I think I'm starting to get it.

[garybeck]

The Republicans cater to their base. They value the "far right" like gold. they speak directly to them in their propaganda. When they try to cater to the middle, they actually are just trying to scare them into being more like their base and the far right. the more radical right you are the more they play to you.

The Democrats don't cater to their base as much and they completely ignore and take for granted the "far left" progressives. They figure people like us will vote for them no matter what they do, so they go after the middle. Rather than trying to convert the middle to thinking their way (like the Republicans do) they "become the middle."

I guess I understand the theory, but I don't really like it much because I'm one of those progressives that is feeling left out in the cold, ignored, and taken for granted right now.

[Warpy]

1. Back in 1969, when Nixon and his "silent majority" and "southern

strategy" took the White House, the Democrats wrongly decided the reason was a turn to the right and a rejection of the New Deal. What it really represented was a rejection of what was seen as Johnson's war, one which it was feared Humphrey would continue and which Nixon pledged to end.

Yeah, Nixon lied. However, the Democratic conservatives grabbed center stage and promptly took working class economic issues off the table, and they have remained off the table since then. All appeals for tax justice, new deductions, health insurance plans, and everything else has been aimed squarely at the upper middle class, a class which no longer exists.

Democratic failure to learn from its mistakes over the last 38 years has kept them largely out of power. No political party can expect to wield real power unless its base is squarely behind them. The Democratic conservatives have taken the base entirely for granted, thinking that "where else are they going to go?" as they push business as usual in their campaigns and fail to address working class issues year after year.

If the Democrats are serious about getting elected, they need to take a page or two from the campaign book of Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana. He ran as an unabashedly progressive economic populist and won one of the reddest states in this country. He played to the working class BASE, not to the fictional middle class, the mushy middle, or the soft right.

Failing to address the party's traditional base once again might result in another election that is close enough for us to be cheated out of. That is simply unthinkable at this point.

Conservatives are the problem. They can never afford a solution.

[garybeck]

2. I take it you are agree with my analysis, so....

So why don't they get it?

do they really think the gold is in the middle, or are they just have too much corporate influence to speak the truth and do what's right?

[Warpy]

17. They're clinging to their jobs

and that depends on their always being right about politics. If they admit they misread everything, they're out on the street and looking for work as lobbyists.

[CitizenLeft]

5. even after posting what I did below...

...I agree with you. It wasn't liberal ideals that were rejected, but the war. They totally misread the political landscape. People respect conviction, and Dems being wishy-washy now is the worst thing we can do. Sometimes I almost wish I WERE an independent/moderate - think of the political power I'd wield, LOL.

[CitizenLeft]

3. I have ex-Republican friends who are allllllmost converted...

...and Democrats playing to them WORKS. That's why they do it. It's frustrating, infuriating, but it's a sound strategy, IF you accept as fact that Democrats can't win nationally without the middle / moderates.

On the other hand, nothing has been more conducive to converting moderate Republicans than this Bush gang. They are joining us in droves, and so Dems are welcoming them to the detriment of those more to the left. Two years ago, people I work with would never have made a comment against Bush. Now, you should hear them - you'd think they post on this board. Just this morning, one of them said "IMPEACH HIM!" LOL. If we're patient, we can gather them up, and move slowly back to the left. The goal is to take back the White House, shore up the Senate and the House, and move the SC back to the left so that this lunacy and wars like this can NEVER happen again. That, to me, is the ultimate goal. But not many of us are very patient.

Just my take. :)

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Minimum Wage, Environment, Fair Trade, Ending the War

Where are you out in the cold? Things aren't 100% but when is anything 100%?

[garybeck]

8. OK...

As far as environment goes, Bill Clinton did little to address the biggest environmental problem which is energy production. Carter did much more in his 4 years than Clinton ever did in his 8. My fear about Hillary is it will be more of the same - continuing huge subsidies to the oil companies and let the renewable energy industry whither in the wind.

Fair Trade? Clinton brought us international trade agreements which have been a disaster. I don't think it's fair trade when people are losing their jobs left and right here to slave labor in China and underpaid people in India, (countries with weaker environmental laws as well). My fear about Hillary is that it will be more of the same there as well.

Ending the War? I'm just not convinced that's what Hillary or the party really wants or intends. If they really did, they would simply force the Republicans to actually fillibuster, rather than acting simply on the threat of it. It's pathetic, as if they just assume they can't do anything anymore without 60 votes. The law says 50 votes. If they want to fillibuster, let them make an ass out of themselves.

so I guess I fail to see how the issues you mention are examples of how and why I should be happy with my party.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. We've been treated to 7 years of gop "leadership"

That was brought about in part by "Progressive" apathy at the polls in 2000. Who knows what gains might have been made on progressive issues by Mr Gore since that time? I do know about the setbacks that have occurred since then.

If being progressive means gripeing your way into 8 more years of gop bullshit, then you can have it.

[garybeck]

11. BS

you can't blame progressives for Bush's stealing an election.

I don't like the republicans any more than you do, and that's why I said I would vote for any democrat.

I just don't like the tactic of catering to the middle and ignoring the base.

[DemBones DemBones]

14. Your user name is appropriate; only a casual observer

could think that progressives are responsible for the 2000 results. Apathy??? Please. Progressives either voted for Gore or Nader. Of those who voted for Nader, many were in states that were expected to, and did, go for Bush. Even though others weren't excited about Gore, they voted for him if they thought he had a chance in their state. I voted for Gore even though my state was sure to go for Bush and I'm sure many others did, too, despite thinking at the time that Nader was a better candidate.

Let's review what happened in 2000:

Thousands of black voters were unfairly disqualified in Florida, many others were discouraged from voting by police, refused help understanding the ballot by poll workers.

Elderly Jewish people in Miami "voted for" Pat Buchanan because the "butterfly ballot" was confusing and some who asked poll workers to explain it were refused help. Buchanan himself said it was clear that those people had meant to vote for Gore. National pundits and comedians mocked the elderly people for being "too stupid to vote." May they all learn what it's like to have cataracts and glaucoma, as many elderly people do, or macular degeneration. People with visual handicaps, like people who are legally blind, should automatically receive assistance at the polls. Not being able to see is no reason to take away a person's right to vote.

Thousands of ballots were also thrown out because the voter both marked an X by Gore's name and circled his name on the ballot. Obviously, those voters wanted to make sure their vote was not miscounted, but those ballots weren't counted at all, because the voters didn't follow directions. Not having reading skills sufficient to follow directions or misunderstanding directions is no reason to take away a person's right to vote. Literacy tests for voters were declared illegal decades ago.

Military ballots that were postmarked after election day were counted (thanks to Joe Lieberman.) Illegal ballots shouldn't be counted, no matter where they come from. If you show up a day late to vote, they don't let you vote, do they? Why should a soldier be able to vote late? My father was career military and he would have thought that was ridiculous. He and my mother almost always had to vote absentee ballot and they did it on time. Military personnel outside the US who were entitled to vote absentee in Florida were told "Bush is losing, vote now" and they did. Some of the ballots had no postmark at all. That's illegal.

And finally, after many accusations about Gore bringing lawyers to Florida in regard to the recount, Bush had his lawyers file suit and SCOTUS ruled that the recount had to stop because it could damage the plaintiff's interests, i.e., he could lose. And he would have lost if the recount had been completed.

Bush was put in office by 4 men and 1 woman on the Supreme Court. The rest of us could have all stayed home from the polls. The fix was in.

[provis99]

16. On what basis do you think Gore would have been any different?

During their Presidential debates they spent most of their time agreeing with each other. The only real difference is that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. The rest of his agenda was pretty much the same as Bush's.

[DemBones DemBones]

13. Well said. People forget what Bill Clinton did

because he's so damned charismatic.

I don't trust Hillary to be any better than he was. She's already said we could be in Iraq until 2012-2013 or longer and she voted for the Lieberman/Kyl Amendment ("Bomb Bomb Iran.") Has she ever apologized for voting for the Iraq War Authorization, which gave Bush carte blanche to do whatever he wanted to about Iraq? Edwards has at least apologized, and talks a good populist talk but I'm not sure he'd be so populist if he were in the White House -- look at his health care proposal. Obama is about the same as Clinton policywise.

Kucinich is the only one with progressive proposals. He wants to end the war immediately, get the US out of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and the WTO and establish actual fair trade with bilateral trade agreements instead of multilateral trade agreements that don't recognize the differences between our trading partners.

Kucinich wants to give everyone Medicare immediately. I suppose it would be "mandatory" in that everyone would have it but I haven't heard that he thinks people should have to use it and have regular check-ups as Edwards does, much less that they'd have to show their Medicare card to get a job, as Clinton does.

Presumably, private insurance companies would still exist, as they do in Europe, and people who could afford it would buy policies to cover what Medicare doesn't cover or to cover all their expenses and not use Medicare at all. Relieved of having to offer expensive coverage, employers might pay for the "Medigap" insurance for their employees or just pay the difference, up to a certain amount per employee per year. More people could afford private long-term care insurance, too, if they weren't paying through the nose for medical insurance. Long-term care insurance can mean a big difference in how you spend your final days.

I don't know why all progressives are not supporting Kucinich. You don't get a more progressive government by catering to moderates. Besides, many self-identified moderates are a lot more progressive than they think they are. They want an end to the war, a return of jobs to the US, single-payer health insurance and other "far left" ideas. It's only when they are told that those are "far left" ideas that they worry if they should support them.

[garybeck]

15. Kucinich

you said, "I don't know why all progressives are not supporting Kucinich."

well I am. :)

[illinoisprogressive]

6. Garybeck, Bingo! You got it! They began doing this in the 80s and why we keep losing.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. they nominate these middle roaders who are shadow republicans

DLCers

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Dead on.

The Republican base are ideologues. Politics is a sick game for them and they demand idealogical purity. If they lose an election, so what> Just more to be pissed off about.

The Democratic base includes a lot of people who need help. They are more dependent. Elections have real world consequences for the Dem base.

So the Dem base is more pragmatic... usually more willing to allow candidates the latitude to try to win at all cost.

Also, most of the Democratic base doesn't have the RW fantasy that everyone thinks like them. Many of them are persecuted and have no illusion that "everyone" is on their side.

[OHdem10]

12. You have it nailed.

Why do you think Dems have been losing over and over. I will make
you a bet. Had GWB not screwed things up royally, and gotten
the angry, we may not have done so well in 06.

No, I am center left---The GOP have been running a center right
government for a long long time and the Democrats have voted
with them. Who did Greenspan call the best "Republican President
in a long time"?

If they tried for the middle most people would see a real
transformation.

The Government has been Center Right for so long--to go to the
Center--they must take a left turn.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. But what happens to politicians who do "cater" to the progressive base?

They get no funding and get cropped out of photos.

Can you blame 'em?

[coalition_unwilling]

19. If Hilary is the nominee, I will be voting Democratic Socialist or Green

in 2008. I will not vote for someone with the blood of 1,000,000 Iraqi Civilians on her hands.

[wyldwolf]

20. your premise fails with this line - - - - ->

Rather than trying to convert the middle to thinking their way (like the Republicans do) they "become the middle."

Sorry. The bulk of the party doesn't think like "far left progressives."

[MGKrebs]

21. Perhaps true, but I also think short-sighted.

Repubs have spent many years cultivating their "base". They have built a coalition of gun rights people, Christian conservatives, racists, libertarians, business people, as well as their traditional smaller government folks. But they have also managed to convince a lot of "swing voters" (less ideologically committed people) to go their way. They have done a much better job of selling their brand than we have over the past 30 years. But swinging those people back isn't likely to happen overnight, and it will probably start at the local and state level (and it already has). We all want prez candidates to be these heroic leaders, but they have to get elected before they can do anything, heroic or not, so unless they see a huge groundswell of progressive values taking hold, they are just going to stay within the ballpark of what clearly the majority of mainstream America will accept. I think we are likely to have many more "progressive" state legislatures, governors, and Reps and Senators before we get a real progressive presidential contender.

The Repubs also figured out that FEAR trumps pretty much anything else, and they've been milking that gig for all it's worth. How can otherwise non-political voters take the chance of voting against the guy in charge who basically tells them their very lives depend on supporting him? It's all coming home to roost now though, because they were lied to and they were stolen from, and like the little boy who cried wolf, people ain't buying it so much anymore.

Dem gains are mostly due to anger at Repubs, not because we have suddenly managed to convince millions more Americans that progressive principles are superior. I think many people are fed up with the corruption, the lying about the war, the deficit, and the overall obvious incompetence of this administration right now, and the Repub party will probably pay the price, although I don't agree with many others that a Dem win is virtually certain. They WILL find a way to attack, and it won't matter who the candidate is. In a way, you could say that the Dems have done a decent job of letting the Repubs self-destruct. It would have been pretty easy (and it's not too late!) to overplay the liberal hand and push those mainstreamers back into the hands of the Repubs if they viewed us as freaks who would refuse to defend the country or wreck whats left of the economy with massive government social programs and environmental laws. We haven't done sufficient work yet to convince the non-political mainstream that these goals are achievable and positive.