Incorrect. Burlington is twice as close to Canada as it is to NH. Look at a map. But even more significan, Burlington is closer to Montreal than it is to Manchcester NH (no large cities in NH north of Manchester). I’ll agree that “length of borders” is not so significant, but you need to look at the location of population centers, and they are quite different in VT and NH. Burlington is waaaaaaay up norh in VT, and Manchester/Nashua are waaaaaay down south in NH.
John, if that’s your basis for claiming Vermont’s differentness, consider me unconvinced, to put it mildly.
Care to discuss the OP now? Ya know, the one about the national Democratic party?
A statement that you’re “unconvinced” isn’t worth the electrons it’s written with.
How about some facts to back up your statement that VT is NOT different. That’s how a debate works. I listed the following factors as to why VT is different:
size
geographic “isolation” and closeness to Canada, particularly Quebec
ethnic make up
You offered what? Nothing, other than an unsupported statement. I wouldn’t even say that I’m “unconvinced” by your argument because you haven’t even made one.
Oh, I’ve got a lot to say, but only two minutes left on this internet cafe computer in London. I’ll be home midnight Thursday night, and will be back to post more about Bernie then. 
The greatest thing that could happen to the Democrats is to have Roe v. Wade overturned.
IMO the people that vote because they dislike RvW is not only far greater, but far more influential in the swing states.
Take as an example, Catholics.
Catholics should agree predominantly with Democrats. Catholic religious doctrine, to me, identifies far greater with liberal ideas (not that Dems are overly liberal) than they do conservative ones. The primary exception though, is abortion. It just so happens though that abortion is such a hot button issue among the religious, that it overshadows all the others and the Dems lose a lot of Catholic voters due to their support of it, and in the process they’re starting to lose a lot of the Hispanic vote now as well.
I would hazard a guess (and i don’t know how to find this out for sure) that most of the people that vote for Dems based on RvW would do the same regardless of it. I don’t believe a large sector of liberal America is based primarily upon it’s support of RvW.
I do, however, believe that a large sector of conservative America does base it’s vote primarily on RvW, and you’d find a great deal more traditional religious Republicans to be centrist if RvW was taken off the table.
These are just my thoughts though. As much as I like legal abortion, I think revoking it federally would increase the Democratic base if the Dems were smart enough to leave the issue alone on a federal level.
Sanders’ winning formula doesn’t strike me as particularly complicated. He’s successful because he’s in touch with the voters of his state, and he appeals to their issues. Democrats in Ohio will swear by Republican Senator George Voinovich for similar reasons. But Voinovich’s formula works for Ohio like Sanders’ works for Vermont: it’s tailored to serve the voters of their respective states, and addresses their interests, not those of some larger organization, like a national party of some kind, or the special interests that a national party might be beholden to.
Democrat Brian Schweitzer got elected as governor of Montana last year by appealing to Montanan issues, above all. Sure, it helped that Montana’s Republican Party was mired in scandal at the time, but still, Schweitzer pulled off quite a coup in this state that’s gone Republican for the past three presidential elections. Schweitzer said in a Salon.com interview that he had no idea how to help the party with national strategies, and from what I read about his campaign, I’d say he’s right. His attitude on guns favored hunters and nodded to the gun culture; his attitude on ranching was front and center; his attitude on gay marriage and social issues in general tended conservative, but he seemed to prefer to downplay them.
You can succeed in Congressional elections if you appeal to the interests of your constituents, simple as that. That’s what makes Bernie Sanders a success, that’s what made Paul Hackett nearly a success earlier this week, and that should work for any other candidate, as well, as long as sincerity can’t be short-circuited by dirty pool (yes, this means you, Karl Rove.)
See post #16, last paragraph.
The same poll indicates that majorities favor teaching Creationism in the schools (57%), and displaying the Ten Commandments in public places (74%). And 71% say that the US is a Christian nation. 61% oppose gay marriage. So couldn’t your statement that “on a number of important issues, the US population as a whole is in favor of more liberal policies” just as well say that on a number of important issues, the US population as a whole is in favor of more conservative policies?
Indeed. One difference between a poll and an election is that in an election, people are often more cognizant of the fact that they might actually have to pay for some of the wonderful things that they claim to want when they asnwer polling questions.
::sigh:: Economic populism is the death knell for a Democratic presidential candidate. Gore ran on it, and even if you don’t think he lost, he certainly did worse than Clinton. Kerry tried it with his “Benedict Arnold companies” shtik - and he lost.
In the minds of the majority of swing voters, economic populism means the Dems will screw up the economy. Let’s face it - Blairism/Clintonism is the way to go: let business make money, and use the increased taxes to shore up public services.
Sua
That’s the responsible way to govern, sure, but is it the way to get elected? Nope, populism does it, even just its appearance. The New Democratic approach took it for granted that they’d keep the support of the party traditionally more in line with the Little Guy’s economic interests, but neglected to defend against appeals to, well, let’s call them intangibles.
Don’t you think Bush ran essentially as a populist - a regular guy devoted to getting Big Government off the little guys’ backs, and promoting job creation by getting off the employer’s backs too? ‘Course he did - but he was more effective at selling the schtick than either Gore or Kerry because he didn’t use complete sentences like them highfalutin’ city boys did.
It’s not going to be easy for the '06 or '08 GOP candidates to run on a claim of superior ability to handle the economy, or create jobs, or improve economic security anymore. The Social Security privatization fiasco won’t soon be forgotten. Far more people have changed their minds about the GOP’s ability to Defend America since the last “accountability moment”, too. Combined with the Guns, God, and Gays platform, look for the usual diversionary personal smears from them instead - *those * we know work.
What the fuck?
Are we even talking about the same election? 2000? In 2000, Nader ran on economic populism. Buchanan ran on economic populism. Gore did not. Has he ever even had a harsh word to say about NAFTA? Ever? Did he run on a platform of more progressive/redistributive income tax? Or breaking the disproportionate political power of the rich? Or even raising the fucking minumum wage? Or anything we’ll find in Bernie Sanders’ platform (that distinguishes it from a more mainstream Democrat’s)?
See post #16, last paragraph.
Think Vermont is unusual? Milwaukee has had twelve Socialist mayors, including Frank Zeidler, 1948-1960.
Yeah, and Jasper McLevy ran Bridgeport, CT, with a Socialist machine for some 30 years. (My grandpa was a “good” Socialist who got in as alderman under McLevy and later bucked the machine, making him persona non grata in city government.)
October 13, 2003, when Howard Dean was still in contention for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, the National Review ran a cover story on Dean’s Vermont, titled “Hell.” The article did not mention any pockets of dire poverty or social dysfunction in Vermont. The “Hell” designation apparently was based solely on the political predominance and high social visibility of yuppercrust latte liberals, pseudo-hippie “eco-jihadists,” and “flatlander” carpetbaggers, marginalizing Vermont’s old-time population of small farmers. I’m still not clear on what point they were trying to make about why any of this is bad. I’d link to the article but I can’t find it on the NR website. Here’s a couple of pages discussing the article, with some excerpts:
Yes, we are.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/com/2000/ibd_00-09-07.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/dem/bbn.htm
Gore certainly took a turn towards economic populism during the 2000 campaign.
Sua
Lieberman says populism cost Gore in 2000
Gore’s Newfound Populism (from a Socialist site)
Exposing Al Gore’s Corrupt Populism (from the opposite end)
On Gore’s Winning Populism (dunno which ax they’re grinding)
A Prophet without Honour (by a Brit)
Plenty more where that came from. What were *you * doing in 2000?
Problem still being, o’course, that Bush out-populisted him, rhetorically. Any disagreement?