To all those DLCers talking about McGovern/Mondale

[CTLawGuy]

can I direct you to 2002?

In 2002, the Dems used the "we like Bush", "we don't reallly stand for anything", "run to the center" strategy, and got the crap beaten out of them.

I wonder what Al From has to say about that?



We lost in 2002 because we gave no one a reason to vote for us. We had a bunch of "Likeyoubut" Candidates - people say "I like you, but... I like the other guy better, so I vote for him"

What people like Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Moseley-Braun are trying to do is stand for principles different from the GOP (oh no! they might have to be called "liberal"!) that excite the electorate so they might actually go out on election day and pull a lever for a candidate who has real ideas, and who is not a reactionary.

We cannot be like Bush in order to beat Bush.

"if given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the Republican every time." -Harry Truman

on edit: spelling

[iH8repukes]

1. Electorate is 20% liberal, 30% conservative, and 50% moderate.

You do the math.

Gore in '04!

[CTLawGuy]

4. how many of those 50%

of moderates vote? The game is about both support and turnout. Do not neglect turnout. in my opinion moderates are probably unreliable on election day since they tend not to be that politically active, at least compared to libs or conservatives.

[rbnyc]

7. People are actually more likely to vote...

...for a candidate who stands for something than one who matches their position on the political spectrum. Liberals will support moderate canditdates who have clear positions. Moderates will support liberal candidates who have clear positions.

[CMT]

2. the DLC are the ones who will defeat our candidate

they are defining Dean who has a realistic chance to be our nominee with their attacks on him. We don't need the GOP to attack him when we have our own DLC doing it. All the GOP would need to do is pick up on their attacks and say, "well this is what the Democratic Leadership Council had to say"... They should be actively giving support to all of our candidates. Also it is an insult to McGovern and Mondale to attack them in the process--at least they had the guts to go up against Tricky Dick and Reagan.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Population: Liberal/Moderate/Conservative

The population as a whole is probably more moderate/liberal than the electorate!!! It's sad that they don't vote!!!

[MarianJack]

5. From a McGovern fan!

I worked for a great man who lost 49 states in '72. I worked for a very good man with the foresight to acknowledge that a woman could be a great President. I saw both of them get their asses kicked in 49 STATES and the folowing republican chortling! I don't want to go through that again. If Dean is the nominee, I will actively support him as I will any Democrat against president moron. But for all of the respect I have for Governor Dean, I see another '72 & '84 with him as a candidate. Kerry/Landrieu '04!

[dolstein]

6. I think you should do your homework

First of all, for good or bad, there was no national message. Every race had it's own dynamic. The Bush people are being dishonest in trying to take credit for the Republican successes, and you are being no less dishonest in trying to blame Democratic losses on some national campaign that never actually existed.

Look at who lost the close races in 2002: Jean Carnahan, who was appointed to the seat, lost a close race against a strong and well-funded opponent. Max Cleland lost a close race in a state that has become increasing Republican, and in which a lot of conservative voters turned out because of the flag issue. Mondale lost a close race in Minnesota against a strong and extremely well-funded candidate. Surely you aren't suggesting that Mondale ran a "me too" campaign, are you? Jeanne Shaheen lost a close race against a strong and well-funded opponent in a state that hasn't sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in decades.

Of those states, which one aside from Minnesota has elected a old fashied liberal Democratic senator in the past thirty years? I doubt even Truman himself could get elected today in Missouri.

As for the House, the results were largely predetermined due to redistricting. There are only around 30 seats nationwide that are truly competitive -- and the Republicans tend to have an edge in those because they usually have a lot more money to stand. As for the other 400 odd seats, it really doesn't matter what kind of campaign the Democrats run, since the district is either heavily Republican or heavily Democratic. Barring a major Republican scandal or a total collapse of the economy, the Democrats will have to wait until 2012 at the earliest to retake the House.

If you have done your homework, you'd already have known this.

[jiacinto]

10. The Wellstone memorial service

That is what ruined Mondale's chances.

[dolstein]

11. Jiacinto -- It was never better than 50-50

The Wellstone-Coleman race was always a toss-up. Mondale's chances were no better than Wellstone's. Yeah, the memorial service should have played out better than it did, but it would be a gross oversimplification to say that that's why Mondale lost. The Minnesota of 2002 is very different from the Minnesota that sent Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey to the Senate in the 60's and 70's. When was the last time the Democrats elected a governor in that state? The past few senate races have been extremely close. And Gore barely won the state, and even without Nader he'd hardly have won in a walk. Minnesota is not a safe Democratic state. Hell, it's not even a lean Democratic state.

[ButterflyBlood]

12. no, it's at least a lean

Pawlenty only won because of a third party candidate and would've lost to Moe in a 1 on 1 race. Gore would've won by almost 8 points if you add in the Nader vote, a fairly comfortable margin. Before the memorial polls showed Mondale with almost a 10 point lead, and Wellstone always had at least a slight lead in the polls, and actually got bigger when he voted against the war. He would've beat Coleman. Dayton did get under 50%, but there was another third party candidate who took 6%.

[jiacinto]

14. I respond

I think that had the Wellstone service not become the political rally it became Mondale would have eked out a win. That service created a significant backlash. Would Mondale have won in a landslide? No, but it did seem like Wellstone was going to win that election. Had the plane crash not happened, followed by the memorial service, Coleman wouldn't have won.

As for the Govenors races that's due to the fact that the Democrats have put forth poor candidates for that office. The other fact is that many of these contests have been three way races where a more liberal candidate has taken votes away.

You're right that the race was going to be close--Helms had close races in NC every six years but always managed to win. But had the events I described above not happened I think the party would have kept the seat.

[ButterflyBlood]

17. I agree except the part about poor candidates

Moe was a solid candidate. He just suffered from the third party candidate running against him.

I also think it's worth pointing out that if Wellstone even had a chance of winning the state would at least be Dem leaning. No toss up state would come close to electing someone that liberal.

[Rowdyboy]

19. Wellstone had already won...

Mondale would have. The Memorial Service from hell verified every bad feeling the American people had about Democrats and we all payed the price.. Hope it felt REAL good. The moment I saw the news,
I knew it was over for 2002. And we screwed ourselves.

[sandnsea]

18. Or change the people's minds

The Republicans have been running a bizarre twist on reality since 1980 at least. Intimidation, embarassment, ridicule, you name it. They've convinced people there's something dirty about being a Democrat, even though most people don't agree with and aren't helped by Republican policies. The Democrats have to come back with a strong platform that spells out Democratic American values. Just throwing in the towel is ridiculous. The country can't wait until 2012 for change and the people are getting wise to this fact. They can see Republican policies are ridiculous, they're just waiting for somebody to lead them to something better. That's what the Democrats are supposed to do.

[NewJerseyDem]

8. Mary Landrieu

Mary Landrieru won in Louisiana largely on a campaign that said that she was a moderate who often agreed with President Bush. I'm not suggesting that the Democrats should put up an extremely moderate candidate but we can't run on an extreme left wing platform and expect to win.

Also, one has to take into consideration all those conservatives that will be rallied against a very liberal candidate and will go out to vote.

Things have changed a lot since Harry Truman said that.

[CTLawGuy]

15. not true at all...

Mary Landrieu was in trouble until she saw the results of the Nov. 5th debacle. Afterwards, she fired her advisers and began to hit Bush, especially on the Mexican sugar issue. She pledged to defend LA's sugar industry against Bush. She also went around to black neighborhoods to encourage them to vote in the runoff. That is how she won, becuase she changed her tune for the runoff. She stood up to Bush. If she hadnt we'd be talking about Senator Terrell.

[jiacinto]

9. You forget 9/11

I do agree with you that Democratic candidates in 2002 should have opposed Bush more in hindsight, but you also forget and understimate the impact of 9/11. Even if the Democrats had been more assertive, as you wished they had been, I still think the election results would have been the same.

I fully agree that the Democrats didn't have a message. They didn't provide one that was clear enough for voters to listen. I am not sure, though, that a far left message would have attracted them either. But any message, even if it is a bad one, is better than none at all.

9/11 has been the gift that has kept on giving for Bush and the GOP. 9/11 has paid dividends and then some for Bush. Bush was able to use the tragedy of that day to his advantage fully. After 9/11 issues about Bush's intelligence, the Florida Recount, and the "stolen election" no longer mattered. 9/11 erased whatever doubts people had about Bush in the general population.

Had 9/11 not taken place I fully believe that the 2002 election cycle would have turned out differently.

[GOPBasher]

13. I agree with your assessment of 2002.

I totally agree with what you said about 2002. Being a mid-term election, however, it was a different situation than a general election. Mid-term elections are NOT about swing voters or capturing a majority of the country; they're about turn-out. The party that does a better job of getting out the base wins. Since we had Dems that didn't really stand for anything, we didn't get our base out.

It's a different case in the general election, because you have to do both: Get your base out to vote and also woo the swing voters. Now I do think we can do that with a leftist; I don't think we must have a centrist to win. A lot of our guys are leftists, but many on this board don't think they are. Guys like Kerry and Gephardt have very liberal voting records, but on this board many consider them moderates. It's really not true. I certainly think either of those guys can win, and they're far left of center.

If you want someone like Kucinich to win, I definately think it's possible. But in order for that to happen, we must get NEW VOTERS. THAT is the key. If you look at election 2000, Gore barely won the popular vote, and he was dead center. Many who voted for him would NOT vote for Kucinich, because he's too far left for them. However, if we appeal to new voters, we can overcome that.

[jiacinto]

16. 9/11 played a role too

People seem to forget that.

[GOPBasher]

20. True.

Everything would be different for the GOP if it had not been for 9/11.

[jiacinto]

21. Kuchinich can't win

He is too left for the mainstream to support him.

[keek]

22. I agree

Bush will easily be able to run over a legislator. We need to match him and exceed him on every issue. It is most important to nominate someone with executive experience so that the two candidates' records can be compared. I don't think that military services is nearly as important as Kerry supporters do. I think that in order to beat Bush, we have to offer an alternative. Legislators were "forced" into the position of voting for bills and resolutions that enabled Bush to accomplish his own goals. Legislators running against Bush will be boxed into a corner and forced to argue, "well, I agree that what Bush wanted was right, but I would have done it this way..."