Interesting. I guess different people see different things. 
I’d call that a false dichotomy, if you are setting it up as an either-or situation. However, if I had to pick a more winning strategy, Pub-lite would beat Hard Left any day of the week, when Hard Left means higher taxes, bigger entitlement programs and an ingrained antipathy towards business.
Out of curiosity, if Pelosi is a ‘centrist’, who DO you think is a good representative of the left? Who would you like to see represent the Democrats and drive them forward in the next election cycle?
-XT
You have it exactly backwards, in my view.
The Democrats may lose if they run a moderate, but they will lose and by a landslide if they run someone from the left wing. Do you really think a Russ Feingold (for example) would have even the slightest prayer of winning?
To win a national election, you must convince swing voters.
:rolleyes: Why not throw baby-eating and satan worshipping in there. Wait, Karl Rove will do that for us. Seriously, if the Democrats allow the process to be owned so completely by the Republicans that we are labeled that way, sure, there wouldn’t be much of a chance. If this is the way you see Democrats, I think it’s a good example of not having much of a chance to sway you.
I very much like the way Harry Reid has been going about things. Howard Dean seems to have developed a very strong strategy as well. I think the Democratic party could use more leaders like these folks.
I don’t see why he wouldn’t have a chance of winning.
Tried that. Didn’t work. On the other hand, do you think that the “Architect” was going after swing voters? We’ve got to abandon this loser mindset. It both loses elections, and gives Democrats no name - we don’t stand for anything other than a desire not to alienate voters.
Fair enough…and thanks. I was curious where your thinking was on this. And I agree…based on your requirements, those guys would both be good representatives for the Democratic party you seem to desire.
-XT
Dude, do you kow the meaning of the word “if”? Re-read my post and take note. There are different ways of being not-Republican, and it’s possible to do so without demonizing business, for one thing. I was simply pointing out the wrong way to be not-Republicn (IMO). Kerry dipped his toe in that water during the presidential campaign with his reference to Benedict Arnold CEOs shipping jobs overseas (although I wouldn’t say he’s firmly in that camp). That kind of rhetoric plays well to a certain populist base, but isnt going to win over people like me. I know there are Democrats who champion civil and indiviual rights without looking for a government solution to practically every social problem out there. Surely you’re not going to tell me that there aren’t some who do.
More’s the pity.
Feingold can win Minnesota, Massachusetts, maybe California, maybe a couple more northeastern states. But that’s about it.
Worked for Clinton. Worked for Carter. Worked for Kennedy. Worked for Truman. Worked for Johnson. Worked (at least in terms of popular vote) for Gore. Didn’t work for Kerry because no one bought him as a “moderate.” Besides which, he was a disaster as a campaigner (and in my opinion a bit of a dim bulb).
Abso-frickin’-lutely. Every time an election year rolled around.
What’s this “we” stuff, paleface?
Well, if the “swing voters” are those people that Rove appeals to with the gay marriage amendment or “Democrats are going to take the bible from out of your hands” stuff that he pulls out every election year, there’s not much we can do. On the other hand, if these election year appeals may be more accurately characterized as “appealing to the base” and not “swing voters,” it seems we might be able to win by appealing to our base instead of trying to appeal to theirs, and simultaneously demonstrating that we are a distinct party and distinct choice.
Me and the Democrats. Place yourself as you will.
A single counterexample doesn’t sway me much, especially when that counterexample is a guy who could make a beautiful living selling extension cords to the Amish.
–Cliffy
I gave FIVE examples. Namely, the last five Democratic presidents.
Those who forget history, etc.
Those of us who remember 1976 clearly remember being treated to the unusual spectacle of a Dem winning his party’s Presidential nomination by running to the center in the primaries, then running left in the general election. (His campaign people were worried about independent candidate Gene McCarthy siphoning off votes from the left. No, really, it’s true. And yes, it was stupid of them.)
But 1976 is another era politically. Hell, even 1996 is.
As for appeals to swing voters, Bush and his Dark Master gave us:
“Compassionate conservatism” (a lie, but one directed at swing voters)
“Blueprint for the Middle Class” (a 2000 theme, again directed at middle class swing voters)
Promises of tax cuts for all (which of course turned out to be weighted toward the very rich, and didn’t mention the resulting deficit explosion)
End the “death tax” to “save family farms and small businesses” (which was bullshit rhetoric intended to confuse the middle class swing voters)
No child left behind
Prescription drug benefits (pure appeal to swing voters)
If you think Republicans appealed solely to their base, you weren’t paying attention.
History includes Gore and Kerry. I’d rather not be doomed to repeat that. And as sympathetic as I am to the fact that Gore won the popular vote, he did not win the election.
And you’ll forgive me, I hope, if I find your citing of every Democratic president of the past 60 years as a reasonable argument. Seems pretty circular (presidents who won must have been centrist), can you demonstrate how their victories apply to your present argument that the Democrats should appeal to right of center voters/be centrist in order to win?
I’ve got a better idea. You name the last purist liberal who won a national election.
But as you note, much of their actual policy was bullshit. It doesn’t mean that we should come out with support for the “death tax”; rather we should counter by expressly stating the Democratic position. In the case of the estate tax, the Democrat position is the populist position - the furthering of the gap between the exceptionally rich and the rest of us is neither good for America nor conducive to maintaining an equal playing field. Rewarding Paris Hilton for being a layabout heiress giving blowjobs instead of hardworking Americans really sucks.
So, rather than running scared from a platform based on bullshit and lies for fear of alienating voters, come out strongly for what we believe in. It’s much more attractive than the tentative DLC strategy we’ve been suffering with. Quit letting them dictate the terms of the debate with phony labels! GAH! This bullshit pisses me off!
I couldn’t agree with you more on this point.
I’m not saying Bush’s policies were genuinely helpful to the middle class or to swing voters, only that he did not ignore swing voters as you claimed previously. He made campaign promises (hollow though they may have been) directed at them.
Nobody ignores the vast middle and wins and the national level.
Excellent point…and one I wish the Dems would take to heart. Unfortunately its a point the left wing of your party really doesn’t believe, deep down…or they really believe deep down that the vast center is further to the left than they actually are.
Your point about Bill Clinton was spot on BTW…at least IMHO. I never have understood why the Dems don’t take that example to heart. He was, bar none, THE most successful Dem president in decades…and one of the most successful presidents of either party in decades. Flawed as he was, I don’t get why the Dems don’t see WHY he was so successful and take steps to incorporate that success into the party…
-XT
Hentor, we have some points of fundamental agreement. I agree that Democrats should not “run scared.” We’ve done a lousy job of showing how our policies benefit the middle class. (I am as disgusted as you about the way Democrats rolled over during the campaign on the estate tax issue. Kerry should have articulated that issue much more clearly and effectively.)
But the point is you do have to appeal to the middle class in general and swing state voters in particular. While there is a strong argument to be made that Democratic economic policies would benefit the middle class, we have to realize that not all of our social policies are equally palatable to middle-America’s voters.
Examples:
I (and probably most Democrats) would be in favor of teaching evolution and not creationism in the classroom. A purist candidate would proclaim this as policy. Would that be wise from an electoral standpoint?
I (and probably most Democrats) would not favor courthouse religious displays. But would it be wise to get caught up in that debate on the campaign trail?
I (and probably most Democrats) would favor abortion rights. But do you want to alienate someone who is pro-life but agrees with us on economic policy?
I (and probably most Democrats) would not object to gay marriage. But should a Democratic candidate take a pricipled stand on this issue? Is it worth losing the election?
The tightrope Democrats must walk is to appeal to the middle class on pocketbook issues without alienating them on social issues. A “moderate” candidate can do this. A “purist” candidate cannot.
And there are social issues where the moderate Democrat can make ground. For example, I think a Democratic candidate in 2008 could make some hay with a generalized appeal to the “right to privacy,” hammering on the fact that Republican judicial appointees don’t seem to believe one exists. That way, you send a coded message to abortion rights supporters, while also appealing to civil libertarians in the middle who are jealously protective of their privacy.
I think that is part of the problem, actually. A lot of Democrats I know surround themselves with like-minded folks, and then manage to brainwash themselves into believing most people agree with them.
“Oh if only a candidate would step up and offer a purist Democratic platform, America would rally to the cause! Ask any of my friends!”