MoveOn.org bids to take over Democratic Party

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ramo

That was a result of Clinton's more lefty policies from 1993-94. The Republicans won BIG in 1994 by hyping "Hillary's Socialist Health Care Plan".

Basically, he failed to define his agenda, so the Republicans defined it for him. It's the basic problem that the Democrats have had for the past 30 years, they don't attempt to persuade, that they don't articulate a moral basis for their agenda, and just have a laundry list of policies.

Exactly. The very fact that they could get away with calling it socialism is the proof of that.

This, of course, is why there continues to be such fondness for JFK, in spite of the fact that he was a crap president -- he was the last successful Democrat who actually articulated a vision.

It's also why Barak Obama is such a fast-rising star...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
but we stop pandering to the extremists on the left.

When have you ever panded to us?

[Dinner]

Gay marriage is an often cited example. I'd say there are probably more examples in the enviromental laws.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Winston
Agreed. It's more like the thing birds do to statues.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Gay marriage is an often cited example. I'd say there are probably more examples in the enviromental laws.

And wrongly so, since the Dems ran away from that issue as fast as their legs would take them. Which of the candiadates supported gay marriage? It wasn't Kerry, that's for sure. I don't know who you think supported gay marriage, but it wasn't the Democrats. As for environmental laws, the vast majority of Amerians support stricter environmental laws than even the Dems are willing to put forward.

So try again. When have you ever pandered to us? Hell, all you do is take us for granted and assume we'll vote for you because we have no where else to go.

[Shi Huangdi]

You say centrist politics don't excite the base. Well, this year the base was wildly excited due to Bush hatred, and they still lost.

I doubt it's a coincidence that since LBJ's landslide way back in 1964, the only two democrats to win the whitehouse were Southern Centrists.

[monkspider]

It's possible that taking a centrist approach might win a presidential election here or there, but overall the centrist track record is quite poor. Look at Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry, all centrists to one degree or another. Most of were which candidates who pundits claimed "took their party back from the left".

Moreover, the only way to secure long-term success is to steal a page from the Republican's fight book and build up unique ideas and values from the ground up. Create a strong "farm system" on the local and state level, and have well-defined ideas, and work on framing those into the national debate.

Always just taking the "center" on whatever is fashionable that year will not bring long-term success, and will only push the center further and further to the right.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by MrFun
I disagree with Democrats having to completely abandon issues concerning gays. The Democratic Party could find an effective way to refute the Republicans' ridiculous claim that they monopolize so-called "moral values" without pandering to homophobia.

Gays are heading into the same boat African Americans are in -- blind allegiance to a single party. The result will be that both parties ignore you, because the one knows it's pointless to try to win you over, and the other knows you'll never leave.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by monkspider
It's possible that taking a centrist approach might win a presidential election here or there, but overall the centrist track record is quite poor. Look at Dukakis, Mondale, Gore and Kerry, all centrists to one degree or another. Most of were which candidates who pundits claimed "took their party back from the left".

Dukakis, Kerry & Mondale were moderates in Massachussets and Minnesota respectively, but they were liberals in a national race. Mondale ran against a very popular and effective politician and lost big. Kerry, Gore and Dukakis ran against very weak / vulnerable politicians and barely lost. What probably killed them was their extremely wooden personalities and running poor campaigns. But the Dems can't simply hope that the Republicans will keep nominating Bush's so that they can run close. They have to nominate candidates who can compete with decent Republican candidates.

Originally posted by monkspider
Moreover, the only way to secure long-term success is to steal a page from the Republican's fight book and build up unique ideas and values from the ground up. Create a strong "farm system" on the local and state level, and have well-defined ideas, and work on framing those into the national debate.

A good idea, and I think they are already getting started on it which is good. It will probably take about a generation to come to fruition though.

Originally posted by monkspider

Always just taking the "center" on whatever is fashionable that year will not bring long-term success, and will only push the center further and further to the right.

You give to much credit to the ability of the parties to frame the issues and the debate in general. People will punish either party for straying too far from the center by simply depriving them of the votes to wield any power whatsoever. The people are the ones who make the changes in what the politicians argue about despite the best efforts of the politicians to set the terms of the debate. What the politicians do is to choose from amongst the issues in order to build a winning coalition of issues.

When one party is extremely dominant they can more successfully give short shrift to the electorate and use their visibility, money and power to win elections. But every time they do so they stray farther from building the strongest coalition, and when it bites them the momentum can swing the other way for a long time. The populace moves more slowly than the politicians, but much more inexorably. What I've witnessed over the past 30 years or so is a long march to the right which IMO has already peaked. The Republicans have benefited from this immensely and have completely turned the tables on the Democrats. If they overreach (and some think that they have) then their time in power will be short lived.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Dean's speech, incidentally:

Thank you for that introduction. It's a pleasure to be here.

Let me tell you what my plan for this Party is:

We're going to win in Mississippi

Democrats can and do win here. Even in statewide office. Usually by seperating themselves from the national party. I fail to see how Dean could help that. I only see him hurting the Dems here.

[Dinner]

You're claiming Dukakis & Mondale were CENTRISTS!


Ho! Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh, stop... I can't breath...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by monkspider
Always just taking the "center" on whatever is fashionable that year will not bring long-term success, and will only push the center further and further to the right.

MS, that's just plain unintelligent. The majority of the American people know what they like and what they don't like. We campaign on our core values and we try to convince people our values are right but we stay squarely where the majority of Americans are on the issues. To say that pushes the center right just doesn't add up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm still trying to figure out how Mondale was a centrist. Someone help me with that one

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So try again. When have you ever pandered to us? Hell, all you do is take us for granted and assume we'll vote for you because we have no where else to go.

Che: You know you are only the loony commie fringe so no one will play to you. No one is trying to play to the radical left I'm talking about the far left which still has some measure of popular support.

[Dinner]

Gore was a decent centrist but Kerry was a born again centrist just for the election. He just didn't have very deep centrist rootes and he had a decades long voting record which showed him to be a liberal. Republicans pounced on that and they tarred and feathered him based upon his voting record.

Add on the fact that both Gore and Kerry had about as much personality as card board and you see why they lost. Gore could have easily won if he wasn't such a dry and boring stiff neck.