internationalism was powerless to prevent or dislodge the Taliban, the Bushidos, or the 9/11ers, they do have something of a case.” The attack on Afghanistan post 9/11 was widely acknowledged as an appropriate response.
However, it’s now common knowledge that the Iraq invasion was planned prior to 9/11. 9/11 was the excuse that enabled the pre-determined plan to go ahead. It was not an appropriate response to 9/11, it wasn’t a response to 9/11 at all.
There must be some middle ground between ineffective “sober diplomatic internationalism” and ineffective drunken frat-boy internationalism.
a) Bush ran as a moderate. He hasn’t played one since taking office, but he ran as one.
b) The majority of voters voted for either Gore or Nader. In fact, as I’m sure you’re well aware, the majority voted for Gore, period, but more to the point, you get a bigger majority for the overall left-center vote adding in Nader votes. If it had been purely a two-candidate race, and we assume that Bush would have received the votes cast for Buchanan and any other right-wing candidate while Gore would have received the votes cast for Nader and any other leftish candidate, the majority vote was significantly tilted to the left. (i.e., Nader drained off more lefty votes than Buchanan drained off rightish votes). Heck, if some of the reports from Florida were true, Buchanan actually drained off some LEFT votes!
In short, the fact that we currently have a rather distinctively right administration is a bit of an anomaly. It isn’t an accurate reflection of the political mood of the country. Oh, and…
c) I don’t see any Democratic candidates except perhaps Al Sharpton making sounds reminiscent of Mondale or McGovern. Neither Dean nor Clark should have major problems representing themselves as moderate centrists unless they turn out to be inept campaigners.
The truth is that Nader played the spoiler in 2000. Furthermore, Nader didn’t need to get A LOT of votes to make a difference.
Gore “lost” Flordia by approx. 500 votes
Nader garnered 95,000 votes in Florida.
Granted most of the Nader supporters would NOT have voted for Gore for any number of reasons: didn’t see any difference between Gore and Bush, things have to get worse before they can get better, or were just attracted by Nader’s anti-charsima.
But I think it is fair to beleive a very small percentage of the Nader voters were mad at Clinton and Gore for not being anywhere near “liberal”, and voted for Nader just to spite Gore. A vote which some of them now deeply regret.
At least 1%, or 950 Florida Nader voters have to be kicking themselves right now for wasting their vote on Ralph Nader, thereby handing the election to Bush.
Buchanan got 3000 votes from a punchcard voting Jewish enclave elderly community near West Palm Beach, which a whole lot of them thought the votes were in error. When that anamoly was brought up, I knew Gore has lost, because the Democrats in Florida betrayed him.
The elderly are not going to make that same mistake.
I keep seeing Republicans referring to Howard Dean as a “far left” or “hard left” candidate, but they never seem to follow up with an example of a position of his that fits the label. Does anyone want to provide me with the evidence of Dean’s far-left looniness, or is this just another example of name-calling?
PS I hope that nobody will claim that Dean’s opposition to the unnecessary war in Iraq is an example of a far-left position, because there are tens of millions of people who share that opinion. To me, a far-left position is one that only a small minority of hard-core leftists embraces. After all, that is what the term “far-left” means, doesn’t it?
Play the assumption that Democrats lean Left and Repubs lean Right and that both blocks are equal.
Which is a better tactic?
Be milquetoast middle of the road and fail to inspire your core to come out … aka “Bush lite”
Or stand for some moderate liberal values that you believe in with vigor and articulation … risking losing some of the middle to Bush but bringing out your core voters?
We’re on pretty much the same page here, except that I think the center will vote heavily on the economy if it doesn’t become a jobFUL recovery by summer of 04.
The obvious Dem strategy is to play the economy card hard to get the middle and say things to get your core vote out in relation to other topics. Playing up the electoral theft in the 2000 election wouldn’t hurt either – it energizes the core and only loses you Repub votes that you never had anyway.
The other key would be to not make any specific proposals – don’t run on your own program, the Repub media will spin the hell out of anything you say. Attack Bush, he’s the incumbent. Make evkery discussion a debate about Bush’s effectiveness as an economic leader.
I agree with this, pretty much. I just think there is a large proportion of people who could be called ‘individualist’, and since niether party supports individual rights in a consistant fashion, niether party gets or will get the consitant support of these people.
And I strongly disagree that the Dems should try to hammer on the economy, since Bush, economically, is damn near a Dem allready and its his tarrifs and support of subsidies that is partly holding the economy back. It doesnt make any sense to cut taxes and raise tarrifs, thats just stupid.
I mean come on, when it comes to economics the Dems are pretty well mentally handicapped. But to point out the flaws in Bushes economics, the Dems would all of sudden become Free Traders, and I doubt thats going to happen again any time soon.
And it’d be real surprising if the demos don’t pounce on a Bush request, due in ~Sep 2004, for another $ 87,000,000,000 in extra-budgetary funding to finance yet a second year of “liberating Iraq.” Barring of course, the revelation of some serious WMD threats.
I give Bush credit for one thing - he has turned passive Democrats into rabid Democrats.
Today at work, the flag-waving, pro-war secretary was on her soapbox again, this time about not going to see any more Johnny Depp films because he supposedly said he would never let his children grow up in America.
Now normally, in this rather conservative law firm, people would mutter, nod heads and walk away.
Not today. One woman in her 60’s said, “Bullshit. Can’t someone have a different point of view without being boycotted?”
Suddenly, a single mother secretary said, “It’s the new Bush mentality. If you don’t agree, you’re the enemy.”
Well, suddenly, people were pipping up all over the place and it was like a secret door had been opened. For the first time in two years I have worked there, Democrats came roaring out of the closet and gave their two cents. I was in shock…seriously. These were pretty pissed off people suddenly letting loose a lot of pent up feelings. And for the first time, the secretary who had been posting all the little pro-war notices in the lunch room was speechless.
Granted, this is a tiny group of people in a little law firm, but if this is any indication of the way the next election is going, I think the “center” has just been moved a huge way to the left.
I can’t remember the site (MSNBC?) but there was a recent op-ed about how this coming election might be the most divisive election in recent history. I think there is not going to be much of a move to the center by either party. The issues are pretty much cut and dried.
I would rather see Dean stick to his guns and go down in a ball of flames than see some wimp Dem try to win over a few disgruntled Republicans. And I still think Bush is vulnerable - even against a so-called liberal like Dean.
Finally, someone who actually gives figures from studies. Thanks!
15% may be smaller than other estimates but it sure aint small. That’s 40 million unimaginative idiots, presumably adults, out there.
In another surveys (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm), people in several majority-Christian countries (plus Israel) were asked if they believed that “The Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word.” This sounds like a good definition of an evangelical to me, and it’s nice and specific. Anyway, 33.5% of Americans said yes. The figure was only similar or higher in N.Ireland (33%), Poland (37%) and the Philippines (54%). The figures for other countries were (after rounding to nearest whole number)
27% Italy, Israel (wow - that high - did they mean just the Old Testament?)
25% Ireland
22% Slovenia
19% Hungary
13% Austria, former West Germany
11% Norway
10% Russia
9% New Zealand
8% Holland
7% former East Germany, Britain
The poll was taken in 1991. Note that Poland, Ireland, Italy and the Philippines are predominantly Catholic, and that the Catholics have a slightly different Bible from Protestants.
The site with the above information is pro-religious tolerance. I only tolerate the three religions of the book because I can’t figure out how to get rid of them.
Rubbish. Tell me, why are so many righties so mentally handicapped? I’ve got no objection to righties who are not idiots, like Rumsfeld or Rowe. At least they’re being very smart in pursuing their interests, which just happen not to coincide with those of the nation as a whole.
Are you saying Bush is “damn near a Dem” because he cuts taxes? I don’t think raising tariffs goes one party or the other, though I could be wrong. Which tariffs are you talking about anyway? Free trade is not a leftwing principle at the moment, neither is support of subsidies. It may be a Democratic policy (it’s certainly a Rep one), since American politicians representing states with heavy agric/industrial sector reliance don’t have a choice on the issue.
And needless to say, America’s definition of center would be called rightwing in other First World countries. What’s so bad about universal healthcare?
Republican administrations can easily run up deficits a lot worse than Democrats. Sure, they cut public spending by x, and then find other fun projects (often, but not always, involving the military) to spend 2x on. And that doesn’t even get to the effects of spending. The economy does do better when money is put into public programs. Why was there a deficit in Reagan’s time and surplus in Clinton’s and a deficit now? It wasn’t just bubble.com, it’s because ordinary people often need a push to get started. Go back to Roosevelt and Hoover if you must. Read some history. Go, think. Shoo, shoo. Don’t come back till you do.