Moderate Democrat defeats traditional liberal in VA primary

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@spoke-

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!”

On the other hand, many Democrats seem to have brainwashed themselves into believing “Oh, if only we had avoided alienating just a few more people, they would have voted for us because they were so un-alienated by us!! Just ask them!”

So, we offer them this as our stance: “We are kind of for gay marriage, but only if it doesn’t make you feel bad. We are strong believers in science in the classroom, but we’d rather not talk about it if you don’t. We favor the separation of church and state, but shhhhh! We kind of think a woman should have the ultimate choice in regards to her body, but ixnay on the oicechay.”

I wouldn’t vote for people like that if I didn’t know better. They sound like pussies.

[John_Mace]

There’s a large untapped need for a fiscally responsible party right now. The Dems should be jumping all over that. But they have to be more creative than just saying they’ll raise taxes on “the rich” to balance the budget. That just doesn’t play well to enough people. Never talk about tax increases without also talking about spending cuts. Identify a few obsolute social programs that either need drastic reform or gutting-- that’ll show a few fence sitters that the Dems are serious.

On social issues, don’t be afraid of a little federalism now and then. Gay marriage? Leave it up to the states. (Which is pretty much what the Dems have done, to their credit.) As much as I favor SSM, I don’t think the American people will buy that in most states yet. Civil Unions are a necessary compromise, and as much as they sound like the old separate but equal, there are enough differences that I don’t think the analgoy holds. Do not push for a judicial solution to this at the national level-- that would be as bad for the Dems as an overtunring of *Roe *would be for the Pubbies.

Iraq? Americans want to know when we’re getting out, but don’t just say “immediate pullout”. A phased draw-down of troops starting now, would play perfectly (and I think it’s the right thing to do). Phrase it as giving Iraqis incentives to “stand up” (as Bush likes to say), not as a means of gettin’ out and gettin’ out fast. (Hillary is smart about this, btw, and has been saying exactly what I’'m recommending.)

[Spoke]

@Hentor the Barbarian

I wouldn’t vote for people like that if I didn’t know better. They sound like pussies.

Really? So you haven’t voted for any Democratic candidate in the past 50 years? Because they’ve all been (wisely) wishy-washy on the campaign trail on social issues.

You do what it takes to get elected, and then you try to do some good when you safely in office. Just like in Primary Colors.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

There’s a large untapped need for a fiscally responsible party right now.

What makes you think that? I haven’t seen any protest marches against the deficit lately.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@BrainGlutton

What makes you think that? I haven’t seen any protest marches against the deficit lately.

The people are shouting out “Lockbox! Lockbox!”

[RTFirefly]

@spoke-

I’ve got a better idea. You name the last purist liberal who won a national election.

“Purist liberal” takes you a long way out there, so you’re winning the argument by your choice of words.

I’d argue that LBJ in 1964 ran and won as an unabashed liberal. Civil rights, Medicare, the Great Society, and yes, he was running as the peace candidate that year; this was pre-escalation, and Goldwater was the hawkish candidate on Vietnam and pretty much everything else.

Given what I said about Carter in post 52, my take is that you’ve got to go back to 1960 to find the last Dem before Clinton who ran and won the Presidency as a centrist. That’s a long way back.

[Spoke]

Carter did not run as a liberal. You may recall that he scored points when Ford made a debate flub and talked about how the Soviets did not dominate eastern Europe. Carter took the opportunity to make himself look tough on communism by comparison.

Carter proudly proclaimed his born-again Christianity. That also was an appeal to centrist voters.

(Like I said, no one ignores the center and wins.)

Other than offering amnesty to draft resisters, I can’t think of anything particularly “liberal” about Carter’s campaign. Can you give examples?

You have a better argument with LBJ, but LBJ had the advantage of relying on yellow-dog Democrats in the South, as well as sentimental support following the death of Kennedy. (Even so, Johnson dropped several Southern states because of his support of the Civil Rights Act.) He also had the good fortune to have an opponent who talked openly about using nuclear weapons, which scared the hell out of the electorate. None of these advantages are available to a modern Democratic candidate.

[cosmosdan]

@RTFirefly

To John Mace. But you presented it to me as a response to my question: “On the Dem side, who are these extremists, what sort of influence do they have, what are some examples of their extremism?”

Except, of course, it wasn’t.

Correct. It meant, perhaps “extremists” was a poor choice.

Since the issue I raised with you was the italicized question above, your answer seems to be, “I was wrong, there are hardly any Dem extremists, but they’re a bunch of ineffectual wimps who can’t communicate.”

That’s close enough. By extremists I was referring to what I see as a reluctance to compromise on certain issue that seem to be identified as “this is what a real liberal democratic thinks” I get Emails that seem to assume a good liberal should support X, Y Z, or that I should write my congressmen to complain about things. It seems like political crap to me rather than an honest discussion of the issues. My feeling is that moderates are more likely to have that honest discussion rather than a knee jerk party line response. Maybe not.

If that’s your answer, it’s an answer I won’t argue with. Lord knows I’ve got lots of problems with the Democratic Party as it’s been since 9/11; they’re a mess, and no question about it.

But extremism isn’t among the reasons they’re a mess. At least extremists stand for something, which is more than the Democratic Party can be counted on to do.

Fair enough. I stand corrected and we agree.

[cosmosdan]

@Cliffy

But IMO this battle has been going on pretty consistently since 2000 (even before, somewhat), the “moderates” have consistenly had the upper hand when November rolls around, and then the GOP hands them their asses. While I agree that “They suck harder” isn’t the be-all and end-all of an effective platform, “We’re just like them, but half the calories!” is worse. Because if your political strategy is that you’re just like the oppnents who have had more recent success, why would anyone vote for you instead of the real deal?

–Cliffy

IMHO it’s the BS and the political games rather than integrity and an honest assessment about the issues that Joe Average is sooooo sick of.

I encourage any candidate to speak about the issues with honesty and a little moral courage. There are plenty of serious issues to address in an honest straight forward way. McCain gained popularity for being a straight shooter and showing that he sincerely wanted to do what he felt was right for all Americans not just campaign contributors. What if a national party tried to cultivate that same kind of directness and honesty by seeking out those kind of candidates accross the country? A naive pipe dream I guess.

The Dems will never effectively fight corruption in the GOP until they take a firm stand against their own.

[cosmosdan]

@John Mace

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.

I’m with you. I think it’s time for some honest politician {jumbo shrimp?} to talk straight and tell folks 'yes we want to be part of a nation that reaches out to the less fortunate. Just be aware that nobody owes you anything. It is your obligation as a citizen to do as much as possible. to help yourself and to make a contribution to your society.

and,… We want businesses to succeed and be profitable. We want them to be responsible citizens who don’t sacrifice the welfare of their employees or the environment for the sake of “more and more” profit. We need to look further ahead than quarterly profits and projections.

I favor a flat tax. I haven’t looked at the fair tax yet. I don’t think someone who is smart, motivated , and hard working, should be penalized by getting into ridiculous tax brackets. I also think we need to move away from the government as big brother who takes care of everybody. They’ve proved they are horribly inefficient when it comes to programs. I prefer more private non profit organizations to help folks.

[Evil_One]

@BrainGlutton

Or maybe not.

My expection of objective analysis was low when I saw that I was reading information from “the electronic strategy center for building the new majority”.

Your cite basically says that there are two ways of looking at the November election. The big national picture looks good for the democrats based on national poll numbers. However, this is not a national election. It is 455 little ones.

And based on that perpective, even “The Emerging Democratic Majority” weblog acknowledges that winning either house will be an uphill battle when the races are analyzed one by one.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@cosmosdan

The Dems will never effectively fight corruption in the GOP until they take a firm stand against their own.

One of the things I’ve disliked about Pelosi is her unwillingness to push for investigation and punishment of wrongdoing. Speculation holds that she would be afraid that when the gloves are off, some Democrats might be held to scrutiny. I’d rather she let the chips fall where they may and bring the party back to a clear position of integrity, rather than being clearly less corrupt by comparison to the Republicans.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

“Purist liberal” takes you a long way out there, so you’re winning the argument by your choice of words.

I’d argue that LBJ in 1964 ran and won as an unabashed liberal. Civil rights, Medicare, the Great Society, and yes, he was running as the peace candidate that year; this was pre-escalation, and Goldwater was the hawkish candidate on Vietnam and pretty much everything else.

Given what I said about Carter in post 52, my take is that you’ve got to go back to 1960 to find the last Dem before Clinton who ran and won the Presidency as a centrist. That’s a long way back.

But there are only two data points inbetween, and both have special circumstances that got them elected, followed by utter failure.

Johnson was a sitting president having taken over when Kennedy was killed. So, basically he rode Kennedy’s late coattails into the WH. After one full year in the office his presidency was such a failure he didn’t even run again. Carter was elected after the Nixon scandal, but was slaughter by Reagan after people saw what he had to offer. And then there was Bill, who successfully challlenged a fairly successful president, had 2 full tems in office, and left with a pretty high approval rating (even though he had been impeached!).

Honestly, RTF, do you really believe a solidly left-of-center Dem candidate could win? Maybe if “W” were running again, but he ain’t.

[Sailboat]

The Washington Post had an interesting county-by-county map of the Webb/Miller vote.

Link if free but requires registration, may go offline in 12 days or so from timestamp of this post

See the blue graphic at the bottom of page one.

Basically, Webb’s support came almost without exception from three distinct areas:

1. The Navy base in Norfolk (he’s a former Navy Secretary)
2. The Washington suburbs (Does the beltway set have fond memories of the Reagan cabinet?)
3. The spine of the Blue Ridge mountains (this was all solidly pro-Webb)

Almost no other counties went for Webb, the pattern was very polarized.

I have no idea why the mountains went heavily for him and the lowlands did not, but it might mean something.

Sailboat

[John_Mace]

@Sailboat

I have no idea why the mountains went heavily for him and the lowlands did not, but it might mean something.

I believe his campaign manager is from that region. Bit of a tenuous link, but that might have helped.

[Airblairxxx]

@Hentor the Barbarian

One of the things I’ve disliked about Pelosi is her unwillingness to push for investigation and punishment of wrongdoing. Speculation holds that she would be afraid that when the gloves are off, some Democrats might be held to scrutiny. I’d rather she let the chips fall where they may and bring the party back to a clear position of integrity, rather than being clearly less corrupt by comparison to the Republicans.

???

Yesterday Pelosi got the Democratic Caucus to vote to suspend Louisiana Rep. William Jefferson from the Ways and Means committee, and today the House voted unanimously to remove him from the committee. And not every member of the party was pleased:

*But after the vote, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina, said the suspension was based on “political expediency” rather than House rules, warning that it “could have consequences” for Democrats among black voters.

“We believe our constituents will import their own interpretation into this, and a number of them will import that there’s a different standard in our caucus based on race,” Watt said, though he added, “None of us are saying that. I’m not saying that.”*

[RTFirefly]

@John Mace

Johnson was a sitting president having taken over when Kennedy was killed. So, basically he rode Kennedy’s late coattails into the WH. After one full year in the office his presidency was such a failure he didn’t even run again.

I would point out that he did in fact run again, and in fact won the New Hampshire primary in 1968, but decided to call it quits after Gene McCarthy only lost by a few hundred votes in NH, IIRC.

Honestly, RTF, do you really believe a solidly left-of-center Dem candidate could win?

Well yes, what else do they have to offer? That’s how our political system works: wherever the center is, one party’s gonna be to its left, and the other one’s gonna be to its right.

IMHO, the essential characteristic of a successful Presidential candidate is to be strong, to lead. This means being unapologetic about what s/he stands for, whatever that may be. The way you pick up centrists, I’m convinced, is not by moving towards where they are, but to decide who you are and what you’re for, and sell the centrists on it.

The prototypical exemplar of this philosophy, of course, is Ronald Reagan. The Carter crowd in 1980 was much more worried about running against a Republican centrist like Howard Baker, and not much worried about Reagan at all because he was too conservative to compete for the center. And we know how that worked out.

Another instance wasn’t a single candidate; it was a whole bunch of GOP House candidates. They stood on the Capitol steps and signed onto the Contract With America. That worked pretty well for them too.

Today, there are two factors that almost necessitate a similar approach for the Dems. First is that we’re in a much more polarized environment - there are fewer centrists in play, so the importance of mobilizing the people who are already on your side, giving them something to get out and vote for, is essential. And the second is that due to years of taking few stands, and then usually rolling over and playing dead even then, the Dems have less identity of their own than having an identity assigned to them by the pundits of the right. The best way for a party to regain its own identity is to unapologetically take some strong positions, and not back down when pressured.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

I would point out that he did in fact run again, and in fact won the New Hampshire primary in 1968, but decided to call it quits after Gene McCarthy only lost by a few hundred votes in NH, IIRC.

OK, after one full term (“year” in my last post was a typo) he abandoned his re-election bid after the first primary. That doesn’t change the substance of my argument, nor the conclusion. Johnson and Carter were elected in pretty unusual unusual circumstances, and both failed to get re-elected. As much as Bush has plummetted in the polls, I don’t think he’s taken the Republican party down with him the way Nixon did. (And I’m not sure I’d call either of than a left wing Democrat, anyway.)

Today, there are two factors that almost necessitate a similar approach for the Dems. First is that we’re in a much more polarized environment - there are fewer centrists in play, so the importance of mobilizing the people who are already on your side, giving them something to get out and vote for, is essential. And the second is that due to years of taking few stands, and then usually rolling over and playing dead even then, the Dems have less identity of their own than having an identity assigned to them by the pundits of the right. The best way for a party to regain its own identity is to unapologetically take some strong positions, and not back down when pressured.

If we’re talking about the presidency, which we seem to have switched to, there are lots of centrist in play thanks to one George W. Bush.

I do agree with the second part of the paragraph, but one needn’t take a left-wing stand in order to take a stand. Can you give me an example of someone who is clearly from the left wing of the party who you think could win? (Getting back to Senate races, left-wing candidates can and do win, but generally because they come from a part of the country which is more left-oriented than the nation as a whole.)

[XT]

@RTFirefly

Well yes, what else do they have to offer? That’s how our political system works: wherever the center is, one party’s gonna be to its left, and the other one’s gonna be to its right.

Why? Why does one party necessarily have to be on the left and one on the right (of the US political spectrum)? Are you saying if the Republicans adopt a left wing solution or platformthat the Democrats necessarily have to then put forth a right wing one?? Can’t solutions be different both in effect and in purpose, even if they are both ‘centrist’? And if you assume the Republicans are way to the right of US center, then why WOULDN’T it be a sound strategy to take the centrist position? How is ‘centrist’ = ‘Republican lite’, as is so often repeated here on this board?

@RTFirefly

IMHO, the essential characteristic of a successful Presidential candidate is to be strong, to lead. This means being unapologetic about what s/he stands for, whatever that may be. The way you pick up centrists, I’m convinced, is not by moving towards where they are, but to decide who you are and what you’re for, and sell the centrists on it.

In your opinion, why don’t left wing candidates seeking the presidency come out in an unapologestic manner and state boldly that they ARE left wing, and state exactly the kinds of tax increases and policies they intend to implement if they are elected?

To put it differently, what would be the effect of a left wing candidate running for President without trying to hide that fact…coming out boldly, explaining above board exactly his/her intentions? Do you think this is the ticket to getting the centrists on board…winning them over to your way of thinking as opposed to trying to conform to what they want?

@RTFirefly

The prototypical exemplar of this philosophy, of course, is Ronald Reagan. The Carter crowd in 1980 was much more worried about running against a Republican centrist like Howard Baker, and not much worried about Reagan at all because he was too conservative to compete for the center. And we know how that worked out.

This says more about the ‘Carter crowd’(s) preconceptions than anything else. Or to put it another way, why were they wrong do you suppose RT?

-XT

[RTFirefly]

@cosmosdan

Correct. It meant, perhaps “extremists” was a poor choice.

Thanks for clearing that up. Sorry if I was a bit sharp.

By extremists I was referring to what I see as a reluctance to compromise on certain issue that seem to be identified as “this is what a real liberal democratic thinks”

I hate to disagree with you after you’ve been so conciliatory, but I don’t see actual congresspersons who are unwilling to compromise on such issues; in fact, I usually see them caving on Alito, or the Bankruptcy Deform Act, or Class Action Deform, or whatever. I’m still amazed they didn’t cave on the Estate Tax.

I get Emails that seem to assume a good liberal should support X, Y Z, or that I should write my congressmen to complain about things. It seems like political crap to me rather than an honest discussion of the issues. My feeling is that moderates are more likely to have that honest discussion rather than a knee jerk party line response. Maybe not.

Who do these emails come from?