Can a left of center presidential candidate get elected in this country

[npk]

Howard Dean couldn't. Dennis Kucinich has made several attempts, even amongst far weaker, more mainstream candidates. Gibbs may have been wrong to call out more vocal groups of the Democratic Party, but does he have a point in saying that the candidates who run to far to the left of center are unelectable. Should we expect candidates to moderate their views once in office. Maybe it's politics more than Obama. If you look at Obama during the campaign he did walk a fine line between left of center ideas and mainstream progressive ideas, as much as the line would allow.:

[lib2DaBone]

1. that's what we THOUGHT we were getting .. my bad...

.. it is my fault for believeing ANYTHING out of a politicians mouth.

[Texasgal]

3. Really?

Did you seriously think we were getting a left of center POTUS?

Did you pay any attention to his campaign?

[Monique1]

12. No, I believed also but

while he was talking reality hit me on the side of the head. He knew what he wanted, I knew what he wanted but set food in the WH and that is where the games began. He was also black - He has to play the games, all presidents do that to get something passed but the repukes stated as soon as he was elected that wanted him to fail. Fight the repukes

[npk]

18. I understand your frustration.

But Obama ran a flawless campaign, atleast from the perspective of electability. He seemed, at times, to be all things to all people. But the presidency seems to require a more moderate hand to get anything done.

[davidinalameda]

2. Dean could have

if it wasn't for that yell that made every TV show

that took the focus off of the issues and made him look for lack of a better word silly

[Jackpine Radical]

23. Had it not been the yell, it would have been something else.

Anyway, the yell was manufactured. They just played the pickup from one directional mike pointed right at his mouth without including the crowd noise. When you heard the whole thing in the context of the wildly excited crowd, it didn't seem odd at all. People who were there didn't think it weird at all.

The fact is, they were out to get him, and that is what they used. When they went after Gore 4 years earlier, they used his sigh in the debate and made up lies about his claiming to have invented the internet, and the Love Canal non-story, and the Vietnam picture shot from an angle that made it look like he had his M-16 pointed at his head.

When for some reason they wanted to take down George the Smarter in 1992, they endlessly replayed the video of his urping on the lap of his neighbor at a Japanese state dinner. If they want to get you, they will get you. If they want to cover for you, they will do that. Look at how they clobbered Dan Rather for telling the truth about the AWOL.

[RKP5637]

36. Yep, the real power lies in the contrived distorted propagandistic media, and the wealth and

power brokers of this country transcend the passing presidents and governing transient, for the most part, politicians.

[davidinalameda]

53. good point

[karynnj]

37. Dean didn't lose because of the scream

Had it not been for the scream, the Dean story of that Iowa night would have been the presumed winner lost by 20 points to Kerry. When you get less than have the caucus goers that another candidate got and you were suppose to win, the media would have covered every bad minute of the primary.

Kerry had already been gaining on Dean in NH before Iowa and was his Iowa win gave him momentum.

Not to mention, Kerry was more liberal than Dean.

[sendero]

4. Not right now...

..wait a few more years until the ravages of this depression are a little more universally experienced. TPTB are killing the golden goose and they are too stupid and greedy to stop themselves.

[Monique1]

6. No

[RKP5637]

16. Thank you for calling it what it is, a depression. Many people are living in

desperation and a depression in this country, but out of sight, out of mind by the MSM. Like a person with substance abuse difficulties I think this country has to hit rock bottom before it improves. Those on the receiving end of greed are doing too well. Not until they get hit and start jumping out of windows will this country really improve. We gotta be kidding ourselves to think the country is going to significantly improve with the rich getting richer and the gov. helping them along.

[RKP5637]

5. No, the country is too ignorant! n/t

[NewJeffCT]

7. There has not been a true liberal nominee since when?

McGovern? Carter was a moderate in 76 and 80. Mondale? Dukakis? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Maybe Kerry, but even that is a stretch... Gore really didn't move left until after he "lost" in 2000.

The last liberal to win was LBJ in '64?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. LBJ wasn't that Liberal?

[karynnj]

33. Kerry, Dukakis and Mondale were all liberals

I agree with you on Gore he was even more to thye right when he ran in 1988.

[demosincebirth]

46. LBJ, was no liberal. He was a center-right democrat who finished

the civil rights act that Kennedy started. He knew that when he signed the civil rights act into law, that it was the start of the Democrats losing control of the South. He had guts, but he was not a liberal as defined today.

[Skittles]

8. no; it is style over substance

[saltpoint]

9. The components of belief in citizenship would need

to change at critical mass levels for there to be a fair reconsideration of the elements of our national life, which would be the environment in which economic democracy would more likely flourish.

There's no economic democracy, no matter how much we admire Bernie Sanders.

This is one reason, though not the only reason, why so many of us are so dismissive of FOX News and Rush Limbaugh -- because they are dumping kerosene onto the fire of ignorance and division. There are unfortunately a lot of households who watch FOX and who listen to Limbaugh. Cutting the cable to those households is not possible, or legal, and so we have identified part of the problem without having the means to combat it.

A corporate state is not interested in economic democracy and so it sanctions hate-talk radio and far-Right news organizations.

Kucinich tried twice to enlist the support of activist Democratic voters in presidential primaries and they rejected his candidacy, IMO not because they disliked him but because they sensed his quest was not realistic.

IMO the climate for meaningful reform in the U.S. American society was in very grave condition a long time before the 2008 election. Many of its components rose from out of the sewer and onto Main Street when voters rejected Carter in favor of Reagan. That is a values statement if there ever was one, and not a very admirable one, IMO.

[Touchdown]

10. Yes. Absolutely!

Can they get out of the primaries alive? That's a different story.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

15. Can you imagine what the media would say

[Jackpine Radical]

11. I think that the corporate media and now Citizens United-type

corporate expenditures present a really powerful destructive force that will try to pull down anybody who runs very far left. On the other hand, the public would probably accept a fairly left-leaning platform. Remember that we were once very far left of what is misleadingly called the center of today's political spectrum. Nixon was left of Clinton, fer Chrissake.

So, if we somehow got public financing of campaigns and managed to wall corporations out of certain kinds of political speech, I think it would be possible. I may not see it in my lifetime, though.

[Individualist]

14. Not as long as DLC controls the party

That vile cancer needs to be excised.

[RKP5637]

19. +1000 +++ n/t

[Dawgs]

17. Obama was seen as left of center, so yes.

Dean, and especially Kucinich, are VERY far left of center.

[Monique1]

24. People do not want a far left - no one is getting that.

You can start all left parties you want, they are not going to win.

[npk]

25. I would say yes and no

At times yes. But on other issues, especially the wars, I would say no.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. In what world? Oh wait, that is the problem with the US

our politics have moved so far right that Ike and Nixon would be far lefties today.

Think about that one.

[RKP5637]

44. Yep, I think about them often, thinking now they were not so bad as I had

thought back then relatively speaking... And many of these politicians today are such loonies, and few remotely have the intelligence of Nixon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Oh nixon was

but our collective response and perhaps Ford's pardon, did something to this country and not something nice either.

[Capn Sunshine]

20. As someone who worked for Howard Dean starting in 2003

I can promise you , he is NOT left of center. He's just honest and pragmatic. Same with Obama, and I worked for him since 2007.

All this travail from the self identified "left". I identify as "left of center", but seriously, the right wing has done so much damage to the location of "the center" in the past 20 years, Richard fucking Nixon is left wing by their definition.

[4lbs]

21. In a word: NO. Just look at the results of the 2008 election.

Barack Obama was as far left a candidate as the Democrats have had (after all the primaries) in a long while. Actually even a little further left than Kerry was in 2004.

Yes, he got 365 electoral votes, but if you break it down state-by-state, it shows that the majority of the country is really moderate, centrist, or whatever, and not liberal or progressive.

He did win the normally Democratic states like California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Washington, and for this election cycle, his own state of Illinois, by large margins, but most any Democratic candidate would have.

Look at most of the other states and you'll see a conservative underlying streak. He won Ohio, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Nevada, a small part of Nebraska, and Colorado by small margins (less than 3% difference).

That shows that the majority of the country is actually moderate.

People talked about him having a mandate because of the electoral vote margin. It wasn't a mandate however, for huge massive, far-left reaching progressive change. If it was, he would have won many states by large margins.

If the electoral vote truly represented how the popular vote went by state, with votes split up to represent the popular vote in that state, then instead of 365-173 result, he probably would have gotten just a 280-258 result.

[ElectricLightDem]

22. Gore was elected, wasn't he?

Although with the Citizen's United case, it may no longer be possible.

Alas.

[4lbs]

26. Barely, and Gore is pretty far left. All the vote counts were about as close as you could get.

Once again, the country is not left of center, and any time a left of center candidate pops up, the vote results show that.

Otherwise, a progressive candidate would win by a significant margin, both popular and electorally, not just barely squeak by.

[Capn Sunshine]

27. GORE is pretty far left? OMG!!!!

:rofl:

[4lbs]

28. As far as the majority of the country is concerned, yes he is.

Back in 2000, half the country found him too far left to vote for, and decided to give a lame-brain a chance.

[karynnj]

40. Gore was to Clinton's right in the 19980s and 1990s

He moved a huge distance after the SC gave Bush the Presidency. In 1988, he was the first DLC endorsed candidate.

[4lbs]

42. He was still too liberal for about half the country back then.

Otherwise, he'd have won by a larger margin. The electoral count was pretty close.

[saltpoint]

30. Gore was likely cheated out of a victory, yes, and

he did win the popular vote, but I'm not really seeing him as a progressive, exactly.

Is my view impacted by my being a Bill Bradley delegate? Yes.

[Individualist]

35. Gore was a DLC member at that time,

and DLCers are so far right they're in republicans' laps.

Fortunately Gore later saw the error of his ways and disassociated himself from DLC.

[demigoddess]

29. not as long as ralph nader is still around

he is used to split the leftist vote.

[karynnj]

31. Obama is left of center and he did

Howard Dean was a moderate Democrat - one of the more conservative Democratic governors even though he led Vermont. In addition, Kerry, clearly to the left of both Dean and center, would have pulled off an upset in a year far less easy for Democrats had there been enough voting machines in Ohio.

[Individualist]

34. "Obama is left of center"

because you say so.

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[karynnj]

41. No his record said that he is

[Individualist]

43. ...

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[karynnj]

52. Laugh all you want, but by any measure you want to use,

Obama was to the left of center in terms of the Democratic Senate caucus if you define the center as the mid point. His positions in 2008 were to the left of Dean's in 2004 on health care and the environment. On foreign policy, his retoric was vague, but when he was specific he appeared to be with the Kerry/Kennedy block.

The only way he is not to the left is if you define "center" to be all but about 15 Senators split between the two ends. Even then, there is a tendancy to place favorites such as Franken and at one time, most inaccurately, Edwards as "left of center" in spite of their records while arguing that Obama is not. There were various scores from organizations that were posted in 2008 - on all Obama was one of the most liberal Senators.

[Skip Intro]

38. Dean might have, had the media not maligned him. nt

[marmar]

39. I think we're deluding ourselves by thinking an individual could make a difference......

...... at this point and time.

The presidency, like Congress, like the Supreme Court, is an institution controlled by corporations. Rousing campaign speeches and expressed ideology make good political theater, but face it, our "democracy" is theater - Kabuki theater. Facadism only.

[FoxNewsSucks]

45. No,

because the corporations and "the elite" control the media. The media has too much influence, and corporations will never allow a real liberal to get elected.

The corporate media will just do its part to keep up the illusion that we have "free elections". Which helps them cover up the fact that corporatists count our votes and give us the pre-determined results.

So, NO. Not because the majority of Americans don't want a liberal president, but because the corporations & billionaires don't. And that's who calls the shots.

Depressing, isn't it.

[npk]

47. Agreed. N/t

[mmonk]

49. Yes, they have in the past.

[LatteLibertine]

50. We need

a candidate who's willing to be a one term President. You run as a moderate Democrat and when you get in office push the most progressive agenda you may. We need someone who believes it's better to achieve progressive ends than to posture as a progressive. It is possible a POTUS that implemented many progressive reforms could be popular after said reforms take effect and the poor/middle class see the actual benefits.

Bottom line is we need someone who is willing to bring the most wealthy and corporations into balance. Someone who will actually fight for the good of the overwhelming majority of US citizens, ie the poor and middle class.

I will get out and vote Democrat in the fall because I can not stand the thought of us returning to Republican rule. It would be nightmarish. Can you imagine what they will have to do to pay back the most wealthy who are now largely moving to support them? If you think Bush was bad wait and see what happens if we get a Republican President in 2012 and possibly a Republican House or Senate. Even now while they are >out< of power you may see their every vote and stance is against the good of the poor and middle class. If they get back in power we're really done for.

[npk]

51. I'm with you there

8 years of Bush may take like 16 years to fix. If the country was to experience even just 4 years of another GOP president that might be all she wrote for the middle class in this country.