We won 3 out of the last 4 elections. Moderates won, the liberal lost.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

How does anybody who doesn't agree with the DLC saying democrats should look more moderate explain this.....We won in 1992, 96, 2000 with DLC candidates who seemed "moderate" but lost in 2004 with a candidate who seemed liberal?

Clinton and Gore and Kerry are the same on most issues but Clinton and Gore were seen as more moderate compared to "Massachusetts liberal" Kerry

[Wonk]

1. Dems won 4 out of the last 4 presidential elections, if all votes were

counted properly, but go ahead and bash NE liberals anyway. Post a "Stop picking on southerners!" thread again too while you're at it. It's so constructive and helpful :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

4. What was the "real" count in Ohio and Florida?

Can you get me the exact numbers?

[billie_]

56. yep! n/t

[billie_]

57. EXACTLY, TY! n/t

[JVS]

2. FUCKING A

Our party no longer has a clear idea of what constitutes a win or a loss. We're so fucked

[LoZoccolo]

3. I think it's disingenuous too.

I'd like to see the more liberal messages get through, but I don't think it's going to happen without some serious discipline with getting a clear message out and having more outlets to do so (which is starting to happen), so I can understand why we'd have to run a moderate to win.

I did think Kerry made a very good case during the convention and debates though, and even though he lost, did a lot for the Democratic Party. It shows you that when you let us speak long enough and don't cut everything up into sound bites, our message comes out looking pretty good.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

6. Well said. Our liberal did a lot to show liberal IS moderate.

I'm talking mostly perceptions and labels here, which are still powerful.

[Coyul]

5. And what color is the sky in your world?

Gore apparently failed to serve out his term. (Oh wait, that election was stolen too, and a lot of the reason they can keep stealing these things is because we have too many moderates who just want to appease the bastards stealing these elections).

And please, Oh please, take a look at other elections this year and tell me some moderate democrats who won their seat? Dashle perhaps?
Oh wait, he lost. Just the minority leader and a powerful voice for the people of his state. If you stand for nothing, you will fall...not just for anything, but for everything.

Moderation has FAILED us. Time to stand for something...or donate to the Zell Miller for President 2008 fund.

absurd, appeasement rhetoric....doomed to failure!!

C

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. Stand for what we stand for but LOOK MODERATE doing it

Clinton knew how to do it.

[Bush was AWOL]

13. Exactly! Clinton is the master politician

He's the most savy politician of our time. Democrats should follow him wherever he leads.

[Coyul]

24. Sounds an awful lot like....

...selling your soul for a handful of gold coins. Didn't work 2,000 years ago without a death...same thing now only more than a thousand have died. I would rather be crucified for standing up for what I believe in, namely, the social and economic fabric to help this country. Than to say "OK, dubya, whatever you all say will be fine with us....."

Appeasement again, and absolute Bullshit.

Couldn't look myself in the mirror, much less into my daughters faces if I just went along for the "moderate looking ride" to get elected.

To thine own self be true..I believe has been said!

In fairness clinton was a moderate, but so was the country then...take a look at it now.....Bush, Bunning, Ashcroft, Thomas, Scalia, Rumsfeld, wolf'oshitz...it's like a trailer for a very bad horror movie. I intend to walk out on this one...and picket the theatre that it's played in, as it were.

[chaska]

7. The Liberal base (workers) has been handed over to the right...

Socially Liberal Republicans have joined the Democratic party. Liberals have no representation. We need to fix this. We need a realignment. Either we fix this situation or there will be a mass defection to the Green party.

Also, Bill Clinton is one of the best politicians who's ever held office. His victories may have little to do with ideology. But, in any case, the basic misalignment was then and remains a problem. It must be dealt with.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. agree about misalignment.

parties are weirdly aligned now. Blue collars in West Virginia teamed up with corporate crooks in the repuke party

[UpsideDownFlag]

9. out repubbing the repubs! it works every time!

:puke:

while we're at it, let's join Al From and kick MM and Dean out of the party. I mean, after all, what did they ever do for us?

geez.

[LoZoccolo]

12. We never outrepubbed the repubs.

Show me any position that Clinton, Gore, or Kerry had that was actually to the right of Bush, Dole, or Bush*.

[UpsideDownFlag]

19. it's hyperbole designed to make a point.

the point of being in an opposition party is not to mirror the repubs (iraqi war votes, etc.) or to try and be more moderate.

it is to be opposition. whereas the DLC just rolls over and gives into the repubs/PNAC/etc.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Democrats mirrored the Republicans on the "do not call" list.

Should we have opposed it?

[UpsideDownFlag]

23. oh, lord. you know perfectly well what i'm talking about. nt

[LoZoccolo]

25. Of course I do.

I just think it's wrong.

[UpsideDownFlag]

26. well, fair enough. nt

[LoZoccolo]

48. You see what I'm saying though.

You've got to have a good reason to oppose something.

[bvar22]

41. George HW Bush refused to invade Baghdad.

John Kerry supported the Invasion. That is considerably right of HW Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Nope.

Interventionism is liberal foreign policy. The neocons stole it from us.

Plus, George H.W.'s opposition was more of a judgement call than an ideological one.

[bvar22]

53. So you are going to argue that Kerry shows...

...poorer judgment than HW Bush? :shrug:

I also take issue with labeling the Occupation of Iraq as Democratic Interventionism.

Fiscal restraint is a Conservative policy......

[Starlight]

52. Let me jump into this flame war...

and say I not only understand what you're saying, but I agree with it completely. If these moderate republicans want a more moderate party, then they should either fight to get their republican party back or start a new one. I can't believe people are willing to hand over ours. :eyes:

[Robbien]

10. DLCers have lost the house, the senate and the white house

And they have lost most state governor races. Since when does that constitute winning?

Only in a fantasyland world.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

15. If all those hidden liberals didn't come out of the woodwork this year....

then they're not there.

[LoZoccolo]

18. And...

...Dennis Kucinich would have won the primary by a landslide.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

20. exactly

.

[Bush was AWOL]

17. If only they were farther left in those races they would've held the seats

:crazy:

[LoZoccolo]

29. Part of the 1994 "Republican revolution" was about things like...

...the assault weapons ban, and the fact that the Republicans were able to spread grave misconceptions about the health care bill. On the latter issue, which could be considered liberal, I think all that was needed was some good work surrounding getting a good case out.

[intheflow]

14. And Southern.

Clinton and Gore were both Southern white boys. There is no reason northern/urban liberals should not be voted into power to provide equal representation of a left of center political party. If we cannot have economic parity, let us at least have geographical parity. By definition, a two party system has to have both a left and a right; therefore, by defiition, the Dems are left. When the left moves towards center, the center moves to the right.

Besides, the Republicans embrace their far right, conservative fringes and look how powerful they've become. I wish the Democratic party embraced it's far left, liberal fringes. Then we might regain some power.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

16. Disagree. Repukes don't OPENLY embrace far right. Did you hear the word

"abortion" at the repuke convention?

[Robbien]

28. Did you hear even one DLCer say Social Security is not broken?

DLCers only fight the social issue fight chosen by BushCo. Your post talks about abortion as an issue when the real issue is money.

Privatize social security says BushCo, and DLCers ignored that to only pay attention to divisive social issues. That is because DLCers do not want to piss-off all that lobbyist money.

No wonder DLCers lose.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

33. ok did you hear Bush say "privatization" at repuke convention?

they hide from most of their core issues but the base knows they will be rewarded later. That's what I mean by looking more moderate.

[Robbien]

42. They sure mentioned it during the whole campaign

but you only talk about what happened one week during a convention.

But meanwhile in the DLCer world, their candidates never talked about social security not being broken and not needing privatization. Gotta keep that lobby money rolling in to the DLC pockets.

[bvar22]

54. Not specifically....

...but there were an abundance of code words that mean the same. Noone could doubt the meaning.
Did you?

[UpsideDownFlag]

21. btw...kerry was a 'liberal'?

jesus.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

27. No, I said he was the same as Clinton and Gore but

in a lot of ways he fit the "label" more than they did

[UpsideDownFlag]

30. ...how so?

:freak:

[Proud2BAmurkin]

31. from Massachusetts, anti war figure, intellectual

.

[UpsideDownFlag]

32. anti-war? howard dean, DK- THEY were anti-war.

kerry pledged to stay the course and complete the job.

from massachussetts? Shit, Bushie is northeast blueblood too- you just need to keep saying it.

inte-friggin-lectual?? oh, for fuck's sake. Clinton and Gore looked like intellectuals compared to shrub.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

36. that's the point. Kerry isn't more liberal but SEEMED to be

He had his Vietnam activism so his public image was still anti war. I don't think most of the voters disagree with an anti war message but the case would have been made better by someone with not much anti war activism. Clinton is just as intellectual as Kerry but played good ol boy

[UpsideDownFlag]

39. he was a damned war hero. he seemed anti-war because of

the media smears. this coulda happened to anyone.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

40. he was easily branded anti war because of vietnam protests

it fit the stereotype of a peacenik and a lot of voters are idiots.

[Robbien]

44. He was branded because the DLC couldn't get their shit together

and put a brand out there for Kerry. They let BushCo brand their candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Clinton is an intellectual...

The man was a Rhodes scholar.

[Robbien]

35. He was never anti-war. He wanted to just fight differently

And he also wanted MORE money to go into National Endowment for Democracy for covert actions against other nations.

Anti-war liberal my butt.

He is a global capitalist just the same as DLCers are.

[Wonk]

43. You're a geographical bigot, you're a jingoist, and you're

anti-intellectual. You said so yourself in the post I'm replying to, so my rephrasing it isn't a personal attack, just a note of observation.

You want me to support those positions too because then the Repugs would stop stealing American elections? Get fucking real.

[UpsideDownFlag]

51. thanks for having the gumption to say what i wouldn't. nt

[latteromden]

34. Clinton was very good at connecting

Did he win because of his positions? Probably not. Why did Gore win? Because Clinton proved himself once he got into office, and Gore was a part of that success.

Your candidate can be as liberal, moderate, or conservative as they come, but voters will still often vote for who they like the best. Most people LIKED Clinton.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

37. yeah, liking is a big part.

.

[JI7]

45. after the debate

after that first debate , the polls did show Kerry was more likable than Bush.

i wish the people could have seen Kerry more in that way, just him directly without media spin throughout the campaign. it's what the people in iowa and new hampshire got to see.

[JI7]

38. "anti Kerry votes"

i do think much of the increase in turnout for Bush which was mostly an increase in turnout in solid Republican areas with traditional republican voters was a result of the "anti Kerry" votes. they came out in large numbers to vote against that "liberal from the northeastern state of Massachusettes". polls did show many people thought Kerry was too liberal.

[Leilani]

46. But how do you explain Bush doing much better

in strong blue states?

Kerry did not win by the margins that Gore did in blue states.

[JI7]

50. he was an incumbant , especially in war time

a lot of people excused or didn't care about the problems that were going on when they felt fear. and that's what helped Bush the most. when people are fearful they go for whoever is viewed as the most hawkish. Kerry had momentum from the debates, but the final days focused on things like the bin laden video and the missing explosives and that russian school hostage thing. while on du it's viewed as a failure of bush, the media does not report it in that way and most blamed the soldiers for it rather than bush. this is the biggest reason Kerry lost support among women. Kerry won among younger and single women. but he lost among older, married women with children who got scared because of that russian school hostage thing. Kerry did gain among male voters compared to other democrats though so it was still close. much of it because of younger male voters.

Kerry did win a large percentage among those who said things like economy, the "problems" with the war in iraq etc were the issues they were most concerned about.

[Zorra]

49. So let's just adopt the republican platform and get it over with.

That's the republican plan, isn't it?

[UdoKier]

58. Kerry got more votes than either Clinton or Gore.

nt

[Hippo_Tron]

59. So explain this to me...

Why did Gore do so poorly in 2000? Florida shouldn't have been an issue running against a moron like Shrub. He should've won a landslide victory carrying at the very least in addition to the states he carried... New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Arkansas, and Tennesee, and maybe West Virginia and Louisiana.

Why did we LOOSE house and senate seats when most of the democrats up for re-election followed the DLC and voted for the IWR?

And like it or not, John Kerry was DLC, DLC openly identifies with social liberalism, BTW. Maybe "northeasterner eliteists" just can't win right now, you may be right about that point. But there are liberals outside of the northeast, ones who can identify with common people, which is why they are liberals.

And as somebody pointed out earlier, Bill Clinton was one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century, he won in landslide margins for that reason.