All three Democratic presidential losses in the Eighties were caused by centrism.

[Ken Burch]

26. While they are true, none of your points refuted my thesis

Carter had a bad economy to work with, but he made it worse by using Republican "low-inflation" economic policies and by beginning the deregulation cycle that has helped cause a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle-class to the rich.

Mondale was a dreary speaker in 1984(he'd been better before that, but seemed to intentionally "tamp it down" that year for some reason, as if he that "gravitas" meant being as monotonous as possible)but he could have won if he'd listened to progressives and run a "reindustrialize the Rust Belt/U.S. out of Central America/reverse the cuts and create better programs" campaign. Instead, he ran on deficit reduction, a policy that no Democrat can ever be elected president on.

Dukakis did ran a horrible campaign, as I said-but it was a horrible CENTRIST campaign. He was the candidate(as was Mondale and as would be Kerry)of the passion-fearing, principle-hating party insiders. If Dukakis had listened to what Jesse was telling him, and had fought back against the smears, he could have won. He lost because he did what he was told was "safe" and "mainstream".

While all that you are saying is true, it still doesn't support the DLC argument that progressives, labor, the Rainbow and the poor needed to be left out in the cold in order for the party to win.

Bill Clinton was a great speaker...and he COULD have won running an exclusive, progressive grassroots campaign. He never had to run against the Democratic base to get elected, and he did almost nothing worthwhile in his eight years in office after winning on a "death to the base" campaign. The Reagan Dems all still voted for Bush and Perot in '92, and Dole and Perot in '96.