Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (11201 of them)

In summary, Dems should look and act as centrist as possible, and above all else, listen to the damn consultants. How this is in any way different than Dem behavior since at least Carter is beyond me, but anyway, we'll see where it gets them.

My prediction = if it gets them anywhere it's through no fault of their own. No, they'll have the Bush admin to thank a thousand times.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:22 (twenty years ago)

if dems want to REALLY lock up the current youth vote, then i suggest that they took a look at the book referenced in this thread:

STRAPPED: Why America's 20- and 30- Something's Can't Get Ahead

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:28 (twenty years ago)

see, the GOP has the United Seniors Association and all that bullshit. we need to start, you know, Line in the Sand, an organization of ordinary Americans calling on Bush to stop avoiding the hard battles (in Pakistan) of the war on terror.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:30 (twenty years ago)

In summary, Dems should look and act as centrist as possible, and above all else, listen to the damn consultants

no, you don't get it. (I have no idea what Dem "consultants" say, but I'll stipulate to your kossack/Sirotan belief that they are a monolithic group counseling meekness.) I'm not arguing for Dems to look and act as centrist as possible, I'm counseling that they assert their ownership of the center, aggressively but mild-manneredly (yes you can do those things at the same time) where necessary. Where a Dem position is really way outside the center, which would be rare but conceivable, they should consider whether it may be wrong.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:34 (twenty years ago)

btw, lest I be misinterpreted, I'm not against Sirota, or kos. Nor am I against the DLC or its adoptees. All of these factions have something to contribute to the dialogue, and all are wrong on some things. Placing them on either sides of an axis is another obstructive binary.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:36 (twenty years ago)

Where a Dem position is really way outside the center, which would be rare but conceivable, they should consider whether it may be wrong.

or they just move the center to where they are.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:38 (twenty years ago)

How this is in any way different than Dem behavior since at least Carter is beyond me

centrism-of-spirit has served Dems very well since Carter thanks very much. the two cultural centrists - Clinton and Carter - won. those who lost were Northern/urban/insider professorial types who did little to argue that they better stood for American values than their opponents.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:40 (twenty years ago)

yr conveniently forgetting that Clinton won both times because the right was fractured by Perot. Carter won on the strength of Ford's ties to Nixon. I don't think their perceived centrism was the deciding factor for either (but at least they did know how to capitalize on the failures of the Republicans - which the current Dem party seems unable to do).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:56 (twenty years ago)

(how many times do we have to do this? it's been shown that Clinton would have won without Perot)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:22 (twenty years ago)

That Kauffman article is pretty good.

Appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture by President Clinton, McGovern lobbied for a universal school-lunch program funded partly by a $1.2 billion annual U.S. contribution. As an isolationist skeptical of foreign aid, I am able to restrain my huzzahs, but I’d sure as hell rather spend a billion buying lunch for kids in Bangladesh than $300 billion occupying Iraq.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:26 (twenty years ago)

also, the cover the current ish:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/images/magcover.jpg

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:30 (twenty years ago)

xxpost - And Reagan trounced Carter in 80, so much for his centrist appeal. I think you can definitely make the case that Perot tipped the balance to Clinton in 92. Yeah, people play with numbers both ways though.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:33 (twenty years ago)

xpost - Ha, great cover. Am Con has definitely been critical of Bush all along and they remind people that there's more to conservativism than the neo variety.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:34 (twenty years ago)

I just realized that there are little particulate bits falling from the crushed building. Nice touch.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:35 (twenty years ago)

and in '96:

Clinton - 49.2%
Dole - 40.7%
Perot - 8.4&

do the math.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:36 (twenty years ago)

I mean come on, that puts Clinton's margin of victory at less than a single perecentage point.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:38 (twenty years ago)

You're making the assumption that everyone who voted Perot would've went immediately to Dole. I'm not going to say it's a bad assumption but it's still an assumption with minimal backup from those statistics.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:40 (twenty years ago)

sure. 40.7 + 8.4 = 49.1 < 49.2

did you have some other math in mind?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:41 (twenty years ago)

But to be fair, Perot wasn't only pulling votes from Bush and Dole.

xxpost - In the same issue they run a pro-Gene McCarthy piece, a piece about Mencken, and a piece critical of Greenspan. Like I said, I don't think it's an easy magazine to pigeonhole and although I don't have a sub I always check in.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:41 (twenty years ago)

Sure we're getting into conjecture here - but my larger point is that this polite centrism thing has never resulted in stunning victories for the Dems. Not the way, say, heavy-handed right-wing candidates (Reagan, Dubya) have totally crushed their centrist Dem opponents. Saying the strategy is a time-tested antidote to current woes is just myopic.

But back to gabbneb and his "obstructionist binaries" and focus group claptrap...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:42 (twenty years ago)

Yes, def true

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:43 (twenty years ago)

Reagan is one thing but GWB didn't even win the popular vote in his first election; that's not exactly a "crushing" defeat of centralism any more than Clinton's victories were a shining example of centralism's virtue.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:45 (twenty years ago)

In fact, I think in 92 Perot took votes almost equally from both of them - where it mattered of course was in the key states where he helped Clinton.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:45 (twenty years ago)

I mean, Clinton didn't win a plurality ever but at least the other dude didn't actually win more votes than he did and get sonned by technicalities. That's a terrible example! xpost

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:46 (twenty years ago)

in 96, Clinton went above 50% in Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Iowa. How was that Perot's influence, again?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:49 (twenty years ago)

I was thinking more of Dubya beating Kerry with more than 50% of the vote (not Gore - which I agree is not a good example)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:49 (twenty years ago)

oh yeah, the closest reelection in history in which exit polls forecast the loser winning = totally crushing the opponent

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:52 (twenty years ago)

50.7 to 48. something. That's a better margin than yr centrist hero Clinton's re-election.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:57 (twenty years ago)

judging successful campaigns by exit polling = Democratic focus-group myopia par excellence.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:58 (twenty years ago)

Well, no, technically it's not. xpost

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:59 (twenty years ago)

That's a better margin than yr centrist hero Clinton's re-election.

uh, actually it's not. Clinton 96 got 49.23. Gore 2000 got 48.38. Kerry got 48.27.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:01 (twenty years ago)

Carter 76 got 50.08

"do the math"

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:02 (twenty years ago)

I think there's something in the larger point though of "saying the strategy is a time-tested antidote to current woes is just myopic." Anyway, "centrism" is red-herring. Sirota (again): "From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash. Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of 'centrism' while allowing the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist Democrats as far-left extremists. Worse, the mainstream media follow suit, characterizing progressive positions on everything from trade to healthcare to taxes as ultra-liberal. As the AP recently claimed, 'party liberals argue that the party must energize its base by moving to the left' while 'the DLC and other centrist groups argue that the party must court moderates and find a way to compete in the Midwest and South."

In other words, whose "centrism" are you talking about?

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:02 (twenty years ago)

the only election in the modern era in which a Democrat has won by more than a hair was Johnson, who ran as a moderate against an admitted extremist

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:06 (twenty years ago)

"uh, actually it's not. Clinton 96 got 49.23."

sorry, I'm still including Perot's numbers. I know how you hate that. Total votes for other candidates vs. total votes for Clinton = Clinton won by a tenth of a percentage point.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:18 (twenty years ago)

"From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash.

and? these corporations give millions to both parties (3 of the 4 are among the top 100 soft money contributors 89-02). they favor Repubs because Repubs are more on their side.

Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of 'centrism'

this is the sleight of hand Sirota specializes in. he doesn't say that the DLC is doing the corps' bidding, but he tries to make it sound that way. I see no reason to ascribe nefarious motives to the DLC any more than the party itself.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:24 (twenty years ago)

And again, Carter in '76 was coasting on the unbelievable damage the Reps had done to themselves with Nixon (and Ford's subsequent pardon).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:24 (twenty years ago)

so you're willing to believe that voting for Perot meant there's no way you were going to vote for Clinton, but completely unwilling to believe that voting for Perot meant there's no way you were going to vote for Bush or Dole. nice 'logic'. has it occurred to you that, even if you ignore the fact that 100% of Perot voters could have voted for Dole and he still would have lost, it's possible that every Perot or other third party voter would have stayed home if there were 2 candidates? at which point Clinton would have won 54.7-45.3?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:29 (twenty years ago)

I haven't made any such claims. All I pointed out was the correct margin of victory for Clinton against other candidates in '96. I'm not dealing in conjecture or speculation about what people "might have" done.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:32 (twenty years ago)

In other words, whose "centrism" are you talking about?

This is what is kind of confusing me.

Rahmneb, are you saying that Democrats need to claim ownership of the center and then define later what the center is? Or do Democrats claim ownership of centrist concepts and by default claim the center?

And do they claim the center by crying BUSHCO IS THE MOST EXTREME ADMINSITRATION EVAH by default or does the party just claim the center and then let the electorate figger out how EXTREMIST Bushco is?

― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:34 (twenty years ago)

Gab- I don't think he's made that claim. I think it's fair to say that a lot of potential Clinton votes went to Perot and at the same time safely conclude that Perot cost Bush (and maybe Dole) the election.

xpost

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:35 (twenty years ago)

ok, i give. shakey, i don't have a fucking clue what you're saying. i first read you (wrongly) as saying that 'Kerry did better than Clinton'. now, the only reading i can come up with is that you've reached the conclusion that Bill Clinton didn't run far enough to the left because he didn't win by as much as the far-right-wing George W. Bush.

I think it's fair to say that a lot of potential Clinton votes went to Perot and at the same time safely conclude that Perot cost Bush (and maybe Dole) the election.

really? in 96? you want to explain with the numbers?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:43 (twenty years ago)

this whole "who might people have voted for" speculation is completely beside the point. The point is that an actual vote cast for Perot WAS NOT A VOTE FOR CLINTON. And Clinton's actual margin of victory in both elections was super-tiny - in '96 is what by a tenth of a percentage point, and in '92 he didn't even get a plurality of the vote at all. These are the facts. These are how people actually voted. Speculation is not necessary. "Centrism" is not a proven strategy for victory.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:43 (twenty years ago)

you're being incoherent. first you say speculation is unnecessary. then you deem Clinton's "actual margin of victory" in 96 to be the margin by which Clinton votes exceeded Dole plus Perot votes, thus assuming that all Perot voters would have voted for Dole. if you want to have a coherent argument, you have to argue that Clinton would have lost both times because in neither case did he get 50%. you also have to completely ignore the existence of the electoral college.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:48 (twenty years ago)

in plain English, your prized Democratic centrism has never appealed to a plurality of the American public, and has only resulted in electoral successes when there were already other (rather large) mitigating factors at work.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:49 (twenty years ago)

there's none of this "would have" bullshit! A vote for Perot is not a vote for Clinton OR Dole OR Bush, its a vote for Perot!! Why is this so hard to understand.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:50 (twenty years ago)

haha, in plain english, you have no response to actual numbers

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:50 (twenty years ago)

I'm the one dealing in actual numbers, your the one with the "what if" scenarios.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:53 (twenty years ago)

Well, could we see some numbers for the non-centrist Democratic presidential candidates, assuming there have been any? What kind of numbers did McGovern pull down? Never mind, I looked it up: 38%.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:55 (twenty years ago)

Except that centrism is a proven strategy for percentage-victory because Clinton still won the percentage?? I mean whether it is by .1% or by 100%, he still won the percentage majority of votes??? Gabbneb's right, you aren't making any sense.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:55 (twenty years ago)

Skipping 11101 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.