Predictions: If We Do Nominate A Centrist And\Or Military Person...

[WillyT]

as our standard bearer for this election, and we STILL lose, what do you think will happen to the Democratic Party?

Not building a bonfire here, but I was just listening to a Clark supporter on NPR telling General Clark that he thought it was wonderful that Clark could bring in Southern and Middle American values, and therefore support, to the Democratic Party. Now General Clark gave a good interview and was great taking questions from the callers. He has really grown since he jumped into this race.

But it got me to thinking. I'll have no problem voting for Clark if he gets the nomination, or just about any other Dem for that matter. But for us lefties, are we gonna be willing to STAY Democrats if this next swing to the center doesn't work? I mean, are we gonna gain Mississippi only to lose California or New York? (I didn't think the Dems could lose California until rather recently, ya know.)

I'm pretty sure most of us will vote against Shrub this time around no matter what. I'm just wondering what sort of damage will come if marginalization of the left doesn't work this time.

Anywho, just wondering if y'all have any thoughts on this conundrum.

[TexasPatriot]

1. my fear

is that if we lose this election, we're in for an ugly split in the dem party regardless of who the standard bearer is.

[bobbieinok]

4. my fear

If we lose in 2004, bushco will own the US (what it doesn't already)

and the people who have some understanding of what's been going on - the left and most democrats -

....will be so busy fighting with each other (carefully egged on by the propaganda machine)

....and the natural resisters will be unable to work together and try to get the country back

[BJ]

5. Why fear it? Perhaps it's time for a realignment.

Look the Repugs took their lumps. First after Johnson's trouncing of Goldwater in '64 and then after Watergate.

Why do you supposed they've suceeded?

Because they've castoff running from the "center" and form party platforms tailored to extremist reactionary elements.

By way of simple analogy' the Republicans promise a McDonald's Quarterpounder with cheese but delivers a baloney sandwich; the Democratic Party promises a cold, plain burger and delivers a cold, plain burger.

[SahaleArm]

14. Republicans still win on the middle - Reagan Democrats...

Bush was running on Compassionate Conservatism; They pander to whomever they can to make people believe they are in the center.

[Sir_Shrek]

2. Here's the problem....

...and I've come to accept it to a certain degree.

The further you get from the center, the more your numbers dwindle. So the further left and further right suffer from the same problem....the more extreme they steer, the less numbers they enjoy. It's not a bad thing or a good thing or anything else...that's just the way it is. To a certain degree, I've come to accept that.

Conservatives have become pretty good at attaching themselves to Republicans, or at least towards Republicans to carry the torch for them on certain issues. Some would say that the Republicans carry more than their fair share. I think the left has been less successful at this.

For this reason, I don't think anything major is going to happen to the Dem Party if the Dems move center. I think the real fallout will come if the Dems actually move too far left....again, there's fewer numbers the further down the spectrum you go. Just as political parties have to worry about alienating the base, they have to worry about alienating the swing voters.

[NewGuy]

10. Several pundits have pointed out that most Americans...

live their own lives to the right of center regardless of what they advocate politically.

Examples:

1. The Hollywood elite do the incorporation and off shore tax shelter deal at the same time that they espouse a belief in liberal/left causes.

2. Is midnight basketball right for your kids, or those of anyone you know personally, or is it for some other kids somewhere else?

3. If free speech includes pornography, would you welcome a topless joint into your neighborhood or are they protected only in certain neighborhoods?

4. If affordable housing is needed, would you welcome a low rent apartment complex next to your housing area or do they belong in certain areas of the city?

Most Americans fight these things if they get too close to them personally because they are interested in their own little enclave staying pure and their property values staying high. Californai, the liberal left poster child, is a classic example of this. The open space laws and rent control laws serve to keep out the very minorities they claim to want to help.

That is why moving to the right of center has value while moving to the left of center does not. If you phrase what you are doing properly most people are OK with the discrimination that characterizes the right.

[no name no slogan]

13. That's bunk.

On social issues, most Americans tend to be moderate/conservative. But no Democrat has ever won an election solely on social issues.

On economic issues, OTOH, the majority of Americans are LIBERALS. Over 60% of Americans believe in a government-funded universal single-payer healthcare program. They also agree that big corporations hold too much power in this country. They also believe there should be stronger enviromental protection laws, and that there should be more accountability for corporations who do business in this country.

Want proof? What have been the top 10 best-selling books this year? Books by Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower and scads of other liberal authors have dominated the charts, despite the avalanche of right-wing hacks who've published recently.

The only way the Democrats win (and I mean TRULY WIN, with majorities, not just pluralities) is when they stand with working people on economic issues, and run against the elitism and greed of the Republicans. The social issues are all fine and well (I'm a social liberal myself), but people will vote FIRST with their pocketbooks before anything else.

The Republicans have succeeded in painting the Democrats as a bunch of way-out left-wing wackos on social issues, but they have YET to come up with a good talking point about why free trade is the best thing for the average American, especially if his/her job has recently migrated to Mexico or India.

If we really want to win again, we need to talk about the pocketbook issues and economic FAIRNESS. Running another Clinton-esque "fiscally conservative" Dem will only lead to further defeats.

And this party will become that much more irrelevant to the American people.

[NewGuy]

28. Economic Issues

I looked for recent poll results rather than using top 10 book sales as proof. Unfortunately in some areas you make reference to, there is no current data. On two of them there is data and it directly contradicts what you think. I'll post the poll web site and the result summary section you refer to.

Health care: Only in California could I find a majority who would support universal health care. The other pollo is a national poll and though nearly half (48%) support the idea, almost none of them are willing to pony up to pay for it.

http://www.bayarea.com/multimedia/bayarea/mercurynews/archive/special/20030224state_crosstabs.pdf

55% support giving universal care a high priority

79.3% think a high pri should be given to policing and punishing medicare and medical fraud.

http://www.hotissuesinhealthcare.org/poll_results.htm

Although voters are sympathetic to people without insurance, they are not willing to pay higher taxes to fund a universal program, or purchase coverage for everyone.

Eighty-eight percent of those surveyed agree or somewhat agree with the statement: “Nobody should be refused health-care services that they need just because they can’t afford to pay for it.” However, only 49 percent say they will pay more to help fund coverage for the uninsured. And of those, 50 percent say they are willing to pay very little ($1-$4 a month more).

Environment: Most favor individual action rather than government action

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0500/et0500s5.html

In a set of answers providing more hope for the future, the two generations believe individual action and public education can be powerful methods of tackling environmental problems. Among 18 to 25 year-olds, 87% say individual action by all of us and education of the public about environmental problems and solutions are the most effective approaches. 84% of Boomers believe that individual action is effective, and 88% believe public education can help address environmental issues. Both groups refused to accept the proposition that environmental problems are so big that individuals can't make much of a difference (Young: can make difference 65%/can't 34%; Boomers: can make difference 64%/can't 36%).

Both of the above are polls of the general population. Normally such polls are not broken out by likely voters as they are not seen as political. I don't know for sure if they would change if we went to only likely voters. However, my guess is that they would change quite a lot. Older people tend to vote and they are less concerned with the environment, having seen positive change in their lifetime and they are less concerned with universal health care because they already have it.

Simply stated, available polls do not support your hypothesis that Americans are liberal on fiscal issues. Many do not see far enough ahead to see the value in providing for universal health care, environmental protection and reducing corporate power in America.

[auburnblu]

16. NewGuy CapeWind sure rings a bell to me.

Interesting post. I do get annoyed by the "Not in My Backyard" crowd.

If say Joe L or Clark wins the nomination but loses, probably will lead to a candidate more to th elft. But if Bush does win, I think Hillary is going to be the nominee in 08 no matter what.

[no name no slogan]

12. If the Dems moved "toward the center", they'd get more liberal!

The problem with the current alignment of the parties is that the Democrats have moved PAST the center in their quest for the "greener pastures" and bigger checkbooks on the right.

For some reason, the Dems seem all too convinced that the only way to beat the Repubs is to co-opt their issues and woo the social liberals/fiscal conservatives to open their checkbooks for their "New Democrat" (Repub-Lite) candidates.

The "Reagan Revolution" moved the Repubs over to the right to pick up the religious fundamentalists/social conservatives. The Repubs now site firmly at the right-hand side of the spectrum on just about every issue: social or economic. Unfortunately for them, it also means that they have grown about as big as they can get, unless they become more moderate-- at the risk of losing their hardcore rightwing supporters, which have brought them countless victories in the last twenty years.

The "bell curve" of the American electorate is completely misaligned with the two major parties today. The plethora of 3rd Party candidacies in the last few presidential elections (Nader, Buchanan, Perot), plus the unprecidented low voter turnout rates, accurately reflect this phenomenon.

The old "moderate center" of the 1970s is now on the left fringe of the Democratic party, which has moved itself farther and farther to the right economically in its quest to appeal to the "young professionals" and their corporate paymasters.

This move to the right by the Dems has effectively sold out the old economic "liberal" wing of the party who have strongly supported a strong social safety net, workers rights and economic populism. These also tend to be the same people who have stopped voting altogether, as the party of the "New Democrats" is economically indistinguishable from the Republicans-- and hence the "there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans" line muttered by Nader in 2000.

The Democrats SHOULD move toward the center--
the "old" center as it was thirty years ago. We should represent the issues that made us strong: economic justice, fairness, and standing up for the "little guy" against big, powerful corporations.

I would argue that standing up for economic populism in the face of ShrubCo's "I got mine, screw you" fiscal policy will yield much better results (AND higher voter turnout) than settling for yet another fiscally conservative, socially moderate "New Democrat".

But of course, it seems that Democrats are only concerned about winning elections these days, as opposed to what they'll get once their candidate actaully takes office.

:eyes:

[vi5]

3. Is anyone running NOT a centrist?

I mean they all have issues which they lean right on. Dean's NRA stance, Kucinich and his pro-life voting record, Kerry and Gephardt's Iraq War vote.

Each and every one of them has a history filled with liberal votes and actions as well as centrist ones.

So I'm not sure what the premise is here.

Either way, if we lose in '04 the party will be fractured.

[Toucano]

7. And if Bush wins

maybe the Republicans will be fractured.

True conservatives don't want to spend millions of taxpayer dollars teaching high school students the value of marriage.

Bush's spending record and religious zeal are alienating and fracturing his base as well.

[felonious thunk]

6. The history of the Democratic party

is replete with splits between moderates and liberals. There has always, always, always been a tug of war within the party between the liberals and the more conservative members. 40 years ago, it was the Southern Democrats vs. the Northeastern Democrats. Now it's more of a philosophical split than a geographical one, but the party has always been like this, and always will be. This primary is no different from others, and the party will survive and thrive like it always has. Politics ebb and flow. The Republican Party will get knocked down soon, as it keeps drifting more and more right.

[Mz Pip]

8. Clark is really

quite progressive if you look at his stand on issues, so I'm not too worried about him losing CA or NY because he's too centrist. He's strong on National Defense which is a traditionally Republican stronghold, but maybe it's time for the Dems have some balls on that issue.

I worry about Bush winning because he has the money and the megaphone to say just about anything to get himself back in the WH. And if we lose the fillibuster because we lose all those Southern Senate seats, Bush will have at it with the Judiciary. He'll fill every seat he can with Scalia clones and if that doesn't scare the crap out of people I don't know what will.

:hi:

MzPip
:dem:

[BootinUp]

11. Yes those pending lifetime appointments

Sure raise the stakes don't they?

It will be decades before a chance comes to turn it back around. Sorry folks but fear is healthy sometimes.

[Rowdyboy]

9. No Democrat can win without

appealing to middle American values. If sounding like a moderate-liberal is too far to the right for the left to accept, then this race is already lost.

[Mairead]

15. "and we STILL lose, what do you think will happen"

The people who demanded that we nominate that 'centrist' or soldier will simply say it was our fault and we should have picked someone even FURTHER to the right, and they'll scapegoat the left, and they'll never ever accept even the smallest hint of blame because it's simply not conceiveable, on the planet where they live, that there could ever be something unappealing about offering a second right-wing candidate.

[WillyT]

17. Yeah, The Blame Game That Will Proceed After A Loss This Time...

will be something to behold. It will be very ugly. There's just too much at stake now.

:shrug:

[ddye]

18. The Dems didn't lose California, really

How partisan can you be? Arnold is more liberal than the Democratic governor of my state ( Mark Warner - Virginia), who's a good centrist Democrat.

[WillyT]

19. Um... Ok!!! --- A Picture Is Worth Several Thousands Words !!!

:shrug:

And, on edit: If I'm not mistaken, I believe Arnold ran as a rePuke!

[mikehiggins]

20. If we lose, I think this all becomes academic

If we lose in November there will no longer BE a democratic party. We have really pushed our luck this time out because nobody on the Supreme Court quit, or died. A GOP majority in the Senate this time around will result in the abolition of the cloture rule, thus making a filibuster pointless and a 50%+1 majority all that is needed to pass bills or appoint judges.

Four years of that and Democrat will have as much meaning in this country as Whig or Tory.

You can also be assured that attempts at organizing a leftist third party will be as welcome as it has ever been in this country.

Sooooo, I think we face total disaster in this nation if we lose in November.

Of course, I could be wrong. It could actually be much worse.

[MuseRider]

23. I hate to say this

but I totally agree with you.

[BootinUp]

24. stop trying to cheer me up mike!

that is a pretty stark picture. I am hoping the American people come around a bit by next year and realize a republican dominated government for 8 years ain't a good thing.

Remember when gridlock seemed the norm?

[WillyT]

26. Damn Mike, I'm Feelin All Christmas Cheery Now, LOL !!!

More Nog!!! And don't hold back on the Brandy, dammit!!!

:beer:

[TexasSissy]

21. It's same predicament as the far right has.

If someone is far right, do they insist their party all become far right, in order to be "true"? If someone is a leftie, as you put it, do you insist all members of the party be lefties, in order to be "true Democrats"?

In either case, such a small percentage belongs to that group, that to stick hard and fast to that group spells failure.

Middle America falls, for the most part, somewhere in the middle. Could be left of center, could be right of center. But not far left, not far right. If Democrats want to win, they need more than 15% of the vote, which is about how many far lefters there are. If Repubs want to win, they need more than 15% of the vote, which is about how many far righters there are.

The Democratic Party is not necessarily far left, just because half of its members are lefties. Remember that the other half is closer to the center (but still being called liberals by the right).

And I would imagine that some people are like myself....far left on one or more issues, closer to center on some issues, and maybe even agreeing with the right on some issues. Same thing with Repubs.

[WillyT]

25. 'do they insist their party all become far right, in order to be "true"? '

Uh, talk to the rePuke Congressmen that wanted to vote against the Medicare Bill. Talk to the few that stuck to their guns on that one. And finally, talk to Jim Jeffords!

:shrug:

[wanderingbear]

22. It will likely Split the party in two..

And the Progressive Left of the Democrats will leave for the Green Party.

[WillyT]

27. Just Cause ...

Happy Holidays!!!

:grouphug:

On edit: Gettin in my jammies!!!

:hi:

[WillyT]

29. Any Other Thoughts On This ???

:shrug:

[Iverson]

30. Sure.

1. I think that getting into jammies is almost always worthwhile.

2. I think that your thesis can apply to more than just a Wesley Clark candidacy. It can apply to any centrist. For several years the lefty base of the Democratic Party has been held hostage to the premise that only by ignoring their concerns can we arrive at the day when those concerns can be addressed. With each failure of triangulation, the call to triangulate again is repeated with greater urgency, since the only allowable analysis is that electoral losses are the result of failure to triangulate. The concerns of the left will be addressed, then, only after moving to the right is a demonstrated success. This, of course, means never.

With lefties getting nothing but rhetoric from the movers and shakers - and not all of that nice - the policy of rightward drift is firmly encoded in the Democratic Party. This is designed to create a crisis, which is currently being avoided by a combination of fear (of the right wing being slowly chased) and guilt (loyalty) and pragmatism (no other national structure exists just yet to counterbalance Republicans) and hectoring (how dare you consider anything else!). The crisis is a logical result of DLC successes in defining the party direction.

Make no mistake: the distribution of power is unequal. Lefties will get the table scraps and shut up, or else they will say enough and get treated as heartless pariahs.

Bill Clinton gave at least the appearance of listening, and perhaps even did listen while drifting right. It shows that courtesy is better than sanctimony for delaying a crisis.

A centrist nominee could delay this crisis by including an actual liberal such as Kucinich on the ticket.

[WillyT]

32. Your Analysis Is Superb Iverson, Sublime In Fact !!!

LOL to #1 though, my post placement could have been a bit better.

It was last night ya know. :hi:

Yeah, I'm thinkin if we don't stop the bleeding this time, all bets are off after this election. We'll have to band together and proceed to build a movement that doesn't treat leftists\progressives as their ugly cousins.

:shrug:

[Jack_Dawson]

31. Clark won't lose California

They love the guy here. Trends start in California...hmmmm....