If Huff/Ham et. al. are so RIGHT, why isn't Kucinich or Nader President?

[RBInMaine]

Huffington, Hamsher, and the rest of that naysaying crowd do just that, a lot of naysaying. (Yes, they have every single right to their views, and I even sympathize with some of them. No, no one is trying to "silence" them, and no, no one is saying they "hate" them.) So a lot of us out here seem to be wondering why if they are so correct, why isn't Nader president? He's certainly run plenty of times. Why isn't Kucinich president? He has run at least twice himself.
How come Huffington lost the California Gov. race to Arnie? Why can't they turn red and purple districts deep, deep ultra-progressive blue? C'mon now. This is why I and others say, "Don't like the Dems? Then quit the incessant complaining and start ORGANIZING and prove you can swing great swaths of the electorate to your side." And that doesn't just mean in the already-blue districts. Swing a whole bunch of red and purple districts. Prove you can really make people see the light. It is no where near good enough just to say you are going to challenge Dems in primaries. Uh uh. Prove to us that you can wield real political force and turn red districts to progressive deep blue. With all your zeal and confidence you should be able to accomplish that. Because Democrats, even if they are "moderate" to "conservative" HAVE been able to flip some of those districts (i.e. the special election in deep red upstate NY last fall) into the Democratic Party column. Or, realize as a large regional nation we need to be a big tent in order to win nationally, that moderates are the swing voters, and that the real political enemies are the right wing RePUKES and not Democrats, least of all our President.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Because what's right doesn't always win. Another silly question answered.

If RBInMaine is right, the predicate assumption of all these tendentious OPs, why isn't RBInMaine President?

[stray cat]

2. Also because the vast majority of Americans don't think those candidates are best

[RBInMaine]

4. Right ! Like it or not, this is a moderate nation on balance. On the other side, few teabaggers

can win.

[Armstead]

19. The VIEWS on actual issues of Nader and Kucinich are not radical

They are ionly radical compared to the republican Party and the Corporatist Cionservatiuve DLC wing of the Democratic Party.

Nader's big thing is corporate accountability and citizen involvement. Gosh how wild and crazy is that??!!

Kucinich, aside from his flaky New Age rhetoiric, basically espouses the views of traditional liberalism.

[RBInMaine]

32. Fine. So why can't they WIN on the power of their VIEWS?

[Armstead]

61. Let me put this very simply one last time

They do not have the political skills. It has nothing to do with their stand ion issues. They are not among the extremely tiny group of politicians who have the personal combination of attributes to succeed in the presidential arena.

[WeDidIt]

72. IF they do not have the political skills to convince the polity they are correct

then the polity regards them as radical and dismisses them as such.

Perception is always reality where the polity is concerned, ergo, Nader and Kucinich are radicals.

[Armstead]

74. By your logic, Joe Biden was a radical because he got skunked in thr primary

likewise bill richardson and the other non-contenders

you are using a silly yardstick

[RBInMaine]

88. You are saying that Kucinich has no political skills? I have seen him put audiences on their feet.

Or, maybe it depends on the audience. (?) Again, most "progressives" I know say "flash" "looks" "political skills" etc. don't mean a hill of beans. They will say the problem is that people need to be "educated" properly, and if they knew the "truth" they would line up in droves to vote for Kucinich, or Nader, or someone like them. OK, fine, so I again challenge these "progressives" to marshal your netroots and grassroots armies, go out, knock on doors, and educated the masses. Then wouldn't they vote for Kucinich, or Nader, or someone like them? OR, are there MANY areas in this big regional nation that would run you out of town on rail having branded you "heathen commies"? If you have the right message and you marshal your millions of bloggers and MoveOn members, why shouldn't you be able to run the most nationally effective grassroots effort in the history of American politics and tidal wave us to the "correct" way? Hey, if the Teabaggers can organize, why can't the "progressives"?

[Armstead]

118. I love the way you alwats put the word "progressives" in quotes

Jeezus, I'm basically a moderate liberal. But to you, because I believe that the HCR bill should at least contain some wee of public coverage as a starting point (a position most Demosrasts support) to you I'm a whining "progressive."

And it's people with irrational attitudes like yours that make it really hard to gvet very excited about the conservative cast of the Democratic Party these days.

I am also saying that Kucinich does not have the chops to run for president successfully. Very few peopel do, regardless of their political stance.

[mkultra]

128. thats not the reason

Its their policies. That is the reason why they have not found a more politically adept candidate to get on board with. Many politically challenged people reach political success behind the face and mannerisms of more competent politicians.

[WeDidIt]

71. CORRECTION

Like it or not, this is a moderate nation on balance, that is convinced it is slightly right of center even though the stances on issues do not support that belief.

[RBInMaine]

92. So marshal the progressive forces and go out and re-educate them to left of center.

[dflprincess]

70. And because our corporate owned media picks a few candidates

to cover during the primary season who they deem are "serious" candidates. The public is then allowed to make a choice from the corporate approved group. If you're not a political or news junkie and don't spend a lot of time on the internet, you don't get a chance to learn much about the candidates not covered on the evening news.

[WeDidIt]

73. Cop out

Whoever cannot convince the polity as to their righteousness always blames the media. It's par for the course with both the radical right and the radical left and is the biggest cop out of both.

[dflprincess]

75. Pay attention to which candidates get what kind of coverage in 2012

Howard Dean was one of the media's darlings until he said the rules regarding ownership of media needed to be rolled back then they went after him - including muting the crowd noise when they aired the "Dean scream" tape.

[RBInMaine]

3. Total cop out. They very very rarely win. Plenty of energy to naysay but can't win elections? Hm..

[quaker bill]

101. No, in a democracy

what wins is always right. It may be far, far from the best, but it is right.

Being pristine and absolutely correct for a lifetime is useless, if you never take power and use the ideas.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Because of the evil new world order corporatocracy.

The same people that killed JFK and Kurt Cobain are keeping Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader down.

Duh.

[RBInMaine]

7. Are those the same ones who faked the Apollo moon landings?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Yes.

That's why they had to bomb it.

To hide the evidence.

[RBInMaine]

10. Yeah, I heard the "moon" is really just a high tech movie projection now that the real one is gone.

[BeatleBoot]

6. Well, Nader did do a great job

of getting Bush elected in 2000.

[Jim Sagle]

9. No one got elected. Bush got APPOINTED, and the Supreme Court did THAT job.

[BeatleBoot]

13. No appointment necessary

if not for Nader.

[ima_sinnic]

44. No appointment necessary if not for people who voted for Bush

How do you know people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore? Was Gore "entitled" to Nader's votes?
And why should any citizen be denied his or her right to run for any public office they damn well please, or any voter HAVE to vote ONLY for a "republican" or "democrat"?

And by the way, if Lieberman hadn't run with Gore, Gore might have gotten many more votes.
Thankfully Lieberman never did win that one.

[BeatleBoot]

60. You're Right.

You posted:

"How do you know people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore?"

You're absolutely right they may have voted for Bush.

You can't trust assholes.

And Nader is a huge asshole.

[suzie]

93. Did I miss where the Supreme Court intervened?

Wasn't it Florida? I don't think Lieberman cost Gore votes in Florida in 2000.

Nader and his voters, however, cost us the surplus, 2 wars, trillion $$$ deficits, and a whole host of other unpleasantness.

[jgraz]

99. Yeah, it had nothing to do with the Dems running another weak centrist with a tool of a running mate

:eyes:

Al Gore ran against a functionally retarded, religiously insane dry drunk. It's not Nader's fault that the election was close enough to steal.

[ima_sinnic]

100. how did "Nader & his voters" "cost us" anything?

you can believe Lieberman "cost Gore" votes in Florida in 2000, as he did everywhere--I lived in Fla. at the time and did know people who were totally turned off by that combination. Lieberman was an asshole then, just as he is now, though more "covert" about it.
If fewer people had voted for Bush in Fla., he would not have had enough votes for the state to be contested, wouldn't he? So why are Bush voters never blamed?
Gore wasn't "entitled to" any votes given to Nader.
By the dumb "logic" I keep hearing, anybody at all who ran should be "blamed" for Gore's loss in Fla. (Nader wasn't the only 3rd-party candidate).

Why don't you blame people who didn't vote at all? How many of those "would have" voted for Gore, if only they'd even bothered to vote?
It is so fucking trite and superficial to "blame Nader." If people voted for Nader whom you ASSUME "would have" voted for Gore, why DIDN'T they vote for Gore?
Maybe Gore/Lieberman "cost us" the election, because not enough people chose to vote for them--DUH. Keep telling yourself that everybody who didn't vote for Gore for whatever reason "would have" voted for him if only . . . if only WHAT? sheesh.

[suzie]

105. Well, I lived in Florida at the time, also.

And have had to listen to the Nader voters complain for 8 years about GWB. They all immediately reregistered as Democrats so they could whine about what at terrible person GWB was.

NINE VOTES. For Gore to win required NINE VOTES in each county in Florida. I personally know 9 voters who were just too good, too pure, too important to descend to the depths of voting for dirty old Democrats like Gore and Lieberman.

So, pardon me if I feel those Nader voters who personally stuck us with Bush and Cheney deserve the blame for it.

[ima_sinnic]

108. no, people chose not to vote for Gore--what is so hard to accept about that?

"too good, too pure"--take your fucking judgmental bullshit and shove it. You personally checked every Nader voter's motives and reasons?

Did they upset poor widdle you by voting for the candidate they preferred?

Why the fuck shouldn't people vote for whomever they want?

If more people had WANTED to vote for Gore they would have--I guess Gore just wasn't quite what they wanted, was it? Maybe they were sending a MESSAGE that the corporate sell-out DLC should try to GET.

Who the fuck are you to "blame" anybody but the boring, stiff, centrist candidate himself?

In addition, how many Republicans just did not like that shitheel Bush but couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat?

Hey, Nader has been against corporate personhood and corporatist sell-outs from Day 1. He's a progressive, and a lot of people voted for him--"instead of" for Gore, according to YOU--but will the DLC scumbags learn anything from that?

[suzie]

112. Nader is not a progressive, he's simply a shill for Republicans.

Sorry, but I don't think you get more corporatist than selling out to Republicans.

[ima_sinnic]

114. ...

since ignorance is bliss, you must be in 7th heaven.
good-bye.

[suzie]

122. Sorry if it angered you that I feel a little more knowledgeable about the numbers

and votes in my state in 2000 than someone that doesn't live here.

But maybe using a lot of profanity makes up for a lack of knowledge?

[mkultra]

129. unfortunatley for you and your boy Nader

he takes a ton of cash from the republicans. Its possible that he is fleecing them but it looks alot more like he is serving them.

[RBInMaine]

14. True, but the nutty Nader candidacy didn't help.

[elocs]

16. Without Nader in FL SCOTUS would never had any reason to intervene.

Of course, it would have helped if Gore could have won his own home state.

[Clio the Leo]

53. Washington DC is a state?

Or are you talking about Smith County? .... Yeah, I dont think that's a state either.

[elocs]

65. Tennessee, isn't that a state? Wasn't Gore a Senator from Tennessee?

Wouldn't it have been reasonable to believe that he could have pulled enough votes from Tennessee to win that state?

Oh, I get it, you are being deliberately obtuse about what I really meant.

[Clio the Leo]

66. If he had actually been FROM TN then you'd expect him to win here...

... but he grew up in DC. Sure, he is very popular in Smith county where his family home is and the Dem. party establishment is also fond of him ... but the run of the mill voter, Democratic or otherwise considers him an uppity liberal foreign son. And that's just the MIDDLE part of the state.

Add to that the fact that TN is really three different states with three different types of people in each region and it further complicates the matter. Perhaps Gore SHOULD have won TN, but the fact that he didn't is no surprise. Most voters have far more in common with Bush than Al.

I should say that my post sounds like I'm bashing him, I adore the man. I did my graduate assistantship in the manuscript repository that houses his father's senatorial papers.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

85. and if he had let Clinton campaign for him

to blame the 2000 campaign on Nader alone is dishonest. It doesnt stop the DLCers to cast blame on him though.

[suzie]

94. If he'd let Clinton campaign, he would have lost as many voters as it would

have won him.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

97. What are you talking about

Bill Clinton had a 66% approval rating at the end of his presidency, the highest approval rating of any president leaving office since WWII. You are ridiculous.

[suzie]

113. Did I miss where we were talking about Florida in 2000?

I lived in Florida in 2000, I've hung out with Democrats who don't just talk about being FDR Democrats on the internet, they've been Democrats all the way back to FDR.

And a good many of them didn't like Clinton. Plus, nothing could have been more energizing to the right wing base in Florida than Bill Clinton on the campaign trail.

But maybe I made a mistake and we weren't talking about 2000? Or, it didn't come down to Florida?

[ima_sinnic]

109. no, if more people had CHOSEN to vote for Gore, SCOTUS would not have had a reason

I guess quite a few people preferred Nader, didn't they? It couldn't have been anything about Gore, could it? If Nader voters "would have" voted for Gore, why didn't they?

[Better Believe It]

18. Picking Joseph Leiberman for Vice-President was a brilliant move!

And of course had nothing to do with the election outcome.

Why picking Leiberman added at least 10 or 20 million votes to the Democratic ticket!

So don't pick on Leiberman or the Supreme Court, it was that nutty anti-war candidate Nader that was reponsible.

In fact, today Nader is responsible for the escalation of the war against Afghanistan!

So there!

[BeatleBoot]

59. Lieberman gave us Florida

At that time.

We would have taken Florida sans Nader.

[suzie]

95. 9 votes in each county.

I know 9 people who voted for Nader in my county, and I live in one of the most conservative counties in the state.

[suzie]

106. Did you live in Florida in 2000?

Have you spent a lot of time among Florida Democrats who voted in 2000? Because I have, and I can tell you that Clinton was a problem for a lot of them.

[suzie]

90. Nader opened that door for the Supreme Court.

Even small numbers of voters in Florida, Gore wins. And when I say "small", it was 9 votes in each county in the state.

NADER did the job.

[ima_sinnic]

116. keep spinning that crap, instead of admitting some people DID NOT WANT to vote for Gore

maybe the DLC scum didn't really learn anything from that election. Maybe they think they can still run losing candidates and somehow "win."
How do you know those "9 voters in each county" "would have" voted for Gore?
Did you personally interview everybody who didn't vote for Gore?
What a crock.
Keep smoking crack, it becomes you.

clue train: run a candidate that people want to vote for, so many people that there can't be "close" race.

[mkultra]

130. how much cash does Nader take from the republicans?

[DutchLiberal]

124. Gore did get Bush elected by running a disastrous campaign.

Picking Joe Lieberman as vice-president. Distancing himself from Clinton, who was still very popular. (I don't know why, but he was.)

Where does it say that Nader's votes were "supposed to be" for Gore? The arrogance! The incredible arrogance to think Gore/Democrats are "entitled" to those votes and anybody who challenges them is the 'enemy'! You should be ashamed of yourself.

[ipaint]

11. Money.

It buys the most effective propaganda. Top notch PR machines are extremely expensive. Obama's convinced the left they were voting in a liberal. That kind of expertise costs money.

[RBInMaine]

12. So go raise money. C'mon, You should be able to do that with your armies of followers.

[noamnety]

24. Yes, of course we have the same resources as walmart ceos,

health insurance CEOs, etc.

You can make snarky little statements like that if it makes you feel superior, but the reality is that a small amount of people control a huge amount of money - and that's not just campaign donations, but also corporate media conglomerates who decide which messages get out there, which candidates get air time during debates, how things like the dean scream will be reengineered, reinterpreted, and rebroadcast, and so on.

[NJmaverick]

35. Obama raised like $200 million from regular people EOM

[noamnety]

52. He did it with the backing of corporate media and the DLC

If you thought that was all just a grassroots effort that sprang up independent of corporate support, you weren't paying attention to the media or the democratic convention in 2004.

[NJmaverick]

68. now the $200 million was small donors, he raised much more than this

[RBInMaine]

48. So go change it. You mean you can't raise enough to get your message out in the netroots? Excuses

excuses excuses. As Jesse Jackson says, "Quit complaining and start sweating." Pete Seeger didn't sit there and make excuses. He ORGANIZED and cleaned up the Hudson River. In Maine we have the Maine People's Alliance. They have 30,000 members and they work the streets. Win some, lose some, but they WORK and they don't just sit and complain and make excuses. Act. Don't bitch.

[Clio the Leo]

54. This is one of those times I wish I could rec a post...

.... for the Pete Seeger reference alone.

Sing it with me RB!! "Which side are you on boys, which side are you on....." ;)

[Colobo]

79. Great post!

[Kaleva]

81. +1

[treestar]

121. Looking at the thread, they have no interest in anything other than

subtle bashing of the American voter, saying you have to have money to win, they can't think for themselves and will only do what the moneyed interests tell them. So they will just sit back and be superior.

[ipaint]

64. Both parties agreed to steal the debates away from the league of women voters

in order to control dissenting views.

"At the core of the problem with U.S. presidential debates is that they are run by a private corporation, the Commission on Presidential Debates, founded in 1987 by the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD took over the debate process from the League of Women Voters. Just once since then has a third-party candidate made it into the debate—Ross Perot in 1992. After he did well, he was excluded in 1996. The CPD requires contenders to poll at 15 percent before they qualify for any debate.

Nader calls the 15 percent threshold “a Catch-22 level of support that is almost impossible for any third-party candidate to reach without first getting in the debates.”

George Farah directs Open Debates, a group that works “to ensure that the presidential debates serve the American people first.” He told me that “historically, it has been third parties, not the major parties, that have supported and are responsible for the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, public schools, public power, unemployment compensation, minimum wage, child labor laws. The list goes on and on. The two parties fail to address a particular issue; a third party rises up, and it’s supported by tens of millions of Americans, forcing the Republican and Democratic parties to co-opt that issue, or the third party rises and succeeds, which is why the Republican Party jumped from being a third party to being a major party of the United States of America.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081008_open_the_debates/

Both parties have a history of bipartisanship when it serves their interests as opposed to what's best for citizens and the country. 3rd parties and deliberately marginalized candidates don't stand a chance even though historically their voices are crucial to workers rights and a consistent voice on behalf of the poor.

It all comes with a decades long push towards corporate control. I've watched it all my adult life beginning in 1974 at 18. At his point I believe it will run it's course. There isn't any turning back especially when it is so easy to fool folks like you.

That doesn't make dissenting voices any less important but they will continue to be attacked relentlessly by those who have a stake, whether emotional, financial or both in the corporate system of today.

[ipaint]

58. You asked.

It's the one aspect of politics that is truly bipartisan. Arguing against it is a good indication just how effective that expensive PR really is.

[elocs]

15. I don't think Dennis Kucinich could even get elected as a Senator in Ohio

much less a nationwide office. My guess is that he will continue to run for President to give his views a wider audience, but as a member of Congress he has probably reached his highest elective office.

[RBInMaine]

23. But why is that if he is so right on the issues? Or, for MOST Americans, is he?

[elocs]

63. I highly doubt that most voters in Ohio believe he is so right on the issues,

nor are most voters in America. He may be a DU god, but I don't think most Americans hold him in such high esteem. Congress is very likely as high as he will ever get.

[Colobo]

80. America is a centrist nation, with moderate swings to the right or to the left.

It is what it is.

[Armstead]

17. Um, because they were not good presidential candidates apart from their views?

More :shoot the messenger" distraction, eh?

Hell, Kucinich wouldn't have gotten anywhere even if he were a raging "centrist" DLCer. He doesn't have the political chops or charisma to be a presidential candidate.

Nader ran as a third party protest candidate. Did pretty well for someone who was riunnbing against the two established parties, but there was no way he was ever going to take a significant number of votes.

Either you already knew that or you are not as politically astute as you like to pretend you are.

Your arguments might have more credibility if you would even like to focus on actual issues, and whether a truly liberal/progressive strategy could be a winning one for a candidate who has all of the other prerequisites and resources,

[RBInMaine]

20. No. Uh uh. For "progressives" it is ALL about POLICY, not style, or flash, etc. And Nader would

be very, very upset if you said his candidacy was a "protest" candidacy. In his mind all of his prez runs have been intended to be serious efforts to WIN the races, as were Kucinich's. Most "progressives" believe that people vote on logic and policy positions and that they just need to see the truth. But you also beg that next question: Then why can't "progressives" field more attractive and "winable" candidates? It just goes around and around. All I see are excuses, excuses, and more excuses when it comes to why far left "progressives" wield so damn little political power, and yet they are willing to invest countless hours of time and energy on blogs and in other media trashing the Dems who DO win elections. No. No more excuses. Don't whine and screech about "specific policies." Stand there and explain without excuses why "progressives" who are so confident they are right, so unyielding, so uncompromising, so adamant, can not win national elections and win damn few at other levels as well.

[Armstead]

37. Nader is a jackass. Kuciniuch can be a jackass. But what they stand for...

is what a large swath of America believes in.

Your crusade against "progressives" notwithstanding, a goodly number of progressives do very well -- exceptionally well -- as Democratic politicians and legislators. They keep winning elections year after year. And many of them represent districts filled with average working people -- not just college towns.

It's true that there are a lot of obstacles to the Big One, the presidency.

But there have been plenty of good liberals and progressives elected to office as Democrats across the country.

[mkultra]

131. i know better than that

and i love his policies. I think hes great but im not stupid enough to believe that a "large swath" of Americans agree. A VAST majority of Americans do not agree with his policies.

[quaker bill]

102. Correct and exactly the problem.

policy does not win elections. It, on its very best day, with a good spokesperson, puts you in the running, it does not get you into office.

[NJmaverick]

26. I think one of the big issues, at least on DU, is why aren't the Democrats following

the policies of these two men. Seeing how neither one is strongly supported in this nation, how realistic is it to expect that to happen? Kucinich can't even get serious numbers among just Democrats, how would he fair with independents and republicans. Nader's numbers only served to skew the results of the 2000 election. Single digit numbers show his policies are simply not that popular. So while the idea of pushing a progressive agenda is a good one, until we do more winning of hearts and minds, it's unrealistic to expect the Democratic politicians to simply force it upon the American people.

[RBInMaine]

30. Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Win hearts and minds in America, and stop trashing Dems.

[Armstead]

34. I would suggest you look at what they actually stand for

Seperate who they are from the specific things and general principles they advocate.

Most reasonable people (except hard core conservatives and oligarchs) would agree with much of it.

[NJmaverick]

36. I have already done that in reference to Nader

I don't think most of America would go along with his elimination of nuclear power, his carbon emission's tax, his massive cuts in defense spending or his desires to copy the Canadian medical system.

[Clio the Leo]

55. Post of the week...

.... and even though it's been a slow week, its still a good post.

[NJmaverick]

67. Thank you

:hi:

[Armstead]

76. It is supposed to be the job of politicians to lead

Leading is sometimes following the will of the people. Sometimes its taking a poosition that may cheese off all or some people.

[HughMoran]

21. Kucinich isn't President?

Who knew? :shrug:

[YOY]

22. Because cash rules the universe.

and the left is not famous for having much of that.

but shit...if you want to keep dry humping RW talking points and calling standard left-wing points of view "extreme"...have a ball.

[RBInMaine]

27. First, I am no where close to right wing, Nice try. Next, explain why if you are so right why you

can't raise more money. C'mon. The internet is right there. You should be able to raise millions. Is that the best you've got? Or might there just be a little something more too it, such as the reality of where you are vs. the majority of the American electorate?

[YOY]

31. You're shitting me.

No really. You have no idea why regular folks can't raise money like corporate America? How much money do you think most folks have? I've barely had enough for Christmas presents for my family this year. That's after we quit smoking.

Really? You can't figure that out

Like I said. If it makes you feel better...

And DLC is RW. Just accept it. It's sane RW...but it's RW none-the-less.

[NJmaverick]

33. Obama raised like $200 million from regular people EOM

[YOY]

38. Yes he did. Any democratic candidate would have. He'll make it again.

but money says next time it won't be so much from regular voters but from more wealthy benefactors.

Like I told you before...sure I'll vote for him...but those Union guys I got to vote for him out of giving the Democratic party one more chance? Well if you want to try and convince them again...

People were expecting more. They didn't get most of it...probably won't in 4 or 8 years. Funny thing was that it wasn't anything rediculous. Just come to grips with it. He was what the media pushed as the opposition to Bush and the Republicans.

Head in the sand won't cut it. That's the opposition and people paid for it because they were told it was the horse that could do it. He was the one with a positve message about hope and change. Well I see some change...but mostly I see the same being done by folks with a better handle of the english language...

[NJmaverick]

40. Until the party is stronger, sometime the best you can do

is stop the republicans anti-union attacks.

[RBInMaine]

42. Right on !

[YOY]

46. Tell that to the Union guys.

n.t.

[NJmaverick]

47. I would be happy to, I just hope they are willing to listen

maybe I would remind them of the union busting king Saint (at least to the GOP) Ronald Reagan.

[RBInMaine]

41. Having inherited the worst mess since FDR, does he get some TIME? Please be real.

[YOY]

45. I'm looking at the seeds being sown...

They ain't FDRs seeds. They're someone elses.

We will see economic comeback. At the expense of non-growth in the middle class.

[RBInMaine]

49. Naysay naysay naysay. Give the man a chance. He is working on a new small business-driven stimulus

bill right now.

[RBInMaine]

39. I'm a local Dem party officer but not a member of the DLC. And Obama raised multi-millions in small

donations on the internet as did Howard Dean. More excuses. Just excuses. Look, my point here is simple: Progressives need to be realistic. Fight for ideals, but remember too that we are a big diverse regional nation founded on compromise. Realize that most Americans are in the political center. Uncompromising adamancy returns ZERO "progress," and "progress" is what progressivism is supposed to be about. Unhappy with Dems but can't win elections in your own right? Then count your blessings and stop trashing the Dems who do get elected and ARE there trying to get SOMETHING done in most cases. There are too many "progressives" who can't or won't make "progress." They won't compromise, and they can't win elections. They scream. They yell. They complain. They trash Dems sometimes as being too "right wing"... Sometimes they protest in the street. But all that is NOT usually being very "progressive."

[YOY]

43. Shit...I guess you just have the numbers then.

And I fully expect the "left extremists" to be the ones you will whine about when they pull the next Gore/Lieberma vs. Bush/Cheney change of power...with or without cheating.

[RBInMaine]

50. Wake up on the wrong side of the world today?

[onenote]

62. in 2008 Kucinich spent 2.4 million, his repub opponent spent $380,000

Why aren't the big corporate guys giving tons of money to DKs opponent if all it takes is money to decide the outcome of an election?

[treestar]

119. If you are really so wedded to this concept

1. You can still try to raise cash, a little bit from each of so many people will add up;
2. You can try to campaign from the grass roots - and get people to agree with you over slick commercials.

Sounds like an excuse to be cynical and complain and do nothing. In essence your position is that American voters won't vote for someone who doesn't have the money for slick ads. You're saying that are so shallow they will never really get the issues. You're very superior to all of them and would rather continue like that than see anything really done.

[Clio the Leo]

57. Come on down here to Tennessee...

.... and try to convince voters to support a candidate who runs on a platform that's a progressive's dream .... then see how fast you can run when the banjos start playing and they start remarking on what a purdy mouth you have.

What you and I would consider "progressive" many voters here and in other parts of the country would consider "heathen commie talk."

[depakid]

25. Why does Maine continue to elect dyed in the wool Republicans

under the guise of being "moderates" when in fact, time after time they back dysfunctional right wing policies that are decidedly against their best interests- and are proven failures?

[RBInMaine]

28. We have two R's and two D's nationally. Gov. is D. Legislature is D. Also,

Maine has gone blue for prez every cycle since Clinton's first run. Collins and Snowe are still able to bill themselves as moderates even though they toe their party line 80% of the time. They are entrenched, individually popular, and Collins especially spends LOTS of time courting her grassroots when she is here. She is CONSTANTLY at events, visiting schools, etc. And Maine still has a moderate/independent/rural America streak, as it turned down gay marriage
53-47. That is why.

[saltpoint]

29. Nader is a very perceptive man who has very close to zero influence over

U.S. American national life.

The people who agree with him already agree with him. He persuades no one.

If you aspire to influence public policy but are unable to persuade people to change their minds you have failed as a public figure.

Kucinich is a great guy and I've thought so for some decades since he was Cleveland's "boy mayor," but he would likely never win a statewide ballot race in Ohio. When he did offer his candidacy to Democratic voters nationally, he was wiped out in state after state after state with extremely convincing low vote totals. I love his position these days on women's right to choose and do not see his evolution on that issue as self-serving. Nevertheless, he is likely at his last political career stop.

Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist can have each other.

[Clio the Leo]

51. Because they're just not cute enough...

.... that's why Barack Obama won, right? Star power! ;)

[burning rain]

56. A lot of getting elected president is just pure charisma, & that's ideologically neutral.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are rockstars; Kucinich and Nader aren't. I have no doubt but that a good number of moderates indifferent to political philosophy both voted for Reagan (or would have, had they been of age), and punched the ticket for Obama in 2008. What we need is a left-wing rockstar candidate.

[bvar22]

69. Here's Why:

”Unlike the other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

.
.
.
.
.
.

Good packaging, Slick marketing, and TONS of Money is what WINS elections in the USA.


I will keep voting on Liberal Issues despite what the TV tells me to do.

[onenote]

83. so why don't the corp interests finance a challenger to DK?

[shopgreen]

84. spot on.

[onenote]

110. spot off

as noted elsewhere, if it was merely about money, and corporate money, DK would be gone from Congress. But the corporate interests don't bankroll his opponents -- DK has and spends more than them (in 2008, way more). Why is that if the answer to all questions about DK's success or lack thereof is corporate money?

[RBInMaine]

87. So ORGANIZING has nothing to do with it? Wellstone would be pretty ashamed of these excuses.

[treestar]

120. Why does money talk so much then?

Everyone who indulges in this is claiming that voters cannot do any better than respond to slick ad campaigns.

Once you are certain of that, how do you expect candidates other than ones who win?

[zulchzulu]

77. Kucinich isn't President because he's an ineffective, self-absorbed dork

Nader never wants to really be President because he knows he would get shot on his first day.

Next...

[RBInMaine]

91. No, it is because they are too far to the left for the broad American electorate, plain and simple.

[Hello_Kitty]

78. Well gosh, why did GWB get elected twice?

Must be because he was the best man for the job! :eyes:

[RBInMaine]

89. And how would Nader or Kucinich have fared against W? Nice try. Try again.

Bush won the first time because they stole Florida through a shitty right wing Supreme Court decision. Gore really won, and he is on historical record as having won the national popular vote by about 400,000 votes. Nader didn't quite do so well, although he did manage to draw 90,000 votes from Gore in Florida making it easier for the RePukes to steal it. In '04 Kerry barely lost due mainly to a weak campaign. How did Nader do that time? How would Kucinich have done? How would anyone with Nader or Kucinich's policy positions have done? How did the more "progressive" McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis do? Moderates Carter and Clinton DID win, and if you look closely you'll see many of both Obama's and Hillary's positions were always moderate. Moderate swing voters determine national elections and many elections at lower levels as well. Like it or not, a plurality of Americans are moderate and neither "progressive" nor Teabagger. "Progressives," with whom I sympathize in large measure on a host of issues, need to get real, understand where most Americans really are with their politics, and realize that to have ANY influence you need to win elections through being a big-tent well-organized NATIONAL party in large, politically-diverse, regional nation. Progressives have a much, much better friend with Dems than RePUKES, and THAT is why I get fed up with those who trash talk and naysay the Dems and Obama. At least Dems listen to progressives, and many ARE progressive. They need to wake up, get real, and train their fire on the RePUKES where it belongs.

[Hello_Kitty]

96. Your OP, and subsequent posts defending it, is nothing but a bullshit strawman

I agree with Huffington and FDL for the most part on HCR and some other issues but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of Nader or Kucinich. I don't care for either one of those assholes. As far as being a big tent, I didn't realize that means we aren't allowed to criticize or object to something some of our tent-mates are doing. Frankly, I get fed up with people like YOU, who are so willing to roll over for the likes of Lieberman, Nelson, and Stupak while you excoriate progressives who have no vote in Congress. How many OPs have you written criticizing those guys for threatening to actually kill the bill? In Nelson's and Stupak's case, it was so they could sniff women's panties. In Lieberman's case it was because he just wanted to be a dick and knew he could. How about YOU organize people in your community who support this HCR (if you can find any) to put pressure on Lieberman, Nelson, and Stupak to not obstruct passage of this glorious historic transformational bill?

[Orsino]

82. Because America is too goddamned timid and uneducated to be right.

We're still a long way from being able to elect a real progressive. It takes years or decades of right-wing fucking up to make us adventurous enough to elect a moderate conservative like Obama.

[RBInMaine]

86. Then get out there and"educate" them with your armies of enlightened people. (Excuses Excuses...)

[Hatchling]

98. Because Corporate Candidates

Because Corporate Candidates have more money that non-corporate candidates and the media is owned.

[onenote]

111. then why haven't the corporate interests funded a candidate to knock out DK from the house?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

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

[LooseWilly]

104. You do a lot of talking down to progressives, for someone from a state with 2 Republican senators...

I mean... maybe with all your talk of political action, you oughtta wait until you get some better results to show before you start lecturing from astride some sort of imaginary high horse.

Or- are you saying those Republican senators are the result of all the "ORGANIZING" you claim to be so expert at? Are you maybe saying that you've been able to elect large swaths of moderates... so your moderates are inherently more "valid indicators" of where the country's politics stand?

"as a large regional nation we need to be a big tent in order to win nationally, that moderates are the swing voters..."
Seems to me that you're taking the left for granted when you call the moderates the swing voters. Like everyone else, you take for granted that the left will join the moderates wherever they happen to feel like standing, out of fear of the right. What you, of course, fail to even consider is that the left are swing voters too... in the sense that without the left the moderates can't get shit done either.

The real question is: Which faction of this coalition is MORE afraid of the Republicans?

You may think it's the left, but some of us on the left are coming to realize it is actually the moderates- who are having histrionic fits over criticisms of the "sacred swing voter status" that they are used to taking for granted, that are more afraid.

I'm with Hamsher and any who say kill the bill rather than settle for a handout to the insurance industry. Let's see if the moderates are also willing to kill the bill and carry on with the status quo... or if maybe the moderates will work to come to some sort of compromise with the left in order to not have the whole thing fail. (Hint: the public option is a compromise.)

As I see it, the left has nothing to lose. It's the moderates, like Obama, who are looking at the possibility of losing face. Or, are the moderates just too afraid to look like they are willing to compromise with the progressives of the "coalition"?

[timeforpeace]

107. It's hard to break into the Gang of Five here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. I've explained this many, many times on DU

and I'm tired of doing so, but essentially, the deck is stacked against anyone who doesn't kowtow to the corporations.

They don't assassinate them anymore--they alternately ignore and ridicule them.

[ima_sinnic]

117. take your patronizing crap and shove it--notice that ME still has 2 repuke senators

put your money where your mouth is and work to replace Snowe and Collins with Dems instead of making excuses for them. Start ORGANIZING to replace them or STFU.

[DutchLiberal]

123. Because only politicians who are willing to get bribed by corporations ever get president...

You see, to run a campaign you need a ridiculous amount of money; an amount big enough to feed an entire African nation. To raise this money, you have to be accept huge donations from big corporations, who want something back after the elections... That's called bribery. Kucinich and Nader refuse this. Not that they'd be offered big bucks anyway, since their stances, unlike Obama's, are corporation-unfriendly.

And Kucinich and nader get no exposure on the media. There have been debates where Kucinich has stood for 45 minutes before the moderator asked him a question. About UFO's, to discredit him! IF he even gets invited to the debate at all! And why is that? Because the media is owned by a handful of big, multibilliondollar corporations, who are so big that they also have a stake in the war profiteering industry and thus have no use of Kucinich's pro-peace approach.

If you can't connect those dots, that's your problem.

[martymar64]

126. Kind of the like the office for Pope - Pre-Reformation

Anything can be bought, even the Presidency. Until the power of corporations are broken, nothing substantial will change.

[winyanstaz]

125. it may be for the same reasons Bush won twice...........

IMO the elections are rigged..have been rigged and until we throw out all the electronic voting machines and the electoral college...will stay rigged.
No one wins without a super battle (like Senator Franken and President Obama) without the corporations and war machines seal of approval.

[freddie mertz]

127. Weak apologetics. Kerry lost but had better ideas than Bush.

Kerry should have swept Bush out of office, being more qualified, having better ideas, etc.

But his campaign did not succeed, and Bushco's political tactics carried the day, sadly.

Not winning does not mean your ideas are or were wrong.

[ClassWarrior]

132. This is like saying, "If Citizen Kane is so good, why did the Spice Girls Movie..."

"...do better box office?"

:eyes:

NGU.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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