How do anti-DLC Duers explain Kerry's lead in the polls?

[sangh0]

For many, many months, I've read posts from DUers who are passionately opposed to the DLC, and those Dem politicians who agree with their policies and tactics. Many of these same DUers have posted strong criticism of Kerry for not "speaking out" on a number of issues more forcefully.

Part of that criticism has been that Kerry will lose if he doesn't make a strong drive for the votes of the left. Many DUers have posted something to the effect of "If Kerry acts like a Repuke to get votes, the voters will vote for a real Repuke - Bush*"

Though we haven't yet reached Election Day, and so it's impossible to tell if these people are right or wrong, it's obvious that Kerry has a lead in the polls, and has been gaining as time goes on even though he has not taken the advice of the anti-DLC Dems who have been calling for more "speaking out" and "taking a stand on principle"

SO how do those DUers who have been saying that Kerry should "speak out" on various issues address the apparent failure of their predictions?

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Dean would be polling even better!

NOT

:toast:

[Nicholas_J]

34. Amusing

Everything indicated that once Dean was formally running against other candidates, and finally formally running for votes, that he did not do very well. None of the supposed media and DLC plots that are touted as the reasons for Deans final down fall can hold any water, as it is would be literally impossible for the media, or any other organization in fact, to comtrol a large enough group of people in order to influence their votes. The facts are that once Dean started appearing to in the very high 40 to 50 percent ranges, the public wanted to fin out more about Dean before making a final, decision. They found out, and unlike the attacks on Kerry, and the Alex Pollier crap that Drudge put out, most of the information put out about Dean was not made up, but factual. The record on his statements supporting the neo-cons and the contract with America's philosopphy on cutting back on medicare and social security spending were all quotes that came from the media at the time Dean made them. His draft record was out in the open, and many exit polls indicated that Dean's record on his deferrment, and his explainations about it did not sit well with many people who attended the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. Those who need to beleive conspiracy theories about the reasons for Deans failure to win the nomination must have them, but again, facts are that government or media conspiracies on a large scale have never occured, nor has theie never been such a conspiracy attempted on such a large scale ever. Most conspiracies revolve around smaller scale attempts to control single events. such as the Watergate break-ins. Or Iran-Contra, where the conspiracy was designed to blackmail one person, or a small number of people, not the voting behavior of millions of people. Even the Pollier incident was meant to discredit Kerry regargin one aspect of his life.

All that happened was that Dean's past record, his past statements, his past philosophies, and his past decisions did not square with his campaign rhetoric. Essentially. Dean was not trusted by those who had not completely decided who to vote for, and in the end, putting together a years worth of apoligies from Dean for making false or exagerated statements about the other candidates, having to explain why he thought that Medicare spending should be cut back, and that the age of retirement be raised months before it was pointed out by Kucinich, and then having to state that he was wrong for holding such ideas, and having supported Gingrich's plans regarding such cuts to entitlement programs. Overall, there was simply too much of a disconnect between Deans peformance as Governor, and his platform for the presidency, Not to say that Dean did not accomplish a number of things that could be interpreted as being good while governor. But the fact that he did them in such a way that adversely effected those in the greatest need while Governor did not sit well wit people getting ready to retire. Dean did increase insurance cverage for children in Vermont, a good thing. But at the same time, he reduces programs that covered low income elderly and disabled individuals who were single, or couples who were childless. The overall percentage of people covered by programs developed by Dean remained either static, or dropped from year to year while Dean was governor. He opposed any programs that would reinstate such coverage, especially if it meant raising taxes on the wealthy, who Dean stated were already taxed too highly in Vermont.

No conspriacies were ever needed, Just revelations of Deans actual behavior as governor, his opposition to the progresiive political elements in the state of Vermont, and his alignment with the more political elements in his state while he was Governor were all things that indicated that Dean was more likely to retain the conservative economic policies of the current administration rather than move towards the more progressive economic ideology of democrats at the end of the political spectrum that candidatees like Kerry and even more so, Kucinich favor.

Occams razor cut Deans campaign short. The simplest reasons for him not winning is that his ideas did not appeal to a large percent of the American Democratic Electorate, once the media provided record of Dean in action.

[Jack_Dawson]

36. Damn that was one comprehensive post!

I'm impressed.

:toast:

[dsc]

55. Yeah I remember vividly in 1995 Howard Dean talking about how a

Republican take over of Congress was a good thing as Democrats had become arrogant. Oops that wasn't Dean that was Kerry. My bad. BTW I will provide a citation for this when you provide something like one for your post.

[gvi]

192. clap clap clap

[CTLawGuy]

77. Dean is going to be the future of this party

whether you like it or not.

[H2O Man]

123. Dean did a lot for the party.

Actually, the nation/world should thank him. He had the balls to take on bush when few others dared. But, like my favorite (Wesley Clark), Dean did not get enough votes to win the primary contest. But think how foolish it would be for the people who back Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Sharpton, etc, to bicker and allow ourselves to become isolated camps, hostile to each other's interests. Alone, we are like individual fingers that our enemy can break. But, together we form a powerful fist that can smash the enemy.

[gvi]

191. nice

[lojasmo]

2. the bush administration is grenading

Al Sharpton would be polling better than the shrub right now. Give me a break.

[sangh0]

10. SO you admit that the anti-DLCers arguments are false?

The argument wasn't "Kerry will lose unless Bush* is weak"

The argument was "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out"

[lojasmo]

57. cough *BS* cough

You ASSERT that the argument is "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out" I have yet to see a quotation, or any evidence.

Your post also assumes that Kerry hasn't spoken out. Do you believe Kerry is an ass-kissing Bush appologist?

What is the point of this post?

I think you're trying to stir up an argument. Your argument is a straw man.

For the record, I believe the policies of the DLC are needlessly right of center. They are the consumate political group, and I despise their ethos.

[sangh0]

75. It's because you're relatively new

You ASSERT that the argument is "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out" I have yet to see a quotation, or any evidence.

I also haven't provided any evidence that liberals support abortion rights. This argument (about Kerry speaking out) has been made so many times, providing cites is like providing cites to prove someone said "Thew sky is blue"

Your post also assumes that Kerry hasn't spoken out. Do you believe Kerry is an ass-kissing Bush appologist?

I don't but many have made that argument, and one the points they make to support that is that "Kerry won't speak out about......."

What is the point of this post?

To debunk the idea that "speaking out" is the only way to distinguish a Dem from a Repuke.

I think you're trying to stir up an argument. Your argument is a straw man.

Imagine that! Someone on DU wants to debate an issue!! What a travesty

For the record, I believe the policies of the DLC are needlessly right of center. They are the consumate political group, and I despise their ethos

I agree with you, but I find it hilarious that you get so upset because I've refuted an argument that, according to you, no one is making. And I don't see how I can be "stirring up an argument" if I'm disagreeing with an argument no one is making. If you don't believe that "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out" (and that's a safe assumption of mine, since you claim NO ONE believes that) then why get upset when I debunk it?

[sangh0]

102. But since you asked for a cite

Here's one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1140679#1140840

...the silence of the Dems can be interpreted as consent...the Dems have consistently enabled Bush* and are practically giving him the next election.

[sangh0]

103. And here's an entire thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=543658

[lojasmo]

178. I'm not upset

I think your premise is bullshit. I call it when I see it. It doesn't mean I'm upset.

I think Kerry would be doing better if he were doing something...anything noticeable.

Bush is tanking very well on his own, though.

SO no, I don't think anti-DLCers are wrong, I think they're spot on. If bush wasn't tanking, Kerry would need to be vocal to be within 20 points of bush. Kerry's lucking out.

It will be fun to see the debates when he'll be forced to argue.

[sangha]

180. You skipped right over the links that prove you wrong

How convenient

SO no, I don't think anti-DLCers are wrong, I think they're spot on. If bush wasn't tanking, Kerry would need to be vocal to be within 20 points of bush. Kerry's lucking out.

They said "Kerry will lose". Kerry is NOT losing, at this point, ergo they are wrong.

[lojasmo]

198. oh for christ's sake

there are too many variables (i.e. bush fucking self destructing) to say who is wrong and right. You want an argument, I know. You want me to say the anti-DLCers are wrong. I won't give it to you.

I believe they were right, but in the current situation, both of our arguments are ABSOLUTELY UNPROVABLE because bush may very well be in jail by november. If bush is imprisoned in november will you still be making this same stupid straw man argument?

I'm done with this thread.

[sangha]

200. If there are "too many variables"

then why would some people say "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out" as if there were only one variable - "speaking out"?

You want an argument, I know. You want me to say the anti-DLCers are wrong. I won't give it to you.

It sounds as if, like me, you think there's many factors involved, which would mean that you disagree with the assertion that there's only one factor that counts, speaking out. Yet, you won't just say it, and you comments suggest that's merely spite.

I don't care if I have a discussion, a debate, or an argument. I'll leave that choice up to you.

If bush is imprisoned in november will you still be making this same stupid straw man argument?

A straw man argument is an argument which refutes an argument that no one has ever made. Since people have argued that "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out" (and I've provided links to show that it happened) my argument is not a straw man.

[lojasmo]

213. I REALLY hate to kick this, but....

ZZZZZZ

[w4rma]

214. Is Kerry DLC or not? I seem to recall you arguing that he wasn't. (nt)

[Liberal Veteran]

Bush has united the party seems a reasonable assumption.

:)

[el_gato]

39. hell a ham sandwich would beat bush in a fair election

[Warpy]

3. It's anti-Bush, son, not pro-Kerry

Kerry is spending far too much of his time agreeing with business as usual to garner much of a following on his own merits.

His healthcare ads, while short on substance, may help him. However, he might have mentioned how far Americans are lagging behind the rest of the world in this regard.

[MontecitoDem]

4. I'm beginning to see a change

I've seen a change in our local progressive meetings -- they're becoming more pro=kerry each month and less ABB (same attendees, just a bit of a change in attitude).

Do others see this trend locally?

[havocmom]

6. ABB is morphing into Pro-Kerry because he is the ABB on the menue

I know Dean would grab a lot more Republican vites where I live.

[MontecitoDem]

7. You're probably right about the morphing

personally, I don't think Dean would be doing better at this point. But, who knows!

[sangh0]

11. So you admit the argument was wrong?

SO you admit that the anti-DLCers arguments are false?

The argument wasn't "Kerry will lose unless Bush* is weak", and it wasn't "If Kerry doesn't speak out, he'll win because of anti-Bush* votes, not pro-Kerry votes"

The argument was "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out"

[w13rd0]

12. Please try harder...

...to fabricate aggrement with your position where no such agreement exists. "Then you agree that..." No, we don't. Pfftt...

[sangh0]

14. So you think Kerry will lose?

The anti-DLCer's argument was that "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out"

Kerry hasn't been speaking out the way those anti-DLCers want him to, so either

1) You think they were right and that Kerry will lose
2) You think Kerry will win which means that the anti-DLCers were wrong

[w13rd0]

31. No, I don't think he will lose...

...but don't present me with false dichotomies in an attempt to bolster your pro-DLC arguments.

[sangh0]

76. You don't know what a false dichotomy is

I didn't present an choice. I've debunked the false dichotomy that Kerry either:

1) Speaks out and wins (or)
2) Doesn't speak out and loses

[CTLawGuy]

73. these are polls

its possible that many voters will realize that they don't like either Kerry OR bush, and decide to stay home, which would bring Bush up quickly.

Furthermore, voters could change their mind in the future if Kerry doesn't lock them up. The voters are siding with Kerry out of anger with Bush, not because they particularly like him. Know how I know that? Because Bush is known by 100% of the electorate while Kerry is known by about 40%. Kerry can only be leading Bush if voters are voting for him because he's not Bush.

Remember, as you probably gleefully do, that Dean had a huge lead in the polls going into January, but he could not lock the voters up, and ended up losing. He couldn't fight the DLC propaganda that he was "unelectable". Don't think the same thing won't happen to Kerry, even over the course of late October.

[sangh0]

78. So far, you're the only one to make a good point

Thank you!

You are absolutely correct to point out that since Election Day is still months off, and things can change between now and then, nothing I've said here should be considered proof. I agree.

However, even though I offer no proof that the "Kerry loses unless he speaks out" is wrong, the evidence I presented doesn't leave much confidence in this predictions accuracy.

Don't think the same thing won't happen to Kerry, even over the course of late October.

So are you predicting that this WILL happen (as you words seem to imply) or are you merely indicating the possibility that this could happen?

[CTLawGuy]

108. its more likely to happen

if he does not reach out and grab voters to his side, people who will vote FOR him.

The last thing he wants is people who are disillusioned with Bush staying home because they don't like Kerry either. That will let Bush come back.

that is what I meant to say.

[sangh0]

109. Maybe. Maybe not

But being agnostic is not the same as predicting, with confidence, that Kerry would lose based on one factor, speaking out.

IOW, though I disagree with you, your position is a reasonable one. It has a reasonable basis behind it. On the other hand, making predictions based on one factor is unreasonable.

[CTLawGuy]

110. people tend to

forget that the electorate is not fixed. Someone disliking Bush does not translate necessarily into a vote for Kerry. If the voter does not like Kerry either, he or she could end up staying home. That's why Kerry is not out of the woods. That's why people tell him to speak out. He has a great OPPORTUNITY to get voters on his side.

[sangh0]

116. ANother thing people don't think about

is that unlike other presidential elections, this one is unique in how polarized people are. In today's NY Times, there's an article which asserts that only 5% of the voters are still undecided, a number so low for this point in a campaign that it is only 1/3 of what it was in 2000 at a similar point in time.

[WI_DEM]

5. Bush has screwed up so much that almost any

competent democrat could beat him. This election is turning out to be an anti-incumbent election in much the same way that the 1980 and 1992 elections were. The polls also indicate that many people don't know much about Kerry or they do have questions about him being a flip-flopper but are willing to overlook it because the country is getting increasingly frustrated by Bush. The latest LA Times poll indicates that many people don't really know Kerry and many are concerned about his reputation as a "flip-flopper" but they are more concerned about the course the country is moving under Bush.

[Demobrat]

8. Gas prices haven't come down yet.

When they do, and they will, Kerry is toast.

[sangh0]

15. Funny, but none of the anti-DLCers I referred to

ever said "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out about high gas prices"

[Demobrat]

17. Maybe they should have.

Of course they may have other priorities.

[sangh0]

18. Was it their priority

to make an argument that isn't true?

om edit: btw, I agree with you in concept. IMO, events are going to more important this year than "speaking out"

[Demobrat]

28. You mean the argument that Kerry will lose

if he doesn't stand up to Bush? That remains to be seen doesn't it?

[sangh0]

79. Yes, that is what I mean

and while the outcome is still not assured, the evidence so far does not support the predictions made.

[KoKo]

9. What was it someone said? "A Ham Sandwich" could win against an

imploding Rogue mis-administration. :shrug:

[sangh0]

13. Contradictory

The argument was "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out"

Now that it seems that they were wrong, people are now adding new criteria. Now it's "Kerry will lose UNLESS:

1) Gas prices stay high
2) Bush* gets his act together
3) The economy doesn't improve
4) Any wacky excuse that can be used to avoid saying "I was wrong"

[Demobrat]

16. What difference does it make if he loses because he's a coward

or because he's outmaneuvered?

[sangh0]

19. The difference is that

Kerry is not losing, which is what some of the anti-DLCers predicted

[Demobrat]

27. He will.

Bush's buds the Saudis will see to it.

[WonderGrunion]

43. Kerry should learn from Dean's downfall.

After all, Dean was also "ahead" before a single vote was cast.

Kerry could fall just as fast as Dean did whether he speaks out or not.

The only thing that Kerry has run on, so far, is that he "seems presidential". I remember a line from The American President that went something like you can't appear more presidential than someone who is actually the president.

While I believe that the DLC is a huge problem with our party, the GOP is a bigger problem for America. So I, like many of us "anti-DLC" nut jobs will vote for Kerry in November.

But stop trying to make us like that we have to vote for Kerry to get rid of Bush, OK.

[sangh0]

80. "stop trying to make us like that we have to vote for Kerry "

Never said that, and since you don't seem to believe that "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out" my argument isn't against you, so I don't see why you are being so defensive.

[KoKo]

20. You are confusing folks who felt DLC didn't come out strongly against Bush

based on Democratic Party PRINCIPLES with some other folks that may be here. I am one who says Kerry needs to speak out forcifully for the principles that bind Democrats together which are getting lost when you just leave the Ham Sandwich there for it to rot from within.

That's the difference. I think it's far to early to sing praises for Kerry's Campaign Strategy. Let's leave that for the Historians to do after the Campaign is over. I'm glad that Bush is going down in the polls. And, Kerry is "holding his own."

[sangh0]

24. No, some people specifically mentioned Kerry as a DLCer,

criticized Kerry for not speaking out, and predicted that he would lose as a result.

I am one who says Kerry needs to speak out forcifully for the principles that bind Democrats together ...

Why does Kerry "NEED" to speak about forcefully? I suspect you meant that you WANT Kerry to speak out forcefully, but what you WANT is NOT what Kerry NEEDS to do.

[KoKo]

37. I don't know...I'm grieving for Ray Charles and don't have time to deal

with your comments about us who don't go along with the DLC... Who cares in the end about this. Kerry wins...takes him four years to overturn Bush...or does he overturn what Bush has done to America.

You decide...I won't go at you about this further.

[sangh0]

96. You had time to "deal with it" when you thought your position made sense

but now that you've been shown to be making absurd claims about what Kerry "needs to" do, you suddenly run out of time.

How convenient!

[liberalron]

21. Sorry, this is a bogus post,

and hypothetical, as there is no way of knowing what the situation would be if things were different than they have been.

[sangh0]

25. So then you agree that it was wrong to predict Kerry's eventual loss?

After all "there is no way of knowing what the situation would be if things were different than they have been", right?

[liberalron]

29. I never predicted

Kerry's eventual loss.

[sangh0]

81. Others have predicted

and you response indicates that, like me, you don't think those predictions are justified by the theory.

[Protagoras]

92. Yep it's just here to inflame

But it is making Sangh0 happy to have all this attention so he got what he wants regardless of how people respond.

Darn I just gave him a bump as well...but that's ok, I'm feeling charitable today. Enjoy the moment.

Tastes great AND less filling...and full of vitamins too!

[LiberalManiacfromOC]

153. agreed

n/t

[mandyky]

22. Kerry is ahead in the polls because shrub is hanging himself!

Any of the Dem candidates would be ahead with all this stuff coming out about lil hitler. BTW, Kerry leading by 6% IS NOT ENCOURAGING CONSIDERING ALL THE BAD PRESS ABOUT THE IDIOT COWBOY.

[sangh0]

26. And again

The people who claimed that Kerry would lose if he didn't speak out never mentioned this caveat - "unless Bush* screws up"

[wyldwolf]

23. Watch and see

The same anti-DLC'ers who lash out at Kerry and about Kerry now will deny he is DLC or embrace his liberal record once he wins.

They'll reason away his DLC membership as being "in name only" or something like that.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. bush is so bad a sack of cement could beat him

!

[leftistagitator]

32. Well, for one

Kerry was not the choice of the DLC, Lieberman was. Kerry only became their guy once it was certain their guy would lose. Kerry is far more liberal than the DLC would have liked, but they sided with him because Dean ran on an anti-DLC platform and they were scared. Two, Kerry has barely begun his campaign, right now for all intents and purposes he is still unnamed Democratic challenger, so really this is an indictment of * rather than an endorsment of Kerry.

Look, the DLC's time has gone. Even it's strongest former supporter, the Big Dog himself, has said that it's power was the Democratic Party's weakness at the time. We had to run as moderates because the rethugs were outpolling us. Now he and the rest of the Party establishment are calling for a more aggressive platform. Haven't you noticed that the Party is courting Moveon.org and DU and other grassroots orgs? Do you think they'd be doing this if they were going to write us off as fringe lunatics? In the short term we could win just by running any candidate against *, but in the long term we must build a Leftist coalition that unites all the major warring factions. Swing voters won't cut it, they aren't involved enough, aren't knowledgeable, and are easily boughten off by a slick add campaign. We need a strong base, it's where the future is. The DLC proved it couldn't be relied upon for it's repeated failures in the Senate and House, and it's refusal to stand up to *. It's why Kerry meets with Nader, and Hillary stands on stage with Soros. It's where the Party is going. Wake up, the DLC has lost.

[wyldwolf]

38. pure conjecture

[sangh0]

94. Irrelevant straw man

Kerry was not the choice of the DLC, Lieberman was

I never said that Kerry was the DLC's first choice, or even their 2nd or 3rd choice. I said "I've read posts from DUers who are passionately opposed to the DLC, and those Dem politicians who agree with their policies and tactics"

And this thread is about the argument that "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out", an argument you completely failed to address.

It's where the Party is going. Wake up, the DLC has lost.

Your emotional reaction to the DLC has made you seemingly incapable of understanding that this thread is NOT about the DLC. It's about the argument "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out"

[leftistagitator]

138. Well, I answered my feelings on that question in the first paragraph

When I said that Kerry is winning on an indictment of the bush* presidency. Until he begins to define himself more, which at the point probably won't happen till the convention, he's still the "not bush*" option in the eyes of America. And, for the record, I don't think Kerry needs to take any particular position to ensure his presidency, he's a strong candidate with a solid set of issues already. Most here would want him to pull troops from Iraq on the day of his inaguration, but as I've argued before that's simply not a responsible option and I have faith in Kerry to get us out of this situation much quicker and with more long term success than bush* could. It's going to make it harder to court Greens, but I'm hoping the promise of no additional wars compared to the rock solid fact of at least 2 more wars under a second bush* presidency will pull most of them around. Most of the Greens I know are gonna vote Kerry, simply due to how amazingly awful bush* has been, but I hope we don't come to take these people for granted again.

[sangh0]

152. No you didn't

Saying that Kerry wasn't the DLC's first choice does NOT address the issue I raised. But at least you answered it in this latest post. Thanks for that.

As far as you concerns about Kerry's need to be more than "not bush", I suggest you discuss them in another thread. In this thread, I prefer to discuss the issue I raised in the OP.

[leftistagitator]

160. Yes, I did

"Two, Kerry has barely begun his campaign, right now for all intents and purposes he is still unnamed Democratic challenger, so really this is an indictment of * rather than an endorsment of Kerry."

That was the fourth sentence of my first paragraph. And I'm not really concerned that he is just "not Bush*", first off because that is good enough to get elected on, secondly because it's still 5 months away from the election.

[sangh0]

161. That doesn't address the question I asked

.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

33. DLC gave us Clinton

Clinton did pretty well. The DLC didn't give us Kerry, but he is very pro-DLC. Look guys the New Deal is over. The Clinton/DLC montra is tool the dems have to use to forge a majority. We cannot act like this is the 1930s all over again.

[Demobrat]

35. Clinton gave us Clinton.

The DLC gave us 2002.

[wyldwolf]

41. What do you mean "The DLC gave us 2002"?

[leftistagitator]

50. The DLC cost us the Senate

We played the DLC game perfectly. The Party didn't criticize rethugs at all, stood 100% behind the prez just like you guys wanted us too. Because, you know, America hates it when liberals have a spine. But somehow, your master formula for success saw us lose, badly, and the rethugs called us traitors anyway. Maybe, just maybe, right wingers can not be appeased. Did you ever think of that? The DLC has cost us the House, Senate, and Presidency, and I for one am sick of that loser org bringing down my Party.

[madfloridian]

58. I believe they cost us the governor's office here.

In more ways than one. We were snookered into supporting McBride against Reno....more to our shame. The last days of the campaign I called his office with things I had found out were happening. We had donated a lot, so I felt I could say something. We were told that sometimes you had to ignore things politically in order to win.

I had my say then, and I have been speaking out about this bunch ever since.

[wyldwolf]

65. how so?

Neither McBride nor Reno were DLC.

[wyldwolf]

64. The DLC cost us the Senate? Really?

The way I see it:

Democrats lost control of Senate by 2 seats. The DLC lost two seats (GA and MO) but gained one (DLC candidate Mark Pryor won against incumbant Repub. Hutchinson in Arkansas) for a net loss of one. Non-DLC dems lost one seat but didn't defeat a single incumbant Republican. So DLC and non DLC both both lost 1 seat, but the stories don't end there. In Georgia, Saxby Chambliss was targeted with a vicious smear campaign that essentially called him a bin Laden sympathizer. Also, 2002 was a bad year for Dems in GA, period, with Gov. Roy Barnes losing partially because he removed the confederate emblem from a prominant position on the GA flag. This also effected votes for Democrats statewide.

However, in Minnisotta, very-non DLC Paul Wellstone was lagging behind Republican Coleman before his plane crash. Walter Mondale, also considered by many as being very liberal, couldn't retain the seat.

So, if we are to play the blame game for the senate (to do so would be silly), then equal blame can be laid at the feet of ultra-liberal Paul Wellstone (who by all indications would have lost) and fellow "liberal wing of the Dem party" Mondale.

[leftistagitator]

68. When Wellstone died the race was too close to say who was winning.

And the embarrassment of what we let those thugs do to his funeral is at the very heart of the problem with the Democratic Party. We let them turn the death of one of our own into a political opportunity for them! What was the response to their viscous attacks? Our mealy mouthed spineless Party leadership barely said a word, they played Colmes to the rethug's Hannity. This manufactured scandel is what cost us the seat, a scandel which could have been turned around if we had fought hard enough. When we've needed strong leadership unafraid of their evil attack machine, what we got was nothing but cowering. When bush* pushed his far right agenda, the DLC was right there to be "moderate" by capictulating to far too many of his whims. Why was bush* allowed to govern as if he had a mandate, despite losing the election, even before 9/11? No Child Left Behind, his awful tax cuts, missle defense and his awful budgets weren't stopped. And after 9/11, we did just about anything he wanted. We didn't want people to think we were "unpatriotic". And what good did it do us? As you mentioned, even the most moderate of Democrats is still a traitor in the eyes of the Rethuglican attack machine.

The DLC has been the central power of the Party since Clinton, the failure of our leadership must go to them. They have become the symbol for Democratic weakness. We need aggressive, strong Leadership unafraid to stand against these evil bastards without flinching. That's why I like what I've been hearing about Kerry, finally we have a liberal with the balls to stand up to these bullies.

[sangh0]

95. SO what? Even if you're right, it shows that the DLC didn't cause the loss

The fact still remains that in 2002, the DLC candidates did better than the non-DLC candidates.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

185. Yeah, what leftistagitator said

:thumbsup:

[CTLawGuy]

112. the DLC cost us the Senate

because their cronies in our leadership told all the dems not to run against the president. Parties out of power tend to do well in midterms because they run against the president. Our party had several candidates running ads showing how much they worked with the president. What Democrat would have been inspired to vote in 2002 with this kind of crap?

[sangh0]

117. So why did Mondale lose

As another poster pointed out, the DLC contributed nothing more than a loss of ONE SENATE seat. The liberals lost more than that, so they blame the DLC.

What Democrat would have been inspired to vote in 2002 with this kind of crap?

Turnout was UP in 2002 compared to 1998 (the last mid-term election) so I don't understand how this supports your contention that not highlighting the differences leads to lower Dem turnout.

[CTLawGuy]

196. ah

perhaps you have never heard of Jean Carnahan, Max Cleland, or Jeanne Shaheen, all of whom ran for senate in 2002 as dems, all of whom pledged support for Bush's war, patriot act, and tax cuts in the hopes of winning the "center", and all of whom lost.

As a result of their strategy, which no liberal would ever in a million years consider using, the Dems lost the senate. We lost 2 seats in MO and GA, and an excellent chance to pick up a seat in NH.

Only the DLC, with their "triangulation strategy", would ever consider sucking up to a president of the OTHER party to try and win. Therefore, because we used their strategy, they lost.

It is YOU who have no facts!

[wyldwolf]

199. ah, perhaps you never read post #64

Democrats lost control of Senate by 2 seats. The DLC lost two seats (GA and MO) but gained one (DLC candidate Mark Pryor won against incumbant Repub. Hutchinson in Arkansas) for a net loss of one. Non-DLC dems lost one seat but didn't defeat a single incumbant Republican. So DLC and non DLC both both lost 1 seat, but the stories don't end there. In Georgia, Saxby Chambliss was targeted with a vicious smear campaign that essentially called him a bin Laden sympathizer. Also, 2002 was a bad year for Dems in GA, period, with Gov. Roy Barnes losing partially because he removed the confederate emblem from a prominant position on the GA flag. This also effected votes for Democrats statewide.

However, in Minnisotta, very-non DLC Paul Wellstone was lagging behind Republican Coleman before his plane crash. Walter Mondale, also considered by many as being very liberal, couldn't retain the seat.

So, if we are to play the blame game for the senate (to do so would be silly), then equal blame can be laid at the feet of ultra-liberal Paul Wellstone (who by all indications would have lost) and fellow "liberal wing of the Dem party" Mondale who had even lower numbers than Wellstone.

[wyldwolf]

136. complete cop-out answer. Desperate. Not one shred of evidence...

...to support it. This is what you come out with after evidence the DLC did NOT lose the Senate?

[sangh0]

140. And he's the one who criticized others for ignoring the facts

when it turns out, he has no facts,

[liberalron]

45. Thank You!

[sangh0]

99. UNfortunately, it's not true

When Clinton ran in 1992, he ran as a "New Democrat", which means "DLC"

[no name no slogan]

40. Clinton never did THAT well.

For example, he never won a majority of the popular vote. Without Perot stripping off the Bush I vote in 1992, it's quite probably he would not have won in the first place.

Clinton STILL didn't win a majority in 1996, although the country and economy were buzzing along nicely. That's damn near impossible in a re-election campaign, if you're a sitting president.

[wyldwolf]

42. uh...

Clinton won an electoral landslide in 1992 - 370 to 168.

He got 43% of the popular vote. It is a myth that Perot cost Bush the election. Look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

In 1996, Perot got 8% of the popular vote and again Clinton slammed it home in the electoral vote. Again, there is ZERO indication that had perot not been in the race, his 8% would have gone to Bush.

[liberalron]

46. Thank you Bob Dole/\,

[cosmicdot]

44. what's the point of keep pulling the rug out and beating it to death?

see wound, pour salt, repeat as often as possible

if you want to embrace the corporatists at DLC, that's your perogative - for others, the DLC is stepping away from the Party's heritage

[sangh0]

82. Very weak defense

Some people have predicted that Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out. Instead of defending that idea, you've chose to attack me intentions.

[wyldwolf]

163. Explain this to me

What is "the party's heritage" that the DLC is "stepping away" from?

[AmyStrange]

47. Kerry isn't winning in ALL the polls...

atleast, not ALL the polls recorded here (about 50+ polls listed):

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm


and if you'll notice, he actually has been going down since IA in some of the polls. So your arguement is based on a false premise,




sig:
"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange said to me in a dream

10) And best of all, check these out:

the "First Seven Days Underground" by Skinner:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/01/010127_7days.html
mirror pages:
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-1.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-2.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-3.html
http://du.seattleactivist.org/DU-JAN-27-2001-Skinner-7days-4.html


the best "unofficial" DU slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/





Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person related news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/


Serious serial killer news and
discussion at the "Serial Killer Cafe":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[mr715]

48. Why the DLC will win

The vast majority of anti or un-Kerry supporters here seem to think that membership in an organization totally removes any fragment of individuality from its members.

There is a perception that the DLC represents something other than what it does in fact represent. It is not an organization of anti-environment, anti-labor, pro-corporate hacks that vote the vast majority of the time with the Republican party.

The Democratic party's traditional values of individual liberty, social freedom, and social justice. The DLC stands for the same things, and also stands for New Deal liberalism.

The New Deal exemplified Democratic values in a time where they were sorely needed. The DLC is not a rejection of those values, but rather a different means to achieve them. Rather than relying solely upon government, it places greater responsibility on individuals and also requires them to follow the ideals of the democratic party.

Bill Clinton's economic boom was a New Deal and a DLC boom. It was a boom from the pumping of capital into the middle class, giving them resources to create new businesses which pumped more money into the government. Free markets enabled larger corporations to export goods and services with more freedom, as well as import raw materials to allow them to remain competitive with the strongly growing middle class.

The DLC, or Third Way, is a vote against rubber stamp, big government liberalism. It is a group for independently minded individuals that are looking for new ways to maximize social justice while minimizing the cost to individuals and to the government. They are right no more and no less than the old left and the right. They have shown themselves to be, however, a party to the most sucessful social, economic, and environmental movements in the nation's history. Why? Because they do not accept the old answers. They seek new ones, and usually better ones.

Globalization is here. We exist in a global community. Corporations are here. We exist in a corporate state.

America will not adopt government ownership of means of production. We are going to remain a solely capitalist democracy.

That being said, lets accept the fact that simply because a corporation is successful does not necessarily mean it should have less rights than Mom and Pop shops. Similarly, corporations are often more socially responsible than their Mom and Pop peers.

Its epiphenomenal. Because Starbucks is bigger than Coffee Shop Y, it does not environmental damage. IF, however, Coffee Shop Y maintained its practices and ultimately became as large as Starbucks, the environmental damage it causes would be three-fold greater. I am an ecologist, this is fact.

The DLC will win because the DLC is very different from the GOP.

And Kerry is more liberal than Kucinich. Kerry is more liberal than Dean. Kerry is more liberal than Edwards. Kerry is more liberal than Gephardt.

His membership in an organization does not reflect his policy positions. It represents an episemology through which he addresses policies. And it works.



Matt

[liberalron]

69. Matt, I think you just proved the anti-DLC point.

Rather than relying solely upon government, it places greater responsibility on individuals and also requires them to follow the ideals of the Republican party.

[mr715]

107. No

If the republican party is the party of individualism, I am voting for Republicans.

It isnt. The DLC requires individuality and individual responsibility in the search for social justice. The Republican party is not about individualism, it is about the disavowal of personal responsibility for profit.

I guess I'm as liberal as an objectivist can get.

[WitchWay]

173. corporate apologism

The New Deal exemplified Democratic values in a time where they were sorely needed. The DLC is not a rejection of those values, but rather a different means to achieve them. Rather than relying solely upon government, it places greater responsibility on individuals and also requires them to follow the ideals of the democratic party.

Requires them to follow the ideals of the democratic party?

Sorry, but that is REALLY disturbing. So is resignation to a "corporate state".

No matter how you cut it, if we let corporations control our governmetn, our candidates, our ELECTIONS and electoral process and basically have control of the major political parties -- that means that the government is under corporate and not the people's control.

I find nothing pragmatic about excusism for corporate control of our government. It's foolhardy to think that corporations can be trusted to be environmental and socially responsible -- especially when they have so much control over our media and government.

Also, globalization sucks. Take environmentalism and put it in a Geneva free trade court and see where that leaves enviornmental regulations. There is a big difference between something like global ecology or global politics and the kind of globalization that multinational corporations have in mind.

174. May I add something?

Rather than relying solely upon government, it places greater responsibility on individuals and also requires them to follow the ideals of the democratic party.


Isn't it always republicans that are talking about individual responsibility? Talk is cheap.
I get so irritated at this phrase because it's a null phrase in the sense that there isn't anyone who doesn't believe in individual responsibility at this point in history. Not since the rise of the conception of the individual self came into being when humans broke away from the pack around the time of the Enlightenment. I'm sure you catch my drift.

Second, this statement has that damn false dichotomy between government and the people in it. I always thought the idea of Democracy was that the government was the people. That's what we should be working for. If we succeed then we wouldn't have to worry about relying on the government at the expense of individual's/the people.

[madfloridian]

49. He basically has a captive audience......it is him or Bush.

Thus you really can not point at the polls as to whether he is needing to speak out or not. There are two choices.

[sangh0]

83. And that means Kerry does not HAVE TO speak out to win.

The people who made that argument said nothing about captive audiences or any other factor. They made the bold and unqualified claim that only ONE FACTOR mattered - speaking out.

If you want to argue that there is more than one factor that influences an election, you'll have to find someone else, because I think that there is more than one factor.

That's one of the point *I'm* trying to make.

[madfloridian]

93. So basically he is just "not losing."

Is that what you mean?

[sangh0]

104. No

When the predictions were made, they said "Kerry will lose". They did NOT say "Kerry would win but it would be because Bush* was so bad"

[Zhade]

51. How do you explain that you post under two different names...

...and have denied doing so?

I noticed you didn't respond the last two times I mentioned this, so I'll ask again: why do you post under two different names?

If you fail to respond, or deny it, I will drag out the link to the thread where you outed yourself.

So what's the deal?

[Forkboy]

52. sockpuppets

[Zhade]

60. HAHAHA!

Nice - and also a Simpsons reference, so it's a bonus!

I'll give sangha/sangh0 a day to answer, then I'll post the link (assuming Advanced Search is back up by then).

Of course, a straight answer would be nice, but I'm not holding my (proudly anti-DLC) breath.

[sangh0]

84. I use tow seperate logins because

I can't seem to get my cookies synched. I use one login at home and one when I'm away.

[Zhade]

115. Interesting. Never had that problem, myself.

What kind of browser do you use? I had problems with Opera remembering my login at first, but never had any kind of issue where I couldn't log in due to 'cookie confusion'.

What is it about cookies that would prevent you from manually logging in regardless of where you are?

I find it odd that you can post under one name and then post minutes later under another name. You must log in at some point remarkably close to your home to be that fast!

I will say, thanks for the (eventual) response - and especially for doing so without insulting me as you do so many other people.

[sangh0]

118. I use IE

What is it about cookies that would prevent you from manually logging in regardless of where you are?

If I knew, I'd fix it.

I find it odd that you can post under one name and then post minutes later under another name.

Never happens. You're mistaken about that.

I will say, thanks for the (eventual) response - and especially for doing so without insulting me as you do so many other people.

Your welcome, and since you were not insulting, neither was I.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

122. I have been honest about it

and the timestamps on DU have a bug.

[Zhade]

209. The timestamps have a bug, eh?

I don't believe you. But, I'll let the matter drop.

[Forkboy]

53. My cat would be polling better than Bush at this point

:shrug:

[dsc]

54. Yes you are right

The DLC opponents are guilty of not being psychic. No one could have predicted that the Iraq war would look as bad as it does now, that oil companies would keep prices high, and that the economy would still be in a jobless recovery. I doubt any Democrat would be losing now. But yes, the anti DLC crowd was guilty of a lack of psychic powers. BTW do you have a post you can site where you predicted these things?

[sangh0]

85. No, they're guilty of PRETENDING to be psychic

I didn't force them to make stupid predictions.

[dsc]

125. The predictions weren't necessarily stupid

nor were they necessarily wrong. A good argument can be made that Kerry should be further ahead in the polls than he is. It also could be argued that a candidate who was against the IWR would be further ahead than Kerry is right now. My hunch is such a candidate would be further ahead but admittedly it really can't be tested. In any case, the race isn't won yet. If Iraq appears to turn around and gas prices continue to fall (they have fallen 20 cents in about 2 weeks) then Kerry is likely to suffer a setback (especially if the anti DLC crowd is right).

[sangh0]

128. They were stupid

A good argument can be made that Kerry should be further ahead in the polls than he is

Some people said he would LOSE. They didn't say he'd do better in the polls.

It also could be argued that a candidate who was against the IWR would be further ahead than Kerry is right now.

You mean like Dean?

My hunch is such a candidate would be further ahead but admittedly it really can't be tested.

It CAN be tested, and it HAS been tested. In the primaries, there were candidates that fit your profile, and in the only polls that count (ie elections and caucuses) they didn't do better than Kerry.

If Iraq appears to turn around and gas prices continue to fall (they have fallen 20 cents in about 2 weeks) then Kerry is likely to suffer a setback (especially if the anti DLC crowd is right).

In that case, if Kerry should lose, it would be because of events, and not because Kerry didn't speak out, so that prediction is still wrong, even under your own scenario.

Face it! It was a dumb prediction and even you won't support it.

[dsc]

190. No one is as obtuse as you pretend to be

People can lose for more than one reason. The fact is our only shot, until events took their turn, was for a candidate who actually actively challenged Bush. As to the primary, had Saddam not been found an anti war candidate would have won.

[sangha]

201. "People can lose for more than one reason."

Funny how this thread that assumes the election hinges on one factor alone (ie "speaking out") and both you and I think there are several factors, yet you have chosen to disagree with me.

I don't suppose your obvious hatred for me has anything to do with this? Even when we agree, you have to disagree.

[dsc]

211. No my reasoning skills have a lot to do with this

If Kerry loses due to reasons A, B, C and D he still will have lost because of reason A. He also will have lost because of reasons B, C, and D. I don't recall anyone claiming that would have been the sole reason he lost. They did say that changing that could prevent the losing. But that isn't the same thing.

[Upfront]

56. Bush Is So Bad

A ham sandwich could beat him. Good thing anybody but Bush is not on the ballot along with Kerry and Bush.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

124. That used to be against the rules here. To call someone out.

You dredged up a post from the primaries.

You are trying to make fun of another DUer, a very nice one at that. This is out of line, in my opinion.

126. technically

it looks like it's only if you start a thread

" Do not start a new discussion thread with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member."


:)

[madfloridian]

127. Then can others do it as well? You think?

It is not my style, but I hate to see a nice person like Upfront hurt so deliberately.

129. I think

whether there's a rule against it or not, it's not a good thing to do.
But it doesn't matter what I think, does it?:evilgrin:

[madfloridian]

133. It is not my style, to embarrass others.

:evilgrin:

[sangh0]

130. Deliberately?

I didn't force Upfront to make such a stupid prediction, and if he continues to make more of them, I see nothing wrong in informing people concerning his track record.

[madfloridian]

131. You went back to Dec when Dean was still running to find something.

I find that disturbing, and I don't think I will lower myself to those tactics. Upfront is a good guy, and he can take care of himself.

I think you should feel bad about doing such things.

Oh, and yes. Going back to Dec. to find a post was most certainly deliberate on your part.

[sangh0]

134. If that were true

and Upfront was truly "a good guy", then he would say things like:

"Quit crying."

"Get with the program."

"Face facts and quit the attack."

"Wake up people"

[madfloridian]

135. You are questioning his character. "Get with the program"....scary.

Upfront knows varied people in politics and works for great people in politics. He is most definitely "with the program." Please be cautious whom you say things about.

Your quote:
"and Upfront was truly "a good guy", then he would say things like:

"Quit crying."

"Get with the program."

"Face facts and quit the attack."

"Wake up people""END QUOTE

Questioning his character. I know him, do you?

[sangh0]

141. No, I'm questioning his ability to predict

You're the one who brought up the character issue

[madfloridian]

145. No, you said "if" that were true and "upfront was a truly good guy" then..

QUOTE"If that were true

and Upfront was truly "a good guy", then he would say things like:

"Quit crying."

"Get with the program."

"Face facts and quit the attack."

"Wake up people"END QUOTE

You questioned his character.

[sangh0]

148. I said that inresponse to your claim

that Upfront was "a good guy". YOU were the one who raised the character issue

[madfloridian]

162. You said "if" he were a nice guy he would meet your standards..so to speak

Not true. People can be very good people and not do what you say. I know him, and he is a great guy. You questioned his character.

[sangh0]

165. No, I didn't

I don't know of any non-Republican standards which say that "Wake up" is something "a good guy" says.

[madfloridian]

168. I quoted your post two times. You said it.

.

[sangha]

181. After you brought it up

I said nothing about character until you raised the issue. Some people think only their side of an argument is legitimate

[madfloridian]

186. No, you said "if" that were true and "upfront was a truly good guy" then..

When you say "if" someone is good they would say a certain thing, that is questioning who they are. You are using the word character to deflect the fact that you know I am right. You are saying that a fellow DUer is perhaps not worthy unless he is saying the proper things according to you.

You amaze me, both of you.

[sangha]

187. I said that AFTER you brought it up

.

[Forkboy]

137. Like saying there's no war supporters on DU

then being shown there is?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x544979#545834

I didn't force you to make such a stupid statement,and if you continue to make them I see nothing wrong in informing people concerning your track record.

[sangh0]

142. One poster

Is that all you've got?

[Forkboy]

146. One is alI I needed to prove you wrong

[sangh0]

149. And what a huge mistake

you've uncovered. I suggest you spread it around DU. DOn't worry! No one will think you have a thing for me

[Forkboy]

150. "mistake" lol

nice backpeddle.

Is the point where you run to ATA and whine about stalking and death threats again?

[sangh0]

154. "mistake" is a "backpeddle"?

:crazy:

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

151. I'm trying to get some work done here

but I'm laughing too hard.
Cut it out.:evilgrin:

[dsc]

193. It is supposed to be against the rules regardless

of if it starts a thread or doesn't. I have had posts removed for it in the past so I know. Incidently I only did it when the person had directly lied about what he or she said and only in response to the person.

[Armstead]

59. GEORGE BUSH, GEORGE BUSH, GEORGE BUSH....

GEORGE BUSH, GEORGE BUSH, GEORGE BUSH....

Torture in Iraq, soldiers dying in Iraq, endless screw ups in Iraq

GEORGE BUSH


I hope Kerry wins. But it is not that Kerry is doing well. It's that Bush is doing badly.

[sangh0]

86. And here we have someone who demanded Kerry speak out

or lose, and who now has switched their argument without acknowledging their previous error.

[liberalron]

61. Now I remember why I haven't been here in a while.

The style and mentality is too similiar to that of the Repubocons that troll some of the Left/Liberal sites.

[Guaranteed]

62. Once AGAIN, you make bad use of the word "prediction."

Just take it out of your vocabulary entirely, for Christ's sake. It's fucking embarassing.

[Guaranteed]

63. BTW, the reason that Kerry is doing so well is that the anti-DLCers are

CORRECT in their assertions that Bush is so horrible.

Dean supporters want nothing but the truth to be spoken. I think the polls show that no one would really be able to hold that against them- since Kerry is really saying nothing at all, and still winning. ;P

Wow- imagine the huge gap between Bush and Kerry if Kerry actually decided to take a leadership role.

[sangh0]

88. Bait and switch

"the anti-DLCers are CORRECT in their assertions that Bush is so horrible."

I started this thread to discuss one assertion (ie "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out") and not another. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[bklyncowgirl]

66. Bush is a uniter not a divider--he's united the Democrats

Most Democrats--regardless of their ideological bent--are determined to send Bush back to Crawford Texas--or preferably to Mars.

There's been alot of holding back on all spectrums of that alliance of interest groups we call the Democratic Party--the DLC included. My personal take is that the DLC, once a correction for a party that had become, in the eyes of many, overly dominated by noisy activist groups which were easily parodied as being antithetical to the values of middle class Americans, has gotten too powerful and that its approach has lead to recent electoral losses. I think that the Dean campeign and the subsequent revival of the left has been a useful correction to the domination of the DLC.

Kerry is a good unity candidate, a bona fide liberal environmentalist with genuine defense and pro-business credentials who can appeal to both the left and right wings of the party. He's also real good at mending fences. The fact that the men he defeated are among his strongest supporters says alot for his concern to try and make everyone feel welcome.

Let's try and get beyond the endless rehashing of the primaries. In case you haven't noticed, the candidates we supported in the primaries are all be on the same team. (although sometimes I wonder about Lieberman--oh but wait--he's the DLC guy isn't he) If we want to unite the country, we first have to unite ourselves.

[dolstein]

67. No -- the real question to ask anti-DLCers is why Nader isn't leading

After all, Bush and Kerry are simply going after the support of people who vote. What about the 50% of Americans who don't vote? According to anti-DLCers, the reason these people don't vote is because no candidate is offering an uncompromised left-wing agenda. The problem is, one candidate IS offering an uncompromised left-wing agenda -- Ralph Nader. So why aren't polls predicting that Nader will get 50% of the vote? Sure, some anti-DLCers will argue that the polling models simply don't factor in these people. But what about the 2000 election results? Nader ran on a left-wing platform then too. But those 50% of Americans who don't vote -- those closet socialists just dying for a left-wing alternative -- once again stayed home.

[liberalron]

70. dolstein, and you helped.

See post # 69

[CTLawGuy]

74. thats not why...

"What about the 50% of Americans who don't vote? According to anti-DLCers, the reason these people don't vote is because no candidate is offering an uncompromised left-wing agenda."

No, the reason the don't vote is because no one gives them a clear REASONABLE agenda to vote for. They get platitudes and endless nuance from kerry. From Nader they get an unreasonable agenda and a guy with zero governing experience. Howard Dean provided a moderate agenda that was clear and was right on all the important issues from our point of view.

Furthermore, most people understand how the two party system works, you either vote dem or you get the republican. No one else has a serious shot. So many people are hesitant to take 3rd party candidates seriously, and stay home rather than vote for them.

[sangh0]

89. Dolstein, one step at a time

You might be able to think ahead, but people who make stupid predictions like the one I address in this thread, are not as bright as you.

[wyldwolf]

205. dolstein -I've been reading some of your posts and you are nailing it!

[OHdem10]

71. John Kerry is a liberalbut since we permitted the

Republicans to essentially decimate it it is not poitic to call him that anymore. He is doing his best to straddle the line between DLC and Center Left. At this point he is not winning because he represents either wing of the party.Rather, He is not Bush. The people have to first decide they will fire Bush. The people are passing judgment on Bush not Kerry. Kerry has to be an acceptable alternative when they(people) have made up their mind about Bush.
If the people do not decide to fire Bush--it does not matter what Kerry is.

This is why we have have been given this NON-STOP Cannonization of Reagan. The Republican Party hopes that some of Reagans (populartiy)
will rub off on the Party and Bush.

Russert said last night so did O"Reilly that Bush will get a bump in the polls because of this great production. Is it not fascinating how they an tell us what they polls will show.

The LA Times poll just came out with Kerry ahead. Overnight, the people will change their minds.???

[CTLawGuy]

72. Kerry is not winning

Bush is losing. Louis Farrakhan would be leading Bush right now... well maybe not, but you know what i mean.

[sangh0]

90. Kerry is not losing, which is what the prediction claimed.

.

[liberalron]

91. And what are you doing to defeat Bush

and elect Kerry, other than trashing people who don't support the DLC policies, which might turn out to be counterproductive considering the alienation factor.

[sangh0]

97. Answer - Much more than you are

.

[liberalron]

101. And would you care to explain to me

just how it is that you know this?

Keep working on that alienation factor; you're quite good at it.

I am done with this ludicrousness.

[sangh0]

105. No, I would not

bye bye!!

:hi:

[sangh0]

98. If no one made the argument

then how can it be meant to inflame? Why would people who didn't make the argument be inflamed when I debunk the argument they never made?

[CWebster]

100. Consider the choice

Isn't that what ABB is all about? Kerry isn't winning--Bush is losing and Kerry is the only alternative. Scratch beneath the surface on a majority of Dems and you will find a resignation to vote for Kerry, perhaps, but no joy in it.

How did Kerry "win"? How did Bush win?

[sangh0]

106. Kerry isn't losing

that's what the predictions said.

[CWebster]

111. He is barely keeping his head above water

Considering all that is sticking to Bush right now.

That is pathetic.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0610-03.htm

113. those pesky canadians

What could they possibly know about U.S. politics?

(sarcasm)

[sangh0]

119. He isn't losing

which is what the prediction asserted.

I notice you will do anything to avoid discussing that.

[Larkspur]

114. Kerry won't win the election; Bush will lose it

Kerry is banking on Bush losing, more than him winning because he knows that he has little merits to win on.

[sangh0]

120. Stupid remark

If Bush* loses, it won't be Nader moving into the White House.

And the prediction wasn't "Kerry won't win" It was "Kerry will lose"

[WillyT]

132. Bush Is A Major Putz ???

Just guessing mind you.

:shrug:

BTW - Wasn't that his title in the Guard; Major Putz???

:evilgrin:

[JayS]

139. The fact that Kerry is not waaaaaaaay far ahead in the polls...

...worries me. It is not like Kerry has an opponent or anything. Kerry staying at little better than breakeven all these months does not bode well.

[sangh0]

143. Missing the point

The prediction I rebutted was not "Kerry would be doing better if he spoke out". I rebutted "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out"

[wyldwolf]

144. It means what all the politcal analysts say it means..

..that the country is almost evenly divided. You have a vast number of people on the right and left whose votes cannot be swayed.

Pollwise, this might be as good as it gets for the next few decades for questions like, "who will you vote for..?"

But Kerry has a substantial lead electorally.

[AmyStrange]

156. Kerry's REAL Poll numbers...

...all in ONE place

a good place to check out all (well almost all) his poll numbers tracked for the last few months:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

and you'll notice in some polls his numbers have actually been going down,

d

[wyldwolf]

157. And this makes you happy, I see

[Forkboy]

158. How do you "see" that?

[sangh0]

159. WIth his "mind's eye" would be my guess

This is DU. There's no need to be as literal as a Fundamentalist.

[seaglass]

216. Because posts on DU and elswhere are not made in a

vacuum.

[AmyStrange]

164. What makes me happy?

putting up a webpage that puts (and tracks) many polls rather than just one poll. It's a great link.

For some reason you seem to think I don't want Kerry to win? Why is that?

d

[Forkboy]

166. Because silly,you haven't offered up your first born yet

just saying you're voting for the guy isn't enough.You have to worship the ground he walks on as well.

[AmyStrange]

172. certainly seems that way to me too

where do I go to do this first born thing? hehehehe

d

[Forkboy]

175. You'll have to talk to your parents about that

:D

[AmyStrange]

177. I'll have to go in the backyard...

and dig them up to ask them. I guess everyone will just have to settle with just my vote,

d

[wyldwolf]

167. no, gleefully point out that Kerry lags in one poll

It is a negative spin and many on the several threads view it as such.

...and Polling Report is a VERY popular site at DU. Its is quoted and linked to daily. You haven't really introduced it to anyone.


And to think it started with you saying: Kerry is not leading in ALL polls... like some folks here are trying to brainwash you into believing.

[AmyStrange]

170. gleefully?

I didn't know polling report was popular or even known here. And how do you know I haven't introduced it to anyone?

I think it IS important to know that Kerry isn't a slam dunk just yet and a lot of work needs to be done. What do you have against that?

d

[wyldwolf]

171. You really didn't know Polling Report was popular or known here?

Really?

Hmmmm.

Whatever. If you say so. Silly point to argue so I won't.

[AmyStrange]

176. agreed... (n/t)

[mzmolly]

169. Easy, Bush is beating himself. He's unraveling and Kerry has stepped

out of the way. I haven't much of an issue with it right now-after hearing Ms. Ann Richards speak about this very issue.

But, I do expect him to say more as the election draws near.

[liberalron]

179. What an Idiot!

Before I get deleted, the entry in the subject title is not directed at Sangh0; but rather it is directed at myself for coming back here.

Sangh0

"The prediction I rebutted was not "Kerry would be doing better if he spoke out". I rebutted "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out"."

I forget which post this exact quote was from; but one can take their pick, because your posts are full of variations on this theme.

So let me get this straight, you think that Kerry's best hope and strategy is to be quite???

I can't speak for John Kerry; however, I think that if he were following this thread, he just might not be very happy with your line of "defense" or strategy plans for him.

[sangha]

182. It's really very, very simple

So let me get this straight, you think that Kerry's best hope and strategy is to be quite???

No, which is why I never said that. What I did say, and it is pretty simple, is that the assertion "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out" is wrong.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

I can't speak for John Kerry; however, I think that if he were following this thread, he just might not be very happy with your line of "defense" or strategy plans for him.

Before you make assumptions about Kerry's opinion, I suggest you start following what I've said, instead of what you think I meant.

[liberalron]

183. I think he might,

is an assumption?

[sangha]

188. OK, not an assumption

My mistake.

But are you now clear that all I'm trying to say is that the assertion "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak out" is wrong?

[liberalron]

194. Yeah, and maybe you've been making the same

mistake with the term "predict".

Why is this SO important to you? It is pretty immaterial and irrelevant. What is this kind of stuff doing to defeat Bush and elect Kerry? Can't you find a more productive use of your time?

[sangha]

202. Nope

and why is it so important to you? You're the one who seems to be getting upset and trying to make it personal. You've reacted that way right from the very beginning. Why?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

184. If he weren't running against the worst president ever, he would be

in trouble. I heard him speak in Minneapolis just last week, and he speaks entirely in vague platitudes. He sounds intelligent doing it, but he's not the least bit inspiring.

I know lots of people who are voting against Bush. I know few people who are actually for Kerry.

It's like the previous Oregon gubernatorial election in 2002. No one was enthusiastic about the Dem candidate Ted Kulongoski, but the state Dems were determined not to let the Republican nightmare known as Kevin Mannix into the governor's mansion.

On the other hand, the Dems lost the Senatorial race because the Republicanite incumbent Gordon Smith put on a smiling face, while the Dem candidate, Bill Bradbury, was a great guy, but gave voters no compelling reason to reject Smith.

If Kerry were running against a more personable and competent Republican, we'd have reason to worry. Kerry's biggest advantage this year is the utter horror of Bush. People who haven't voted for years are coming out of the woodwork as ABB.

Don't be confused about the difference between disgust with Bush and enthusiasm for Kerry.

[sangha]

189. Imagine that!

A politician mouthing platitudes. Why, that's unheard of in politics.

I know lots of people who are voting against Bush. I know few people who are actually for Kerry.

The people who vote against Bush* make me just as happy as the people who vote for Kerry.

Don't be confused about the difference between disgust with Bush and enthusiasm for Kerry.

And don't be confused about the difference between your post, and one which responds to this thread's main point.

[ulysses]

195. my opposition to the DLC

has less to do with electoral concerns than it does with the fact that the DLC embraces a lot of damaging conservative positions and tolerates others.

Kerry's rise in the polls would surprise me more if Bush's little adventure in Iraq hadn't been shown to be the needless fuckup that it is to the degree that it has been in the media of late.

[sangha]

203. And I agree

but this thread wasnt meant to be a discussion of the DLC. It was meant to examine the claim some people have made in the past, specifically "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak". it wasn't "Kerry will lose if he doesn't speak up AND Iraq goes well" because if Iraq *HAD* gone well, Kerry's "speaking out" about Iraq ould not have helped him. It would have hurt him to have criticized an invasion that turned out well.

[Castilleja]

197. Lack of any other option?

perhaps? :eyes:

[dolstein]

204. My response to those who argue that the DLC cost us the Senate

I suppose that most of the people making this argument are too young to remember the 1980 elections, when many liberal incumbents lost their seats and the Democrats lost control of the senate for the first time in over 20 years. The fact is that the Democrats would never have retaken the Senate were it not for a string of victories in the South in 1986 -- victories due in part to the recruitment effort of the newly formed DLC.

I always find it amusing about how those who blame the DLC for the electoral decline of the Democratic Party are either wholly ignorant of, or deliberate ignore, the fact that the Democratic Party was well in decline long before the DLC existed. They completely ignore the impact that the string of Republican victories at the presidential level had on the Democratic Party's fortunes at the state and local level. It's one thing to argue that the DLC proved incapable of halting this decline, but to actually blame the DLC for a process that began around 1966 is, to put it bluntly, sheer idiocy.

[cyclezealot]

206. The other half of the equation is

Bush is self destructing..This election will be about Iraq and the economy. So many DLCers were for this war...The American public turning on the war..That a DLC position..Just elections do not reflect the public's mind...
For all the bad news Bush has had the last couple weeks.It is a scandal Kerry is not drastically ahead.

[sangha]

207. The other 1/2 was ignored by the anti-DLCers

but you reserve your criticism for others.

[dolstein]

208. No, the real scandal is that the anti-DLCers are oblivious to the fact

that only once in the past fifty years has a Democratic nominee for president received substantially more than 50% of the vote. That's a historical fact. And the sheer ignorance of so many people around here of that historical fact is disgraceful. Why are people blaming Kerry for polling at ONLY around 48% in the polls when Bill Clinton never received a majority of the popular vote and JFK, Truman and Carter barely managed to get around 50% (some have argued that, technically, JFK failed to get a majority of the popular vote because his name wasn't on the ballot in one or two Souther states he "carried").

[JNelson6563]

210. He's not Bush

Could it be any easier to see? Ugh.

Julie

[Jack Rabbit]

212. Kerry's lead in the polls

. . . is at least partly due to the fact he's running against the most corrupt and incompetent occupant of the White House in history.

It no longer matters whether one believes that the invasion was a good idea or, as I do, a bad one and a war crime on its face. The fact is that it has failed to meet it objectives. That stands to reason, since it was supposed to make Americans safer from terrorism by attacking a regime that had no association with terrorists. Meanwhile, there's the usual resistance to foreign occupation in Iraq.

Kerry is leading because Bush is guilty of one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in history. No matter what one thinks should be done, there is no reason to have any confidence in Bush to do the right thing.

[cyclezealot]

215. If Bush is so corrupt in regards to this war.

Would it not be asking to much for Kerry to acknowledge that fact.

[Jack Rabbit]

217. No, it would not be

That I believe he should do. However, it's four and a half months to the election; he's got plenty of time to introduce that line of attack.

Meanwhile, it's just as effective for him to let others (like us) bring up the matter. Anybody can talk about why Bush shouldn't be president. Kerry would do better to discuss why he should be.

In the end, my vote for Kerry will really be a strong reaction against Bush. I think Kerry is wrong on many things, but I trust him to at least make decisions based on an examination of the facts rather than think that a decision can be made and facts simply invented to support it. Even if I agreed with Bush more than Kerry on most matters, I would entertain the possibility of voting for Kerry for that reason.