Rasmussen: 51% of dems want a "more centrist" candidate in '08....

sorry if this is a dupe, but I didn't see it.

New Rasmussen poll:

"Half (51%) of the nation's Democrats say it would be best for their party to nominate a more centrist candidate in 2008. Twenty-five percent (25%) believe that it would be best to nominate a more liberal candidate than John Kerry.

Unaffiliated voters, by a 52% to 20% margin, also believe that a more centrist candidate would be best for the Democrats.

Looking back at the 2004 election, 22% of Democrats believe that if Howard Dean had been nominated, he would have won the election on November 2. Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats disagree and say Dean would not have won the general election.

Twenty-eight percent (28%) of liberal voters believe Dean would have defeated President George W. Bush.

Liberal voters are evenly divided as to whether Democrats should nominate a more liberal or centrist candidate in 2008. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of liberals want a more liberal candidate and 36% want a more centrist figure."

Hmmmmm..... even a third of "liberals" want to move right. Don't know how he defined "liberal"....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Election%202008%20Dems.htm

I will never pay the slightest attention to polls again.

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm#Pollster

Bush Kerry Nader


Zogby 11/1-2 49.4 49.1 0.3
Battleground: Tarrance (R) * 10/31 - 11/1 51.2 47.8 0.5 0.5 .4
Battleground: Lake (D) ** 10/31 - 11/1 48.6 50.7 2.1
TIPP 10/30 - 11/1 50.1 48.0 1.1 0.8 2.1
Harris 10/29 - 11/1 49 48 2 1 1
Gallup 10/29-31 49 49 1 1
Pew Research Center 10/27-30 51 48 1 3

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

PollingReport.com


Final Trial Heats ***

DETAILS OTHER/
Survey BUSH KERRY NADER UNSURE Margin
Dates % % % % Bush Kerry

Marist College 11/1 49 50 - 1 1
GWU Battleground 10/31 - 11/1 50 46 1 4 4
TIPP 10/30 - 11/1 48.6 45.3 0.9 5.2 3.3
CBS News 10/29 - 11/1 49 47 1 3 2
FOX News 10/30-31 46 48 1 5 2
CNN/USA Today/Gallup 10/29-31 49 47 - 4 2
Democracy Corps (D) 10/29-31 47 48 1 3 1
NBC News/Wall St Journal 10/29-31 48 47 1 4 1
Zogby **** 10/29-31 48 47 1 4 1
ABC News 10/28-31 49 48 1 3 1
Washington Post 10/28-31 49 48 1 3 1
American Research Group 10/28-30 48 48 1 3
Pew Research Center 10/27-30 48 45 1 6 3
Newsweek 10/27-29 50 44 1 5 6

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

PollingReport.com

_________________
* Tarrance projection based on unaided trial heat question.
** Lake Snell Perry projection based on aided trial heat question.
*** Final Trial Heats: Based on surveys of likely voters, with leaners included.
**** Zogby: Last set of unallocated results released, although polling continued through election day.

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



Some Democratic Undergrounders didn't like the polls because they didn't like the results..


Disregarding polls because they bare unpleasant news is like disregarding your doctor when he tell you you are sick...

unless there's a very weird definition of a "liberal." Kerry was pretty centrist.

In this day and age, Tricky Dick Nixon would be considered a liberal.

someone like Kucinich or Kucinich himself.
I would vote for Kerry again.

We will be nominating a damn Republican!

Our nominees in 1996, 2000, 2004 ditched universal healthcare as a campaign theme. Yet it was the support of Carter, Truman, and Clinton in 1993 for national healthcare which makes me proud to be a Democrat.

If Kerry is considered too liberal on healthcare, what kind of centralist candidates are left..Ben Nelson, Zell Miller, or Phil Bredesen? :puke:

*Jennifer Granholm can't run for pres cuz she was born in Canada...

if you get those people nominated millions of liberal will abandon ship.

Mark Warner and Evan Bayh are more conservative than Joe Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman is quite liberal socially...


His foreign policy is quite hawkish...

Bayh is a centrist... I would guess some of his cetrism is a function of representing a solidly red state....

Same for Governor Warner...

If I were miracalously elected senator from my home state of Florida I believe I would have to moderate some of my views to get reelected...

videogames and books and is a rabid cheerleader for endless wars.

DemocratSinceBirth (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-21-04 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #55

56. Bob Kerrey- maverick/liberal

Edited on Sun Nov-21-04 04:44 PM by DemocratSinceBirth

Joe Lieberman is quite liberal socially...

His foreign policy is quite hawkish...
------------------------------------------------------------

As for his social policies did he want to ban (violent) videogames or put warnings on them ...


I have no problems with warnings.. I listen to Public Enemy, Snoop Dog, Missy Elliot, 50 Cent, and Eminem...

I ignore the warnings buy the cds but I'm glad parents have some idea of what their kids are liatening to...

how can we be more moderate on the Iraqi War?

And the warnings are important...

I have the cd case in front of me.. It says "Parental Advisory-Explicit Content"...

Not negative or positive but the truth.. You just need to listen to it...


I diatinguish between self directed and other directed acts...


I agree with John Stuart Mill "over his body and mind the individual is sovereign"


The problem arises when you go from the private sphere to the public sphere...

And here's how I would solve that problem in offering a truce in the culture wars to the fundies which I know they will never accept...

If they don't tell me what I can listen to, what I can watch, who I can sleep with in the privacy of my home I will respect their desire to keep the public airaves a family friendly G Rated place...

This won't be enough because they want not only for me to repect their morality but to practice it...

a warning for every wrong, a compliment for every right.

Would we also trust the government to provide consumer reports on cars?

What makes something dangerous, evil, or explicit? Who defines what is right, safe, or moral..the government?

Christians believe God created Satan. They also believe everything God does is for a benevolent purpose. Based on that belief one can assume God created Satan for a positive reason, not a mistake. Does this make God the source of every evil..or evil a creation of good? If God created every sin, how can God be sinless? If sin was created by God, how can it be evil? If evil did not exist how would good be defined? If both sides playing Chess had black pieces who would move first?

These warnings are voluntary......


Lot of stuff that should be avialable to adults should not be avialble to minors and if available with restrictions...

no mindless happiness until one becomes an adult

Not really,the record companies were threatened that chain stores wouldn't carry anything without the label,and the labels were browbeaten severly into accepting them.

...how else do you explain Kerry courting McCain so heavily?

and just right of Wellstone's.

This poll is based on media spin and false media perceptions of the candidates over the last two years.

In all actuality, Dean IS a centrist candidate who has the requirements to meet that demand by the 51% who prefer a centrist candidate, however, the spin that he is too liberal will always be used against him now.

I think Dean's personae made him seem more liberal than he was...


Even his IWR stance was more nuanced than most folks who haven't seriously studied his thinking on the topic claim...


As for Kerry on almost any issue he took the conventional liberal stance up to his IWR vote and that vote became the measure by which most folks judged his philosophy..

wasn't much of a liberal either.

And should we trust historic facts and records or decades of stories planted by operatives and recent revisionism by unethical pundits?

And didn't many DUers decry it, since he's actually ranked #11 (I think) by whatever group was being cited?

From my reading on DU, the "#1 liberal senator in Congress" meme pushed by Republicans in regard to Kerry was bullshit. Is it now not bullshit?

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

Umm...sure?

Umm...nope?

:shrug:

i think this election showed that it's NOT whether the candidate is moderate or progressive or whatever.

it's all about image and personality and maybe, maybe one or two hot button "issues" like gay marriage.

WORK ON THE IMAGE, WORK ON THE STORY.

the public doesn't care about policy, just look at the republicans.

if you can sell the story, if you've got an image that connects, then you can put in place whatever policies you want.

by Joshua Wolf Shenk in Mother Jones, 5/14/04:

"The right wing has an elemental and appealing narrative--the ideological equivalent of a Jerry Bruckheimer film or a Tom Clancy novel, the sort that’s hard to turn away from, even if you suspect you’re being suckered. Stories operate on our primitive, reptilian brains. “We tell ourselves stories in order to live,” Joan Didion wrote. This isn’t just a pretty line but an artful statement of neuropsychological reality.

According to Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, & Co., the president of the United States of America is a great gentle warrior, the scion of a noble line: He’s a Texas cowboy descended from George Washington descended from the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. He’s a man of God and family. Truly, the story goes, he’s a simple man--wanting only to care for his own, tend to his plot of land, and go to church on Sunday."

Dems, he says, have no idea how to construct a compelling narrative.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/05/05_200.html

"George W. Bush has stationed 135,000 troops in harm’s way for a cause that seems increasingly hopeless and he’s presided over one of the worst economies of the century. He ran promising to be a centrist, lost the popular vote, and went on to govern from the radical right. He used a terrorist attack he might have stopped to justify a war that he already wanted to start."

that there were two ways to take it. And, yeah, the whole Bush narrative is a lie... but Rove et. al. make sure that everything is orchestrated to emphasize its key elements over and over. All that bullshit about the Crawford Ranch; the landing on the carrier; everything. It's like a neverending high school play.... poor acting, cheap sets. But the story sticks. Dems take the odd crack at doing a "scene" -- Dukakis in the tank, Gore's "kiss" -- but they never manage to put together a coherent show. Again, this has nothing to do with policies or principles, but with the way everything is cast. Bush's campaign may be a Tale told by an Idiot -- but it's a tale. And that's what people buy.

we can't be seen as whining about lost liberties and trying to protect esoteric legal rights.

we need to be seen as knights in shining armor coming to rescue the most beautiful princess from the clutches of the evil nemesis who is cleverly disguised as a plain-speaking president....

not sure if you are agreeing with Shenk or mocking him. The essential point is that people don't respond to arguments so much as they respond to narrative/storyline. Just human nature. You don't abandon the arguments/issues/principles, but you cast them into a form that people recognize/remember/respond to.

democrats do seem to think that all we have to do is fling a bunch of truths and sound arguments out there and people will see that we're right more often than they are, and that's enough.

no, these truths and sound arguments must be woven into a compelling story. knights in shining armor may not be the right story (a bit cliched, but then, with lord of the rings out on dvd, maybe that sort of thing might work!)

and really, the story can be quite simple (like a knight and a princess, or a knight and prince, if the nominee is a woman :) ) -- and it has to be drawn from the pool of "archetypal" stories that are familiar to everyone. But it has to be there.

It's not centrism people are looking for, it's familiarity.

The call for centrism just means, "Give us a candidate we can relate to". If the candidate has appeal on an instictual level, whatever he or she says will be defined as "centrism".

and it is probably going to take a while for dems to establish a more compelling image in the public mind, and that's assuming that we can find one and agree on it.

Right.

We have a winner!

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Liberals are a minority even in the Democratic party...


Though there are more liberals in the Democratic party than conservatives moderate Democrats are in the plurality...

Not now, not in the past, and not in the future.

Kerry is centrist, and he is liberal. He's not a Neocon, and he's not a fascist, like the alternative. Get it through your thick skulls America. Please.

Wonder why they don't poll Democrats on that?

Universal healthcare funded by progressive taxation is about as leftwing as you can get without being socialist. But poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans prefer that system.

What the corporate media and the GOP and Dem party leaders and activists have managed to do with conflate (or even substitute) social issues liberalism (like gay rights, tree hugging, gender with or for racial spoils systems etc) AND economic liberalism (progressive taxation to provide universal healthcare etc).

So then when the public answers a poll like this, and say the Dems need to be more centrist, they are thinking social issues, eg., gay rights, racial/gender spoils-system politics.

If the Democratic party leaders and activists were really interested in promoting a true progressive-liberal agenda, they would engage in an education campaign to explain just what a liberal platform is. But instead they stay away from ideological stuff and stick to partisan hackery, "he said, she said" crap.

If the Democratic party leaders and activists were really interested in promoting a true progressive-liberal agenda, they would engage in an education campaign to explain just what a liberal platform is.

Well, that supposes that Democratic party leaders and "activists" are interested in promoting a truly progressive agenda. I'm not at all convinced this to be the case, since a progressive platform (read: socialism) would interfere with their own class interests.

socialism is associated with state ownership of all property, a command economy, and so forth.

Progressive is capitalism, leashed and made to work for all to a greater degree and for some to a lesser degree. It is social democracy.

Denmark is progressive/social democratic. They have private property. As many people own their own homes there as here. Consumer goods are available there, but with steep tariffs on some. Most social goods are available to everyone there (healhcare, university, child care) and they are funded through high rates of income tax, progressively bracketed.

Also, they are more oriented to thoughtful solutions to social ills (like crime).

That is progressivism. It is just capitalism where the market has less leverage over the citizen.

Socialism does not automatically imply a command economy. A certain degree of state ownership in key industries, along with limits on speculative investment would go a long way toward establishing a more equitable system. That will not necessarily involve whole-scale central planning and the abolition of private ownership. Threat of the latter is actually a very convenient tool in the hands of reactionary ideologues as they try to smear attempts at a fair redistribution of wealth with red-baiting paranoia.

That said, imposing limits on the market in order to empower the citizen is precisely what I'm talking about.

Howard Dean was actually conservative on some fiscal matters but is still considered a liberal. In the old days a true conservative wouldn't, for a second, consider amending the Constitution on a moral issue. After 9/11 many liberals became centrist for a while. I consider myself an anti-war enlightened moderate but please don't ask me what this means.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

These would be self described liberals.

:crazy:

More centrist than KERRY?

WTF?

This is a bunch of shite. If we get any more centrist, we'll have to surgically remove our heads from the right wing's asses.

It's such a stupid political label.

Are they pro-environment, but not really? Pro-choice, but kinda into controls? Not for war, but would be willing to attack a country? Pro-labor, except with controls on unions?

You get the drift. What questions would you ask these people what a "centrist" is?

Just like most people consider themselves "above average".

Give them a person they can identify with, and they'll say "That's a centrist".

"Centrist" doesn't make any sense.

Which is why this whole "centrist" vs. "leftist" debate is pointless.

and Moderate Positions..


I don't believe in labels but as someone steeped in the social sciences especially political science I believe operationalizing our terms are useful....


Choice-

Conservative position- Life begins at conception... Abortion is no different than murder... All abortions should be outlawed though some conserrvatives believe abortions should be alowed to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest..

Moderate position- Most abortions should be allowed but favor limitations on late term abortions and that minors should have parental approval....

Liberal position- Abortion is a matter of personal autonomy.. Most abortions should be legal...

Gay Marriage-

Conservative position- Homosexuality is immoral and should be actively discouraged. Conservatives not only oppose gay marriage but would favor the recriminalization of sodomy...

Moderate position- Homosexuality is a personal choice but not to be actively encouraged or discouraged... They wish not to elevate a union of two people of the same gender to the status of a traditioal union between a man and a woman but see the need for civil unions to protect the legal rights of same sex couples...

Liberal position- A relationship is a relationship and loves knows no gender and therefore marriage is a union between two people who love each other and want to make that union permanent...

This exercise isn't so difficult ;one could do it on a host of issues...

While I empathize with the liberal position on those two issues as a pragmatic liberal I am willing to reach out to my moderate brothers and sisters in a united front against the right...

someone steeped in political science should know that. You are talking about radical right wingers not conservatives. And that is the bunch you want to concede other peoples civil rights too? Nice!

I know you are not a woman and I am going to assume you are not gay...but you'll concede our rights to win elections. What a mensch.

You are exactly the kind of democrat who is making this a losing party. You would rather cave on what is right to gain some votes. You don't realize that the winning strategy is to retrain peoples thinking. Republicans have been doing that for years.
But no, "moderate" democrats would rather appease appease appease.

I hope every Democratic Undergrounder reads my post and yours...


I clearly delineated the three positions... Of course there are differences even among conservatives, moderates, and liberals which I could have further delineated but I didn't want to use Skinner's bandwidth to do a one thousand word thesis...


Back to my original point..


I clearly said that I was willing to reach out to moderates in a united front against the right....

It would be a total non-sequitar to say I was willing to reach out to the right in a united front against the right.....

You are the big "social sciences guy". You can't even define conservatism correctly. I think you need to jump back in the pot and brew a bit longer.

Your centrist POV is morally weak. You are willing to reach out by throwing away the civil rights of Gays and women. How very brave of you.

How am I throwing away the rights of gays by making a common front with those who support civil unions to opposse those who would recrimanalize sodomy?


How would I be throwing away the rights of women by making a common front with those who support most abortions but oppose late termabortions and require parental notification to oppose those who would crimanilize all if not most abortions?

Is the late Pat Moynihan a right winger?

He called partial birth abortion "infanticide"


As for conservatives there are many types of conservatives... Some conservatives are indeed liberteraians... How can they be liberterians and conservatives ? Because they want to conserve the classical liberalism as understood in the seventeenth and eighteen century and propounded by philosophers such as John Locke...

Another group of conservatives are the Burkean conservatives... Burke was a eighteen century British statesman.... Burke believed that descisions should be prudentially made and organically inspired with a healthy respect for tradition...

Yes, many conservatives believe Lawrence v Texas was wrongly decided ... They believe that the Supreme Court usurped the power of the Texas legislature by overruling it's sodomy laws... They believe it is an issue to be decided by each state through it's legislative procedures... Therefore they would be in favor of recriminalizing sodomy....


When you're in a hole pardner, quit digging...

nice bait and switch. I am not interested in playing your silly game. You defined the centrist or moderate positions and said you were in favor of supporting them. Those positions are IMO throwing away the civil rights of Gays and women. Now that doesn't surprise me since that is the typical response of the moderate straight guy to winning more elections.

Come up with one of your own civil rights to compromise and I might find your post interesting.

over the internet.


Can you guess my weight and height too?


Also, I don't think trying to find common ground with folks who favor civil unions against those who would throw two guys in the hooskow for schtupping one another is such a bad thing...

Also, I don't think trying to find common ground with folks who favor abortions in most cases with some limitations against those who would go back to the days of the coat hanger is such a bad thing...


It's nice to have maximalitst positions but nicer to get things done but then you couldn't play the role of internet martyr..

Let's see how bad you folks want things to be. Let's see how the spirit of Neville Chamberlain energizes the party.

haunts the party as it is.

Bill Clinton is the only Dem that has been able to pull that off.
And the only possible candidate, if he's old enough in 2008, that comes close to the charisma and gravitas is Barack Obama, and he is deliciously liberal.

Polls schmolls.

I suppose it has been several week since we last saw a poll.

Personally I don't think it was Kerry's liberalism that lost this. It was a dirty campaign of fear that won this for Bush (or maybe more appropriately "won" this).

First they force Kerry to turn himself inside out to look like a centrist and then when their strategy loses once again.. they blame him for being too liberal.
This crew of losers really needs to be ashcanned.

Then we can define that under whatever label we choose.

I have heard that Kerry was too "centrist" and too "liberal" to win.

I have heard that Dean is too "conservative" and too "northeast liberal" to win.

I don't think we agree on the definition of these terms. So, any polling that hinges on the definition of these terms is bum wad.

It is kind of like "moral values". I voted for Kerry on "moral values" because I think war crimes are a moral issue.

Stupid questions yeild misleading results.

Did they present Dean as the more liberal candidate?

How about instead of this idiot right left debate, we decide to go both ways. How about we become fiscally responsible and socially liberal? Fiscal responsibility might even be a very liberal value if you think about what a mess we are handing to our kids with these huge budget deficits.

/HEAVY sarcasm

:)

Since the election, the news media has beaten the drums telling us that this represents a huge shift to the right on social issues. Unless you've been paying close attention, and have noticed how the right wing smear machine eviscerated Kerry and/or how these odd little glitches in the voting always seemed to favor Bush, you're probably agreeing with this idea as well.

I think that Kerry did well despite his failings, but that a candidate with a more populist message and demeanor might have done better had he been acceptable to the media and those who tell people what to think.

Of course, my husband has suggested that I'm so out of step with the rest of the country, that next election he will look at the primary candidates and vote for the Democrat that I dislike the most.

His reasoning, if I can't stand the guy he's a sure winner.

They want more outlets for their tripe and pocket books. Yes the media does have a stake in the Bush Jr. Administration.

I'm sick of the lying bastards. Rasmussen is a LIAR!

nt

We have to stay where we are and just figure out how to make our ideas sound good.

For instance it cant be gun control anymore. It has to be a fight to get guns away from terrorists and criminals. Its part of homeland security :)

and have a party country? "More centrist" Kerry didn't run as an out and out liberal. Maybe democrats would be happy if Zell Miller is the nominee and he can just run on the Republican platform.

We know what we have to do.

51% of of muggers think you should just give them your wallet.
My poll says so.

We have a comunity to rebuild, caucuses to form, schools to repair, houseparties to organize, elderly homeless vets to house, jobs to do, a country to take back. No time to check in with the band of thieves for their kind advice.

Of course this is the goal of the DINO/warmongers like Lieberman.

...people start debating it like it has any standing in reality. Few are wondering how many Dems were polled...or how the poll would have changed if terms such as 'liberal' were replaced with 'progressive'.

Many Americans have fallen for the RWing propaganda about 'libruls' and what ideals they represent.

It has always been about issues and taking a stand. It's easy as hell to use labels to divide people.

--"Hi, I'm Tweedledumb"

--"And I'm Tweedledumber!"

--"And one of us will be your leader!"

--"And we'll both take you for everything we can get!"

--"We've got Corporate Backing (TM)!"

--"So, bend over and smile real big..."

--"...while we insert this nice RFID tag in your ass..." :*

...that will make it even more difficult to distintinguish this party from the 'other' one. bu$hit.

I don't believe these polls....they are, at best, inconclusive - no matter how wishful the thinking of the MSM (repuke owned) and the Repukes themselves who are emitting propoganda to try to make Dems THINK they have to move to the Right and become what Republicans used to be.

BU$HIT!

"Centrist" is too vague to give much direction. The problem in my view is not that Kerry was too liberal (he's rather to my right) but that he failed to effectively connect with the center.

Election outcomes are the result of a complex dynamic between the candidates and the electorate. The idea that we can win by selecting a candidate who is closer to some clearly defined national median (a 5.0 on some "Positionometer" with a 10-point scale) is silly.

at this point is the body-count. And WE have to be more 'centrist'?

Kerry is a centrist according to many of us liberals, the same with Howard Dean. I suppose a conservative democrat might consider them liberal. If Kerry or Dean were from the midwest or somewhere other than the Northeast--perhaps the liberal label might not stick as well.

I think the word "stereotype" might fit in this discussion. Tragically, it also may mean geographical persecution in our future presidential candidate selection.

I think we need to move further left. We need to nominate a candidate who is on par with your average DU member.

to get a clear message out.