Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

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

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)

but Clinton only won those margins because Perot was there to upset the electorate!

Back to square one...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:59 (twenty years ago)

if you look at how many people voted for Clinton's centrism - it is not a plurality. Ergo, the majority of American people didn't buy off on it.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:59 (twenty years ago)

Actually reading about the McGovern campaign gives me hope for the Dems. Suddenly 48% for Kerry doesn't seem so bad! If they seem lost in the woods now, think how lost they were back then.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:02 (twenty years ago)

No, Shakey, it's not back to square one, because whether or not Perot stole votes from XYZ, you're not going to gain MORE voters had Perot not run. I'm doing the same thing you are. Here is the percentage of people who voted for X. Here is the percentage of people who DIDN'T vote for X. X is greater than Y here. No matter how you want to spin it!

And yeah, far-leftist-candidates always do fantastic!

Wtf are you seriously talking about?

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:04 (twenty years ago)

In '91 more people voted AGAINST Clinton than for him. In '96, the percentage of people that voted for Clinton is only .1% larger than those that voted against him. I dunno how many more times I can repeat these obvious facts before you numbskulls get that Clinton's centrism did not impress >50% of the voting populace in either election. This would seem to rather clearly indicate that this brand of centrism is not really all that popular.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:09 (twenty years ago)

"In '91" should be "in '92" duh.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:09 (twenty years ago)

but y'know what I give up, you can have your useless, lost, ineffectual party. Enjoy!

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:10 (twenty years ago)

I think part of the problem is that we use words like 'centrist' and 'far-left' and assume that they're clearly defined positions, and we assume that the electorate buys these notions as well. Like I said before, you find numerous examples in the last election alone of things like Feingold winning by a landslide, Kerry winning by a sliver in WI. Ohio went to Bush yet it also elected 'far-left' reps like Kaptur and Kucinich. I do give people credit for thinking beyond terms like 'centrist,' 'far-right,' 'far-left' etc. Plenty of people (and how about people that don't vote that could be brought on board?) are willing to listen to candidates espouse 'far-left' positions like, say, corporate responsibility, bringing the troops home, etc. The point was made previously, it's more important that the candidate clearly stand for something - call that 'far-left' if you will, though 'far-left' to me will always mean SWP, IWW, etc.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:16 (twenty years ago)

Nobody in the fucking world besides you claimed that PEOPLE MUST ALWAYS GET A MAJORITY, NOT A PLURALITY, OF VOTES before the idea that "centrism (whatever it is at the time) is probably for best" becomes valid. Who the hell would use that as a marker for anything? The important thing is getting the most votes, right? Not impressing the entire world with your credentials.

xpost that's the thing, it'd be nice if SOMEONE on this thread would define their definitions of far this or far that or blah blah blah cos I'm not really sure how quite a few of the republicans being bandied around as democrat nemesises don't qualify as "centrist" in some way.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:19 (twenty years ago)

Also let's get one fucking thing straight here, you retard, I am not defending Clinton's brand of centrism one bit. I am instead pointing out that you are TALKING IN CIRCLES, NOT MAKING A SINGLE FUCKING POINT OR ESPOUSING ONE (1) IDEA BESIDES "GABBNEB IS WRONG." So, I guess you're a bit more of a centrist modern Democrat than you thought ha ha ha.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:20 (twenty years ago)

xpost I agree. "Centrist" is a meaningless term -- Dems should find ways of making their positions sound reasonable and centrist, "define" the center, etc.

But I wouldn't count to heavily on bringing non-voters on board. It's a nice bonus, and something to work hard on for the long term, but in any given election it seems to be a relatively minor factor unless you're running Arnold Schwarzenegger.

― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:21 (twenty years ago)

I don't see why the popular vote keeps getting used in these presidential arguements. Was the Clinton campaign really gunning for some sort of landslide victory in 1992?

At any rate, he could've given up Colorado, Nevada, Louisiana, Georgia, AND Ohio to Bush and still would've won the election.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:23 (twenty years ago)

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

no, you're the one with the 'what if' scenarios that involve something other than Clinton winning 96 by 8.5% of the vote.

and o. nate raises an interesting point. are Dem popular vote percentages directly proportional to moderation?

Truman - 50%
Stevenson '52 - 44%
Stevenson '56 - 42%
Kennedy - 50%
Johnson - 61%
Humphrey - 43%
McGovern - 38%
Carter '76 - 51%
Carter '80 - 41%
Mondale - 41%
Dukakis - 46%
Clinton 92 - 43%
Clinton 96 - 49%
Gore - 48%
Kerry - 48%

I'd say no. But they do seem pretty proportional to how comparatively Southern the Dem ticket was.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:24 (twenty years ago)

Pleasant Plains otm - urban voters turning out in droves in blue states to vote against Bush /= Gore or Kerry actually winning the election

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:25 (twenty years ago)

In '91 more people voted AGAINST Clinton than for him

so your point is that Clinton would have lost if Perot hadn't run because more people voted for Dole + Perot + Nader + Harry Browne + write-ins than voted for Clinton, never mind that Dole + Perot were not > Clinton (and somehow imagining that the popular vote winner is automatically the EC winner)?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:28 (twenty years ago)

i think where democratic strategists trip up is trying to figure out how to be "centrist" in ways that tend to seem half-assed and hokey (suddenly using lots of biblical references, saying "values" a lot). all the polls say liberal democrats are fine on issues. what they've lost control of is the way the whole conversation is framed, this whole idea that republicans are the tough daddies and dems are the soft mommies. i think democrats could come out tomorrow and say they're in favor of torturing children who get caught stealing chewing gum and they'd still be painted as a bunch of pansies.

what they need to do is just start ignoring that shit. define themselves, and say "i don't care what blowhard bullies like bill o'reilly or dick cheney says, those guys are full of shit." right now, they seem so scared of what people say about them, which is a bad position to be in when the opposition controls talk radio and owns its own cable news network.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:28 (twenty years ago)

"no, you're the one with the 'what if' scenarios that involve something other than Clinton winning 96 by 8.5% of the vote."

again you're counting votes for Perot as votes for Clinton?! why do you keep doing this? Clinton - 49.2%. Dole - 40.7%. Perot - 8.4%. % for Clinton = 49.2. % against Clinton = 49.1%. That is not an 8.5% margin of victory.

*bangs head against wall*

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:28 (twenty years ago)

though actually if you take 1950-1996, and assign Clinton 1/3 of Perot votes (and Carter 1/3 of Anderson votes, and Humphrey 1/3 of Wallace votes), Dem numbers do seem pretty proportional to perceived moderation/non-wussiness. it would come out like this...

Stevenson - 44%
Stevenson - 42%
Kennedy - 50%
Johnson - 61%
Humphrey - 47%
McGovern - 38%
Carter - 51%
Carter - 43%
Mondale - 41%
Dukakis - 46%
Clinton - 49%
Clinton - 52%

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:36 (twenty years ago)

% against Clinton = 49.1%

no, % against Clinton, following your logic, was 50.77%. but you know that if you argue that Clinton actually would have lost, rather than that Clinton actually won by a tiny percentage, your argument would fall apart under its own weight.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:37 (twenty years ago)

what are you talking about? 40.7 + 8.4 = 49.1. What is it with you and all these made-up numbers?

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:38 (twenty years ago)

these 'made-up numbers' are the actual percentages of people who voted for someone other than Clinton.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:39 (twenty years ago)

which, by your logic, is 'against Clinton'

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:40 (twenty years ago)

never mind that every single Perot voter knew that they weren;t helping Dole beat him

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:40 (twenty years ago)

just for fun let's look at the GOP numbers (assigning 2/3 of major third parties).

Dewey - 47%
Ike - 55%
Ike - 57%
Nixon - 50%
Goldwater - 38%
Nixon - 48%
Nixon - 61%
Ford - 48%
Reagan - 55%
Reagan - 59%
Bush I - 53%
Bush I - 50%
Dole - 46%
Bush II - 48%
Bush II - 51%

seem pretty proportional to non-wussiness + perceived centrism to me

oh, and look at these numbers and tell me we're losing because we aren't far left enough

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 22:55 (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.