Moderate Democrat defeats traditional liberal in VA primary

Great Debates
81

By one definition, it can’t work any other way: the center’s the mean of the two parties. It seems to be how the pundit class uses the term, so I’m gonna go with that here.

If the GOP proposed a left-wing platform, then they’d be doing this because the Dems’ leftness had been so successful that the GOP would have to move left or die. But they’d still be considered the more conservative of the two parties, since the likelihood that they’d out-left the Dems is zero.

On a single issue? Yes. On a platform? It’s already happened, and the labels adjusted themselves: ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ simply wind up referring to the tighter extremes of a smaller issue space.

In THAT sense, the Dems would find that position by being what they are, only less apologetic about it. Americans already want a higher minimum wage, universal health care, better environmental protections, and so forth.

It’s been many years since pollsters first noticed that the majority of the people agreed with the Dems on all the issues - and Republicans won anyway. This is nothing new. Why do you think that is?

There are two kinds of ‘centrism’ in play.

One is on cultural issues. Markos Moulitsas and about a thousand other lefty bloggers have gone on at length about how they’ve got no problem with Dems in redder parts of the country being more pro-gun, more pro-life (Harry Reid and the Kossacks are practically a mutual-admiration society), less pro-gay, more apt to vote to ban flag-burning, etc., etc. Nothing wrong with making some concessions to where the people are on some of these issues.

And then there are issues that are only issues in the first place because they’re raised by corporations and their lobbyists; they did not arise from any groundswell of popular sentiment from any quarter. If corporations are on one side of an issue, and ordinary Americans are on the other side, concessions on these issues - be it the bankruptcy act, class-action deform, or the proposed legislation to do away with net neutrality - don’t make you a ‘centrist,’ except in the eyes of the David Broders of the world, I guess. Rather, they make you (to borrow language from a few decades back) a sellout, a corporate lackey.

If I’m running for office, why should I state, “I’m left wing”? That isn’t what I’m running for. I’m running for a higher minimum wage, universal health care, a FEMA that can actually do its job, a Congress that can’t be quite so blatantly bought, a plan to extricate ourselves from Iraq, etc. I’d let the voters decide how radical they thought my agenda was.

Of course, if I were to run for office, the right-wing slime machine would dig up some old quotes of mine (e.g. “If you think this country’s bad off now, just wait 'til I get through with it”) and try to make the election about them, rather than the issues. I’m not sure exactly what can be done about that.

You betcha. (Left wing by pundit definitions, anyway.) Maybe they’ve been wanting these things all along, but the GOP’s opposed, and nobody on the Dem side’s got the guts to stand up and be for it.

Why do you say this? This is what we hear all the time today, only with the field reversed. If it’s the sort of thing Old Broder says in his sleep, why is it just about the Carter people?

82

I think you’re right on those points. And those should be elements of Democratic Contract With America. Those are in fact CENTRIST issues.

But where you will lose the electorate is if you attach to those issues some of the social Issues most Americans aren’t prepared to accept, same-sex marriage being a prime example. (Or did you think putting a pledge to support gay marriage in your Contract would be a winning idea?)

This doesn’t mean you abandon your principles. It means you couch those principles in terms the people can accept and support. As I suggested earlier, I think Democrats should come out strongly in support of the right to privacy, and separate themselves from Republicans on that issue. Centrists can accept this approach because the concept of “privacy” applies to everyone, not just to those seeking abortions or same-sex marriage. It applies equally to those concerned about a government too curious about private phone calls and email communications.

Go back and look at the Contract With America. It is a Republican platform, sure enough, but it is couched in solidly centrist language.

83

Thanks for the excellent response RTFirefly! Appreciated. Let me digest what you’ve written and, time permitting (and assuming no one beats me to the points I would raise) I’ll get back to you tonight.

-XT

84

Move On, Democracy for America, Actnow,

85

Yeah, they want all those things in pubic opinion polls, but not real polls-- voting boothes. And public opinion polls don’t campaign back. When someone is just about to check the box that says “yes” next to “do you want better environmental protection”, there isn’t a pop-up add that says “it’ll cost you an extra X amount per year”. Besides, what does “better environmental protection” mean, anyawy? Raising the MW is pretty much a centrist issue, btw. It’s the “living wage” that people will not support.

And everything is in context. Go tell Hillary Clinton to make universal health care the centerpiece of her camapaign. Hah!

86

That wing isn’t “anarcho-capitalist” either.

87

I wouldn’t say that Allen is incredibly engaging. He has pretty much one shtick “look after I moved out of California, I bought some cowboy boots! Also, my father was involved with sports!” as a personal image, and his Jeffersonian thing has basically been co-opted by the Dems. I would say that he’s a national lightweight who happened to do pretty well in Virginia on the back of being closer to the center than any of his Dem challengers, and a couple of good single-issue campaigns (like getting rid of parole, which mysteriously cost tons of money, but don’t tell anyone). He certainly hasn’t been a particularly forceful Senator, and given that immigration reform has died out, he looks even more ineffectual at getting things done (or, likewise, effectively disagreeing with the President enough to make any difference).

I don’t know if Webb could beat him or not, but it’s worth nothing that Allen’s current lead is no bigger than the one Jerry Kilgore had over Tim Kaine (far disclosure: I worked on Kaine’s campaign, and so am especially happy about that win), and in both cases, it’s going to depend critically on whether voters like Webb as they find out more about him.

Personally, I think Webb’s biggest handicap are the Virginia bloggers who used to run raising kaine and who now seem to be very much part of his inner circle (they “drafted” him after all). While well intentioned, they are shrill folks who I don’t think can pull off the sort of naunced appealing centrist campaign that Webb would need to run to win. Unless they are very very savvy, I predict that they’ll pull one boner too many in attacking Allen that will hurt Webb with moderates.

88

When the people get a chance to vote for it, they often do.

89

The extremists of that wing are. And we were talking about the extremes.

90

Who’s still sure Webb can’t beat Allen? Oh, hell, let’s hear it from the Moonies:

That may be just the traditional post-primary, habemus-candidatam bounce, but where’s Allen’s counter-bounce coming from? If Kaine can win, aren’t Webb’s chances just as good?

91

spoke -

With a few caveats, here’s the sort of thing I’m talking about in terms of presentation, and it pertains to Russ Feingold.

Now, the caveats are 1) clearly this is a blog and a commentator with a liberal bias, and 2) I did not see Feingold on Meet the Press myself. Nevertheless, clearly he believes that Feingold would in fact have a chance.

92

From Bob Cesca’s lips!

Frankly, the main obstacle I see to Russ Feingold as a viable presidential candidate is not that he is a liberal but that he is a Jew.

93

Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? We can’t exactly rely on liberal commentators to tell us who’s “electable.” Liberals somehow hypnotized themselves into believing John Kerry was “electable” in 2004. I was saying otherwise at the time, but got shouted down by the party’s left-wing contingent on these boards. (Incidentally, I also recall Kerry’s star turn on Meet the Press early in that election cycle. It won over a lot of Democratic primary voters, but that availed him naught when the general election rolled around.)

I saw Feingold on Russert. All he talked about was the war. I don’t think the war is going to be THE issue in 2008. It certainly won’t be the only issue.

Feingold cannot win. Not because he is a Jew, BrainGlutton, but because he is as liberal as Senators come. He will be perceived as one more northern liberal, and that is not the way to win a general election.

To win, you must convince those in the middle. All successful Presidential candidates have known this.

94

How is the term “electable” or “electability” different from what you are talking about? Haven’t you been saying that certain Democrats are not “electable” because of who they are, such as Feingold, or because of topics that they refuse to avoid so as to not alienate others?

Can you help me to understand what you are talking about versus “electability”?

Further, you are correct that many Democrats went with John Kerry over John Edwards because they perceived Kerry to be more “electable.” Kerry didn’t win, but I’m not sure that that proves you were correct, and that Edwards would have won. I wish we could find out, and I do prefer the populist message that Edwards is continuing to develop.

95

Kerry was electable in 2004. (In fact I believe he was elected, but that’s another discussion.) After all, you remember how razor-close it was; we’re not talking about a George McGovern here. Do you really believe Dean or Lieberman or anyone else in the Dem field could have done any better?

96

As weak and vulnerable as Bush was in '04, a decent Democratic candidiate should have mopped the floor with him. It shouldn’t have been close. A good candidate could have taken Ohio cleanly, and three or four Southern states to boot.

Kerry was a painfully stiff and politically tone-deaf. An embarrassment of a candidate.

Absolutely. I believe Dean could have done better. He had a more moderate record than Kerry. Fiscal conservatism and a cozy relationship with the NRA. He was running the classic Democratic campaign: run to the left in the primaries, and then back to the center in the general election. He had the record to do this successfully, and no legislative voting history to haunt him. The problem is he succeeded too well. He had Democratic primary voters so convinced he was a liberal that they became concerned he was too liberal to get elected, and they shifted to Kerry.

I believe Edwards could have done better. You need only go back and look at all the threads from '04 where moderate Republicans were telling us they would vote for Edwards (but not Kerry). I even believe Clark could have done better. Hell, I believe I could have done better. Anybody with an ounce of charisma and a moderate platform.

(I wouldn’t have wanted Lieberman. That guy has no charisma and, besides, is a Republican in all but name.)

Hentor, I’m not sure I understand what question you are asking. I’m saying left-wing commentators are lousy judges of which candidate is “electable.” The Kerry debacle is good evidence of this given how many on the left thought he was the “electable” candidate.

What we need is a centrist candidate. That does not mean a candidate who is mealy-mouthed a la Kerry. You can be centrist and still speak plainly and stand firm. What you don’t do is fall into the Republican trap of being drawn into a campaign on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.). Instead, you campaign on economic issues.

97

I’m asking what you mean by “electable,” since your criticism of the review of Feingold was to go on about people on the left not being able to determine who is going to be “electable.” It was probably more “centrists” Democrats who were calling Kerry “electable” anyways. More left leaning Democrats wanted Dean.

What we need is a candidate who’s going to stand firm, agreed. They need not run away from gay marriage or abortion. What you want is someone who is less like the Democrats on these social issues. I want someone who can stand up for all or most or many Democratic positions and isn’t worried that they’ll be attacked for their position on individual liberties or individual choices because they can speak clearly and forcefully for these issues as well.

98

They will often vote for requiring the city or state gov’t to only do business with contractors who pay a living wage, but you don’t get that same support at the ballot box for living wage laws that replace MW laws across the board. There are a few places that have done that, but I’d hardly call them representative of the country as a whole, unless you think San Francisco, Santa Fe, and Madison represent your typical US municipality.

99

55% of Americans want gay marriage to be illegal. Cite. So are you saying that no one among that 55% of Americans can be a “true Democrat?”

Taking a stand in favor of gay marriage is exactly the wrong thing to do for anyone who wants to be elected President.

So how should a candidate approach the issue?

When Republicans bring up an amendment banning same sex marriage, you couch your opposition in terms that will win people over. You say: “I am opposed in principle to any amendment to our Constitution designed to narrow the rights of American citizens. The Constitution should be a document that protects our rights, not a document that eliminates them.”

That also neatly covers the flag-burning amendment, and it plays into the fact that a majority of Americans, while they oppose gay marriage, do not want to amend the Constitution to eliminate it. (Same poll cited above.)

“So, Mr. Candidate, are you in favor of gay marriage being legal?”

“That is an issue local voters must decide for themselves.”

Sorry, Hentor. I know that is not the approach you prefer, but there it is. Any bold stand in support of gay marriage will just give the Republicans the ammo they need to distract voters from economic issues.

100

If you honestly believe that would hamstring the Republican candidate, and more importantly, the Republican smear machine, on the matter, you’re a bit naive. John Kerry, for instance, did not come out in favor of gay marriage, yet you were quite dissatisfied with him, and the Republicans weren’t stymied.

All people would see from your presentation is a candidate who’s being evasive and unable to state his position on an issue, because the immediate follow up to your scenario is going to be “Yes, but what does that mean on this specific matter?” And gee, wouldn’t it be novel for the Democrats to run a candidate who’s evasive and uncomfortable on issues.

I’m not arguing that a candidate has to make gay marriage the centerpiece of a campaign. But they damn well better have an honest position that they can present. And a true Democrat oughta be one with the sense to see that discrimination is unjust, no matter the basis.

Democrats may as well stand firmly for individual liberties, including the right to take it in the keister, because otherwise, we’ll continue to do that all by ourselves.