Unless the U.S. universe has shifted a lot, the 2012 presidential election will be won in the middle

[bigtree]

As far as liberalism is concerned, voters in presidential elections don't even let our progressive candidates get as far as the nomination. Despite the growing movement to void our party of any 'moderate' influences, every indication is that this election should be about the same as the others where key regions of the country won't bear a candidate who hews too far to the left and doesn't express some fealty to some conservative positions or initiatives.

That's why it doesn't make sense to grouse about losing elections while insisting on an uncompromising liberal stance from our nominee. While we certainly do need to advance many ignored and neglected planks of our progressive agenda, that effort will almost certainly be met with a similarly uncompromising counter-campaign which energizes and unites republican voters to the polls.

Progressives are an uncompromising bunch. Most of the issues and concerns they represent are deeply felt and personal to them. Unfortunately, that partisan attitude doesn't win presidential elections. Unless progressives or any other ideological faction of our party can produce enough votes to elect our nominee, they will need to adopt some flexibility about our candidate's support for their agenda. It's my observation that there isn't any one ideological faction within our Democratic party which has enough support to prevail in a national election on its initiative alone. We need 'independents who just voted republican in the midterms and the new voters we got in the last presidential election for our party to win the next time around.

Our party has always been a diverse coalition of concerns; a big tent. That's how we achieve the majority and that's how we win presidential elections; by giving heed and homage to a divergence of views. That doesn't have to mean capitulation, but, it does mean that partisans in our party are challenged to compromise on the degree that their agenda is going to be promoted. It's always a political balancing act when working to appeal to as broad a coalition as possible, but that broad appeal has always been vital to the success of our party in national elections.

Unless that political equation has, somehow, drastically changed, there's going to be a limit to how much progressives (and others) can prudently expect the President and the party to represent their one ideology within our party to the exclusion of decidedly more moderate ones . . that is, if we expect to win.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. The flip side of this is that the electorate tolerates, and even insists on...

Republican Candidates running very far to the right.

I will say that both parties are coalitions. They are successful when they can get the largest percentage of their coal ions to turn out.

Unless the various state laws are changed to make it easier for other parties to run and win, which would require the big two to give up power, progress will happen in baby steps.

[leftstreet]

2. Hilary Clinton/Jeb Bush 2012

[Ozymanithrax]

3. I can't see Bush as her running mate. n/t

[leftstreet]

4. :spray: omg you actually entertained the notion I was serious

omg

thank you

:rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

10. Behave. nt

:rofl:

[DonCoquixote]

12. I understand the laughs

But to be fair, in this day and age, many things are serious that, in a sane world, would be fodder for comedians.

[Ozymanithrax]

28. Well, Maybe Crist...

I understand he is free.

[bigtree]

5. hey

I'm not saying you actually WANT our party to win the presidential race.

Clearly you do not, if that's your choice - or, if you can't see past the snark to the reality that voters have NEVER supported a progressive candidate to the nomination.

[Ozymanithrax]

29. The U.S. will seriously support a very far right Republican...

without blinking.

But, since Huey Long, there has been no serious left wing contender, Well maybe Eugene McCarthy. He was anti-war though not necessarily progressive. That is something to think about.

The last President elected, who actually ran on a real progessive ticket, and was considered a progressive, was a Republican named Herbert Hoover. But he would not be considered Progressive by the modern progressive movement, though at the time he was considered such.

[bigtree]

30. I'm inclined to agree with that

No such outpouring of support out there for a far left candidate, or even a strident liberal. I just don't see it.

[Demeter]

31. I can see that, Unfortunately

We can only hope that she sends him off a cliff shortly before Inauguration. Or he will do it shortly after.

[placton]

6. How are things at the DLC these days?

this crap will lose us the next election too

[bigtree]

7. it won three presidential elections in my lifetime

Four, if you count Jimmy Carter, who had a lot of moderate policies and positions in office.

As for the DLC crap, grow up. I'm not conveying something new here. This is history. You think you can buck it, fine. Show me where Clinton or President Obama won by being uncompromisingly liberal.

[marmar]

9. I would argue that candidates Clinton and Obama were to the left of presidents Clinton and Obama

nt

[ibegurpard]

14. yeah no shit

[treestar]

15. Once they got into the office

Things were harder.

Face it Repukes have it easier, since they want to shrink government. Wanting to increase its involvement is much harder.

The reality of the office hits them in the face. Campaigning is about hopes, governing - well you run into the real fact that creating a new government program is always hard.

[Fumesucker]

24. Republicans do *not* want to shrink government..

They simply wish to change the focus of government from comforting the afflicted to further comforting the already comfortable and further afflicting the already afflicted.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. And President Nixon was to the left of both of them.

[AndrewP]

32. Y ou are making a reasonable point about Presidential Politics

Don't be shocked if the purity crowd gets worked up over it though.

[Toucano]

8. The word "middle" has very little meaning in politics.

It's a very transient place.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. K&R. Sad but true

So many times I tried to vote for folks like Jerry Brown & Dennis Kucinich yet they had already dropped out of their primary races by the time the PA primaries were underway. And my voting for a Carter or a Mondale or a Dukakkis (and even Jesse Jackson twice during primaries) led nowhere as well.

It seems that over the years, there has been more and more of "like living with like", where people gravitate to geographic areas that best reflect themselves and gravitate away from those that don't. And this feeds the partisanship that occurs in Congress as one locality will continually reelect their village idiots while another is accused of doing the same. And with the average person not really paying attention to politics at all (let alone even considering doing any voting), the result is clear...... as mud.

[paulk]

13. this is really too bad

because liberal policies are the only things that are going to get us out of the mess we're in...

imho

[bigtree]

17. that's an important point

. . . that I'm sure I don't express enough while trying to find some balance between the conflicting demands within our party. Very little of the conservative agenda seriously intends to benefit average working-class Americans. Working Joe's are just pawns in their cynical political game.

. . . it ain't easy.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. If it means being a Republican like Party, who cares about

the WH? Who gets to sit in the chair and play 'CIC' is not nearly as important as maintaining progressive representation in both houses. Right now, I Have all Democrats from the WH to my house, and so I'm not really looking to my sort of voters as those who need to make adjustments. Those who lose need to make adjustments. We won. The Progressives did far better than the outdated old right tilters.

[bigtree]

21. that's just simplistic rhetoric

You can't seriously compare the efforts of even these two adjacent administrations and come anywhere close to bearing that assertion out to the truth. For instance, go down the line and compare the Cabinet agencies (their heads, their agenda, and their actions). Compare Executive orders. All of that doesn't even cover the number of Democratic initiatives which were allowed to advance early on and throughout the first half of this presidential term. Even more than that . . .

Still, the President, as nominee, needs to be mindful of those electoral votes that reside in those conservative states and districts. It's not a challenge or a fight between members of our party, as much as it is a collective challenge for Democrats to understand and overcome the opposition these Democratic voters and candidates face in those difficult areas of the nation if we intend to win the presidency.

[ibegurpard]

22. so is your entire premise

the "middle" is a meaningless term just like the "left" is.

[bigtree]

25. the term is good enough

. . . for the purposes of this little discussion, I think.

I agree that positioning himself in the 'middle' going to be mostly sleight of hand with regard to this president. He always be seen as a left-leaning politician to most Americans, though.

[kctim]

34. Really?

Just how many progressives won in red districts? How many 'old right tilters' won in red districts?

Is it really a win if there was no challenge?

[ibegurpard]

18. If your definition of the middle is more of what we've seen over the past two years

that is, adoption of neo-liberal policy in an attempt to placate corporate power, while the right-wing echo chamber chants the mantra of socialist and you piss off everyone who might actually try to combat that then you are sorely mistaken about what's going to win in 2012.

[bigtree]

23. I see this presidency as more neo-moderate

Sure, they could have fought for more . . . and lost trying. But they made progress toward the enactment of our Democratic agenda.

I really don't know who you think the angry voter was this past election, but I'm putting my money down that it was the republican and independent voter who showed up to cast their ballot against our Democrats who was angered at our party's political and legislative progress; certainly not the progressives and others who showed up to vote Democratic.

Where do you find that Democratic discontent you speak of registered in the past election?

[Crunchy Frog]

19. The middle of what?

I really don't care about what label a politician goes under. My only concern is that they have an inclination to address the real issues in our society and they not be puppets of big corporations.

If the "middle" means corporatist "Dems" who will not do anything to try to constructively address real problems, then they can count me out of the next election.

I don't give a damn about ideology. I'm a pragmatist. But for me, pragmatism means actually trying to solve problems.

[TheKentuckian]

26. Fuckin A

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Which "middle?"

the one of 1976?

Or the one in ... 1992?

Or you mean the one in 2008?

Each of them has moved progressively RIGHT... and it ain't due to the country going there... unless ye are picking talking points from Eric Cantor... "The Country is center right to right!"

It is time to STOP going there... we are running out of space...

Also two of those candidates were far more liberal... they RAN ON A PROGRESSIVE platform, than the Presidents... which makes me suspect that there is something really wrong with this theory.

[RainDog]

33. bullshit

the greatest increase in turnout in this election cycle was among old white evangelical idiots.

the greatest increase in turnout in the 2008 election was among the young.

the election will be decided by who gets the vote out for their constituencies. If democrats continue to try to pander to an imaginary middle, they will make sure more and more young voters stay home.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

35. Which Is Exactly Why Republicans Can't And Won't Win

They don't HAVE anyone other than far-right whack-jobs. And even if they did, the lap-dog right-wing voters, who have allowed themselves to become whipped up into a frenzy by the right-wing media, would never vote for them.

[karynnj]

36. It depends on how you define progressive

For anything, you can define a continuum. Take being a progressive, you can put all even remotely potential candidates on a scale from most progressive to least progressive. If your personal cutoff is that only the say the top say 5 percent count - ie only Mosely Braun and Sharpton in 2004; or maybe 10% add Kucinich, you are right that we will never pick a progressive candidate. I will call that 10% range - the fringe.

I personally dislike the word "progressive" because it seems to have multiple meanings - I have looked at some of the scales designed to define who is progressive and who isn't - and they produce widely different results for the same time period. It seems that some define progressive almost more as what I see as libertarian - ranking Byrd and Feingold higher than Sherrod Brown (who in MHO is far more progressive. Therefore, I prefer to look at liberal, which is, IMO, better defined.

In 2000, Bradley was a liberal and a progressive. He had a real shot at the nomination. Although he was an outstanding Senator (and basketball player), he really was a rather poor campaigner. I have met Bradley at a local book signing - he lived for years in my county - so this was home base and many people knew him. Meeting with people was not his strength. He lost because many felt that Gore was owed it because he stood behind Clinton through everything. It might have been that any one running against Gore might have lost as people would have made it a referendum among the active Democrats who vote in primaries on Bill Clinton.

In 2004, Kerry was the most liberal of the candidates not in the fringe who ran. Dean had a far more conservative record as a governor of one of the most liberal states. This is an example where the liberal won - and he did well enough that there was no repeat of the huge McGovern loss - that pushed people to select the next nominee from the conservative side of the party.

He won the nomination and in a year not good for Democrats, he would have won but for a lack of adequate voting machines in Ohio - in spite of a media condoned character assassination and religious organizations including large parts of the Catholic church against him because it was very likely that whoever won would pick 2 or even 3 Supreme Court justices. (Rehnquist was near death - and that would have been replacing a prolife justice with a prochoice one.) Note they were FAR quieter 4 years later.

Then there was 2008. Looking at all the first and second tier candidates - placing Kucinich an Gravel as the fringe, I would argue that the most liberal one there was Obama. Now, some might say Edwards, but that ignores both his conservative Senate record and the fact that he had one of the more conservative platforms in 2004. Edwards, chameleon that he was, reinvented himself as far to the left as he could in 2008 because he knew Hillary Clinton controlled the center right of the party.

In fact, if you look at all the people who even tentatively investigated running in 2008, there were two who might fit your criterion. None though lost the nomination by being too progressive or liberal. Feingold put out feelers, but he did not generate enough enthusiasm to pursue it. Kerry was clearly signaled interest and was attacked by everyone allied with Clinton and he had the problem that many who by Nov 2004 were convinced he could win had been bitterly disappointed. A third person, who by 2007 sounded liberal was the formerly conservative Democrat Al Gore. In his case, he very likely could have won had he got in early as it could have made an Obama unlikely to run. But, at any rate, no case could be made that he was kept from the nomination because he was liberal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. The "middle" was rejected by the voters in 2010.

In case you didn't notice, the "moderate" Democrats did most of the losing in the last election. The election showed, if anything, the public's disdain for "moderate" politics-as-usual and a demand for real change in a system that ensures the status quo.

It would be nice if your paen to the "Big Tent" were true. That the bosses try to "balance" the different factions. But, you don't recognize the "the middle" is the faction most being pandered to and the one that just lost.

[bigtree]

41. so, we have a progressive Democratic majority in the Senate now?

really?

If anything, our national legislature just shifted to the right. We lost the House to republicans and the Senate is balanced on a pin. Hardly a demonstration out there of some shift toward progressives. We lost moderates to republicans, not to progressives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. And, why was that? Because the moderates were so able to sell their program to the voters?

If moderation is the ideal, and the only way to govern, why did fail so monumentally? If making deals with the moderates and conservatives the only way to run the government, why is Obama, and his moderate programs so unpopular?

If moderation is so effective and popular then why isn't the house and senate jampacked with moderate Democrat?

[bigtree]

49. It's not moderation that's in favor with voters right now

It's conservatism that swept the last election; mostly a snap-back response to our party and president's legislative and political victories.

Besides, it's never been a question of electing liberals to the legislature from many parts of the country, or winning a number of states in a national election with a progressive appeal. The sticking point to that effort has always been a handful of states and districts which are key to our Democratic party winning majority control, or the presidency, resisting liberal appeals and advancing candidates who pay homage to their conservative views.

If our candidate begins with the assumption that they're progressive and campaigns like a progressive, they risk a voter backlash in certain areas of the nation. That's been demonstrated time and time again. I don't like it at all, but there really isn't an apparent reservoir of progressive-minded voters in those regions to overcome that predictable backlash.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Maybe, this is whats needed. From a former Clinton WH guy.

I'd be for it. The 2 same/different parties charade would be over and the moderates would have their own party and platform to try to sell to the voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111003489.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Why we need a third party of (radical) centrists

You've seen it a thousand times - and in Washington's deepening gridlock, you'll see it a thousand more.

A Democrat and a Republican are on "Meet the Press" or "This Week," or any of the other mainstream shows. They're talking the issue of the day - let's say it's the Bush tax cuts. The Republican says, "The problem isn't that the American people are overtaxed - the problem is that government spends too much." The Democrat says, "Look, we need to keep taxes low for working families - the 98 percent of Americans who earn less than $250,000 a year - but if we're going to get the deficit under control, we have to ask those at the very top to pay a little more."

The host knows both officials are peddling charades, but the norms of "objective" journalism mean it's not his or her place to say so too directly. Yes, she'll ask a follow-up question or two, but the pols are pros. They know how to blow through a few queries without moving off their talking points, and they know time is short on TV, so the host will move on to something else. They also know the host won't truly antagonize them because the network wants top officials to come back on the show.

[bigtree]

51. sure, let's divide the party

. . . and ensure that none of the Democratic coalition of concerns ever attracts enough support to achieve a majority; either in the legislature or in the electoral college.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Not if the "Moderate" party wins. Which it has been doing for the last 42 years.

As you have said, in your OP, the only way to win is with the moderates. Well, they have been winning since '68. Only the labels change.

[bigtree]

53. that's the fault of the electoral college system of electing presidents

It's hard to overcome the votes in some of these conservative states, but it's a necessary endeavor if we intend to be more than just back-benchers.

I don't know what the effect would be if we could just push for the maximum amount of total votes to win the presidency, but it likely would be a hell of a lot easier than giving undue fealty to these few conservative states we need to fill out an electoral majority.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. Alas, the moderates will quash any attempt at reform of the electoral system.

Or, put with more brevity, "The fix is in."

[bigtree]

57. touche', Tierra_y_Libertad

. . . my very knowledgeable and principled, DU acquaintance.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. dupe

[ProudDad]

59. No, you lost republican-lites to real republicans

Almost NO Progressives lost their seats...

The USAmerican population is NOT "center-right", they're Progressive...

The problem is that the Dems have not been Progressive in any manner, shape or form since pre-vietnam-Johnson...

[BzaDem]

74. The progressives who won were mostly in districts gerrymandered to prevent any other result.

In competitive districts, progressives lost.

[ProudDad]

77. I know of ONE

Name me another...

[BzaDem]

78. Progressives lost in every single competitive open seat House race. Progressive incumbents primarily

survived because they live in gerrymandered districts that make any other result impossible.

[ProudDad]

79. Name them...

Since "Citizens United" there are NO safe "Progressive" seats any more...

My friend, Raul had a pretty tough time of it...but he won...


Ok, ok, I walked into that...

The corrupt nature of USAmerican politics just got 1000% worse after "Citizens United". It's Tammany Hall everywhere where the only thing that counts is money and the worst humans on the planet have it all...

So, you're right, we're fucked...

There will be NO consideration of human needs in "centrist" USAmerican politics.

There will be no political capital wasted on survival of the planet Earth as a hospitable environment for large air-breathing mammals.

The human race will continue to mainly live brutish lives while a few Donald Trumps, believing that their shit don't stink, lead luxurious lives, until the polluters have destroyed Mother Earth for their short term profit...

It REALLY IS that serious!

And if you're right, there's not a fucking thing we can do about it...


Satisfied? :shrug:

[BzaDem]

73. Moderates lost because they were in conservative districts. Progressives in conservative districts

lost too. The progressives that won re-election were primarily in districts that were gerrymandered to prevent any other result from occurring.

It wasn't so much that the "middle" was rejected by voters -- it was that voters thought the "middle" was better represented by the Republicans than the Democrats (since in their view, Democrats were too far left).

Your musings about a "moderate party" will never happen, because the small states will never ratify an amendment getting rid of the electoral college. They have too much power under the current system to let it go. It will never happen. Our system will remain, and elections will continue to be all about getting the middle. When voters think our party is too far left, they'll seek the middle in the other party. When they think the Republicans are too far right, they'll seek the middle in our party.

[ProudDad]

38. What Progressive "Ideology"???

Which part of that "deeply felt and personal" unrealistic agenda do you mean...

Do you mean our drive for Economic fairness, Justice and Equality...?

Do you mean our belief that everyone is entitled to decent housing, enough food, Health Care (not insurance) and decent work that benefits the larger community instead of just a few capitalists...?

Do you mean our desire that the planet Earth survives as a hospitable environment for her Creatures...?

------------------

Which part of this "ideology" do you object to? What part of this doesn't make sense?

In your left, center, right political geometry, where does this fall?

Which part of this "agenda" are the wishy-washy centrists, the near right, the far right going to implement?

Answer, none.


Your OP just served to highlight the truth of a statement attributed to Emma Goldman, "If elections could change anything, they'd make them illegal."

Well, here in the belly of the beast, the USAmerikan Empire, since you've outlined the best we can expect, the Dominators, the corporate capitalist masters have made elections irrelevant...

They don't have to make them illegal...

And "Business as usual" will fry or starve us all...

[bigtree]

43. so you quoted me out of context and argued with your own premise

I'm not the one rejecting any progressive ideology or agenda so you can back all of that shit right up.

What I'm relating is the fact that voters in our presidential elections have never opted for unapologetic liberal candidate. Even our Democratic voters won't advance one in our primary. Maybe they will in this one, but who knows?

So, stuff the more-progressive-than-thou rant. I'm not the voter that's going to be an obstacle to any progressive candidate or agenda. Sorry if the truth hurts, but there's no evidence at all that there would be some national embrace of a stridently liberal Democratic candidate or nominee. It hasn't happened in the past and I don't believe it would happen this time around. To listen to progressive critics of this administration though, you'd think we'd just undergone some revolution where Democrats and Democratic policy were overwhelmingly supported by voters.

I just don't see it, and I don't know how anyone looking at the last election can claim that there are a sufficient number of progressive-minded voters out there to grant us the presidency. Hell, they couldn't even rally enough support to hold the House, despite all of the progressives I've been told showed up to vote.

[ProudDad]

58. As I indicated

if voting could change anything they'd make it illegal...

Your "more centrist than thou" rant just proves my point...

But what is your answer to the fact that most polls show that the USAmerican people are essentially Progressive according to the criteria I outlined in my rather clear outline of the Progressive position...?


"To listen to progressive critics of this administration though, you'd think we'd just undergone some revolution where Democrats and Democratic policy were overwhelmingly supported by voters."

Huh!?? You've got THAT backwards...!

We Progressives have been warning the Dem/DLC right-of-centrists that if they keep pissing on Progressive principles, they'd pay in 2010.

They paid in 2010 -- told ya' so...

It was out-of-work and afraid-to-be-soon-out-of-work folk who got pissed on by the Obamites and the Dem Congress who showed up... :shrug:

[bigtree]

63. I love the sympathy for the folks who voted republican, and the folks who sat by

. . . and allowed republicans to take over the House; all that sympathy and understanding, just for the sake of criticizing this Democratic administration.

So, you think progressives are teaching us a lesson, huh? By allowing republicans to rule? Brilliant. When they're done their epic pout (whoever is sitting on their hands or voting republican in the next election) they can look to President Palin to embrace their progressive principles . . . right? That'll show those 'Dem/DLC right-of-centrists'.

[ProudDad]

65. You are completely missing what I mean!

Is it on purpose or what?

I think that the basically progressive populace when given a choice between the Democrats who "had it all" and didn't do shit for Main Street while shoveling $Trillions at Wall Street...

And a chance to vote for real republicans as opposed to the republican-lite (blue-dogs ARE the ones who lost their seats after all)...

And considering their short attention spans, most voted for real republicans who pretended to be Populists (or at least anti-the-corporate Obama Admin and Congress) instead of republican-lite, blue-dog, DLC dems...

That's who really lost the House...

Most Progressives didn't lose...

====================================

I truly believe that real Populist, Progressive campaigns in "blue-dog" areas can win. Maybe someday the Dems will give up on running to the right trying to be republican-lite and try it then we can see an actual test of my premise...

If I'm wrong then I can finally say, "Fuck it!" and leave the Empire for good...

[bigtree]

70. I think you're missing the point

There is no reservoir of progressive votes in those districts where we lost those blue dog candidates and legislators. It's not as if these candidates could have been elected in these districts if they had a more liberal appeal.

Progressives won where progressives are popular. Unfortunately, that's not all over the nation. I just don't buy the argument that, if we just bear down on the liberalism in states like Montana and West Virginia, we'll suddenly produce enough progressive-minded voters to prevail and win. It's an interesting assertion which I think has been repeatedly disproved.

I do think progressive critics of this administration and party are safe in asserting it though. It'll never be attempted anywhere near their satisfaction and they can always point to the myth that liberal politics could have/should have won a majority of presidential votes in traditionally red states if we just let it hang all out. I'm not buying it.

[ProudDad]

76. If you're right...

(and I don't doubt the possibility...There are more proofs coming every day from the execrable corporate tools in the W.H. and Congress)

And DeMint and the rest are right that the USAmerican Sheeple ARE right-of-center know-nothings who don't give a fuck about their fellow-humans...

And it continues to be more important to coddle capitalism and the "Permanent War Economy(tm)" than take care of human needs...

Then large air-breathing mammals will surely not survive this century...

And I might as well get the fuck out of this failed experiment in "gentle Empire(tm)" and find someplace civilized to live out my remaining days...(believe me, I'm looking!)...

Or until your "centrist" friends gut my Social Security (the contract that I held up my part for ALL MY LIFE) and leave me out to starve somewhere under an overpass...

Cheers...

[Catherina]

39. Bank on that if you want to lose even more voters n/t

[Cleita]

40. I personally have given up on the Feds.

I'm concentrating my efforts on bringing my state back to where it was fiscally and in social programs when Jerry Brown was Governor the first time. The Feds aren't going to do anything for the working middle class and the poor and they will only back Wall Street and the Bankers no matter which Party is in charge. I'm done with them. They can put Hell in Charge and I won't care because that's what they are doing anyway.

[ProudDad]

60. We've given up on our state (Arizona) and are working in our neighborhood... (n/t)

[Individualist]

42. DLC talking points. Unrec.

[Fearless]

44. Bullshit. Who's going to vote for a fake Rethug when they can vote for the real one.

Who's going to vote for a fake Democrat if the could vote for a real one?

[bigtree]

45. I never saw Mr. Obama as a progressive. His campaign certainly wasn't a strictly progressive one.

. . . or even a particularly friendly one to progressives on many issues.

[Fearless]

46. He was considered the outsider, the non-DLCer.

The thought was that he was saying that he would appease conservatives but actually draw them towards us not drag us towards them. If he doesn't stand up for his liberal, progressive base, he will not win in 2012.

[ProudDad]

61. We can agree on that...

Obama's yet the latest glib spokesmodel for the Corporate States of America and the Permanent War National Security State.

[mmonk]

54. The middle of what? And no, progressives have been the ONLY ones

to compromise due to strong arm tactics. I will fight until I can fight no more. The strategy of becoming a second corporate party has failed. Let the people the Democratic Party used to represent take back over policy and direction or deal me out.

[bigtree]

55. I hear you.

I just hope more folks are still interested enough in winning majorities and holding the WH. It make no sense at all to the things you (sincerely) say you care about to just allow republicans to take control. I don't see principle in all of that, I just see folly.

[mmonk]

71. Who is in control now? Bipartisanship and centrism always ends

up like this when we get the presidency and go by the DLC agenda. They need someone who will run against them honestly and will not share their political practices. I do not support privatization, cuts in government and social services, secret government, and militarism whether nuanced or it being in your face style. I disagree with the DLC politically as well as the Blue Dogs politically. Progressives have had little real say so and can't keep getting the blame from our conservatives for their failures.

[bigtree]

72. conservatives have had the say so because voters keep electing conservative candidates

Those Democratic rightists and republican ultra-rightists reflect the voters in their states and districts who put them in office. Find more progressive votes, enough to form a majority, and you've cracked it. We've done a bang-up job of attracting votes in the South.

[Ichingcarpenter]

62. If the Middle is just a little left of Idiocracy then I want no part in it

Because that what I see it is. Or its a little left of some other American corporate dystopia it ant' gonna fix shit except further erode what's left of the disappearing middle class and give even more power to the powerful

I'm outta here.

[bigtree]

64. it's where our party wins presidential elections

I'm all for that. What I want no part of is a republican victory.

[ProudDad]

66. "What I want no part of is a republican victory."

and the difference during end-stage capitalism is what?

[Ichingcarpenter]

68. That's the Point.... I am willing to fight for the end stage

But not an appeasement that lets the Hitlers take
our healthcare like a piece of Czechoslovakia.


WE ARE AT THE END POINT.

[AndrewP]

67. To quote the very much DU hated Bill Clinton....

You can have great policies
You can have great politics

But you can't have great Government without both.

All the wonderful ideas in the world won't do anything if we don't have people in office.

But that being said, we don't have to have the Blanche Lincoln's of the world either.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Middle schmiddle

The Dems will win iff (math speak for "if and only if") they can demonstrate that they understand the problems of ordinary people and have concrete, easily understood solutions for those problems.

So far, they're not doing too well, especially when Obama packs the deficit reduction commission with people who are PREDISPOSED to cut Social Security.

Yeah, there are few jobs for older Americans, and the Catfood Commission wants to raise the full retirement age again. Smart move...NOT.

[Scurrilous]

75. Kick

:kick:

[JackRiddler]

80. A lot of labels and no program. You don't get to define what the middle is.