In 2003 DLC said "fringes" in politics hung out at Dem Underground, mentioned Skinner by name.

[Drunken Irishman]

44. The left is just as guilty of it as the middle...

They want one Democratic Party - just as long as that party conforms to their ideology. The thing is, the Democratic Party can't survive with just the left or just the middle. Wanna know how I know that? 2000 and 2004 - two election cycles that were vastly different.

1) The left fractured from the 90s control of the centrist Clinton wing, which gave rise to guys like Ralph Nader. You can dismiss Nader all you want, but his approach was successful. He made it so that millions of liberals, from Michael Moore on down to people on college campuses, bought into the idea that there was zero difference between Bush and Gore. Zero. Not one difference. They had the same masters and ideas and beliefs and would have identical presidencies. Some probably still hold on to this laughable, miserable and inept belief - but it hurt. Did it cost Gore the election? That's debatable - but no one can say it didn't have some negative impact. In the end, Bush won, we went off to Iraq, thousands died, the economy collapsed and we are far worse off today than when the centrist Bill Clinton left office in 2001.

2) The left returned in 2004. Michael Moore, seeing the error of his ways, embraced the party, first by endorsing a former Republican, and general, who ran a moderate campaign (Wes Clark) and then by supporting Kerry. Hell, even Bill Maher was supporting Kerry because they all realized how awful it was to have Bush as president. The Bush presidency was good for one thing - it proved to most sane, reasonable liberals that there is a very definitive difference between Republicans and Democrats. Sure, the same mindless drones who say it wouldn't have mattered anyway if we elected Gore or Bush in 2000, will continue to the belief there is no difference between either party ... but we all see them as what they are: crackpots who should not be taken all that seriously.

Anyway, the left rallied around Kerry in part because of the Iraq War. In 2000, 80% of liberal voted for Gore. 6% voted for an independent candidate (including Nader). In 2004, 85% of liberals voted for Kerry and the independent received such an insignificant amount of their vote that it didn't even register.

The thing is, Kerry didn't win. Sure, you could protest about Ohio all you want, but he didn't win. Why? Because more moderate and conservative voters voted for Bush than they had four years prior. A lot of that had to do with the war and security, but still, it was enough to tilt the election in Bush' favor. So much so that even had Kerry carried Ohio, he still would have lost the popular vote.

2008 was an election where the liberal and moderate factions came together to defeat the Republicans.

You can't win with just a purely ideological party. Wanna know how I know this? Just look at the Republicans - who've won the popular vote just once in the past 25 years.