If he's the nominee, can John Edwards move successfully toward the mddle?

[cali]

Obama and Clinton, if either is the nominee, will have to do a little tinkering around the edges, but JE will have to make a significant shift. He can't successfully run a general campaign in the same way as he's running his primary bid. He will shift his campaign to the middle and make a large change in his rhetoric if he's the nominee, of that there's not doubt. Can he do it deftly enough to get enough votes to win? He can't repudiate too much, but he can't use his current campaign fundamentals in the general.

I think he's a very good politician and a good communicator, but it's still a tricky shift for him from primary to general election mode. And yes, he will attempt to do this should he be the nominee. Arguing that he won't is not realistic.

[cornermouse]

1. If either of them are the nominee, can Obama or Clinton

move successfully toward the left? That is where the democratic base is supposed to be.

This move to the middle is a bunch of garbage. Republicans moved far, far, far right, didn't make any concessions other than lip service to the middle, and managed to change Congress and get in the White House twice.

[AzDar]

3. Well-put, cornermouse. The Party has moved away from 'us'.

I think JE is just the man to shore up the foundation, myself.:)

[cali]

4. well, this isn't about Clinton or Obama. I already explained where

I think they're at. They don't need to move to the left. Whoever makes it through the primary process will have the support of the overwhelming majority of the dem base. That's what primaries are about: The base.

I can guarantee you that JE, if he's the nom will shift his rhetoric and move to the middle. He has to. And you're wrong about the repukes. In 2000, bushco absolutely moved to the middle in the general- in a very carefully designed and packaged shift. What do you think that bullshit compassionate conservatism rhetoric was about? In 2004, he was the sitting president and he leaned almost exclusively on his wartime president shit. This years is far more akin to 2000, though there are significant differences.

This is just nuts and bolts politics- the mechanics of it, not the policy part.

[Tellurian]

31. Hillary IS Left of Center..and rated a "Hard Core Liberal"

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm


Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal.

Click here for explanation of political philosophy.

[cali]

34. This isn't about little charts and graphs or even what Clinton is or isn't

It's about analysis of what a certain candidate will need to do to prevail in the general.

[Tellurian]

36. If you notice, cali...my post is addressing post #1 not your OP

I agree with your premise, although most here do not understand the difference in the dynamics between a Primary campaign and a General Campaign. And the reason why the Dem nominee has to restructure it's campaign to appeal to the middle of both the Left and Right, if they expect to WIN!

[Kucinich4America]

52. In which parallel universe was that?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

[Hieronymus]

78. LMFAO

[goddess40]

45. Exactly, I'm so tired of hearing about appealing to the middle

when they are already to the right of the middle. We need to look left to those that voted Green because they won't vote for republican light.

[ellisonz]

2. The man is making "demands"

Don't get in his way!

:popcorn:

[Inspired]

37. It's about time someone did. n/t

[ingac70]

5. By election '08....

everything in this country will be so fucked up from years of Republican rule, there will be no need to "move toward the middle".

[cali]

21. Sorry, that's not the way it works. He will have to shift to running

a general election and he will lose the emphasis on corporations. All candidates from both parties always modify their language in a general. It may upset you to believe it, but if JE gets the nom, he will do it too.

[democrank]

6. Edwards doesn`t need to "move" anywhere.

This is almost laughable. Edwards` populism used to be what the majority in the Democratic Party stood for, win or lose. Now we have to listen to absolute crap about our candidate "moving" left or right for the general election, like he/she has to alter positions based on what state they`re speaking in. How about we get back to basics and stand for something, win or lose?

[MadBadger]

7. How bout we do what it takes to win, than in the WH continue with the populist message

[cali]

8. it's only laughable if you know nothing about political history

"used to be..". Sorry, that doesn't cut it and it's not even true. FDR ran a moderate campaign in '32, not so much a populist one. Truman? Nope. Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton? Again, not so much. ALL presidential candidates from both parties, run a general campaign aimed at garnering as much support from the middle as they can. It's a truism that's actually true. You're not liking that FACT doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

[Armstead]

40. I think you are missing the point

I can't speak for another poster, but I agree with what I perceive as their point.

Positions today that are branded as "far left populism" are what used to be mainstream liberalism.

Things that are labelled "centrist" today would have been considered outrageous in the not-too-distant past.

The notion, for example, that we would roll over and allow a handful of monopolies to swallow up all competition and completely take over the economy would have seems outrageous when I was a young'un in the 50's and 60's.

The idea that shipping US jobs overseas would be good for American workers would have been laughed at 35 years ago.

The reasonm we have gone so far off the deep end is because there has not been a vital counterbalance to Corporate Conservatism by the Democratic Party.

[cali]

44. Again, that's more myth than reality. It's like the good old days myth about,

well, anything. And a lot of what you point to, has been going on now for close to three decades.

History counts. I'd point to Roosevelt. He didn't run as a liberal in '32. No one in the last 70 years has done that and won. Sure, there's always a first time, and I think that JE if he gets the nom, will be running as a liberal populist, but he'll still be trying to get votes from people who don't view themselves that way, and that's why he won't run a general campaign the same way he's run his primary campaign. No candidate ever has. He will not be the first exception.

[Armstead]

58. It's not myth

Life was never perfect. And, you're correct that the Democrats seldom campaigned nationally as full throttled progressive populists.

However, that's not really what we are talking about here. The nation is at a potentially historic turning point that has very little to do with the traditional notions of "liberal" and "conservative" or "red State/Blue State."

Basically what happened is that Big Business used a form of Naomi Kline-style of "Shock Treatment" in the late 70's and early 80's.

People were so buffeted by a combination of stagflation, an emerging global economy and Oil shock and a lot of otehr things that they swallowed a lot of stuff that they would not have otherwise. They were sold the notion that it was necessary to accept immense corporate mergers and "restructurings" and other insults to common sense and decency.

The Corporate Elite and the Conservatives took this benefit of the doubt and abused it so relentlessly that the population basically surrendered to the propaganda, and became fatalistic.

Now the nation is waking up to what has happened. That is why -- although Edwards' message is translated by the MSM and the Political Elite as "populist" and "angry" and non-mainstream it is actually a simple call to restore some form of balance.

[goodgd_yall]

65. You seem to be contradicting yourself

Roosevelt won by not running as a liberal (the term "liberal Democrat" I don't think existed, but I get your meaning). Then you say no one is the last 70 years has done that and won (Be a liberal, but not run as a liberal?) Maybe you mean to say no one running a liberal campaign has won?

[bread_and_roses]

51. Exactly. (n/t)

[frogcycle]

83. bingo

with the recent extremism on the right, the "middle" is really mid-right - practically fascist

Edwards "liberalism" is really "take back America" - give "We the People" a voice again.

And what once was the conventional wisdom, that the majority of the public sat squarely in the "middle" may not be so valid now. The big chunk of voters in the middle of the bell curve philosophically may well agree with a lot of what Edwards is saying. Which takes us full circle. That would say he is in the middle now. Determination of left/right should not be made with only examples of the extreme right and the center. That makes the middle-right look like the center. Damn this is a garbled paragraph. Maybe he's in the muddle. Or I am.

[Kucinich4America]

105. In the words of the last halfway decent "conservative" President....

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." --President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952

Ike didn't believe such a thing would ever be allowed in HIS party. How, in the name of all that is holy, can we even allow a hint of such things in OURS??

And let's not kid ourselves. The DLC is by it's very nature anti-labor and anti middle class. And Hillary's fucking Orwellian "American Dream Account" crap is nothing but Chimpy's privatization of Social Security, rehashed.

These idiots went way past the "middle" years ago. If you don't believe me, believe Ike. He warned us, and we should have listened. :evilfrown:

[DemPopulist]

69. Truman didn't run a populist campaign?!

That may be the most historically wrongheaded assertion I've ever seen on this site. In '48, Truman said the Republicans were captives of Big Business who had "stuck a pitchfork in the farmer's back" and were undermining labor in the "Do-Nothing Congress". He also called them "gluttons of privilege" and "bloodsuckers with offices on Wall Street." If that's not populist, I'm not sure what is. Really, any reading of political history would consider Truman's campaign one of the most populist in history, aside from William Jennings Bryan's first run (which was partly under the Populist party banner).

FDR's moderation in the 1932 campaign is way overstated by DLCers and other contemporary moderate Dems. The idea that he ran as a centrist is mostly based around one speech he gave calling for a balanced budget. But that wasn't very typical of his rhetoric. More typical was when he said he would represent the "forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid." Maybe he was moderate compared to Norman Thomas, but he was certainly well to the left, rhetorically, of Hoover and even the two prior Democratic nominees. By '36, he was far more militant, talking about how he welcomed the "hatred" of "the forces of selfishness and lust for power".

If anything, Carter in '76 and Clinton in '92 were more populist in their campaign rhetoric than either was as president. Read http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jimmycarter1976dnc.htm">Carter's '76 acceptance speech sometime. I remember a line in Clinton's '92 acceptance speech, where he said the Republicans had cut taxes on people riding in limousines and raised them on the people in pickup trucks. And his campaign slogan: "Putting people first." Sounds pretty populist to me. Say nothing of Gore and his people vs. the powerful convention speech, which took him from down by double digits to a clear lead.

I think the thing you fail to understand is that, outside of ideological conservatives and self-avowed "centrists", populism is not really seen as left-wing by Middle America. A lot of the swing voters - Reagan Democrats, the old Perot voters - are actually very anti-establishment and anti-corporate in their view of things. So, aside from the attacks on "corporate Democrats", I doubt Edwards will really sound that different in the GE than he does now. On foreign policy maybe - there will be a lot of pressure on Edwards (or Obama) to strike a more hawkish note when the Republicans ramp up their fear campaign. But not on economic issues - I think Edwards is pretty close to where the country is.

[Inspired]

17. No kidding!

I know several Republicans who are going to caucus for Edwards in Iowa. He doesn't need to shift. He needs to stick to the same message.

[cali]

22. Anecdotal stories about knowing this person or that

are meaningless. Why does it bother you so much. You're building an impossible construct. He has to move to the middle to win the general. And he will.

[Inspired]

23. It doesn't bother me at all, Cali.

I'm just stating that I know several Republicans who support him with the message he is delivering right now. That anecdotal story means more than your speculation...in my opinion. I don't know for a fact what he will do. What makes you so all knowing anyway?

You have a habit of jumping down peoples throats when they don't agree with you. I'm not arguing with you, just stating a difference of opinion. Take it or leave it but can you stop being so mean spirited?

[joeybee12]

9. I agree...and I don't think your post will generate many "answers"

Both parties campaign to their base during the primaries, then try to move to the center during the general election. John is slick, he'll find a way. I'd be more interested in seeing how Huckabee does it!

[cali]

10. I think he can do it too-

I also think that Edwards is largely sincere about his platform now. If he's the nominee, he'll way tone down his stump speech and anti-corporate language. Will people here and his support across the internet understand what he's doing?

And Huckabee is clever, but he won't be the nominee. Edwards has a much better chance of capturing the dem nom than Huckabee does the repuke one.

Wouldn't a Huckabee/JE match up be fun though? JE would grind him into little bitty pieces.

[joeybee12]

14. People new to politics, maybe their first-time voting, willbe miffed,

I think...I know I was before I became jaded!

I really hope Huckabee is the nominee-any of the Dem nominees will make toast out of him--but Edwards has good debating skills--those debates will be painful to watch, but I mean painful in a good way!:evilgrin:

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

11. I think he'd find a way with a wink and a nod

Letting us know we haven't been forgotten, but he just has to put on a show for the mainstream. Such as having his wife and daughter come out publicly for gay marriage was a way of signaling he's secretly for gay marriage, but can't admit it because of electability fears. The other candidates are too chicken to even go that far on the issue, at least as of yet. Michelle, Chelsea, have anything to say on the subject?

[cali]

12. It's partly putting on a show for the MSM

and partly a neccessary move to draw voters that are vital to success of his candidacy. The two are joined at the hip. And I don't think his wife or daughter's opinions are vetted by him. That's kind of a wierd way to look at it. Nor do they neccessarily mean that he shares those opinions. History is rife with politicians at this level whose wives and children hold different viewpoints from a politician. From what he's said, I don't think JE is comfortable with gay marriage, but he wants to extend federal rights to those in civil unions and repeal DOMA. Thats a very big deal.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

13. IMO, all the Dem candidates secretly favor gay marriage

Gay people aren't that scary if you're enlightened and have a college education, which describes all the candidates. And most young people favor gay marriage. The idea that gay people are freaks to be set aside and treated any differently is dying quickly, but especially among groups I've noted.

And I don't think his wife or daughter's opinions are vetted by him. That's kind of a wierd way to look at it."

Well I certainly didn't say he vets all their opinions, I was very specific about the one I thought was coordinated to send a message. And I'm hardly the only person who's speculated that to be the case.

[Perry Logan]

15. After all the talk about Clinton's objectionable "middleness," this comes as quite a shock.

If moving to the middle is suddenly desirable, why bother nominating a guy who has to MOVE there, when we have other candidates who are already there?

[cali]

19. This is simply nuts and bolts political

analysis. For good or ill, Clinton- and Obama to a slightly lesser degree- have been running campaigns that in the primaries that translate easily to the general. Edwards has been running a campaign to appeal to the base. The base alone cannot win a general. He'll have to make the most changes if he's the nominee.

[OneGrassRoot]

32. I don't have nearly as much historical or general political knowledge as you have...

and I do understand what you are saying.

But in this day and age, I strongly believe the populist message appeals across party lines. Since it is a very small percentage of people that he is fighting against (what is it, the top 1% of this country controls 95 or 98% of the wealth?), I'd say his base is quite large. Not the 20-something % that stick with the Bush crowd regardless...but the vast majority of the remaining 80%.

And I know he isn't AGAINST corporations per se, as they employee people. He's against the way corporate greed has gone over the edge and now we have a corporatocracy.

I sincerely believe, if people will listen, his message (and it isn't his message exclusively...DK, Dodd, others have great cross-party messages) resonates with the vast majority of American people.

[cali]

33. well, it'd be nice if it were true, but it's just not

Millions and millions of people in this country work for corporations- many of them happily. Millions more are invested in them through funds and individually. There's little evidence that the populist message appeals across party lines. There's a good 35 percent that will never vote for a dem just to start with- maybe more.

Of course JE isn't really against corporations, but against the corporate culture run wild, but that's not what people will here if he keeps to the same message he's been using. After all, where does his message get filtered and formed? In the MSM, and they're a big part of that corporate culture. Add to that that if he's the nominee, JE will have very little money for candidate ads. 527s and the DNC can run issue ads but they can't run candidate ads or coordinate with the campaign. Meanwhile the repukes will be spending a shitload to frame their pig in a poke and to frame JE- negatively. That's what we'll be up against, and that's why he won't be running the same campaign as he is now. He's way too smart to do that.

[OneGrassRoot]

35. I agree that he'll have to clarify his message regarding corporations...

for the reason you mention in your first paragraph and which I alluded to as well.

But it's not a matter of changing the message, just clarifying it when he gets to that point.

Absolutely the corporate media will be against him unless something drastically changes.

And no one really knows about the "35% that will never vote for a dem." I've known several hardcore repubs who voted democratic in 2004, and I'm sure the same is true for dems voting repub in years past.

Times do change, as do people, and the majority of this country is very unhappy with the status quo.

We'll have to wait and see how it shakes out....

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

20. Moderate is desirable in the general...

I'm hoping Hillary will be some degree of a liberal Trojan Horse once she takes office. They keep saying FDR ran as a moderate. It's what the country needs, to balance out all the years of far-right excess. I think Bill and Hillary are going to want her presidency to be viewed as successful as possible, and at this stage in history that's going to require being pretty progressive.

[gasperc]

16. Edwards is the middle

and Edwards will win

[cali]

18. His rhetoric now is not the rhetoric he will use if he's the nominee

that's hardly a revolutionary statement. If you're familiar with past elections, you know this.

[lojasmo]

24. The views of the electorate are to the left of all the candidates.

John Edwards won't have to move at all, if he doesn't want to.

[MadBadger]

25. I think you couldnt be more wrong

[cali]

27. I can't believe how little some people here know

I find it somewhat shocking. The views of the electorate are not to the left of the candidates. Try actually reading some material about where the electorate is. I suggest you start with some of the Pew reports that break things down demographically. But let me give you a clue: Look at all the bullshit anti-gay legislating that's passed, learn about wedge issues, and take a look at how the repuke candidates from a splintered and tarnished party match up with the dems. And many people who vote are neither left or right: They're persuadable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

102. There's the behavioral right wing (anti-gay, anti-choice) , which is

the only type of right wing the DLC dislikes, and there's the economic right wing (pro-big business, pro-military industrial complex), which the DLC has no problem with.

You can be left on behavior, right on economics (DLC types)

You can be left on behavior, left on economics (leftists)

You can be right on behavior, right on economics (most wealthy Republicans)

You can be right on behavior, left on economics (a surprising number of people, including a lot of people who vote Republican strictly due to their social prejudices)

I agree that the behavioral right wing is a factor to consider, but the average voter has no love for the economic right wing.

A lot of DLCers on this board seem to think that "liberal" encompasses only behavioral issues.

[Tektonik]

26. Edwards is already a centrist why should he move further right

:crazy:

[cali]

28. It's called winning elections. He won't win unless he tailors his

message to the general election. And if he's the nominee, you can bet your last dollar he will.

[Tektonik]

29. He needs to be honest and explain his positions clearly while pointing his opponents' faults

Edwards is barely to the left of the other two centrist front runners, so how would you have Edwards move to the right? Rather than pandering to the right he should continue with his message about helping the poor and maybe use a religious context behind it so he can extract votes from the right.

[cali]

30. Every candidate for president in every general election

moderates their rhetoric. In the primaries you try and get the base out. In the general you try and appeal to the middle. It's simply a fact of presidential elections. If he's the nom he will do it. It's not a matter of what I'd have him do. It's what he will do.

[Adelante]

38. Of course, he can and will

We're already seeing the kinder, gentler Edwards reemerging in Iowa this month. He's lost some voters over image confusion in Iowa, where they knew him best, but I don't think that would carry in the GE, since in the rest of the country he is less clearly remembered, it seems. He'll do what it takes to win, though. If he sacrifices some of the "progressive" vote he won't care. It's not the vote he will be after in a GE. He can be very convincing, so I don't think he would have much of a problem with that. What I don't know is whether he can stand up to being ripped to shreds on his public record, personal finance and lifestyle choices.

[Armstead]

41. Who won't be ripped to shreds?

We all know how Hillary will be ripped to shreds. And if you want to talk lifestyle, Edwards is a skinflint compared to the Clintons.

[Adelante]

42. Any of them will face being ripped to shreds

That's a given. I don't think Edwards can take it. That's my opinion.

[cali]

46. well, I've seen no evidence that he's a skinflint compared to the Clintons

and he's certainly wealthier, but the main thing is that Clinton hasn't made poverty the kind of central rallying point he has (to his credit). And because of that and his investing in a very big way in a hedge fund, he opens the door to ads saying he's a hypocrite. Same goes with the calls for Americans to sacrifice their SUVs and then building the big carbon footprint house. I don't think it's insurmountable for him, but combined with his spending limitations, it's not insignificant.

[LWolf]

39. Of course he can. He only has to run on his record in Congress. n/t

[donsu]

43. middle piddle

is there a middle anymore in the US?

[cali]

47. Tens of millions of Americans think so. n/t

[donsu]

48. perhaps

nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. Yeah, just like they all think they're middle class

People like to think they're "middle," because that has a nice safe sound to it. But when you ask them about their actual beliefs, you find that they're outliers on at least a few issues.

Frankly, the Democratic candidate could be anyone except Lieberman, and the MSM would start yelling, "Far left!"

[Phx_Dem]

49. A couple questions.

I think he can move to the middle for the general election, but what's the middle nowadays for immigration reform? Where is the middle on trade? I think the US electorate has moved left on trade, which should benefit the dem candidate more that the republican candidate.

[cali]

54. Those are good (and tricky) questions. Particularly, the immigration one

I think the way to go on immigration is just to say that immigration laws will be enforced, and yet to talk about a pathway to legalization. It's a good time to hammer the inequities of trade policy and to talk about fair trade with protections for workers. I agree that the citizenry has moved on trade.

[Phx_Dem]

93. The immigration issue

should be a gold mine for the dem candidate if s/he plays it right. The right is divided big time over immigration policy, the average joe republican wants to send around a convoy of busses to ship the illegals back "home", while the money/corp interests of the party want to maintain the status quo. The republican candidate will not be abe to deal honestly with the issue. That's my 2 cents anyway.

[bread_and_roses]

50. yeah! let's repeat that winning '00 and '04 strategy! (n/t)

[cali]

56. That's not an '04 or '00 strategy. It's a fundamental of running

a general election campaign for every candidate from both parties, and it's not going to change this year. If he's the nom, he'll moderate his language and target the voters in the middle- and that's not just indies, it's moderate dems as well.

Reality speaks.

[bread_and_roses]

66. Reality spoke quite loudly in '00 & '04 (n/t)

[Quixote1818]

53. I think you are wrong. This is the perfect year to stay to the left

People are looking for the exact opposite of Bush and they want to move left. Ron Paul is running on taking on the Big Corporations and many Republicans are digging it. Both Dem's and Republicans are looking for someone like Edwards.

Also, the people want authenticity and someone who believes in what he/she talks about regardless of left or right.

[cali]

57. It will happen. There's not a question about that. The question is

how does he do it? What aspects of his platform does he stress? What does he minimize? It's the way every general works. Every single one.

[Quixote1818]

61. In a normal year I would agree but this year is different

People generally try to fix each president's weak points with the new candidate. In Bush's case he was weak on EVERYTHING!!!! And he was soooooooo far to the right people want to move left. People are looking for someone to move us back to the middle and they know it will take a liberal to do that.

[cali]

70. There are always people who insist that this year is different and of course

each election cycle is different from the one before it, but they all share certain commonalities, and that's due to the electorate. It's a mistake to think that the word "liberal" has been completely rehabilitated yet. All you have to do is look at the Pew Report that came out in November, and you'll see that a much smaller number of people identify as liberals than moderates or even conservatives. In any case, I'm not saying that if he gets the nomination he shouldn't run as a liberal. I'm saying he'll have to modify his rhetoric and appeal to those in the middle.

[polichick]

60. Exactly right - now ain't the time to cave, and Edwards gets that.

He's said that he's taking back the party for us (as well as the WH and the country) ~ you don't take back the party by listening to the DLC; that's the mistake Gore made.

[cali]

71. You're missing the point Edwards, if he's the nom, will

run a general election campaign that's different than the one he's running now. Not maybe. He will. Fortunately, he's smart enough to know that. No presidential candidate ever runs a general campaign that's the same as his primary campaign. Politics 101.

[polichick]

72. Text book politics doesn't apply this time...

Pay attention to what's actually happening ~ it's a whole new ballgame (by necessity).

[cali]

75. lol. aside from my quip about

politics 101, this isn't about textbooks, it's about reality. Sorry, it may be a new ballgame but there are some very old and predictable standard truths. If he's the nominee, he will not be using the same speeches or language. He'll modify his campaign to fit the needs of a general election. I know that some DUers tend to think the world revolves around a teeny eeny portion of the base, but it doesn't.

Wake up.

[polichick]

76. Sorry you don't understand the situation...

I see some posters have already tried to explain it to you here ~ maybe if you re-read you'll get it. (Or you could just keep starting silly threads about it.)

[mtnsnake]

55. It's going to be very interesting to see how he does it if he gets the nod

Winning the primaries by schmoozing up to the Left is one thing, but if he has any hopes of winning the General Election, he'll be shifting back to the center again for sure. This place will erupt when that happens.

Good post, cali, and definitely food for thought.

[cali]

59. it will be interesting.

I don't think he'll have too much trouble doing it if he is the nominee, and I hope some of his more, er, enthusiastic supporters will understand the dynamics and constraints of running a general campaign. Judging from some of the responses on this thread, that may not happen.

Thank, snaky.

[Quixote1818]

68. See my post #67

I would like to get your take on the questions I asked.

[Quixote1818]

67. On what issues would you suggest he move to the middle?

Health Care? Most Americans want universal HC these days
Iraq? Most Americans want us out of Iraq
Taxes? Most Americans want the rich to pay more
The Environment? Most Americans want us to combat global warming
Going after special interest? He will get strong support from both the left and right on this.

Care to enlighten us on where he should move to the right?

[sandyd921]

99. I'd also like to see the OP respond to these

I don't get what re-positioning the OP is calling for. I hope that JRE will continue to offer a strong message on all of these. This is where the majority is now, whether they call themselves liberals, conservatives, or centrists. In fact labels matter less now than ever. People want something to be done about the fix this country is in and they want it to be taken back from the crazy extreme righties.

[liskddksil]

62. He said it himself

"Instead of talking about Primary mode or general election mode lets have an all truth all the time mode". Edwards message is resonating with voters of all stripes, including republicans, such as the undecided Republican in the cnn focus group, who wasn't impressed with any of their candidates and said she might vote for Edwards because at least "he is saying something". If nominated John needs to spread this message to the rest of the country by going to every state, which he promised to do. I am sick and tired of candidates as soon as they win the nomination, forgetting about the base, and at the same time triangulating so much that they appeal to noone. John has the charisma, message and likabiliy that can make voters listen, who we would never expected before to listen to a Democrat.

[goodgd_yall]

63. I think your assumption is off

He doesn't have to make a significant shift or run his general campaign (much) differently than his primary campaign. If he were to change his "campaign fundamentals," I believe he will surely lose. The way he will win is sticking to his message.

[Quixote1818]

64. I agree nt

[cali]

73. I'm not talking about the fundamentals. I'm talking about

the modification of his rhetoric. He'll talk about things in a different way, stressing some things he hasn't and downplaying others. He will not stick to his primary campaign stump speech, for instance, where he mentions corporations 10+ times. It'll be a new stump speech tailored not at the base of the party, but at a broader audience.

[Quixote1818]

74. I agree with that. nt

[goodgd_yall]

80. I'm not sure I agree

Hitting at corporations may be an important part of his message.

[Quixote1818]

87. Correct and it will appeal to both Dems and Republicans

As Ron Paul supporters have shown.

[jgraz]

77. With all due respect: Fuck that noise

By "moving toward the middle" you mean moving to the right. Edwards currently represents the majority view in this country and is even, perhaps, a bit to the right of most of us.

A CBS/Gallup poll back in June (too lazy to look up the link) showed that most people favored single-payer health care even if they had to pay higher taxes to get it. Most also answered YES to a question about higher taxes on the rich -- a question that included the phrase "redistribution of wealth".

We already know that the majority of voters favor a more aggressive drawdown of forces in Iraq than Edwards is advocating. He also has said little on impeachment, even though a majority favor it in Cheney's case and close to half favor it in *'s case.

If anything, Edwards needs to go to the left in order to pick up more of the "center". Any votes he loses from moronic undecideds will be more than made up with a higher turnout from progressives.

[cali]

81. with all due respect. Learn to love it

or live with it- if he's the candidate, that is what will happen. Undoubtedly. Anyone who thins that your link proves anything is a moran. Go read the Pew Report and learn something. You're wrong about the majority favoring impeachment. You're wrong about the electorate period. It's not this or that. People hold paradoxical views all the time. And for every link you can find that you think is evidence that we've miraculously become a citizenry of progressive populists, I'll find 2 links refuting it. Look, you're a smart guy, so you probably know that most people are persuadable about most things. And as I said, they often hold conflicting beliefs. The bottom line is that Edwards will be trying to win not just the undecided indies, but a lot of moderate dems. It's a delusion to think that because people say they want this or that on some poll, that they're progressives. Much of the dem party identifies as moderates.

Like every other candidate in modern history, he'll run a general campaign with a message tailored for the general election.

[jgraz]

82. Couldn't disagree more

If he moves to the center (i.e. panders to the right) he'll lose more votes than he gains. There is nothing more un-American than not standing up for your beliefs. On the other hand, if Edwards delivers a hard-core progressive message and shows that he's willing to kick ass and take names, he'll walk away with the general election (and win more than a few votes from the general population of Rethug-voting sheeple).

[frogcycle]

84. well there you have it!

You answered your original post question! So this whole thread has come full circle and we are all jerks, if you get my drift.

[Truth2Tell]

79. Right, If you say so.

Populism sells. Sherod Brown rode it into the Senate and Edwards may ride it into the White House.

You can suggest your silly ideas about what you think he "will have" to do til the cows come home. He'll do what he's doing and do just fine. Maybe you should send him a letter with your brilliant advise! :rofl:

[HughMoran]

85. Your idea of equivocation would guarantee a loss for Edwards

Edwards needs to be the man he is - if he "moves to the right" then he will be perceived as not having a center - people want someone who will not change with the winds.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

86. Fortunately for Edwards, his image is not leftist.

The ultimate irony of 2008 is that Edwards does best among the most moderate Dems and Obama, clearly the idealogical conservative in the race, does best among progressives,

Progressives are just a prejudiced as anyone else, just in the opposite direction. They assume the black guy must be a big lefty. Meanwhile, moderate Dems assume the guy who talks like a hill-billy must be a blue dog.

Image handily trumps positions in national politics. (For instance, Hillary always polls best as the candidate who will end the Iraq War.)

So Edwards can un-do all his primary campaign quasi-socialist rhetoric simply by taking up chewing tobacco. It really is that simple.

And Obama will be defined as the second coming of Franz Fannon or Toussaint L'Ouverture. It really is that simple.

[polichick]

89. Lol - let's send him a spittoon from DU for Christmas! nt

[surfermaw]

94. Not to m ention, that Edwards can at this time pull republican votes

In the south the conservative democrat voters are about the same as the yankee republican moderate, that is what made up the Bi Partisan Coalition from the 30 to the 50, this group of Southern Democrats and Yankee Republicans could bring any bill and pass or defeat it...they were that strong, and the nation stood tall and grew.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. Running to what you call "the center" would be a huge mistake

It's worked so well in the past couple of cycle. :sarcasm:

That's what Kerry did, mouth vague platitudes and put up a website that looked as if it had been designed by policy wonks, so that you had to read to the end of long, wordy position papers to find out what he thought about anything. That's what Gore did, and he drove me nuts with his constant mantra of "I'm for policies that benefit working families." Yeah, like what? He never said.

Both of them ended up within the margin where it's possible to cheat easily.

Edwards (or whoever the nominee is) can win by letting the American people know that he understands their concerns and can do something specific about them.

Running against corporate interests is THE TICKET. Even some of the Republicans I know are starting to get uneasy about the way our whole society seems to be oriented toward fattening the fat cats further. It's starting to dawn on them that customer service and community involvement deteriorate when outside investors buy up a local company. They know hardworking, well-qualified people who have lost their jobs to outsourcing.

Any Dem candidate who doesn't run on a platform that's clearly for the ordinary person and against the fat cats is asking for another razor-thin, easily cheatable margin. Sure, the fat cats will yowl as only offended cats can, but there are more ordinary people than there are fat cats, and in the end, it's the votes that count.

[cali]

90. this is just bizarre. there isn't even a question that he will do it.

Every candidate from both parties does it each cycle- even incumbent presidents do it to the best of their abilities. They try to appeal to the middle. Why? because there are the votes they need to win three. i'm not saying that he'll abandon his core beliefs. I'm saying he'll retool his campaign and change his rhetoric for the general. I'll probably never be able to prove that, because it's unlikely he'll get the nomination, but if he does, like every other candidate who has run, he'll conduct a general election campaign that moderates his primary campaign.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. If any of the top three get any more "moderate," they might as well

announce a merger of the two parties.

If you think that the media-anointed "top three" are running left now, then you don't know what "left" is. All three of them would have been Republicans in the 1960s.

[cali]

95. The pukes are running on platforms diametrically

opposed to the top three dems. And neither Obama or Clinton will have much tinkering to do. As for the canard that the three would been republicans in the sixties- nonsense. There were more socially liberal republicans then, but the comparison is spurious. It's a different time. Issues like GBLT and gay marriage didn't exist. Trade issues were completely different. Republicans in the mid-sixties were mostly pro-war. Dems in the Congress were the ones starting to come around on Vietnam.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. You realize, of course, that even though the Republicanites are running on

far-right platforms, the voters do have an option to voting Dem: staying home, and there is a real danger of their doing that unless the Democrats present a clear, unmistakable alternative, unlike the wimpy performance of this year's Congress, which has failed to even BLOCK most of Bush's initiative (for which they supposedly have the majority).

I'm not talking about political junkies but about ordinary Americans, who are becoming increasingly like the Japanese, who have even lower electoral turnouts than we do, because they think--with some justification-- that voting means trading one gang of idiots for another.

The Democratic candidate needs to take a firm, unapologetic, sincere stand on things that are important to the voters. It doesn't have to be "right" or "left," just things that ordinary people are concerned about. Vagueness and an inability to differentiate himself/herself from the Republican are lethal.

Remember the 2000 election? Three days before it, nearly 1/3 of the voters were still undecided. That has never happened before in my lifetime. That would not have happened if Gore had set out some positions that clearly distinguished him from Bush. Instead, he followed the advice of his clueless (or possibly, Republican mole) advisers and seemed to spend most of the debates saying, in effect, "Me, too" to nearly everything Bush said.

[gmudem]

103. So on what issues will he shift?

You are talking about this in a very vague manner, but you have yet to show anything specific that he will change his rhetoric on. It's difficult to take your theory seriously when you are talking about it so vaguely. You can harp on this all you want but until you show me something definitive that he will change his rhetoric on your post proves nothing.

It's very possible that he may alter his speeches a bit, but I doubt you will see any shift in his actual positions.

[brentspeak]

91. What is your definition of a "middle" platform?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

98. Good question!

Does it mean

1) Pretty much like the Republicans ("I'm pro business and believe in a strong defense and the War on Terror"), but not as nasty in certain respects?

2) Not taking a firm stand on anything and just mumbling vague clichés so that no one can pin you down?

3) Looking at the radical Marxist positions and the ultra fascist positions on any given issue and figuring out where the midpoint is?

4) Being sometimes like a Republican and sometimes like a Democrat?

What exactly IS a "middle" platform? In practice, it seems to mean either 1) or 2). :puke:

[sandyd921]

97. Whether in the primaries or general election

what people are looking for are politicians who stick to their guns and will fight for the bread and butter issues. And yes, that includes fighting the corporations! JRE already has a winning message. No changes needed, thank you!

[Desertrose]

100. Oh good grief. The *middle*.....?

You just keep tryin' to spin this...as I know you will...

Wow. Must be almost like a fulltime job or something trying keep us all in line....

:evilgrin:

[joeybee12]

101. Hey Cali, I was right! No "answers"...

...well, some, but anything seems to set people off around here. Something in the water, I think.