Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Zogby: Democrats want leaders to make compromises to attract moderates

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:06 PM
Original message
Zogby: Democrats want leaders to make compromises to attract moderates
Democrats want their leaders to make modest compromises on their principles in order to win over voters from the middle of the political spectrum, while most Republicans want their leaders to stand firm on issues, even if it means losing moderate support, the poll shows. While 61% of Democrats agreed it was better to compromise to win broader support, just 44% of Republicans agreed. Independents, by a 58% majority, agreed that softening some ideological stances to attract moderates was the best strategy.

The survey showed that 93% of Independents, 63% of Republicans, and 79% of Democrats wanted candidates who were independent of party leaders and were willing to compromise to get things done.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1050

Two critiques:

For compromise: http://www.newdonkey.com/

Against compromise: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/14/20832/912


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Asbestos! Hurry!
Let the flame wars begin!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Bullshit, I took that survey, and that isn't what the question asked.
The question was whether or not people IN CONGRESS needed to compromise to get things done, or whether they should stick to principles.

Well, I could see where that was going, so of course I said they needed to find a few principles and stick to them. After all, that's the function of a minority party, isn't it, to stick to principles and put the brakes on the radicals in the other party?

Oh, well, compromise is the way a majority party gets things done. I guess too many people out in computerland still haven't figured out that they're shut out of government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. aren't Democrats in Congress our leaders?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. If only you had included links people could click on....
</sarcasm>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. They most certainly are NOT.
They are our servants, in Congress at our discretion and by the ballot.

The leadership are those wonks in suits we never see, occupying nice offices within the beltway and making the stupid decisions that are keeping the party out of power by "attracting moderates."

You know, Repuglicans in Dem drag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. leftist revolutionary rhetoric aside, Democrats in congresss...
..are our elected leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. I took the poll too and this is total bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. so, you took the poll and these weren't the results you were expecting?
Is that why it's bullshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. No, they lied about the question
Get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Prove it?
Got a link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. No, dear, you have to be able to take their polls.
You have two people here saying they lied about the question.

How many do you need?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. In other words
You can't prove it.

Hey, your response in post 2 was really comical. Did you really not know what "Democratic leaders" meant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
26. and there were only 2 choices - the other of which
was written in a way that you would have to be crazy to choose it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atommom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
28. I took it too, and I think it was a poorly worded question. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
31. I agree , I took it too and this outcome is bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. And then there are those Democrats who believe the opposite.
Please go here and click on the 1st link:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html

June 2005
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis
Survey
Graphs

Click on the "Analysis" link. It will be in Adobe format which is why I can't Copy & Paste here: I WILL be posting this information later today as a separate thread. Please note that this analysis was co-authored by James Carville, a Conservative Democrat and Campaign strategist for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Many in the Clinton administration give Mr. Carville much of the credit for the Clinton successes. He is generally considered a brilliant campaign manager and and unrivaled expert.

Here are some excerpts:

"Over 3 surveys in three months, Democracy Corps national survey show (that)...By a 20 point margin (56 to 36 percent), voters think the country is seriously off on the wrong track.

<snip>

But for all that, Democrats are at risk of making only modest gains in 2006. The Democrats gains in in the congressional battle have come more from Republican slippage than Democratic gains and, alarmingly, the president's deep troubles have produced no rise in positive sentiments about the Democrats.

<snip>

The Democrats can achieve major gains, however, if the party moves
decisively to a new stage of engagement. They must poise sharp choices-
ones that define the Democrats, not just the Republicans and ones that, in every battle, make the the instrument for reforming and changing Washington"

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html
2005-2006
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis (link here)



The "We're just like Republicans only nicer" campaigns of the Centrists Democrats have proved to be a disaster. Whether you agree or not, the average citizen sees the Democratic Party as an imitation Republican Party.This is the result of two disastrous campaigns where the Democratic Party ignored traditional issues , and chased after mushy republican voters with campaigns of "Centrism". These polls shout that voters want a sharp distinction, NOT Republican lite.

If the Democrats want to turn the bush*/Republican drop in popularity into positive gains for Democrats, the Democrats must offer choices on issues that are "sharply different" from the Republicans.

The Democrats MUST offer clear alternatives on issues:

*Instead of Free Trade and Outsourcing, the Democrats MUST offer Fair Trade and (at least some) protections for American Jobs (not corpoWelfare tax credits, LEGAL protections)

*Instead of Staying the Course, the Democrats must offer options for withdrawal

*Instead of Big Business, the Democrats must offer REAL protection and support for the Working Class and Poor

*Instead of Patriot Acts, the Democrats MUST offer protections for Individual Rights and Freedom from Big Brother and BIG intrusive Government.

*Instead of Fighting Terrorism by expanding the Military Wars overseas, the Democrats MUST offer improved security within our borders, and International Cooperation of Intelligence Agencies to track and capture International Criminals

*Universal Healthcare...the Americans WANT it. The Democrats MUST offer it. (To hell with contributions from Big Medicine and Big Pharmaceuticals)

*Instead of a Bigger is Better Corporate Policy, the Democrats MUST offer restraints, consumer protections, and Fair Competition legislation that makes it possible for Mom&Pop Businesses and Family Farms to compete with Wal-Marts and Corporate Factory Farms.




"Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich. They are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime.

<snip>

On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

<snip>

Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists." Yet a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." The public outrage at trade deals has been so severe, pollster Steve Kull noted, that support dropped even among upper-income Americans "who've most avidly supported trade and globalization who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."



You REALLY MUSTread the rest of this!
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20774






summary:
The Republican Party is seen by most Americans as the Big Business Party. Polling data analysis combined with performance in 2000, 2002, and 2004 clearly indicate that if the Democratic Party is to be able to capitalize on the low ratings of bush*Republicans, the Party MUST clearly and publicly show itself to be the Party of the Working American.

A UNIFIED PRO WORKER/PRO-LABOR Platform similar in design to Gingrich's Contract with America MUST be produced and SUPPORTED by the Democrats AS A PARTY!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Okay with compromise on unwinnable hot-button cultural issues.
Not willing to compromise on the rule of law, egalitarianism including fiscal reform, health care, education or especially the environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freestyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
27. And what would those be? GLBT equality, choice, establishment...
Please tell me what these "unwinnable hot-button cultural issues" are? If my equality is something you are willing compromise, then I have no use for you. Some talk about God, guns, and gays as republican wedge issues that we need to give ground on. I completely disagree. Democrats do support the second amendment, and get no credit, and equality and separation of church and state should never be compromised.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Is that kind of like republicans
wanting the republicans to make compromises to attract conservatives? This is evidence the public has no clue and the massive compromises even to the truth so far aren't working in the false perceptions they live under.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Writer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think I'm going to sit this one out...
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
8. "The stand firm folks" seem to be the winning coalition.
Edited on Thu Dec-15-05 01:18 PM by Pithy Cherub
Compromisers are sidelined currently. What to do, what to do... Continue compromising away one's political principles (third way afficianados) or stand up and go down fighting for what is right and you strongly believe. :shrug:

Clearly being seen as a leader involves leading and standing UP for a belief system, not being a political doormat for corporations and the republican party to wipe their feet on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. how so?
For example...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Political movements (and candidates) draw energy,
Edited on Thu Dec-15-05 01:38 PM by Pithy Cherub
enthusiasm, and most importantly commitment, when a clear ideology is articulated and excites the passions of the people. Examples would include; Praise Be to Allah, the Prophet Mohammed and the faith of Islam, Ghandi and MLK on non-violence against much larger state entities and entrenched orthodoxies, RFK on behalf of the people who are the least of these, or choose those on the opposite side of the common good, republicans. Reagan did not back down nor did *, wrongheaded and egregiously stupid though they were/are, they stood firm for their craven principles and immoral political acts.

Yeah!!!! :woohoo: for Compromise won't exactly get the party started...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. but how does that seem to be the winning coalition.?
Surely you have some stats for that conclusion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Pick a history book of your choice.
Left, right or even a middle of the road compromise history book... They all talk about the standard bearers more than the appeaser community practices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. I'll let you pick the history book to make your point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
11. Some interesting other findings...
"Asked if they would “definitely” or “probably” vote for the Democrat or Republican in next year’s fall congressional election, 48% said the Democrat would get their support, compared to 40% who said they would vote for the Republican. While 3% said they plan on supporting a third-party candidate, 9% said they were unsure.
The survey shows that, should President Bush campaign for a congressional candidate, 51% of self-identified independents would be less likely to support that candidate, while just 22% would be more likely to support him. Vice President Cheney has a similar effect."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1050

Yeah, clearly now's the time to demand ideological purity...NOT.

Can't say I'm surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. Compromise does NOT mean...
...bending over backwards and taking it up the ass. It means two or more parties meeting in the middle. If the other side makes no concessions, or makes fake concessions, that is NOT compromise, that's appeasement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
21. there's no need to ''compromise''
if there is any lesson to be learned from the republicans -- it's how to frame your principles, the language{right down to specific words} you use to define the other side, and if get in power ACT powerful{i.e. make sure you push through the legislation you believe in}.


i.e. send out muscular, aggressive, well spoken, candidates who have the ring of authenticity with the public -- and ding,, ding, ding, -- you have winners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
22. But how many of the pro compromisers vote?
The democrats have been compromising (or, rather, capitulating IMHO) for so long. So why haven't we won?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
23. That's why they win and we lose
People will vote for someone who stands by their principles, even though they might not agree with them 100%. They will take the real Republican over repub lite. They will also take the Real Democrat over dem lite and even the Real Republican, given the choice and the right candidate.

Give conviction a chance, people.

Every politician alive compromises on something to get elected. The problem is our party goes too far. That's why people don't even know what we stand for any more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
29. My question to everyone here. If we have to become like repukes to win
Edited on Thu Dec-15-05 04:19 PM by Mountainman
then why don't you just vote for repukes and have a one party system?

I would much rather stick to our liberal social values and lose then have to be a right of center and make policies just as a left of center repuke would.

Are we to lead or to follow?

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Because there is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. If the both govern the same way, no!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. If.
But they don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spaniard Donating Member (157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
33. I took this poll
And it is as described.

The only "bullshit" here are from those who don't like the results.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-15-05 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
35. Compromise? Shit, we ain't even in power......
So everyday is a compromise....cause nothing Dems want is ever up for discussion.

This is exactly what Lakoff meant by inaccurate framing.

What folks want are strong leaders to lead us in the right direction. They want to follow those who will not compromise due to power, influence, big money. They want those who will deal with issues, not on a partisan level, but rather in a way that's best for this nation.

Zogby is sending the wrong message to Democrats. We don't want appeasers, we want leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC