With election results, simple going left is shown to be a losing strategy.

A lot of people like to say that the reason we lose elections is that we're not far enough left. But I could show you election results that say the opposite.

I'm not talking about McGovern.

I'm not talking about Mondale.

I'm not talking about Dukakis.

I'm talking about Kerry. Kerry was to the left of Gore, and Gore won, and Kerry lost by three million. Going to the left didn't get us more votes here.

is the party that is going to lose.

what makes you think we could turn them out in any other election year in great numbers?

They don't vote Republican or Democrat. They do not vote Reform, Libertarian, Green, Populist, Constitution, Marijuana, Prohibition, or anybody else. If they voted for somebody, we could at least discern their political leanings and target the demographic. Are you telling me that there's not a single party or individual that they favor over another?

What the fuck are they waiting for? Democracy doesn't work without active participation. Is it too much to ask that people at least occasionally give a damn about their country and go to the polls every few years?

We always seem to assume this, but I've never seen any evidence for it. My experience is that the nonvoters I know are politically apathetic.

It's about standing up for Democratic values and presenting it in a way that's intelligible and sincere-sounding to the average person.

I also think that Kerry did pretty well considering we were running against someone propped up as a protectorate demagogue. If you had asked me in early 2003 what the 2004 election would look like, I would have said they're gonna wipe the floor with us - maybe a 49-state loss.

or the fact that they are two different things?

everyone who is registered gets to vote, and everyone who voted gets their vote counted.

John Kerry got 59,027,612.

Because even more people turned out for Bush* this time than did when he was percieved as more moderate.

Bush by going right, and Kerry, by what you're saying, going left. There doesn't seem to be a strong case for going right or left.

It Help To Factor In Population Growth...

I don't think the US gained 10 million new voters since 2000.

Though liberal on social issues, his failure to speak out against corporate power in America hurt Democrats.

I attended a fundraiser for Kerry and asked a key campaign insider if Kerry could take a pro-consumer, anti-corporate stance, but was tersely informed that this would never happen. No doubt that's because Kerry and the DNC took a lot of money from big corporations.

As a result, the environment, consumer rights and much more wound up being ignored in this campaign.

The average person, Democrat, Republican or whatever, is sick and tired of being jerked around by big corporations--from insurance companies to oil companies to pharmaceutical conglomerates. Standing up to the corporate control of America is a message that would resonate across party lines--with all but the rich fat cats.

He did address some of the things you talk about.

This was not a major theme of his campaign, however.

Other forms of consumer protection issues were ignored entirely.

I voted for Kerry, but was not happy with his failure to make these issues cornerstones of his campaign. Much of his campaign literature didn't even mention them.

You cannot be serious with your analysis. For one thing, Gore was clearly to Kerry's left. Maybe not historically, but Gore ran a much more progressive, populist campaign. If you look at the polls, it's precisely when Gore was running as a populist that he was winning. While Kerry ran a campaign completely devoid of ideas, a mushy glop of centrist pandering, and it didn't help him one bit against the worst president in American history. Again, the issues aren't as simple as the "move left", "move right" crowds think. They're both completely wrong. Politics has become largely stylistic and personal, and ironically, apolitical. People want to vote for "strong leaders", people who stand up to "special interests". This explains the popularity of Wellstone and even some douchebags who seem to be "strong leaders", like Jesse Ventura, John McCain, and that piece of crap, Schwarzenegger. So moving left won't necessarily help, but appearing strong, decisive and idealistic will. Kerry could not fathom this central truth, and that's why he lost.

I'm not really saying that going left will cost us so much as I'm saying it's not a definite solution.

instead of burdening us with labels about Kerry, could you please cite specific positions Kerry campaigned on that you either agree or disagree with ... i find all this "left is evil, center is evil" nonsense very tiresome and useless ...

fundamentally, Kerry supported a military solution in Iraq ... is that too far left? too far right?

Kerry supported most of bush's tax cut ... was this too far left because he "attacked" those making over $200,000? or was it too far right because he wanted to keep most of the cut?

on healthcare, he had some kind of program that was designed to pick-up catastrophic care (over $50K) to help lower healthcare insurance premiums ... was this "socialized medicine"? or was this a drop in the bucket, too-little-too-late inadequate response to the healthcare problem?

put some meat on the bones and maybe these posts will be worth reading ...

and the logic you used fails to consider a ton of important factors ... to compare Gore's vote to Kerry's and base it only on your view of their relative position on the political spectrum is absurd ... it fails to acknowledge the impact on voters of 9/11 ... it ignores Gore's alienation from Clinton ... it ignores that we were a nation at war in this last election ... it ignores BBV ... it ignores Kerry's "i voted for it before I voted against it" ... it ignores getting "gay marriage" on the ballot in Ohio ... it ignores the way the mass media caved in because they feared the White house ... is it possible their positions on issues accounted for the difference in their vote totals? sure ... but all these other factors and many others would have to be analyzed long before you could reach the conclusion you reached ...

nuff said

I've been dreaming that bush was still in the white house.

Rope a' dopes, judo chess, "letting attacks backfire on their own" are losing strategies. Not demanding message discipline from surrogates, sending clever children to do battle against seasoned adults, and using consultancy fees to buy support from interest groups are losing strategies. And so are cowtowing to mediawhores so they'll ask you back on their shows, keeping proven losers employed just 'cause their our proven losers, letting untested adjunct organizations handle large portions of your GOTV, and centralizing control in DC.

IMHO, we ought to address the losing strategies that we need to fix to win no matter what ideological direction we run from. Otherwise the question is flat out moot.

the result - although any thinking being knows we won, they lost.

It's not left, right, or any other bullshit posturing. The right wing will slam anybody we run as a left wing loony. We just need someone who's not afraid of disagreeing with a voter in public and isn't afraid of plainly stating his opinion.

like the conservatives, we need to be hardcore on these issues.

You're wrong on comparing Kerry to the other two, and Gore did run a more populist, "power to the people" kind of campaign.

A lot of it is a matter of tone. Don't be apologetic or obtuse about the need to fund education, or the fact that most of the republican tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization schemes are as much scams as Tony Robbins tapes.

This is why Karl Rove feared Howard Dean. He had the balls to go after the jugular of the right. Kerry's only problem was he didn't hit Bush hard enough in any number of areas where he was vulnerable during the debates like when had Bush EVER put the interests of working Americans ahead of big corporations? What sacrifice had he EVER called on the wealthy to make for his war while he calls on our service members to give up their lives.

There was something to the Clinton approach, but the overal thrust of the DLC seems to be kiss big business's ass and fuck the voters.

Kerry and Clinton signed a bill to kill welfare for millions of fatherless children and forced women into dead end jobs that keep them struggling even harder in some cases. They also signed that damned Free Trade shit. Now, Hillary is talking about Faith Based initiatives too. THIS IS NOT LEFT/social politics.

The country doesn't like the dog food we are trying to sell them...

from the media. The fact is that there are a number of reasons why Kerry "lost", from lack of the truth about this scandalous administration to unfair voting practices. It is also a fact that no matter how hard the media shills for these fucks, you cannot keep a lid on the problems this country faces forever. They may say how great the economy is, but the people see the reality staring them in the eyes, particularly when it is their job going abroad. People remember how the media talked for months, about how great the Iraq was going, despite the increasing evidence that said otherwise.

What our candidates need to do is drop the rethug talking points of left and right, and fine tune a populist message. A message that says you can have both a clean environment and profitable companies. And that we can bring manufacturing jobs back, building green technologies, as we reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that this is the PATRIOTIC thing to do. And that it is patriotic to have an intelligent and educated citizenry, not evidence of some evil socialist plot.
Yes, this round is over, and our guy "lost", but I do not see comfort in the eyes of those that supported this buffoon, and the right-wing is already over-reaching, and more scandals are coming out. Iraq is going from quagmire to quicksand fast, but their love for the oil, prevents them from reaching for help to get out.

We do not need to move left or right, we just need to tell the truth about the issues and think wisely about how to resolve those problems, while gently reminding Americans how the rethugs proved to be wrong. And if that does not work, then I guess we can pray that the end will come quickly.

We are talking about millions of voters that feel they have no stake in the outcome of an election because no one speaks to them. Talking about the minimum wage to people that have to work more than one job, without health benefits, in order to eke out a living, just does not resonate enough to get them to the polls.

I wonder how it would be like if we actually believed, and were willing to fight, for an agenda that began by promising to empower those non-voters. How about offering them free universal health care, cradle to grave, including dental and mental? How about pushing for a Living Wage as the minimum standard wage in the US? How about empowering them politically by setting up an American version of the Bolivarian Circles that Chavez has used in Venezuela? How about bringing democracy down to the lowest level, by repealing Taft-Hartley, and revitalizing labor in way not seen since the New Deal? How about pushing for an education rights legislation, in which quality education is free to all, from K to college? How about repealing all those trade deals that have made it profitable for companies to move our industrial base overseas? And all of this is just for starters!

How do you propose paying for them?

maybe we need to remember what we liked about "being" "democrat" in the first place
-doing the right thing can be such damn good fun.
look at Dean......-that was cool.__.....who did that?.....we did.
look at Kerry.....wasn't it cool watching him debate for America's future?.....who supported him?......we did.

Didn't Clark kinda make you feel proud of our country?
Did anyone actually hear the kick-ass things that little guy Kucinich said at the DNC (or any day in congress for that matter) when we finally stopped laughing at him?

Hey I enjoy "winning" and being part of a majority vote,
but this year....
I'd rather be a "democrat".

We're not just less crappy than that little winner's circle over there.
We're A LOT less crappy!
.......meanwhile..........................they need to be reminded that we're still Americans too, and they're still SUPPOSED to represent US -even though we voted against their tenure. We don't have to win top office to point out that they're still supposed to make genuine effort to meet us part way. They don't deserve to be let off conscience-free just because the election's over.
We're not perfect. But we're pretty darn good.

It seems that this has become a MANTRA for the mushy middle. (aka centrists, moderates)

They're so afraid of the left taking the party back to the grassroots that they need to use a form of fear-mongering not seen since the McCarthy era and George Bush's* last campaign.

The Corporate Dems (DLC) and their allies don't want to be burdened with the social Democrats and their base: blacks, women, workers and the poor.

This is why they're afraid of being perceived as moving BACK to the left. Corporations won't hand over the big bucks to candidates that care about the poor more than paybacks to lobbyists who set an agenda that doesn't include the Left's base.

In fact...the centrists don't want to go back to the middle. They're comfortable with their RWing buddies who support war without cause, raping the environment for the corporations and plundering the PEOPLE'S TREASURY to benefit those who keep them in campaign dollars.

We must be as committed to destroying the institutions the rightwing has been so keen in building as they have been about dismantling the gains made during the New Deal. We must obliterate all traces of Reaganism from our midst, and we must reject its philosophy in its entirety. This also means that we must radicalize those religious leaders that do not share the Taliban-Lite theology of the Religious Right. The mainstream must fight the fundamentalist extremists, or else the religious world will be ruled by the likes of Opus Dei, 700 Club, and the Wahabis.

With Hillary out there stumping to erase the line between Church and State and all other Dems demonizing Chavez, it is more likely that they are content to lose on the Right's agenda rather than oppose it.

I appreciate the thought - but I do not see the large problem.

Most likely means I am not "left" enough!

:-)

:toast:

:-)

its not about going more left
or going more center
its about having a sense of what the hell your doing in the first place
believe it or not Kerry had a very strong sense of what the hell he was doing and still does ...and listen... he didn't exactly get less votes than gore -if you get my meaning
so don't worry so much... we're "democrats" -we're never going to be as good as the other guys at concentrating on winning strategy
we spend most of our effort actually considering what responsible leadership must do.
it's what were good at. and besides,...........its fun.........
-truth is fun..............remember?
don't worry... voters always seem come to their senses eventually

Gore got much more exploration of the ballots cast than Kerry ever will, I fear.

:freak:
dbt

Kerry acted as if his past progressive views were a liability and postured as a hawk.

So much for advocating a progressive message as an alternative.

The problem with the Right-wing dominating the terms, and framing the debate with reactionary views is, even the truth becomes a liberal conspiracy.

Kerry wasn't running on the truth, his platform was he could do a better job than Bush within the same lie. What kind of alternative is that?

should we stay to the left of the neocons? to the left of republicans?

How far right can we go from party mainstream without ending up to the right of republicans? Or should we become the same as republicans; make it a one party system?

How much difference is there anyway? Both support privitization and deregulation in favor of corporations. Debates about anything from privitization of healthcare to NAFTA, to the war on Iraq, are not about "yes" vs "no", but all about how, when, who and how much. both parties agree on the basics, in spite of the fact that many voters do not.

It is only now that the republican party has been hijacked by neocons that the Dem party is to the left of the repub party, which isn't really that hard to do - in fact many repub voters are to the left of the neocons (just look at Pat Buchanan).
And yet again there are voices claiming Dems should move right in order to win elections.

I'm actually impressed with the response for a message that was posted late last night. :kick:

:puke:

Ya know it's someone wanting a GOP Lite Democratic Party. But we tried that. Next!

Kucinich got, what, 1% of the primary vote?

and in the process made himself look wishy washy.

Your statement fails on it's basic premise.

and Kerry was the DLC approved centrist candidate with the votes in the senate to prove it.

You OP is full of holes and meaningless. Left <---------> right is a meaningless debate. Why the strawman thread?

At least, that's how the DLC/PNAC operates, anyway.

:shrug:

People here say Lieberman was the DLC's guy, and Gore was a DLC member too, so saying that Kerry was to the right of Gore because he was DLC doesn't hold up.

Democrats who give laundry lists and statistics, but don't provide the values framework lose.

And it's also important tha the candidate's biography match the framework.

Clinton said that he was going to put people first, and that it was the economy stupid, and that pretty much described his own life. It made sense to people, and it tapped into how progressives see the world.

I think what matters more than where your politics are on a spectrum is whether you're are able to articulate that framework and show people the bigger picture of what it means to be progressive.

Rather, the majority of the electorate votes for a President based on "character". That's the main reason why Bush won and Kerry lost. Bush's campaign based their entire strategy around associating Bush with certain watchwords -- resolute, decisive, leadership, etc. At the same time, they associated Kerry with the OPPOSITE of those words -- flip-flopper, indecisive, etc.

When Kerry was busy talking about issues, Bush was talking about character. We see which approach worked.

But, extending this further into a broader strategy, I don't think that even the majority of "leftist" DUers are advocating that the Democratic Party run to the left in elections. However, we DO feel that the party needs to make some fundamental changes in its platform. Two areas I can think of right off the bat are trade policy and campaign finance.

Funny thing is, most independents and even RWers, when I ask them about their thoughts on these issues, we find ourselves in almost 100% agreement! None of us think that "free trade" is good for anybody except the richest Americans, and we also feel that our political process is one in which policy and access are for sale to the highest bidder. Yet, the stances of the Republicans and Democrats seem to come together, for the most part, on these issues.

Why aren't the Democrats leading the fight for Clean Elections laws, which would free up candidates from fundraising, allowing them access to public funds to run their campaigns? Why isn't every single Democrat in Congress on board on this, shouting from the rafters about the need for this reform? Why are Democrats still voting to further empower corporate interests while simultaneously stunting economic empowerment among both US and foreign working classes through "free trade" policies?

Perhaps the convergence of Democrats and Republicans on these issues indicates who the parties really work for? I dunno. All I do know is that saying "we mostly agree with the Republican policies, but we just want to enact them in a 'softer' way" isn't winning us any Congressional elections. We have to do something, that's for sure!

At least not on the campaign trail.

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

Iraq was the dominant issue in the election and people couldn't understand Kerry's "nuanced" position. Did her didn't he support the war? Many people couldn't answer that question.

Did their contribution to the election help or hurt? It could be argued that a certain number of voters reacted against what they saw as a far-left stance.

And though some here see Kerry as too Republican-lite, some of the people I ran into and some of the rhetoric from the other side had him painted as a dangerous socialist lefty. What he was and what he was perceived as were two different things. The Freepers see him as almost Communist. And in fact, I got called a Communist for being a Kerry supporter.