The fallacy of 'appealing to the middle'

[Stinky The Clown]

What I am posting here is simply my own opinion. There are no facts or links to back it up ........

I see this whole notion of appealing to the center as just so much crap. And it is just so much crap either way ...... avoiding doing it or actually doing it.

If a candidate runs to the right (another term for appealing to the center) they will alienate the base of the Democratic party. They never had the leftmost fringe, to be sure, but they risk alienating even those of us who are simply rank-and-file left.

If a candidate runs away from the right, the same thing happens, except they might pick up some of the far left, but at the expense of more conservative (but still solidly and honestly) Democrats.

I think a candidate who simply speaks honestly about positions is the winner. Virtually all of the electorate knows they will never, ever find a candidate with whom they're in total agreement. So they take the one that most closely matches their own views and decide to overlook the mismatches.

I would bet a week's pay that idiot son's supporters (all but the most deludedly entrenched - analogous, but not the same, as our far left) don't agree with him on everything. But they stay with him because they see a lot they *can* support.

So back to our side ..... I'd love to see our so-called leaders simply speak their mind and not try to 'calculate' so much. Stop already with the nuance. Forget about appealing to this special interest group or that. Right or Left.

Just say what you stand for. Clearly, honestly, unambiguously, passionately.

If you can't be clear, say nothing and go to the back of the line.

If you can't be honest, say nothing and go to the back of the line.

If you can't be unambiguous, say nothing and go to the back of the line.

If you can't be passionate, forget the back of the line. Just go back to sleep.

America doesn't want a 'centrist'. They want honesty. If you happen to hold a view that appeals to the center, fine. Say so. But for gosh sakes, hold the view from a position of honesty, not calculation.

If a candidate holds a view that we on the left might see as being to the right of center, the candidate should at least be honest enough to own it. I'd bet the candidate would be forgiven. (Just as an example, witness the recent cheering here on DU for Paul Hackett .... who is quite to the right of center with respect to his views on guns. That didn't stop him from being the darling du jour of the left.)

Similarly, if a candidate holds a far left view on an issue, I suspect that would not alienate the reasoned people on the right (although they might want to hear more and use it to attack, but they always do that, so any candidate who says such a thing needs to be ready to defend the position - not run from it ... just defend it ... clearly and unambiguously).

All I am suggesting is that our leaders need to be clear. Anything else just comes off as either muddled or insincere. Look no further than some of the more egregious framing errors made by the Kerry campaign. We all know what he meant by the 'voted for then voted against' shit. But it was framed as a nuanced response ... and came out as being just plain stupid. Had Kerry proudly owned those votes and stated his case clearly, it would have been a one or two news cycle event and then gone. But no ...... he was trying to appeal to all sides and wound up appealing to no one.

And ya know, when you think about it, what I am saying was better said by James Carville some years ago:

Stand for something.

It is a winning formula.

<On edit .... to my list of four qualities (clear, honest, unambiguous, and passionate) I would add **consistent**. To see an ever changing poltitician is to see either a dummy or a sham. To be sure, we all evolve, but constant shifting positions is just ... well ... shifty!>

[electropop]

1. Yep. Many voted for Bushitler even though they disagreed with him

on many issues. They voted for him because there was no question where he stood. Sure, with Satan, but proud of it. :patriot: :puke:

Dems need to be proud of their positions or they will disappear. :kick:

[Skidmore]

2. Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!!

Exactly.

[applegrove]

3. I want Bush & his cabal gone. In 2006 there needs to be massive

change in the House. ONly big tent parties continuously win. Why the conservatives had to morph into the religious party because conservatives couldn't win unless they attack "other issues" to their tent like religion (conservative) & patriotism (people voting on non-economic issues).

Do you really think anyone will win enough votes to take back the House or the Senate by ignoring the middle? What about all those people who have just jumped Bush's ship & hate him? Don't we need a big majority to make sure the phone bank scams and the machine line-up scams are not repeated? You know - to crush any vote suppression with a massive rally of the Democratic big tent.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. I'm not sure what you're saying ........

..... and have read your post several times now. All I can glean from it is some mild opposition to what I postulate (and that's okay ..... I'm not arguing).

It seems to me you're saying we need to be 'inclusive' ...... or as is often said ..... appeal to the middle ...... meaning be a centrist ..... meaning an equivalency between 'inclusive' and 'centrist'.

Please allow me to make clear my posit by reframing it a bit.

I am in no way saying we should not be big tent or inclusive. Quite the contrary. We **must** be inclusive. But I'm not sure inclusive and centrist are the same thing at all. I believe an honest, passionate, principled, candidate is appealing beyond the specifics of his positions on the issues. I'm saying that clearly standing for **something** is the appeal. No wishy washy nuance. No carefully calculated framing to chip the edges of an issue and avoid pissing off the electorate.

Just say what you mean. Clearly. Whether you fit in the category of left, center, DLC, Republican-lite, or Marxist. Just be clear.

And HONEST.

Honest with yourself (Mr/Mrs Candidate, not you). Honest with the voters.

You know ...... an All American kinda person.

Its an appealing trait. Regardless of the specifics of your positions.

[blondeatlast]

25. The Rs never really went after the middle. they had their agenda and stuck

to it like glue, they just tailored the message to appeal to the middle.

In the 200 and 2004 races, they had hard right positions but spent the greater part of their time finessing the message to make it appealing.

LW agendas are far more people-friendly, so the message doesn't need the polish.

it just needs to be made crystal-clear in the minds of the voters.

[applegrove]

43. The RW went after the middle by replaceing concerns with poverty

with concerns over patriotism, christianity & gay people.

THat is where they went into the middle. And get many to vote against their own best interests on emotional issues.

[bvar22]

4. I can add some hard numbers to your intuition.

Please go here and click on the 1st link:
http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html

June 2005
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis
Survey
Graphs

Click on the "Analysis" link. It will be in Adobe format which is why I can't Copy & Paste here. Please note that this analysis was co-authored by James Carville, a Conservative Democrat and Campaign strategist for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Many in the Clinton administration give Mr. Carville much of the credit for the Clinton successes. He is generally considered a brilliant campaign manager and and unrivaled expert.

Here are some excerpts:

"Over 3 surveys in three months, Democracy Corps national survey show (that)...By a 20 point margin (56 to 36 percent), voters think the country is is seriously off on the wrong track.

<snip>

But for all that, Democrats are at risk of making only modest gains in 2006. The Democrats gains in in the congressional battle have come more from Republican slippage than Democratic gains and, alarmingly, the president's deep troubles have produced no rise in positive sentiments about the Democrats.

<snip>

The Democrats can achieve major gains, however, if the party moves
decisively to a new stage of engagement. They must poise sharp choices- ones that define the Democrats, not just the Republicans and ones that, in every battle, make the the instrument for reforming and changing Washington"

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/index.html
2005-2006
The Democrats' Moment to Engage
Analysis (link here)

The "We're just like Republicans only nicer" campaigns of the Centrists Democrats have proved to be a disaster. Whether you agree or not, the average citizen sees the Democratic Party as an imitation Republican Party.This is the result of two disastrous campaigns where the Democratic Party ignored traditional issues , and chased after mushy republican voters with campaigns of "Centrism". These polls shout that voters want a sharp distinction, NOT Republican lite.

If the Democrats want to turn the bush*/Republican drop in popularity into positive gains for Democrats, the Democrats must offer choices on issues that are "sharply different" from the Republicans.

The Democrats MUST offer clear alternatives on issues:

*Instead of Free Trade and Outsourcing, the Democrats MUST offer Fair Trade and (at least some) protections for American Jobs (not corpoWelfare tax credits, LEGAL protections)

*Instead of Staying the Course, the Democrats must offer options for withdrawal

*Instead of Big Business, the Democrats must offer REAL protection and support for the Working Class and Poor

*Instead of Patriot Acts, the Democrats MUST offer protections for Individual Rights and Freedom from Big Brother and BIG intrusive Government.

*Instead of Fighting Terrorism by expanding the Military Wars overseas, the Democrats MUST offer improved security within our borders, and International Cooperation of Intelligence Agencies to track and capture International Criminals

*Universal Healthcare...the Americans WANT it. The Democrats MUST offer it. (To hell with contributions from Big Medicine and Big Pharmaceuticals)

*Instead of a Bigger is Better Corporate Policy, the Democrats MUST offer restraints, consumer protections, and Fair Competition legislation that makes it possible for Mom&Pop Businesses and Family Farms to compete with Wal-Marts and Corporate Factory Farms.

"Let's start with economic policy. The DLC and the press claim Democrats who attack President Bush and the Republicans for siding with the superwealthy are waging "class warfare," which they claim will hurt Democrats at the ballot box. Yet almost every major poll shows Americans already essentially believe Republicans are waging a class war on behalf of the rich. They are simply waiting for a national party to give voice to the issue. In March 2004, for example, a Washington Post poll found a whopping 67 percent of Americans believe the Bush Administration favors large corporations over the middle class.

The "centrists" tell Democrats not to hammer corporations for their misbehavior and not to push for a serious crackdown on corporate excess, for fear the party will be hurt by an "anti-business" image. Yet such a posture, pioneered by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, is mainstream: A 2002 Washington Post poll taken during the height of the corporate accounting scandals found that 88 percent of Americans distrust corporate executives, 90 percent want new corporate regulations/tougher enforcement of existing laws and more than half think the Bush Administration is "not tough enough" in fighting corporate crime.

<snip>

On energy policy, those who want government to mandate higher fuel efficiency in cars are labeled "lefties," even though a 2004 Consumers Union poll found that 81 percent of Americans support the policy. Corporate apologists claim this "extremist" policy would hurt Democrats in places like Michigan, where the automobile manufacturers employ thousands. But the Sierra Club's 2004 polling finds more than three-quarters of Michigan voters support it including 84 percent of the state's autoworkers.

<snip>

Even in the face of massive job loss and outsourcing, the media are still labeling corporate Democrats' support for free trade as "centrist." And the DLC, which led the fight for NAFTA and the China trade deal, attacks those who want to renegotiate those pacts as just a marginal group of "protectionists." Yet a January 2004 PIPA/University of Maryland poll found that "a majority is critical of US government trade policy." A 1999 poll done on the five-year anniversary of the North American trade deal was even more telling: Only 24 percent of Americans said they wanted to "continue the NAFTA agreement." The public outrage at trade deals has been so severe, pollster Steve Kull noted, that support dropped even among upper-income Americans "who've most avidly supported trade and globalization who've taken the lead in pushing the free-trade agenda forward."



You REALLY MUSTread the rest of this!
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/20774

summary:
The Republican Party is seen by most Americans as the Big Business Party. Polling data analysis combined with performance in 2000, 2002, and 2004 clearly indicate that if the Democratic Party is to be able to capitalize on the low ratings of bush*Republicans, the Party MUST clearly and publicly show itself to be the Party of the Working American.

A UNIFIED PRO WORKER/PRO-LABOR Platform similar (in design) to Gingrich's Contract with America MUST be produced and SUPPORTED by the Democrats AS A PARTY!!



The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Laurab]

16. I've seen several similar articles lately

and I can't help but wonder - where ARE the dems? At a time like this, when * is sinking, they should be taking full advantage, and milking it for all it's worth. The silence is...as they say "deafening". Except for Feingold's proposed exit plan, and Conyers constant updates it seems no one is taking advantage of the anti-shrub, anti-war trend, and it just doesn't make any sense. Yes, I got an email from Barbara Boxer saying she's behind Cindy Sheehan or something, but where are their PLANS, where are their ATTACKS on what the rethugs are doing? I am so tired of being patient, watching them play nice, and waiting and waiting for them to do something...ANYTHING. I just can't figure out WTF is wrong with them. It's far past time for someone to step forward and be a leader, and taking advantage of how badly our country has been screwed. It shouldn't be difficult, it's their job as the opposition party, and I agree with the op - stand for SOMETHING. Is it me, or are they all MIA here at a time when they should be extremely busy and visible?

[jonnyblitz]

5. what a great write-up!

:thumbsup:

[Senator]

7. Candidate Howard Dean had a good short version>>

We're going to put our flag in the middle of where America ought to be and bring people to us!

That statement alone was enough to terrify the Analstocracy and their Euphemedia jesters.

==

[tandot]

8. I agree with you! I am sooooo tired of Democrats trying to wiggle out

Hell...most of you f*cking stupid ass democrats voted for the war...tell America that you were mislead...that Bush and his Boss (Cheney) lied...that if you would have to do it over again, you would vote against it.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU WUSSIES. STAND UP FOR US!

This is utter bullshit. Democrats have to stand up. Those Republicans would lie, cheat, steal to win.

STOP BEING SO NICE. THEY LIED. OUR LOVED ONES DIED. :mad:

[Gregorian]

9. I think this is just how Reagan got so many Democrat votes.

He sounded humble and compassionate. (Correct me if I'm wrong about that. I was just a kid. And he did have a record from being governor.) But I know Democrats who loved what they heard. Maybe it was his experience in advertising. But no sooner did he get in office than his handlers had him do an about face. There was an agenda that he was asked to follow. Buyer's remorse is what a lot of Dems felt after they voted for him.

I think this is why I like Wes Clark. It's evident by his quick, simple, precise answers. Never once did Wes waver. No bullshit, no stammering.

I also think that when the facts are laid bare, when the media does it's job in other words, there is less room for spin. Spin is nothing more than confusion. And I think that appealing to the center is facilitated by this confusion.

I think that the only people who should be allowed to govern, should be highly educated in philosophy, history, economic... Hell, just highly educated would work. And they should not WANT the job. I can't think of any other way to curb this appealing to the center. But it's always about stretching the truth.

[ClassWarrior]

10. George Lakoff would totally agree with you. If you haven't already...

...read "Don't Think of an Elephant." He makes the case for exactly what you're saying. And the book's inexpensive and an easy read too.

NGU.

[Usrename]

11. I disagree with your underlying thesis (blame dems for losing)

The machine that Gore and Kerry went up against is an unholy juggernaut. I don't know if you remember who the Dixie Chicks were, but if anyone had said in 2000 that they would be "un-American" the guys with the butterfly nets would have come and taken them to the funny farm (age is showing here).

Gore said what he believed and believed what he said. Period. It didn't work then and it wouldn't work now. These guys in the White House are an unholy juggernaught.

Your making the mistake of believing what the right wing smear machine is saying. Do you really think Hillary is concocting her opinions to agree with some formula for winning elections????

Please show some RESPECT.

In my opinion the Newt Gingrich (sp?) strategy would be way more productive at this point (with GOP down in the polls). This strategy requires elected Dems to walk in lockstep with each other in a unified front. Most people (those in middle America who don't pay much atttention to the issues) will recognize the party unity and that will attract them.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Interesting positions ......

Let's see ......

The machine that Gore and Kerry went up against is an unholy juggernaut. I don't know if you remember who the Dixie Chicks were, but if anyone had said in 2000 that they would be "un-American" the guys with the butterfly nets would have come and taken them to the funny farm (age is showing here).

I agree with the sense of this statement. The right wing campaign machine is strong and well versed in tactics. And they play for keeps. Mrs. Clinton was not far off (if off at all) when she called them a vast right wing conspiracy.

Oh .... and I know who the Dixie Chicks are and how brave they were to speak up and then stand in the face of the shitstorm that tried to overtake them.

Gore said what he believed and believed what he said. Period. It didn't work then and it wouldn't work now. These guys in the White House are an unholy juggernaught.

Gore's words were honest. In my view the debates killed any chance he had. I was on his side but winced at how he changed each time he went up against that asswipe who he should have creamed easily. Instead, idiot son looked stupid and loveable while Gore looked angry and arrogant. We both know that's not the Al Gore we were supporting (I assume you were supporting him, too), but that sure *is* how he came off. Like it or not, it is a fact. And all of that is thanks to stupid campaign manager advice.

In short ... it was not honest.

Your making the mistake of believing what the right wing smear machine is saying. Do you really think Hillary is concocting her opinions to agree with some formula for winning elections????

How did you conclude I'm deluded by the right wing smear machine? And who mentioned Mrs. Clinton?

Please show some RESPECT.

Excuse me? Respect for whom? And what, exactly, did I say that was disrespectful?

In my opinion the Newt Gingrich (sp?) strategy would be way more productive at this point (with GOP down in the polls). This strategy requires elected Dems to walk in lockstep with each other in a unified front. Most people (those in middle America who don't pay much atttention to the issues) will recognize the party unity and that will attract them.

I can't believe you can't spell the former Speaker's name. And sure enough, you spelled it right. :)

Lockstep is a debatable strategy, I agree. However, as I am *sure* you know, that doesn't work well with Democrats. We allow, as I am *sure* you know, free thinking. In fact, free thinking is part and parcel of being a liberal. As I am *sure* you know. :)

And finally .... welcome to DU. :hi:

[Usrename]

21. Thanks for the welcome. I just think the opposition

would be very pleased to hear us chatting about not supporting candidates if we don't like their attitude.

The middle, which I believe we are trying to win over, respects STRENGTH much more than I think you or I do. I'm pretty sure this is the case, but it's also just an opinion. We can show enormous, overwhelming strength if we unite. Being wrong or right (left, centrist, rightwing) just doesn't seem all that important to me at this moment in history. I just want to win so we can start locking these bastards up.

Nuck Fewt

[blondeatlast]

27. "The middle... respects STRENGTH..."PRECISELY what the OP is saying.

Stick to a solid agenda and let the middle decide which side is better--the majority will move left every time, because in the end, it's all about what's best for themselves.

A solidly Democratic agenda doesn't need polished; the middle will choose themselves over the corporte agenda everytime.

[ClassWarrior]

24. See post #10 above. Read and learn something.

NGU.

[The Revolution]

12. I agree

When a candidate tries to calculate how to appear neutral or in the middle on every issue, it just looks like they don't stand for anything.

Also, I'm not sure there really is such a thing as a "middle". I see plenty of people claim to be independents, but usually they are anything but. For instance, I've seen letters to the editor in my local paper that will usually say something like "I'm an independent voter..." and then they will launch into an attack on evil liberals and Bill Clinton.

There might be some people in the middle that are just plain indecisive, but you certainly aren't going to get there attention by trying to look indecisive yourself.

I think Democrats would be better off trying to run in the middle of the left, instead of the middle of the whole spectrum. That way, they can appeal enough to the liberals in this country to get everyone out to vote.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Thanks for your reply. With repect to this part of it ......

..... I think Democrats would be better off trying to run in the middle of the left, instead of the middle of the whole spectrum. That way, they can appeal enough to the liberals in this country to get everyone out to vote.

That, in fact, is a calculated position. If a candidate does not come by that position naturally, then that candidate is being dishonest. And dishonesty shows.

[The Revolution]

20. Yeah that would be calculated too

I guess what I meant was we should run candidates that are in the middle of the left. And people who are party of the left should not try to hide it.

I agree, if you try to calculate your way into any position, instead of just saying what you actually think, you are being dishonest.

[Usrename]

22. If the dems had only one position on every issue then

there wouldn't be a left, center, right. There would only be a democrat position. This may be distastful, but so is war. There's a reason soldiers don't wear rank insignia in a combat zone. If we could unify on a set of views (other than we don't like the status quo) it would make it much more difficult for the opposition to target someone, cut them from the herd, and then have a barbeque. These guys we're up against are vicious and will do anything (another 9/11 if necessary) to win. I really think we are better off sticking together and sticking as close to the GOP as humanly possible.

[blondeatlast]

29. "I really think we are better off sticking as close to the GOP

as humanly possible."

Many GOPers are disgusted with their party's pandering to the corporations and radical religiticians.

the old-time, responsible conservatism of Goldwater and Eisenhower is on its last gasps for air.

There are still many Americans who are in favor of that kind of conservatism; and a whopping bunch of them voted for Kerry last year.

We need to state our agenda, explain why it's better than the alternative in STRONG words, and let them decide.

We are their masters, you know.

[Usrename]

34. Please see post #23 for a better verse

[bonzotex]

39. welcome to DU, but ....what?

"I really think we are better off sticking together and sticking as close to the GOP as humanly possible."

Unity is fine but the Democratic Party will never be the lock-step troopers of the GOP. We're smart enough to debate the issues and American voters are smart enough to choose when given a clear choice.

The GOP has failed this Nation is every area. Voters feel it in their gut even if they don't know the specifics of the truth. Chasing the GOP around on the issues is a losing strategy.

We'll will with strong honest stands on basic issues. Read the Original post here again. It's very good.

[Kurovski]

14. Nicely put.

"If you can't be passionate...Just go back to sleep."

Heheheh!

[Mich Otter]

17. To me, you're describing Howard Dean.

I think Dean is the kind of person you've described

[Eloriel]

48. To the letter

And that is precisely why Dean picked up supporters from all along the political spectrum -- from Greens and Libs and many flavors of Dems to disaffected Republicans. And gobs and gobs of people who had NEVER been involved in politics before at all. (He used to ask his groups how many hadn't been active, and it was always 50% and more who raised their hands.)

[kodi]

18. the only thing you find in the middle of the road is road kill

.

[jillan]

19. Excellent OP.

In my opinion, John Kerry would have been one of the greatest President's this country ever had. I believe he is not only intelligent, but very compassionate to mankind and to the environment.
His heart is in the right place, and I believe he would have done a great job of cleaning up **'s first term messes.

But, more than the Swifties, what I think was Kerry's biggest mistake was trying too hard to please everyone. Trying too hard to avoid confrontation. You could always tell when he wasn't speaking from the heart, and those were the moments that killed him. ie: the statement at the Grand Canyon - if you knew then, what you know now about Iraq..., that was one of several. Watching Kerry in action now, I believe he has learned the lesson. He doesn't give a dam anymore, and not afraid to stand up and say what's on his mind. And if he does run again, (I'm one that is hoping he will) I think we will see a completely different campaign from him.

I think that is why we all like Hackett so much. He tells everyone where he stands, and looks them in the eye when he says it. After watching all of these Washington insiders hem and haw, and play softball, it was so refreshing to have someone show some passion. Someone be confident enough that he didn't care what the others said about him.

Even Dean has softened up since getting so much negative attention from the right.

We can't have that anymore. Screw the right. We need to have candidates that are not afraid to show who they really are, and not spend all of their time dancing around an issue so they don't cause a stir.

Heck, even Frist got up and spoke from his heart. Hagel, Voinivich.
You've got to respect them for doing it, for going against the party and for fighting for their true beliefs.

The righties keep saying things like Hillary is the front-runner for the dems because she is moving more to the center. They are framing what they want from us. We can't play their little game anymore.

[Usrename]

23. How bout something like this to illustrate what I mean?

I don't need to know your position on the war to say that almost to a person democrats would favor firing Rummy and replacing him with Wesley Clark. Why can't the unified position for the democrats on the entire war issue be:

Fire Rummy, hire Wesley

Do you think that it would be too difficult to get most everyone to agree to? There's a reason I am on you so hard about this, and it's not because I just like arguing (I do like arguing though). I'm just wondering if I can get you to agree that a cohesive strategy (not one that limits independant thought or personal values) but one that everyone believes in, can put us in a position to get our message across and recapture the swing voters in the middle. I'm also (like you) saying we have to stand for something, but in a collective sense, not so much the individual sense.

If your not up to date on Wesley's take on Iraq, check out the on-line chat from yesterday. You may not agree with him at all, but you gotta believe he's better than Rummy.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Okay, let's follow this one out a bit ....

I know 2004 is in the past, but let's use that paradigm as an example .......

In the primary debates, we watched as idiot son's numbers went lower and lower. I think this was a clear example of the result of clear speaking, passion, and conviction. I also think the candidates were at their most honest then. They were appealing to their base ...... us Democrats. The passion was there. The conviction was there.

Then one emerged. (NOT bashing Kerry here.) And the message got muddied. Calculation set in. And idiot son's numbers went up.

All the time, in the background, watching and reacting, was the electorate. At first, during the early primary debates, it was the 'involved' wing of the Democratic party. Then it was the wider Democratic party and some of the larger national electorate.

When it went to the general campaign (Kerry v Bush), Bush stayed on message. Clear. Unambiguous (well ... as unambiguous as a trained monkey is able to speak, but you get my point). Kerry on the other hand **did** waffle. And they pounced on him. Called him that. Made a commercial about it. Used props. Wind surfing. Blowing in the wind. Flip Flopper.

Meanwhile, Kerry's message was being carried by many in the party. The party **was** largely in lockstep with Kerry's positions once Kerry got the nod. You mention Wesley Clark. He was the MOST clear and frequent surrogate for Kerry. Indeed, he was a better Kerry 'candidate' than Kerry was! I still recall Clark's clear, plain spoken interviews on Kerry's behalf.

So no, the party was not the issue. The candidate was the issue. The party will almost certainly get in 'lock step' with their nominee, once the nominee is chosen.

Our problem the last time was not the party lack of willingness to support Kerry and get behind his views.

The party was there. It was a muddy and less-than-clear, less-than-passionate, less-than-consistent message from the candidate himself.

And **that** is what I am talking about.

Don't conflate the candidate with the party. They are two entities that need to work together ... but they are NOT one and the same.

(And yes, Kerry would have been a great president. He was right on the issues. He was just a bad campaigner ..... cuz he tried to do what he was not capable of doing ...... appeal to everyone. As I said earlier .... that was bad campaign advice.)

[Usrename]

42. OK, give me a waffle.. I don't recall any that I saw with my own eyes.

If you just give me an example that you saw, yourself, not one that was fabricated by the smear machine.

I mean a similar (equally convincing) argument is that Kerry was a brave and proven war hero during the primary (with medals and everything) but then when he came up against the little deserter in the general election, and saw how tough he was, he got really scared and turned into the most yellow-bellied, lilly-livered, coward that the country has ever seen.

The reason Clark is rememered as clear and straightforward is because they did not waste any energy on him. None at all. It wasn't necessary. No one was going to vote for Clark, no matter how appealing he made himself as a leader.

Trust me, if Clark had won the primary and been the Democratic candidate, there would never have been any Swift Boat Liars for Bush. They wouldn't have to go there. Instead we'd be talking about how it's too bad ol Wes turned out to be a closet homo. Gee, if we had only known then what we know now we should have gone with Kerry.

Don't try to figure out how these dirty bastards think. I honestly tried it during the impeachment and had more than one psychotic episode. But it was worth it. I have a much deeper understanding of the depths of their depravity and the power and strength they can manifest. You think they are like us... they are not. They don't play (live) by the rules. I just dont think we should leave anyone hanging out in the cold, to go up against the Juggernaut alone.

These guys scare the bejeezus out of me. You don't seem scared. All the talk that they are evil, that's not hyperbole. If we can't stop them, what do you think the future holds. They will not police themselves. They don't even know why they should.

[Alpharetta]

26. "Triangulation" used to be a good strategy

In my opinion, Bill Clinton made a career of triangulation. He was left leaning in his heart, but right leaning in his head.

So he was leftist on many social issues, but right-leaning on many economic and political issues.

Unfortunately, "triangulation" is why so many Democratic senators voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

Too often "Triangulation" is short-term marketing.

[blondeatlast]

30. Clinton knew how to trinagulate, most politicos on both sides don't.

Clinton appealed to that middle voter exactly the way you described; liberal socially, shrewdly conservative on social and foeign policy issues.

It simply reinforces the OP's point, IMHO--state your case and let us decide who's looking out for us best.

[NMDemDist2]

28. on Bill Maher last night, Kinky Friedman said that in the last TX

gubernatorial election only 29% of voters turned out!!

I agree the "nuanced" positions don't work. Look at how Ventura brought out lots of "new" voters with a platform of telling it like it is.

We don't need to woo the "undecided" we need to bring out the uninspired.

Get a person who takes a stand and defends it passionately and with clarity and vision and you'll get people off their butts to go to the polls.

It would be interesting to see how many "new" voters Perot's campaign brought out.

[blondeatlast]

31. "We don't need to woo the "undecided"

we need to bring out the uninspired."

That's the issue in a nutshell; and very well said, too.

Most of the "undecided" couldn't care less anyway. My roommate in college, and other non-voters I've met, have told me they simply don't want to be responsible if they make a voting mistake. when my romie told me that, I was floored, but now I see it as quite common, unfortunately.

Why do our politicians want to appeal to such a bunch; as much of their rhetoric indicates that they do? They aren't going to vote for anyone or any thing anyway; so it's a massive waste of time for those of us who do produce!

[NMDemDist2]

32. hi!

long time no see :hi:

:pals:

[blondeatlast]

33. Lady Lib is working on a DU get-together, check the AZ forum.

Hope to see you soon.

I REALLY loved your SL; sheer poetry! Great start for an early Saturday morning!

[Jade Fox]

45. Yes, do we really want the apathetic to vote?

The many "undecideds" who were put in the spotlight during election 04
struck me as annoying fools.

Democrats are being sold (by their handlers, I presume) on the idea they
need to capture this or that focus group long enough to get them into
the voting booth. It has worked for the GOP with the religious right,
but the fundies would never vote Democrat anyway. So the task
for the GOP has been just getting them to vote, period.

Democrats seem to be trying to use a similar model, but it's not working
for them. They need to go back to being the party with principals, and
assume that will draw voters instead of trying to alter their message to
fit what they think the voters want.

[NMDemDist2]

46. that's the point! a leader with passion and vision will erase the "apathy"

and I agree on the "undecided" I saw trotted out before 04

what a bunch of maroons mostly IMO

[Armstead]

35. I think I agree -- (How's that for waffling?)

My own opinion is that we undermine ourselves by getting caught in the whole notion of meaningless labels, and seperate them from real issues.

That holds true on most issues. There is no "center." There are individual opinions on individual issues. Many peope who would describe themselves basically moderate or conservative are actually quite liberal on issues like Medicaid, minimum wage and the need to curb the excesses of corporate power and economic elitism.

Believing in such "liberal" positions does NOT negate a belief in such "conservative" concepts as free enterprise. It is simply a recogniztion of a need for balance between totally unrestrained "free markets" and overreaching "socialism."

Avoiding positions associated clearly with liberalsim in an attempt to appeal to the "center" is both political foolishness and is bad for the country.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. That has been my observation

Voters LOVE feisty candidates.

They hate mealy-mouths.

How can you be enthusiastic about a candidate who doesn't seem to be enthusiastic about his own positions? How can you trust a candidate who tells you things that don't resonate with your own experiences? How can you vote for a candidate who just says "me too" when debating his opponent? How can you be inspired by a candidate who just has piecemeal policy measures and no overriding vision of America's future?

[LWolf]

37. I'd like to see that happen.

I supported a candidate in the primaries who stood for something; he was lambasted here on DU and in the mainstream media over and over as "unelectable" and worse, because of the very qualities you are outlining. If Democratic voters won't vote for the honest candidate who walks his talk, then the majority of candidates aren't going to stand up for what they stand for, are they?

[Don1]

38. I agree with you, but...

about the guns issue...

You said:
"Just as an example, witness the recent cheering here on DU for Paul Hackett .... who is quite to the right of center with respect to his views on guns. That didn't stop him from being the darling du jour of the left."

There is no left/right with respect to guns. Democrats are split on this issue and so is the far left. I am lefter than the average Democrat myself and I am for gun rights. Think about it. Gun rights protect us from the fascism of BushCo.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party had to say about gun rights:
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

[bonzotex]

40. excellent post, thank you! n/t

[Jade Fox]

44. Our politicians have become slaves to polling data....

and have forgotten how to simply take a stand and run on it.

I get the sense that the Democrats are scrambling, trying to figure out
how to finesse their messages just so to appeal to this focus group
or that. It's made them near useless.

What you are talking about is a fundamental change in campaign strategy:
Instead of taking a stand, and assuming it will attract voters, the current
method is to try and figure out what voters want, and fine-tune the
message to fit as many voters exact wants as possible. It doesn't work.
It produces candidates whose message is so unclear, they inspire no one.

[blondeatlast]

47. Exactly; the RW knew their agenda and tailored the message

to both obscure it and appeal to the religioticious.

The mushy middle perceived the "lower taxes" meme as caring about their concerns; at the same time, the religioticious embraced the decidedly un-true conservative message of the government being big daddy and protecting them from those awful gays, women, R-rated moviegoeers, and sensible car drivers.

The true agenda was so muddied that we now find ourselves in the predicament we're in now.

The middle is only about themselves and now. A great nation needs more than that.

Both sides would benefit from real leadership, and that doesn't come from talking points. It comes from the courage to act even within doubt.

[autorank]

49. Listen to Husb2Sparkly---This is true and here's proof...

Paul Hackett, candidate, DEM 2nd Ohio, nearly won this race (and probably did). He called * a "son of a bitch" on popular radio shows, and a "Checkenhawk" whenever the mood struck him; said get out of Iraq; and refused to gay basy.

He carried the most rural parts of his district, Southwestern Ohio bordering Kentucky (* won it 70-30 in 2004) by about 60%-40%...that's right, the most rural part!

Hey Democrats, grow a spine! You'll like it.

Hackett is going to run for Senate. He'll be out there even tougher and considered a national figure when he does. And I'll bet you that he rails about "free and fair" elections. He's a smart guy and won't be pushed around.

Hey Democrats, grow a spine, be like Hackett, a true-blue Democrat shit kicker.

The Veteran Of Fallujah Defeated By OH's Humidity

Tuesday, 23 August 2005, 10:54 pm

Opinion: autorank

DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN?
DEMOCRAT HACKETT LOSES A SQUEAKER IN
OHIO’S 2nd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT:
THE NEW VOTING RIGHTS STRUGGLE 2004-2005

by autorank
DemocraticUnderground.Com
2004 Elections Results and Discussion Forum

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0508/S00186.htm

HATS THE FUCK OFF HUSB2SPARKLY!

[Stinky The Clown]

51. Rockin' autorank!

Thanks for the words of support!

[autorank]

52. Say it often, you do it well. We are losers if we keep doing this.

Bahy, bahy wishy washy Democrats!

[blondeatlast]

53. A-effin'-men! It was very clear that Hackett had his issues before

the race and wasn't manipyulated into making them "pretty" and hence, meaningless. He stated his case clearly and let the voters decide.

The voters LOVED that, and what's more, I think they needed it, too.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. Name somebody in the middle and I'll name you someone on

the right.