What's More Important To You In 2004

[THUNDER HANDS]

Poll question: What's More Important To You In 2004

You have just two choices because I wanted to make this as stark a contrast as I believe it is this election cycle.

[Monte Carlo]

1. The fundamental change in the party will come after the election...

... when the Democratic Party is hopefully in a better position to do so. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

[One Taste]

4. Exactly

:)

[LuminousX]

6. If Kerry or Edwards gets elected

there won't be any fundamental change. Things will remain as they are because the status quo is what would have allowed them to attain the office. You don't ruin the path that got you to your goal.

That is okay, I guess. ABB. In fact, that is what Kerry is to me, He is not Bush. Kerry and a dead squirrel share that one important thing in common - they both aren't Bush which means I would vote for them. I wouldn't campaign for them though.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. As much as you love Howard Dean...

He wouldn't be able to change Washington all by himself. Especially not with a Republican congress.

[LuminousX]

10. I never claimed he would change Washington, but

The question is about the Democratic Party and electing Dean would have been a powerful step towards changing that institution.

[Monte Carlo]

11. What kind of fundamental change are we talking about?

I've read a lot about change that people are hoping for, but I haven't seen anything very specific.

I don't think you give Kerry enough credit. He's slightly more capable than a dead squirrel.

[Renew Deal]

2. You will fundamentally change the democratic party by losing.

And I think that people that pick that are picking a losers strategy.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. This is exactly why the center/moderates will play a huge role

We are back on our heels and flailing for footing. Kerry has emerged as the man many of those moderates feel can restore it.
It is (unfortunately for progressives) a time when we must play it safe.
Kerry is a portrait himself in the ambivalence being felt across the country.

[THUNDER HANDS]

5. moderates and minorities too

I think Kerry got some great minority numbers last night among blacks and hispanics. That bodes very well for the general election.

[IrateCitizen]

18. Something we hear every election season...

It is (unfortunately for progressives) a time when we must play it safe.

Boy, if this isn't the refrain for the ages. It has ALWAYS been "time to play it safe" during an election season. In 1992 we had to end 12 years of Republican rule. In 1996 we had to stem off the Republican Congress. In 2000 we couldn't say anything that might offend the "swing voters". Now, in 2004, the sky will fall unless we get a Democrat in the WH -- in which case, all our ills will instantly go away. :grr:

When, oh when, is it time that we DON'T have to play it safe? When can we actually discuss deeper issues? Can we ever?

This progressive -- who thinks that winning the election and changing the Democratic Party, may not be intertwined but not necessarily exclusive of one another, either -- would seriously like to know!

[lovedems]

8. Defeat the chimp. We can't change anything until we change

the biggest problem and that is the current administration. If he is allowed 4 more years, the democrats won't get to focus on middle class and lower class people, it will be a different ball game. Fighting instead pre-emptive war, tax breaks and tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations, fighting for one investigation after the other. Is the sort of future you want? I don't. I want to get back to fighting about the issues that matter to most Americans. The democratic party is the process of changing and when you take a juggernaut that big, it takes time. It isn't going to happen in one election year.

[Perky]

9. Hillary stalkers

I wonder what percentage of those 20% who want want fundamental change want HRC in 2008 and are willing to sacrifice the WH in 2004 on that basis.

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. I wouldn't bet on that.

The whole reason Kerry was chosen is because he can't win, and that opens the door for Hillary's coronation in 2008. She won't get my vote either. Assuming voting even exists then. It's the DLC who is throwing the game on this election. Do what you can to stop them while it's still possible. 90% of the delegates are still unclaimed.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. If Kerry is the nominee..

..neither of the above will happen.

[beyurslf]

14. Defeat GW.

The changes in the Party come when we win the White House. That is why the primary season is important in determining who will lead the party and the direction we will take.

[Hoppin_Mad]

15. Do both at once by electing Howard Dean -nt-

[Armstead]

16. Both

Bush needs to go.

But the Democratic Party also needs to change.

The reasons for both are the same. The system is broken, and the Democrats have helped break it.

If Bush goes but the Democrats don't fundamentally change, it is anotehr formula for long-term disaster.

[boxster]

17. Choice #1 can't happen without choice #2.

So, #2 must be the priority.

In addition, we must do whatever we can to take back the Senate at the very least. I don't think our nominee wants to face a bitter Republican Congress after the election!

[no name no slogan]

21. But #2 WILL NOT happen if #1 DOES NOT happen

The Democratic Party, as it stands today, CANNOT beat the Shrub by playing the Republicans' game. If we run a campaign based on FEAR of what Shrub could do, then we've already lost.

The Dems need to offer a TRUE alternative to another four years of BushCo. We need to be the OPPOSITE of the Repubs: FOR universal healthcare, AGAINST American imperialism, FOR American jobs, FOR rebuilding this country.

If we run in 2004 like we ran in 2000 ("we're not as bad as the Repukes"), then WE WILL LOSE AGAIN.

We CANNOT remove Shrub from the White House WITHOUT bringing this party back to its core. If we insist on being a pale immitation of the Repubs, then we've already lost.

[Monte Carlo]

22. But Dean's campaign already has accomplished #1.

I am not a Dean backer, but I like him very much and greatly appreciate what he's done for the Democratic party. He has held their feet to the fire and forced the other candidates to adapt their own campaigns to counter his and co-opt his issues. It is not a full tranformation of the Democratic Party, but it is a damned good start.

He's changed the paradigm of campaign funds. He's shown that large amounts of cash can be raised reliably through internet donations. He's changed the nature of organizing and brought it to the 21st century. He's brought the voters closer to the candidate than they've ever been through blogs, boards, etc.

Dean may not win the nomination, but no one will ever forget his name or what good he has done for the Democratic Party.

[no name no slogan]

25. Not yet it hasn't

Dean's campaign has done a lot for the party, but he's not part of the party leadership, and his own record and positions are hardly what I'd call progressive.

It still remains to be seen if Dean's people will stay with the party if he's not the nominee, or if our party will adopt a truly progressive platform at the convention.

[boxster]

26. I disagree.

Sure we can. Bush's approval ratings are dropping, several scandals are gaining some incremental ground, and Kerry, Edwards, and Clark all look good vs. Bush in head-to-head polls. Yes, polls mean squat, but the impressive turnouts in the races so far do not bode well for the Bush Administration.

People want change, but the specific change they are seeking is ousting Bush from the White House. We need to offer voters an alternative to Bush and reasons to vote for that alternative.

There is idealism and then there is reality. If nothing else, Dean's campaign has proven that running solely on the "change America" platform isn't working with Democrats. If it isn't working within our own party, it certainly won't pull in Independents and disgruntled Republicans.

Those same Independents and disgruntled Republicans are not going to vote for a candidate that appeals solely to the Democratic base. Don't make the mistake of underestimating the necessity of appealing to more than the party faithful. Clinton won the presidency twice, and he certainly wasn't the most liberal of politicians. He won because he appealed to more than the base.

"We need to be the OPPOSITE of the Repubs: FOR universal healthcare, AGAINST American imperialism, FOR American jobs, FOR rebuilding this country."

Seems to me that all of our candidates are for those very things. Can you name ONE candidate remaining that is not?

[rucky]

19. It's becoming clear to me that Dean should replace McAuliffe

bring vision, direction, backbone (and $$$) back to the Democratic party with minimal dependence on corporate interests. Dean is a loyal Democrat who would win us seats in the House - which is what we need just as badly as beating *.

[Monte Carlo]

23. That's a very good idea.

Dean is very good at being a Democrat. Perhaps in a future Democratic administration, should it not be his, he could take over for the total flake Terry McAuliffe.

[IrateCitizen]

20. Your assumption is completely wrong

You make it out as if the Democratic Party, in order to win, just needs to keep doing the same things that were so successful for it in the 2002 midterms.

I say bollocks to that!

Do you notice anything happening in this primary that wasn't happening before? Do you smell that whiff of populism eminating from the front-runner campaigns? That, in itself, is a change.

Dammit, people don't want someone to just follow the vanilla road. People want to be inspired. I, for one, am encouraged by the populist rhetoric that is now being voiced by Kerry and Edwards. As a Kucinich supporter, I really don't give a rat's ass if they co-opted it from Dean or Kucinich or whoever. The important thing is that they're actually addressing some issues from a progressive populist bent.

I was watching John Edwards this morning on CSPAN while getting ready for work, and something in his speech caught my attention. He used the word "WE" a lot -- which is a stark contrast to Dubya, who often addresses things in the first person. I also have heard many of the things he's said about "two Americas".

The key will be whether whoever gets the nod will continue down this path -- because it's a winning one, IMHO, despite the Washington strategists who undoubtedly will talk of how populism will never play in Peoria, IL despite never having traveled outside the Beltway in the last decade.

Changing the Democratic Party IS our key to winning back the WH. The question is, will the eventual nominee be willing to commit themselves to this change by going against the status-quo? Or will they settle back into the same, tired refrains that have left the Democratic Party as an uninspiring, bland, tepid shadow of the days of FDR?

[BurtWorm]

24. Bush can only be defeated with a fundamentally changed Democratic Party.

One with spine. One that speaks the truth. One that loves democracy more than winning elections.