Let's compare these 2 candidates and see what we can learn...

[mrgorth]

First, Bernie Sanders:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050815&s=nichols

Even if he were not a socialist, and even if he were not an independent who eschews most of the trappings of contemporary partisan politics--including those of a Democratic Party he sees as dramatically too centrist, too cautious and too unfocused to counter the country's drift to the right--the enthusiasm Sanders inspires would be remarkable. That he attracts the support he does with what are generally portrayed as career-crushing liabilities in American politics has made his Senate campaign the subject of a good deal of fascination among progressives looking for a successful model in an era when too many Democrats seem to think the only way to win is by trimming their sails. When the question of the moment is, What's the matter with Kansas? it's no surprise that Democrats want to know how Sanders wins tough races in an overwhelmingly rural state by drawing the enthusiastic support of precisely the sort of white working-class voters Democrats have had such a hard time hanging on to in recent elections.

Second, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2240

Since then, Democrats across the country have turned to Montana for answers and hope. Some critics denigrate Schweitzer’s victory, claiming that a red-state Democrat must simply be a Republican lite. But that analysis falls flat: Schweitzer is a strong proponent of choice, as well as an advocate for the environment and for middle-class Montanans. And those who have seen the outspoken Schweitzer challenge the Bush administration in the press lately realize: Real Democrats, not faux Republicans, won in Montana.

If Democrats can succeed this well in Montana, they can win anywhere. The question is how.

Although others have said it I will say it again. We are losing because we have lost populism. The thugs have taken social populism from us and we have taken economic populism from ourselves. The message is not necessarily that our people need to be as far to the left as possible across the board but that people are willing to have disagreements on social issues if we give them something to hope for on economic issues. Biden and Clinton are not the way to go people.

[mrgorth]

1. Kick

:dem:

[JNelson6563]

2. Good post.

You are right, we have lost populism. Additionally we have let the Rethugs pretend they have it.

Time to run some real Dems so we can win more races, like the Governorship of Montana.

:toast:

Julie

[sandnsea]

3. coal mining

buffalo hunting, opening roadless areas, small business health insurance pool. In a national election, as soon as some of Schweitzer's other proposals hit the left, they'd be all over him as a corporate DLC whore. He's a centrist, he ran with a Republican, he ran away from the national platform. Yes they win on common sense economic populism, but they also win by running away from extremist leftism. Hackett did too.

[mountaindem]

4. another example of why we will never win again.

and the extreme left is why we will never win again.
You can't advocate for things that are out of touch with mainstream America.
Unfortunetely, the extreme left does.
Keep cutting on other dems, you're only ensuring we will lose in 2006 and beyond.

[sandnsea]

8. I like Schweitzer too

There's never going to be a candidate who is 100% with anybody. I agree with you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. I hate it when Dems adopt Republican buzzwords

You underestimate the Left.

Just because we can't stand Evan Bayh doesn't mean we want Che Guevara. Look how we swallowed our misgivings and busted our asses for Kerry. It's only because of the efforts of the "extreme left" that Kerry did as well as he did.

All this "extreme left" crap is straight out of the RNC School of Talking Points.

If you want to call someone "extreme left" you'd better be able to explain exactly what that means and why it's bad. By extreme left do you mean civil liberties absolutist? Do you mean more bottom-up democracy? Do you mean an end to the "preferential option for big business"? Do you mean resorting to war only if directly attacked by an identifiable enemy and not meddling where no one wants us? Because if that's extreme left, then I'm extreme left and proud of it, and I refuse to take it as an insult!

[sandnsea]

11. There's no extreme left?

I would argue how much the extreme left helped Kerry, we may have been better off with the vote and not the "same as Bush the warmonger", "holding my nose", support. Don't know.

But the point is, there IS an extreme left and I'm sure you know exactly what it means. When people on the left point to particular Dems and only talk about one or two of the issues, then they aren't really helping anybody. As soon as any one of these candidates ran nationally, they'd face the exact problems Kerry faced. Instead of being supported by the left, there would be the same "swallowing of misgivings" which gives the right the same opportunity to say "Democrats don't like their candidate". Why would swing voters, who basically don't pay attention, vote for a candidate whose own party didn't want him?

And I would add, Bayh doesn't help with his national security stuff either. Flip side of the same coin.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. There IS an extreme Left, but it's not in the Democratic Party

It's in the Greens, the Socialist Workers, even the Communists, but not in the Dems.

Anyone who is still sticking with the Dems isn't all that left.

By the way, while we were not enthusiastic about Kerry, we did NOT bad mouth him to potential voters, so you can't blame us for the fact that he failed to produce a landslide when facing the worst candidate in the history of the U.S.

[sandnsea]

14. public doesn't know the difference

They don't know the difference between Greens, Socialists and left leaning Dems. It's all the same to them. Lack of enthusiasm matters, by the way. I had more than one email exchange with national reporters who used it to support their "Kerry is a bore" meme; along with "popular incumbent war President". NOT worse Presdent in history.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. And it doesn't help in the least when

prominent Dems like Bayh and Lieberman go on TV and diss other Dems to the general public (instead of on the Internet), talking about them as being "too far left."

Whose fault is it that the public conflates liberal Democrats and the Socialist Workers Party (not that the most Americans have the faintest idea what a socialist is, except that it's supposed to be really, really bad) when most of the Dems who get face time on TV treat being "left" as some sort of sin?

News flash: The Democratic Party is supposed to be left of the Republican Party.

How often do the Republicans go on CNN or Fox or even PBS and talk about other Republicans as being "too conservative"?

Frankly, I haven't heard that meme since the Rockefeller Republicans were appalled at Barry Goldwater.

[sandnsea]

16. I agree

I posted on that earlier.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1986680

[welshTerrier2]

13. "Keep cutting on other dems"

um, isn't that what you're doing here ???

do you think attacking the left will help heal the rifts the Party has ???

welcome to DU, btw ...

[mrgorth]

5. You're wrong.

The article I reference was the cover story of In These Times. Hardly American Conservative.

[mountaindem]

6. I was referring to...

the post by sandnsea.

I like the Governor of Montana.
The left would be all over my governor, Joe Manchin of WV as well.
The only thing I don't like is tort reform, otherwise, Manchin has at least tried to solve WV's problems, but at times has kiss the GOP's butt and corporate butt, like the insurance companies and tort reform in our state.
Other than that, he's been a dem.

[mrgorth]

7. I was also responding to Sandnsea.

[sandnsea]

9. I don't know what you're talking about

Sorry.