Kerry may just have to work a little harder for the progressive vote

[BurtWorm]

considering Nader's move to appeal to potential Green Party voters by naming Peter Camejo his running mate.

That could be a very good thing, in my opinion, in which case many of us who are disappointed with Kerry's centrist stance may be thanking Nader before the end of the campaign season.

[JI7]

1. most progressives are already voting for Kerry

some will vote for nader no matter what. this is why politicians appeal to moderate voters. because for some "progressives" who claim to be progressive the issue of drilling in alaska, supreme court justices, separation of church and state and many other issues are still not enough to get them to vote for democrats. they can't be trusted when the time comes to vote.

[lancdem]

3. Well said

[ibegurpard]

14. what can't be trusted are swing voters...

...by their very definition... and yet the Democratic Party continues to give the middle finger to constituencies that have been rock solid in their support in an effort to make themselves more appealing to these people. They'll end up losing both.

[JI7]

19. supreme court justices, sex education, no drilling in arctice refuge

are issues that democrats have been very good on and if these certain progressives claim to be progressive yet these issues are not important enough for them to vote for the party who takes those positions against the one who is opposed to it they can't be trusted.

swing voters on the other hand are not very demanding and claim to be for something yet don't think it's important enough to vote based on that. this is why candidates appeal to swing voters. they might be prochoice but still consider voting republican if the don't view the republicans as too right wing. or they might be against against abortion but still consider voting democratic if they view the democrats to not be too extremist. and they WILL vote for one of the two major parties. so to lose their vote will mean a gain for the ther major party which actually has a chance of winning.

[vi5]

20. "rock solid in their support"

The green party/nader voters have not been rock solid in their support of dems. In fact there is every indication that they are just as demanding and fickle as swing voters. It would be one thing if there were a set of specific demands or issues that they wanted Kerry to agree on but there isn't.

The voters you are talking about have been anti-democrat for as long as I can remember (I used to be one of them).

[JI7]

23. Nader had a tough time endorsing Paul Wellstone

and the greens were running against wellstone also. while nader did endorse wellstone towards the end right before he died. i would think for a progressive , that supporting someone like paul wellstone would be a given. nader was on bill moyers show and moyers asked nader why he hasn't endorsed him given wellstone's pretty good voting record. and nader's response was that wellstone didn't endorse him(nader) in 2000 when he ran for president.

[no name no slogan]

45. The Greens HAD to run someone against Wellstone

In order to maintain their major-party status, the MN Greens HAD to run a candidate against Wellstone. If they had not, they ran the risk of losing their major-party status in MN, which means an end to campaign assistance from the state, and access to the ballot, too.

I'm not certain of the exact rules, but in order to qualify for major party status in the state, a party must run a candidate for statewide office (governor, attorney general, US Senator) every four years. Also, the candidate has to receive 5% or more of the vote for the party to maintain its major-party status.

Most of the Greens I know were going to vote for Wellstone in 2002 anyway, and there was a strong "Greens for Wellstone" movement in the party, to endorse Paul as their Senate candidate. However, the rules don't allow cross-party endorsement, so the Greens had no choice but to run a candidate of their own.

[Still_Loves_John]

61. Swing voters aren't progressive

They sit on the fence. That's why they're called swing voters.

[lancdem]

2. Sorry, I'm not buying

Kerry shouldn't pay one iota of attention to Nader or his supporters. You don't win elections by moving to the left. That's nothing but a prescription for disaster.

[BurtWorm]

5. He's already paid him some attention.

He went a-callin' on Ralph earlier this Spring, remember?

[jpgray]

6. Ralph asked for a meeting

If you remember the articles, Kerry staffers didn't what the hell he was talking about at first. ;-)

[JI7]

8. ralph also said kerry should pick edwards or gep as his running mate

both dlc members.

[lancdem]

10. So if Kerry picks Edwards, do you think Ralph will drop out?

Hell no.

[ElkHunter]

53. Perhaps Kerry shouldn't move to the left...

...but I'm certainly not moving to the right. I didn't vote for Republicans in the 1970's even though they tended to be more liberal than they are today. So I'm certainly not going to vote for Democrats who have politics that are similar to 1970's conservatives. If Kerry wants to cloud his progressive credentials in order to appeal to the center then I'll simply give my vote to a true progressive, like Nader, who stands proudly for the same progressive values that I support.

[jpgray]

4. I've lost a great deal of respect for Camejo

I heard that he was attempting to engineer an outright Green Party endorsement of Nader as well, and now this. Not only is Nader sucking all the oxygen of the party into his own person, but his indirectly helping Bush in even the most small, insignificant way is about the least progressive thing anyone can do at this point. I'll leave his investments in Raytheon, Halliburton, Boeing et al aside for right now, but let's just say Nader is your garden variety hypocrite politician, and how dare he pretend to some moral high ground even as he indirectly helps this gang of crooks and murderers--he's profiting off their warmongering even as he collects money from dumb idealists who oppose it.

Getting Bush out of office should be the number one priority of every progressive. We had a great opportunity to nominate an anti-war candidate during the primary, but the voters rejected every one. That was the time to vote one's conscience--allowing Bush to have another four years is unconscionable, and saying the same about voting for Kerry makes zero sense to me.

[BurtWorm]

11. Are you sure Kerry isn't profiting off warmongering?

Would you feel as contemptuous of Kerry if it turns out his portfolio has some defense industries in it? Or do you hold Nader to a higher standard than Kerry?

[JI7]

12. Kerry didn't attack Al Gore for some investments as Nader did

and i don't think they were even al gore's investments but gore's mothers.

[jpgray]

15. *Nader* holds himself to a higher standard than Kerry

Nader's hypocrisy isn't unique for a politician until you match it with his claim that he is different and superior to the one-party corporate plutocracy--then you notice that his profiting off of it even as he decries its evil becomes more than a little hypocritical. Nader isn't running on being Kerry-lite, he's running on being above the corporate plutocracy--the choice of conscience. In reality he is making enormous profits off that horrible system--any guy who makes money when more Cruise missiles kill kids in Baghdad doesn't quite match any criteria of mine regarding a 'conscience' candidate. Kucinich matches up much more nicely, thank you, and that is why I voted for him. :)

Kerry is known as an establishment candidate--Nader has all the hypocricy with none of the ability to get things done. He at least talks the talk, and I'd be very interested to see what he would do in office--if he were polling in a position to win the election, I'd carefully consider voting for him as a lot of his professed views are close to mine.

edit: Nader's statements make for endless contradictions--remember when he railed against Gore for his Occidental Oil holdings? Guess who has such holdings himself? :)

[BootinUp]

7. Oh dear

Here we go again.

Try to get a piece of the 1-2% that wouldn't vote for either one of the major parties? Sounds like suicide to me.

[denverbill]

13. Yes, why bother with the 50% of the populace that doesn't bother voting.

1/2 the voting age population doesn't bother voting cause there is so little difference between the two parties.

But instead of focusing on them, let's go after the 1/6 of the population that is so wishy-washy, they still have no clue who they are voting for.

In any election, about 1/6 of the voters vote Republican, 1/6 vote Democratic, and 1/6 split their vote. 1/2 don't bother voting. 1/50th vote for Nader.

[LoZoccolo]

16. Nizzope.

1/2 the voting age population doesn't bother voting cause there is so little difference between the two parties.

Document or retract, please.

[denverbill]

27. OK.

http://hnn.us/articles/1104.html

How could the political parties create cohesive and enduring coalitions out of this mix of issues? The short answer is that they could not do so. The issues were too crosscutting and too numerous for either party to combine them in a way that could easily satisfy a following. By the 1970s, self-described independents accounted for a third of the electorate. People also found it increasingly difficult to think and talk about the parties. Americans were better educated than they had been in the 1950s, but they had a harder time saying what the parties represented. In the 1950s, less than one in ten had nothing to say when asked in polls what they liked and disliked about the parties. By the 1970s, three in ten had nothing to say.

Since then, political parties have not recovered their prominence. They are relatively weak objects of loyalty and thought, which has diminished Americans' concern with election politics. Like any other emotional attachment, party loyalty heightens interest and commitment. For its part, party awareness reflects people's ability to recognize what's at stake in election politics and the options available to them. "My mind has just gone blank," said a Florida resident in 2000 when asked in one of our surveys to describe the parties.

Americans who today have a party loyalty and an awareness of the parties have a voting rate more than twice that of those who call themselves independents and who cannot find words with which to describe the parties. That was true also in the 1950s. The difference today is that the percentage of citizens in the high-voting group is much smaller and the percentage in the low-voting group is much larger than in the 1950s. The type of citizen that votes less often has been gradually replacing the type that votes more often.

The change in party politics helps to explain why, disproportionately, the decline in participation has been concentrated among Americans of low income. Although a class bias in turnout has been a persistent feature of U.S. elections, the gap has widened to a chasm. The voting rate among those at the bottom of the income ladder is only half that of those at the top. During the era of the economic issue, working-class Americans were at the center of political debate and party conflict. They now occupy the periphery of a political world in which money and middle-class concerns are ascendant. In 2000, low-income respondents were roughly 30 percent more likely than those in the middle- or top-income groups to say the election's outcome would have little or no impact on their lives.

The change in party politics also helps to explain why candidates now have trouble crafting messages that voters find compelling. Candidates have never had so many communication weapons at their disposal, yet they have never found it so hard to frame their message. As Franklin Roosevelt's voice crackled into living rooms through the vacuum-tube radio, his pledge to "the forgotten man" had a persuasive power that today's media consultants would envy. Listeners didn't have to be told what FDR had in mind or to whom he was speaking. Campaign messages today are strikingly different in the wide range of issues they address, the contradictions they contain, the speed with which they turn over, and the small percentage of voters with whom they resonate. After their defeat in the 2002 midterm election, Democratic leaders were roundly criticized for failing to put out a message that captivated voters. However, Democratic politicians are neither stupid nor apolitical. If a simple and compelling message was readily available, they would have seized it. Such messages are today quite rare. If Republicans could not rely on their perennial "let's cut taxes" pitch-which is now closer to a fight song than a true governing philosophy-they would face the same problem.

[LoZoccolo]

43. That says nothing like what you said.

Even that study cites a 65% turnout as the highest.

Here's what you said:
1/2 the voting age population doesn't bother voting cause there is so little difference between the two parties.

Besides, the study cites the New Deal as ending class antagonisms - the Republicans are trying to get rid of all that now (ask Grover Norquist), so there is a difference. Might take some time to sink in, but I'd rather not wait and see if people notice and then see a difference. I'd rather just not let it happen.

[denverbill]

46. It wasn't exactly what I said, but it's very similar.

What I was saying was that there used to be a party of the rich and a party of the working class. The party of FDR and LBJ was most definitely the party of the little guy (at least it's liberal wing was). Nowadays, it's pretty hard to tell the difference.

You are absolutely correct about Grover and pals. But that's where I have my biggest problem with Democrats. I see Grover and see someone whose views need to be exposed and refuted. I want the Democrats to stand up and defend programs designed to protect and assist working class Americans.

Unfortunately, Democrats spend so much time worrying about being called 'socialists' that they don't have any time to refute people like Norquist. Instead of debating whether there should have been ANY tax cuts in 2001 or 2003, Democrats only debated the size and the distribution. Instead of railing against using excess social security taxes to fund general fund expenses, Democrats let it slide.

Personally, I think a large percentage of the non-voting population would start voting again if one of the parties actually started to make a real tangible difference in the lives. And the Democratic party hasn't done anything for 40 years.

[LoZoccolo]

48. You look for candidates to do the work of activists.

I've always said the best way to get the Nader issues supported by candidates is to make people understand them. People don't understand economics anymore. People would rather listen to the simple stories that Republicans tell about economics - and they're very good at telling simple stories. The candidates don't have enough time to change someone's mind over something as complex as NAFTA through our soundbyte-oriented media.

Now if enough people understood economic issues the candidates couldn't ignore them. But I don't think a candidate can do that so much really, not from our side, and not in the space of time in which candidates have to campaign. That's why it's our job, or even Nader's job for that matter, to get support from the people that will actually be doing the voting for the issues. Nader's time would be much better invested getting people to understand the issues rather than risking putting Bush* back in the White House.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Did Nader bring out much of that 50%?

If that's their only reason for not voting, well, this self-proclaimed "different" candidate should have had 50% of the vote, shouldn't he have?

[jpgray]

18. The most hilarious myth that has ever been offered

You'll notice this mystical block of nonvoters waiting for a progressive hero fail to turn out for Nader, and more importantly they fail to turn out for any progressive candidate in the primary. Non-voters tend to not vote no matter what the field looks like--no evidence exists to indicate they are waiting for the leftist messiah, as third parties and leftist editorials so often claim. The evidence flatly contradicts this theory, as when progressive candidates do run, no significant block of non voters comes out to vote for them.

[JI7]

21. those 50% didn't see any difference between Kerry and Kucinich ?

[denverbill]

33. If Kucinich looked like Kerry, would the vote count have been different?

Find me a good looking, charismatic, progressive populist Democrat and he'll win the popular vote by 20%.

And the DLC would probably change parties.

[JI7]

50. pretty shallow of these progressives to not vote Kucinich for his looks

[denverbill]

62. Yes it is.

Unfortunately, real, true progressives only account for a tiny percentage of the electorate and in order to win, we've got to convince enough other people to vote for our candidate as well. And unfortunately for us, a significant percentage of voters will vote based on looks, bearing, height and other shallow characteristics.

[no name no slogan]

63. It's all about the money, and the media

If you look at surveys on the issues, you'd find out that a good share of the Democrats who voted in the primary had more in common with Kucinich than the other candidates.

However, given the fact that his campaign didn't raise a lot of money, he didn't get much attention from the media. In fact, I saw one report where Hillary Clinton got more coverage than Kucinich, and he was in the debates and on the campaign trail every day!

Algthough DK had the right message, it's hard to get that mesage out when you don't have piles of money. And if you don't have the money, you're not treated as a "serious" candidate by the media? And, if you don't get covered by the media, how do people even KNOW about your message?

I ran into that countless times during the primaries. I talked to one guy the night of our caucuses, and he asked if Kucinich was still in the race-- DESPITE the fact that Dennis had appeared at an event in our town less than one week before the caucuses (an event which turned out 2500+ people, yet was UNREPORTED by the major media in this city)!

Need more proof? Look at Howard Dean. Before he raised millions via the web, he was an asterisk. Once he started speaking out against the war, people gave money to his campaign. Once the money was rolling in, the media payed attention.

Better yet, look at Ross Perot in 1992. If he was anybody but a wealthy millionaire, he wouldn't have been given the time of day by the media. But, since he had the $$ to buy and hour of primetime air on the major networks, all of a sudden he was "serious".

Unless you have a warchest, the media doesn't give two shits about you either way. And if you're a candidate whose supporters aren't wealthy (or have disposable income, for that matter), you're that much farther behind the others.

[MontecitoDem]

57. I agree, I think...

but it isn't just looking different - its demeanor, mien, oratory style, something like that. Kucinich has a great platform, but looking at him and the way he presents himself, many of us agreed that he couldn't win the election. And that's what it's all about - particularly this election cycle.

I don't know about the DLC - they're going to have to change along with us as we change the party (we being Dean, Kucinich, Clark supporters, greens and other anti-war progressives) or disappear. And I believe we are changing the party from the ground up. It'll just take some time for the changes to filter up.

[no name no slogan]

64. Most people didn't even GET TO SEE Kucinich

He was virtually ignored during the debates-- at one of them, he received a total of four minutes time, out of 52 minutes of airtime. That's less than ONE TENTH of the total air time.

Most people who saw DK only saw him during the "debates". Those of us who've seen him address crowds know that he's an excellent speaker (who writes his own speeches, BTW), has a solid grasp of the issues, and comes across as a caring, concerned citizen who is only in government so serve his country.

But unless you'd been to a rally, or maybe caught him on C-SPAN, you wouldn't know that.

[BootinUp]

25. If they paid any goddamn attention

they might see the differences. Apathy is due to more than not seeing much of a difference between the parties. Clearly that is not the case anyways. What scale do you measure with? Does it include the communist party on the ruler?


Back to causes of apathy... I would say the biggest cause is ignorance (not stupidity).

[denverbill]

29. Perhaps.

However, why should working class Americans vote for Democrats when Democrats passed NAFTA? Why should working class Americans think Democrats will represent them when it costs $1000/plate to get into a fund-raiser?

Working class Americans have seen their jobs going to Mexico, China, and India. They have seen their health insurance disappear. Social Security is on death-watch. And working class Americans are paying higher taxes than at almost any time in their history.

And what is the Democrats 'bold vision'? Well, slightly tinker with tax laws to slightly decrease the need for a company to outsource jobs, tinker at the edges on health care, maybe increase the minimum wage a smidge. Keep part of the tax cuts. But whatever the cost, we must maintain the 'free market' mantra.

See, the thing is, Americans realize that even if Democrats sweep the House, Senate and Presidency, 2-4 years down the road, we still won't have reliable health insurance, improved Social Security, or job security. Because doing those things would be 'socialist', which is just one tiny step from 'communist' and we all know how awful that is.

[BootinUp]

40. Well

I happen to think "free market" (thats kinda wide open) is still the way to go. Recent studies released on NAFTA give it mixed reviews. I think the biggest problem with it is lack of enforcement. Am I an expert on it? No. But when many politicians that I do respect are for it, then I will probably give them the benefit of the doubt. I do think much can be done with corporate tax policy to reduce the sucking sound as Ross Perot put it.

There are many opportunities for people of average means to get involved with the campaigns this year. I think it depended on whether you were in a state that would make a difference in the primaries, or a so-called swing state in the GE. But also the internet has allowed many people to get involved that have not in elections past. I hope the trend continues to improve there.

The problem I see with your position is you advocate fairly radical changes. Sort of like the libertarians who never get anywhere. Americans are just not for radical change. Especially when you consider that this is a national election and only 18 states are really being contested! If both candidates had more extreme views the number of swing states would probably be reduced further. We might as well start cutting up the country at that point.

Edit: fixed the first para.

[denverbill]

42. Considering libertarian free-marketering is all the rage nowadays,

perhaps they have been more effective than you realize.

Hardly a day goes by I don't read something from CATO. Virtually every radio talk jock extols the virtues of unrestrained free market laissez faire capitalism and the evils of anything remotely resembling socialism, like Medicare and Social Security and unemployment insurance. Now, apparently, it has become 'radical' to favor these programs.

This 'radical' agenda I favor was, with the exception of national health care, the way of life for America up til the era of Reagan. That was when the free marketeers decided it was more important to get cheap imported cars than it was to protect good American jobs. Ever since then, it's been a race to the bottom for workers.

I for one don't think it's particularly 'radical' to support policies that turned America into the world's economic powerhouse and turned our working-class into the most financially secure working class in the world. I think it's a helluva lot more radical to attempt to undo those laws, but Republicans have been doing it for 20 years now, with minimal opposition.

[BootinUp]

44. Manufacturing and technology

has spread out in the 20th century. The 50's and 60's we had the advantage in the world market by a huge margin. But it was never going to last forever. The poor economy of the mid to late seventies, whatever you blame it on, it had a big impact on the future of the New Deal programs, and tax policy. Americans still remember the stag-flation. They blame it on the democrats for the most part. We are still recovering.

I tend to be moderate on economic issues. I actually think Clinton did do a good job on economic policy especially considering he had a republican congress after '94.

BTW I am using "Radical" to mean out of the mainstream. Without significant political support. Unable to be passed in even a democratic controlled house.

Anyways, I didn't mean to insult you, sorry if it came out that way.

[LoZoccolo]

9. The first eight letters of "progressive" are "progress".

I have seen no plan from anyone showing how voting for Nader will really get us any of that.

[Tactical Progressive]

22. Kerry shouldn't work at all for the Progressive vote

I'm a Progressive, and I don't want to hear anything especially Progressive come out of Kerry's mouth. Any Progressive that doesn't already know the difference isn't worth wasting time on.

[BurtWorm]

24. Know the difference between...

what or whom? Between Kerry and Bush? Or between Kerry and a progressive? I can tell the difference between all of the above. ;)

[Tactical Progressive]

26. Know the difference

between their left and their right.

[Comicstripper]

28. Progressives

The simple fact is, this isn't 2000.Progressives simply won't allow Bush to win. I know Nader's polling well now, but rest assured that he won't do nearly as well this time as he did in 2000. His followers just won't risk it.

[BurtWorm]

31. I tend to agree with you.

And yet, I don't take it as a good thing that Kerry doesn't have to do any work to get the progressive vote. It feels to me as though he's asking us to just trust him--in fact he's not even doing that! He's telling us to stop crying in our teacups, get over Election 2000, and like or lump his IWR vote, his Patriot Act vote, his Leave Most Children Behind vote... Maybe he should be sweating a little harder for us.

[union_maid]

56. As someone said up the thread, you've got it backwards

Progressives need to do more work with the right people to create a demand for their positions. The reason that you don't get more progressive candidates is that only the self-defined progressives vote for them and that's a tiny slice of the population. The reason I hate Nader is that he never worked to get a single difficult vote. He preached to the choir and not only helped to elect Bush, but he didn't do a damned thing to advance any progressive cause outside the circle who already shared those views. You want a progressive candidate - do something to create a more progressive climate.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

30. If you don't vote for Kerry, you are not a progressive

At least not one with any sense.

[BurtWorm]

32. That's too broad a statement.

Period.

[Padraig18]

34. If you don't vote for Kerry, you don't understand the problem.

Period.

[BurtWorm]

35. You don't understand the problem as defined by whom?

You mean the Bush problem? Or the bigger problem Bush himself is part of?

[Padraig18]

36. The only problem that matters, at this point:

Getting Bush out of office. Nothing can be changed or rectified, unless that happens. It's about the forest, not the trees, Burt.

[BurtWorm]

37. I worry that it is in fact about the forest, and we're all looking at

the trees. But I do agree with you that Bush himself--and his rotten administration--are a problem unto themselves and must be dealt some poetic and electoral justice.

But I also wish to be on the record saying that I do not trust John Kerry, for the very good reason that he has given me no good reason to trust him. I'll vote for him because he's not Bush, but I won't trust him as far as I can throw him.

[wyldwolf]

38. faux "progressives."

many of us who are disappointed with Kerry's centrist stance may be thanking Nader before the end of the campaign season.

What? For throwing the election to Bush?

[BurtWorm]

39. I'll be thanking him if and only if he makes John Kerry step left.

If and only if.

[wyldwolf]

41. won't happen

No matter who Nader's running mate is, Kerry is appealing to a broad base of democratic and independent voters with liberal stances on social issues and moderate stances on economic and foreign policy issues.

I doubt he'll be held hostage by Naderites and if they band together (doubtful) and swing the election, they will become even bigger pariahs than they are now.

[no name no slogan]

65. THAT's why he's not slamming Bush today!!!

Kerry is appealing to a broad base of democratic and independent voters with liberal stances on social issues and moderate stances on economic and foreign policy issues

If Kerry truly wants to get a broad base of the population, he's got it all bass-ackwards.

Democrats used to win handily by appealing to the bread-and-butter issues: jobs, fair trade, livable wages, a social safety net, punishing corporate wrongdoing. They've NEVER done well by trying to be liberal on the social/lifestyle issues. In fact, that's where the Repubs nail their hides to the wall, with the help of the evangelicals.

Most people in this country believe that corporations have too much control over how this country is run. They FAVOR livable wages, not sending their jobs overseas, and reasonable restrictions on the power of big companies.

Instead, the so-called "New Democrats" have abandoned the populist economic platform of the "old Democrats", and have adopted the laissez-faire policies of the Republicans-- effectively taking the economic policy debate off the table.

To compound this mistake, they're using the ever-divisive social issues as their rallying point-- effectively dividing the working-class base of the party-- in an effort to woo the economically conservative but socially liberal upper-middle class who live in the McMansions. So now, the working people of America have been effectively disenfranchised by their own party. Nobody's talking about their economic concerns, and the party they normally support is too busy obsessing over whether or not to say the pledge of allegiance at the school board meeting.

And that's why only 1/2 the population bothered to vote in 2000.

Voter turnout in 2000 was barely above 50%. Party self-identification for Democrats is under 30%. We lost control of both houses of congress, as well as many local offices. Democratic members of state legislatures are at their lowest level since 1964. Sure, we won with Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but without Ross Perot's help that probably wouldn't have happened.

Democrats more often than not win when they focus on the ECONOMIC issues: fair trade, livable wages, a fair balance between owners and workers. Instead, the DLC seems to think that most working Americans favor tax policies that benefit corporations that export jobs, and favor those who make their money from investments rather than from work.

This party has effectively abandoned one of the core coalition partners that made up the New Deal. We've given them little reason to support us in the last 14 years, and we're doing little about it today.

[spooky3]

66. Clinton did quite well by taking the stances you seem to decry.

There's no reason at all to run away from "liberal" positions such as pro-choice, equal rights regardless of sex, race, etc. They reflect the views of most Americans, who do NOT share the positions taken by the evangelicals, who will vote for Bush regardless of the position Kerry takes.

[BurtWorm]

68. What about the point about the economic issues?

Do you agree that the Dems have conceded too much ground to the Repubs on economics and the role of government?

[no name no slogan]

69. I never said abandon them-- but don't overplay them in favor of econ issue

Clinton did NOT do that well-- Perot siphoned off enough votes from Bush 41 in 1992 to give him the victory, and 1996 was pretty much his to lose, after a sad Dole campaign. Furthermore, he governed like a moderate Republican on economic issues, with NAFTA and "welfare reform". Heck, he wasn't even that good on social issues: "Defense of Marriage Act" anyone?

The Democrats have effectively abandoned economic issues as one that separates us from the Republicans.

For example, why the hell did Clinton re-appoint Alan Greenspan, TWICE, despite the fact that his policies at the Fed do nothing but enrich the wealthy, keep working people's wages down, and encourage excessive borrowing by the working- and middle-class-- in turn, leading to record personal bankruptcy rates?

I'm not saying we abandon the social issues-- far from it. We should continue to support them. However, these are NOT the issues that unite us as a party, but effectively divide the party in many circumstances.

Unfortunately we have sold out the economic issues-- the ones that get working-class people to the polls-- and have come up with NOTHING to replace them. We are effectively mimicking the Republians, with little difference to separate us from them.

By selling out the working class on the bread-and-butter issues, we've alienated a potentially powerful voting bloc, all in an effort to appeal to the fickle "soccer moms" and "office park dads" who do little more than vote for candidates, but don't help BUILD the party as a whole.

The social issues are important, but they are not nearly as important as the economic issues.

[cindyw]

47. I'm tired of this. If people don't get that a vote for anyone, but Kerry

is a vote for Bush, then you are lost in my opinion and not worth appealing to.

[TexasSissy]

49. SO true. We have to put personal feelings aside, and come together.

We want to win. Kerry was not the first choice for me or many others, but he's the presumptive nominee, and he's tons better than Bush. He follows the Party Platform, so he'll be just fine as President.

[Cuban_Liberal]

51. Kerry is the only train capable of reaching Progressive City.

You can board it, you can board the Bush train, or you can stand on the platform and whine about there not being as many trains as you'd like. The choice is yours.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

52. kerry's at his best when challenged from the left

dean made kerry win the primaries and ralph may well win the general election for kerry. remeber that gore was going nowhere until he decided to address nader in his convention speech with (faux) populist rhetoric. it was at that point that he pulled ahead of dumbya in 2000. he maintained that until his infamous "agrre with everything chimpy says" perfromance in the 2nd debate

[BurtWorm]

59. That is precisely my hope.

:hi:

I'm astonished by how nervous so many DUers are at the idea of a Democrat sounding and acting like a Democrat! They want to claim that Kerry is doing just fine being the foggy centrist he's being. Don't people remember what happened to Democrats in 2002 when they played at being foggy centrists? If it didn't work then, what makes them so sure it will work now?

[mzmolly]

54. Ya know if he starts to show some umph, I doubt the media will show it

anyhow :(

[LoverOfLiberty]

55. Kerry has this progressive

Lock, stock and Barrell.

[MontecitoDem]

58. This will definitely change some numbers in California

Camejo gained a lot of credibility here during the recall (which perhaps he will lose by pairing himself with Nader - I don't know?)

So it will change things, maybe not by much but enough to give Bush the impetus to throw money here and for Schwarzenegger to perhaps campaign for Bush. If that happens, Kerry may have something to worry about. Repubs will be turning out bigtime here for Schwarz.'s candidates for state assembly and senate.

Bummer.

[Armstead]

60. Nader and The Greens should go suck an egg

It's ironic because I defended nader's 2000 campaign vigorously here in the past. So I have to eat some crow in saying this.

But now Nader has proven himself to be a COMPLETE ASSHOLE!!!!!!

I'm not wild about Kerry for the same reasons Nader isn't. But the stakes are too high to do anything that will help Bush gain a margin of victory this time. Nader is an idiot if he can;t figure that out.

Nader should find himself a nice woman and retire from public life.

And anyone who supports him this time is delusional.

[pathansen]

67. PROGRESSIVES NEED TO STICK TOGETHER TO HELP GET RID OF BUSH

I have been a member of the Green Party and have
agreed with many of Nader's ideas.
However, Nader people need to face reality:
Kerry is right now the only possible hope of
getting rid of Bush. So PLEASE!! We need to stop
criticizing Kerry for not being progressive enough
(He seems to be very progressive from what I have
read). We must all stick together to stop Bush
getting re-elected before history repeats itself!!

[Classical_Liberal]

70. We have to find away to give the neoliberals the finger

without hurting ourselves. The spoiler effect is real. Let's fund a third party challenger to George Bush. It will triangulate antiwar conservatives away from both Kerry and Bush.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1839669&mesg_id=1839669