To those of you who still think centrists won this election

[jgraz]

Check out these election results:

• Bernie Sanders: First Socialist in the Senate.


• Sherrod Brown: Unapologetic liberal beats incumbent DeWine by 12 points.


• Jon Tester: Populist wins Senate seat after destroying DCCC favorite, center-right John Morrison, in the primary.


• Amy Klobuchar: Democratic-Farm-Labor senatorial candidate wins by 20-point margin.


• Sheldon Whitehouse: Liberal Democrat beats centrist Republican Lincoln Chafee.


• Jim Webb: Beats George "Macaca" Allen with a strong anti-war, pro-economic justice message.


• Jerry McNerny: Beats Richard Pombo after a primary win over DCCC-backed Steve Filson.


• Keith Ellison: Anti-war Muslim wins multi-candidate primary, goes on to take MN 5th district seat.


• John Hall: Musician and environmental activist wins Sue Kelly's house seat after taking 48% of the vote in a 4-way primary.


• Carol Shea-Porter: Wins NH house seat after beating centrist and party favorite Jim Craig in the primary 54%-34%.


• David Loebsack: Strong anti-war, pro-universal healthcare Dem beats centrist Jim Leach in Iowa's 2nd.


• John Yarmuth: Progressive, independent newspaper publisher beats three moderates in the KY 3rd district primary, then beats Anne Northup with zero financial support from the DCCC.


• Larry Kissell: Former Social Studies teacher wins a 4-way primary despite DCCC opposition. General against Robin Hayes still too close to call.


• Zack Space: Wins Bob Ney's seat after beating three primary opponents including (wait for it...) DCCC-backed centrist Joe Sulzer.


• Deval Patrick: Far-left Lefty McLefterman wins MA gubernatorial race after taking 50% in the primary against two center-right opponents.


• Tammy Duckworth: DCCC-supported, ambiguously centrist candidate loses IL house seat to Pete Roskam.


• Harold Ford, Jr.: Pro-life, anti-gay, pro-war Dem loses TN Senate race to Bob Corker.


• Missouri Stem Cell Bill: Passed.


• South Dakota Abortion Ban: Crushed.


• Minimum Wage Increases: Passed by six states.


• Parental Notification Laws: Defeated in two states.


• Dallas, TX: 41 of 42 judgeships switch from GOP to Dems. Judgeships. In Texas.


• Congressional Progressive Caucus: Gains at least seven new members, becoming the largest ideological caucus in Congress.

Still think this election was not a mandate for liberalism?

[aquart]

1. You betcha!

[Morereason]

139. The "Centrist" spin is all over the media, AND THE FOREIGN MEDIA

Why?
I just heard it on our Russian language channel. Amazing.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Tell it like it is, jgraz, cause the networks and Newsweek sure the hell ain't

going to.

[wakeme2008]

3. kick and nom nt

[upi402]

4. I hear that! Does the Dem leadership?

Aside from Dean, of course.

[rpannier]

5. I'd be a little careful with characterizing Tester as a liberal

I like Tester and donated to his campaign. But on some social issues he's rather conservative: anti-gay marriage being one of them.

I think Webb is also fairly conservative on may social issues as well.

On economic issues they are liberals however.

So, that being said, I still think they're great people and they pushed out two worthless piles of garbage.

[JudyM]

108. Same for Webb, as you note. nt

[TygrBright]

6. Woo! Can I get an AMEN! n/t

[sandnsea]

7. It was a rejection of labels

SD abortion ban went down, gay marriage bans passed across the board. The one in AZ didn't pass because they fought it differently. English as official language passed in AZ. Elimination of affirmative action in education passed in Michigan. All sorts of legislation and candidates won and loss.

Generally, I do see this as a rejection of fundie radicalism and an economy for the wealthy.

But it is not a mandate for far left liberalism either. Universal health care, yes; free single payer, no. Civil unions, yes; gay marriage, no. Iraq exit strategy, yes; out tomorrow, no. Investigations and oversight, yes; instant impeachment, no.

People voted for pragmatic progress. We will make a lot more of it a lot faster if we don't hang the albatross of far leftist ideology around Nancy Pelosi's neck.

[Leilani]

10. I think that is an excellent analysis of the results

& I agree that a far left idealogy will only hurt Pelosi & Reid.

[Morereason]

14. Yes, we need to calm down and center for our corporate masters

Give me a break! "Centrist" just means a return to the same basic philosophies that are destroying the backbone of the country. We elected as many progressive dems as we could. That does not mean we turn tail and move back to the same old. There are serious changes that need to happen and those will not come from "centrist" ideologies that ultimately lay in the same old darwinian mechanics.

[sandnsea]

19. Don't speak in their frames

Abandon labels. Abandon centrist. Abandon liberal.

It's a return to enlightened democracy, pragmatic progress, a stable foundation so people can build their dreams.

The policies either work for the people, or we vote them out again.

[Morereason]

24. You can't lay good "policy" on bankrupt presumptions

It will take far more than a change to a "lighter" form of the same ideologies. Until people really come first, in business (the workplace), in localities, as well as in government, nothing changes. We just slow the decline and rate of suffering.

It will take more than "centrists" to make the changes that are needed. It will take visionaries and truly progressive legislators. We don't yet have that.

And in the interim I refuse to let them "neuter" the obvious will of the people for change that was evidenced. The media are not "evil", but they are biased, as in wealthy, and the idea that things will *really* change is difficult for them to discuss honestly. It is just human nature.

[sandnsea]

28. People over ideology

Exactly. Minimum wage. Fixing prescription drug program. Stem cell research. Renewable energy. Student loan interest reductions. Real solutions for real people. Along with oversight, investigations, banning lobbyist gifts, etc.. You can either look at labels and whine and criticize; or look at solutions and help get them passed.

[Morereason]

44. Those are well and good, but what about.....................

the sick losing their houses over medical bills...

what about our "free trade" policies that destroy families throughout the globe...

What about the "megopolies" that have been allowed to completely decimate entire realms of business opportunities for the average joe, and use pricing policies and requirements to keep them out of competing?

what about the continuing strained nature of our workplaces, as we fight each other over turf more and more, and the true lack of opportunity for much of the public(that is being covered over by manipulated statistics)...

what about the massive use of public monies to propagandise and confuse our own public with planted stories and bloggers?

what about allowing and even encouraging (tax breaks) corporate money and special interests to run their own propaganda machines?

what about the idologies that ignore the truth of the middle class and seek instead to propagandise the population to believe that by becoming poorer and giving more breaks to the rich we will instead benefit?

The "centrists" will continue these ideologies, although with a "kinder gentler" side, nice little programs to help a few.

The "centrists" will moderate government encouragement of "globalism", but will allow megacorps to continue the same killer policies throughout the planet

The "centrists" will up the minimum wage while having nothing to say about the loss of our family holidays as the megacorps continue to force lower wrung employees to work through Thanksgiving and Christmas, destroying their family balance for a few more bucks.

The centrists will not introduce legislation that will make it illegal for the growing number of companies to work their employees without paid vacation, or any vacation at all, as has been demonstratively growing in recent years.

The "centrists" might bring average income up, but likely while the average workweek also climbs, as during Clinton's terms.

The "centrists" will not likely make significant changes to our nasty system of credit reporting, credit collecting, consumer "spying", and usery, where the consumer is often ripped off and the poor are forced more and more to pay more than the upper incomes for necessaries and utilities. (check out CNN for a good comparison of consumer rights that other developed countries have in place in this respect).

It will not be the "centrists" that move our transportation network away from single cars and into significant mass transit

It will not be the "centrists" that change Social Security into a needs based program that truly takes care of all needy seniors.

The "centrists" will not make significant policy changes to resolve the huge and growing homeless epidemic in our country!

Moving to the center may help out a few of us that are on the lower wrung of the middle class, and take a bit of the sting our of a few of the losses we have experienced in recent years. But the "centrists" will do little to resolve the severe underlying issues that are eating away at the least amongst us, and that are eroding and destroying our nations bounty, and our nation's heritage.

[sandnsea]

46. whine piss and moan

It doesn't matter what Democrats do right, the left just isn't happy unless they're pissing on someone. It doesn't even matter if what they're pissing about is progressive or not, just that it's different from what Democrats do.

Cas in point. Social security is specifically NOT means tested so it can never be treated like a program for the poor. It is old age, disability and survivors INSURANCE BENEFITS. Not a welfare program.

Good bye.

[Morereason]

51. Funny you would call me a lefty "liberal" - I am an evangelical Christian

Sorry if calling out what I see as serious problems that need deeper analysis and change appears too "liberal".
I think my presence and arguments here are a testamony that goes against the grain of your hypothesis. People want *real* change. Not simply a more "moderate" climate.

Could it be that you are further "right" than you would like to believe?

[jgraz]

Hey -- true Christians are about as lefty liberal as you can get!

Nobody on this forum is as left-wing as Jesus was.

[Morereason]

55. Amen! ;)

[femrap]

120. Jesus invented Liberalism! nt

[sandnsea]

52. Of course they want real change

But it wouldn't matter what change I listed that has already been proposed in either the House or the Senate, you'd just create another list to rant through. You're not interested in honest exchange.

[Morereason]

54. My point is we are cheating ourselves believing we can't do better

And not just that but we *have* to do better. The "center" has moved, which is why the OP complained about the "projection" being displayed in the media.

I can't believe after the last two years that there are dems out there that have not learned the vital lesson. That sitting in the "safe center" not only does not work well, but striking out and defining us in even stronger progressive terms, and in stronger opposition, is WHAT WON THE ELECTION! It layed the groundwork that started opening up eyes, then when the repubs had a crashed it became a meltdown.

The Dems must set the agenda and people are ready and willing to follow. But to shrink back into "centrist" territory is to lose momentum. It is amazing we are still arguing this. The facts speak clearly. When we fight and differentiate we win. People want serious change, they are just AFRAID and not sure what to do. The Dems need to lead them.

Don't others see that?

[jgraz]

56. Morereason - please put these comments into a new topic so we can all K&R them

They should be read by as many people as possible.

[Morereason]

149. I tried, must have done something wrong ;)

I am better at replying than starting a new thread LOL. This should be my 50th post. Hopefully I can recommend now! Yours will be my first :)

[sandnsea]

59. Rejection of labels

What is it about that that you don't understand?? That's what I said in my very first response. It was not a mandate to govern from the center. It was not a win for liberals. It was a rejection of labels. It was for progress, not ideology. People want good governance.

They do not want impeachment, gun control, gay marriage, repealing all abortion laws, defunding the troops, and whatever stuff the left is claiming a mandate for. It's not there and I question anybody who shows up out of the blue and says there is.

[noiretextatique]

104. how do you know what the people want?

we certainly know what we don't want...an empowered bush, inc. beyond that, it is iabsurd to claim to know what motivated every single person who voted in this election, or to claim to know what we do and don't want.

[noiretextatique]

101. this is the REAL problem in this country: diminished expectations

and lack of real values and vision. the people have been sold a crock of lies about "what is possible," and the so-called pragmatists are at the crux of the problem.
if you build it...they will come. the republicans finally got "the vision thing," and they were bold in pursuing it.
our side needs to do the same thing.
thanks for your thoughtful and passionate posts.

[Morereason]

136. You get it :) .

[noiretextatique]

148. yes, i do

i understand that limiting what is possible because of some fear of what might happen is a strategy for failure, and like you, i am *amazed* that more don't "get it."
there are so many recent examples that illustrate the point, e.g., the democrats failure to respond to the coup of 2000, and to challenge the republican machine about the disenfranchisement of democratic voters.
we were told that would be "divisive" and useless, but what price did we pay for allowing it all to happen? a huge price, imho. and...gore didn't get the chance to run again...so much for political expedience. it seems some never learn, which is why it is so important to continue to keep the momentum going...and we will. if we learned anything from the rise of the religious right and bush, inc...eternal vigilance through grassroots organizing is a must, even if the democrats are in control of the house and senate.

[marions ghost]

50. excelent points Morereason

I would also add that centrists will not really get on top of the issues of corruption and lack of accountability in government, though they give lip service to it. Because those are so integral to the exploitation by big business that you detail.

[bvar22]

79. Excellent Post!

K&R
Welcome to DU.
This is a time for change, not a timid return to failed policies.

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.

[Jim Warren]

88. interesting exchange going on here

but please, allow more space to it than your either/or conclusion.

[Telly Savalas]

69. But you seem to be speaking in their frames

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but you seem to be hanging the label "far leftist ideology" onto pragmatic policy solutions like single payer health care, government recognized same sex marriage, and a rapid redeployment from Iraq.

[noiretextatique]

103. excellent observation

and i really don't understand this need to dismiss the obvious. a rejection of labels?! it seems that the "label" that was resoundingly rejected in this election was "republican" and all that word has meant in the past 12 years.

[nofurylike]

21. very well said! thank you, Morereason! eom

[Leilani]

57. Garbage

Do you want to accomplish change, or do you want to talk about philosophies?

The votes have been cast. The representatives have been chosen.

They haven't been sworn in yet, & you're already mad.

[Morereason]

138. Still angry, you damn well bet! And we better *stay* angry!

Respectfully,

They tried to, no strike that, actually did turn my country into a Corp-fascist playground! And the opposition(read many of these same Dems) often enabled them.
You are damn right I am still angry. I am happy about this change in momentum as the rest. But I am not naive enough to think this has become substantial enough to really rout the evil that lays in wait for it's next opportunity.

If we sit and tell them "good boy" (or girl) we will be back to the same old in no time. Only staying entergized, yes even angry, and letting the Dems who are not willing to make fundamental change still "have it" regularly will get them to actually make the changes.

[lapfog_1]

47. Hell, I'd be happy if we just roll back the far right agenda of the last 6 years -n/t

[Radical Activist]

106. What analysis?

All I saw was some blanket statements with nothing to back them up.

[eridani]

17. The police and fire departments are free--

--at least at the point of service. Why not health care?

[sandnsea]

18. They're not free

Taxes support them, and in some areas, fire departments have to be paid for through a separate insurance type fee. But as to point of service, because they prevent harm to an entire community. Fire can spread, criminals are random, etc. The health department is also 'free' and is the agency that prevents epidemics, etc.

I don't have a personal problem with single payer health care. It's just not on the table, nobody campaigned for it, it's not part of the agenda. If people had voted for a liberal agenda, that would have been front and center. It wasn't.

[eridani]

27. Tax-supported public services are still free--

--AT THE POINT OF SERVICE. And you are wrong. A number of candidates had universal health care as a campaign point--it mainly got overshadowed by the war and by the corruption issue.

[sandnsea]

29. That doesn't mean 'free' health care

Universal health care can be implemented in a variety of ways, including pro-rated premiums. It does not mean FREE. It does not mean single payer.

And no, not all services are always free, including fire. In some areas, you either pay the annual insurance fee or you get a bill if your house burns. Our ambulance service is that way. Schools now have bus and books and other fees. Every county already has a health department that provides the kind of health services needed to keep a community basically safe from the spread of disease. That's the free you get, like the cop who comes when you call. But you don't get free alarm systems, just like you don't get free doctor visits. That's the difference.

[eridani]

140. It means free AT THE POINT OF SERVICE--

--just like the fire deparment in any sane society. Of course it costs money, but the expense is borne collectively. An annual insurance bill spreads the costs over the entire population for both fire protection and health care. This is the cheapest possible way of providing fire service and health care, because in both cases a small minority of the population accounts for the lion's share of the costs. Only a sociopath advocates sticking the chronically ill or people unlucky enough to have fires with the costs of maintaining the whole system.

[nofurylike]

20. "the albatross of far leftist ideology" that would have won congress

in 2002, but for the sell-out moderates

that have caused the congressional progressive caucus to now be the largest block in congress

that marched by the millions to stop this insane iraq maelstrom moderates bought

that forced the end of the vietnam nightmare

that marched with mlk
that created unions
and social security
and feminism
and and and and and

last time i saw someone call a progressive faction an albatross, one of that faction called out to 20,000 in the room, "if you are one of us, stand up!"
all but a tiny percent stood up, humiliating the projecting fool who dared cast that aspersion.


do you know that DU is self-defined as being primarily for progressives?

[sandnsea]

26. There are few far leftists in Congress

I differentiate between off the cliff leftists; who really would put gun bans, defunding the war, and 'free' health care on the table; from pragmatic progressives like DeFazio and Blumenauer, etc.

[nofurylike]

30. gun control, ending the war, single-payer universal insurance,

reproductive freedom, equal marriage, etc., are considered too far to the left by moderates, now.
as is immediate, massively funded movement to save the environment.

you understand that if waxman's hearings find criminal counts, they have to proceed?
is waxman on your list of so-called off the cliff leftists?

[sandnsea]

34. They always were

Gun control, single payer, and gay marriage always were to the far left. They will be for along time.

Expanding federal health program to everybody, keeping abortion legal, ending the war, global warming, alternate energy - those are things the broad center agrees on. That's why you do them first.

I already said investigations first and let any impeachment proceed from there. How many times do I have to repeat it?

[nofurylike]

39. "the far left" is who i spoke of in my first post to you. that would be

*versus* what you refer to as "off the cliff leftists."

no, the broad center does not agree with what you said. even you are far left, to them. how's it feel? hijacked?

(i'm sorry, but i have to go. will check back tomorrow night.)


peace

[sandnsea]

40. Not true

"Expanding federal health program to everybody, keeping abortion legal, ending the war, global warming, alternate energy - those are things the broad center agrees on."

[nofurylike]

60. not true. exactly. eom

[sandnsea]

64. Is that how you reason?

You don't like centrists, therefore anything you believe in, centrists naturally oppose. Is that it?

[nofurylike]

70. how simplified. i found that you had inadvertently said what i was

saying, so i agreed. you put up the list for me. was that not clear?

it is not possible to discuss with one who resorts to what you have just now done. i was trying to discuss with you, but that was cheap of you.

there are facts i hope you will educate yourself on.
i do not not like centrists. it is they who do not like me, and intend me harm.

one little huge example, so maybe you might even consider you just could possibly ever have any chance of being even the tiniest bit incorrect or misinformed:

centrists are actually daring to try to justify reversing reproductive choice.
most do not agree we must end the war, or have hearings or investigations.

and numerous other things that you will not go find out more about, but will also not bother yourself with even *considering* should i be willing to present them. sadly.


off again. bye.

[jgraz]

35. Exactly -- the rejection of labels was HUGE

Especially the rejection of the Liberal label as a badge of shame. More than any election in my memory, the voters seemed to care about actual ideas and issues, despite the mainstream media's best efforts.

My OP was not advocating that all candidate tattoo "Liberal and Proud" on their asses. Rather, it was a reaction to the many posts that said "careful, don't let the right paint us as liberals". If nothing else, the fact that candidates are now free to discuss ideas without fear of being hit with the "liberal" epithet is a huge step forward for our democracy.

[sandnsea]

41. It's about legislation presented

I've seen all kinds of posts that want everything from marijuana legislation to removing God and Under God from the Pledge and our money. I'm saying let's not hang that stuff around Nancy's neck. Let's stick to what we can get done and be glad for it, instead of standing in line demanding every pent up desire from the last 12 years be introduced in the first week.

[jgraz]

45. That's not liberal vs non-liberal

That's stupid vs smart. We'll let the right wing chase their tails on this kind of bullshit, while we liberals concentrate on actually making people's lives better.

[sandnsea]

48. Stupid vs. smart - yeah, that would be it

Who cares about labels when the smart people are getting shit done?

Duh.

[Morereason]

49. The public got a glimpse through the propaganda........

Because of all the scandels eyes were opened up. They saw that the (Republican) emperors had no clothes. However the underlying issues, the massive propaganda they are subjected to, and the general population not being educated to defend against it's more crafty side, will just lead us back to the same old game..

That is *if* there is not serious change to make it a new ballgame.

I guess my point is that it is great that folks saw through the "labels", but not much has changed fundamentally, and they are likely to just pick up new ones in the future. Unless deeper change occurs. And we are not likely to get deeper change without getting even more progressives into office.

[SwingVoter2006]

67. Great post, sandnsea!

Agree with it 100%

[Radical Activist]

105. Do you have any evidence to back up those statements?

Aside from the cautiousness that is epidemic in the party?

[spoony]

144. The OP's anecdotal evidence was well-countered, so yes n/t

[Radical Activist]

152. No, not really.

The OP cited examples and evidence to prove his argument. The counter argument had none of those things. Just statements with nothing to back it up.

[gully]

116. Indeed, it was a populist victory.

And, a practical one.

[spoony]

145. Awesome post, sandnsea n/t

[leftofthedial]

8. the country's "owners" wasted no time hammering us with propaganda

about the centrist "victory"

[nofurylike]

22. yes, fact. well said! ty! eom

[TheWraith]

9. You're being a bit selective, aren't you?

Ignoring, for instance, the fact that Jim Webb is an ex-Republican, as are several of our other new pickups. And people like Duckworth who ran on strong anti-war campaigns also managed to lose.

I get annoyed with the people who are trying to spin this thing to suit their particular axe-grinding session, the "netroots" being one of the worst offenders. The reality is that it's not black and white. There are some places where the traditional type of liberal democrat can't win, even with favorable winds. That's why we need moderate and even conservative Democrats too. That's why sometimes you have to work with people you can agree with on nine out of ten things, rather than all or nothing. You pick the right candidate for the right place, and a moderate Democrat is Thomas Jefferson compared to your average Republican.

Left, right, center, up, down, strange, charmed, you know what all the winners had in common? They all had D after their names. Period.

[jgraz]

15. Feel free to select your own set of candidates

See if you can find any centrists who came out of nowhere to win come-from-behind victories.

To your other points:

Ex-Republican or not, Webb has one of the strongest antiwar messages and one of the most progressive economic philosophies of any candidate. Duckworth was not strongly anti-war. She supported the invasion, she just didn't like how the occupation was being run.

And as far as the 'D' goes, it don't mean shit if you're going to vote to allow torture, suspend habeus corpus, break a filibuster on Alito or support the bankruptcy bill. This ain't a sports team. Principles matter, party doesn't.

[rpannier]

16. I'd give you a greatest if I could

You are very correct.
As I pointed out in a previous post...Tester is hardly a liberal on social issues. For example, he is opposed to gay marriage.
I think Sen elect Webb is fairly conservative on many social issues, as is Rep-elect Schuler.

What they have in common, for the most part, is they are liberals on economic issues: opposed to CAFTA, outsourcing jobs, upper-class tax cuts, etc.

What this election showed, IMO, is when we let state organizers run the show, we find excellent candidates. When we dictate from DC, we get creamed.

[Radical Activist]

107. That party isn't doing that.

The problem is that the centrist wing of the party makes concerted efforts to push out liberals in places where liberals can not only win, but where liberals more closely match the people in the district. I see it happen in Illinois politics all the time. This is a state that elects liberals like Dick Durbin and Paul Simon, but we still see people like Rahm Emanuel telling us we have to nominate moderates here. Bull. They are at war with the liberal wing of the party.

[autorank]

11. Proud to be #5 - Thi is the start of a movement. They don't want Capitol

Hill bullshit, no "gentlemen's club" - no more indifference.

[althecat]

12. Great Post and welcome to DY Jgraz....

[Life Long Dem]

13. As long as they get to keep their guns their happy. nt

[caledesi]

91. This gun ownership being taken away by Dems is another canard.

Have any Dems ever taken away guns? No! In fact, the irony is that it was the RETHUGS who took the New Orleans survivors'guns away! Go figure.

[benEzra]

151. Unless your guns look like this...

in which case there are a few Dems (Feinstein and a few cohorts, mostly DLC'ers) who want to take them--and worse, who claim to speak for the party on the issue.

That's where the "Dems'll take yer guns" mantra came from in the late '80s/early '90s. Fortunately, the party leadership has finally gotten the message that Feinstein et al are clueless lightning rods on the issue, which is IMHO a big reason why Dems did much better in pro-gun states last week than in '00 and '04.

[cali]

23. response to you from another thread, reposted here

It was a mandate for change
here at home and in Iraq. That does not equate to Liberalism. I'll be glad to take your argument point by point.

Bernie Sanders- Yes, Vermnont's a liberal state, but Bernie's success here is not due to entirely to that. I live in the most conservative and rural part of the state. Bernie's success here is due to his support for farmers and veterans. Lots of folks who voted for him in the Kingdom, voted for Martha Rainville for the House and our repub guv won by some 15 points.

Sherrod Brown ran on a populist message. And don't forget he voted for the torture bill. He ran against a very weak incumbent in a state that is currently more hostile to repukes than any other. See Taft.

Amy Klobuchar ran as a centrist.

Sheldon Whitehouse ran in RI, for the love of pete, a bluer state is hard to find, and RI voter consistently are the most anti-bush in the nation. This was an anti-bush vote and a liberal vote, but if Chafee had switched to I and pledged to caucus with the dems, he would have won.

SD Abortion ban. It lost because it had no exceptions for rape, incest or health. Virtually everyone agrees that had it contained these exceptions, it would have passed.

Parental notification did fail in two states but protection of marriage crap won in what? 6?, and only failed in one.

Minumum wage and stem cell research are popular across the board, and they aren't seen as bedrock liberal issues. They're embraced by the center as well.

Harold Ford. Can you spell racism?



Jim Webb ran against Allen, who ran the shittiest campaign since Alan Keyes. Anyone who thinks this was a vote for liberalism is nuts. Yes, VA is getting bluer in its northern environs, but don't forget the marriage referendum won handily.

Pombo- can you spell Abramoff?

Ellison ran in a totally blue congressional district. Repukes don't win there.

Yarmuth- His win can be attributed to anti-incumbency as well as Northup being an anomoly in an urban district. Or it could be attributed to a surge in liberalism. Hard to know.

John Hall ran in NY which is getting bluer and bluer- even upstate. Same with NH. No question, the Northeast and NE are liberal strongholds. He also ran a great campaign, and his celebrity didn't hurt.

Deval Patrick. Massachusetts is a liberal powerhouse. Who knew?

Tammy Duckworth is no more centrist than Jim Webb. That's for damn sure.

And as well as neglecting the embrace of marriage referendums, you forgot to mention Casey in PA and at least 10 Heath Shuler types- dems running as social conservatives.

Again, this election was a mandate for change. It was a vote against the status quo. If you think that this was a mandate for liberalism, anymore than bushco's election in 2000 or 2004 was a mandate for conservatism, you've badly misinterpreted the results.

[jgraz]

31. And my response to your response from the other thread

You skipped a few points...

Like the spate of primary wins against DCCC candidates. Of course, given enough time I'm sure you could invent a just-so story for them as well.

I challenge you to list 10 "Heath Shuler types" who won without the backing of the DCCC. Or just list 10 "Heath Shuler types" who won. Of course, you'll have to keep in mind that while Shuler is marginally right of center on social issues, he's solidly liberal when it comes to economics.

Opinions and spin aside, my list presents some simple facts. Many candidates espoused undeniably liberal views, and they managed to win primaries and unseat incumbents, often with little or no help from the Dem establishment. Sure, you can find other one-off factors in their wins, but the common thread is that every one of these races resulted in a move to the left. And many moved much farther to the left than the establishment Dems were willing to support.

[cali]

37. We're not going to agree

because essentially I believe that yelling mandate is so broad as to be useless. I'll go further than that: I think it's bullshit when the repukes do it, and I don't think it's anymore valid this time. Why? It's not so simple as you make out. Have we inched in a more liberal direction? Yes. Are more people rejecting the pukes? For sure. As for your suggesting that I skipped a few points, well, in a way that was my point. You skipped more than your share to, and shaded things like Bernie's election in Vermont and Whitehouse's in RI, being part of a national mandate. You left out the marriage stuff and the reason why SD's abortion legislation failed. In other words, there's more than one way to interpret the election results, but a mandate for liberalism? Not yet.

[jgraz]

38. Here's the real motivation for the OP

Not to yell "mandate" or give credit to one group over another. What I'd really like to see is what happened in this campaign: Democrats seemed to grow a pair and shake off the fear of being called Liberal. Now I'd like to see that attitude transmitted to the rest of the establishment, corporate Dems like Emmanuel, Biden, Fein$tein and Hoyer, et al.

[cali]

42. OK, got it.

but I'm afraid that dems like Emmanuel, Biden, etc. are hopelessly lost to corporatism, and for them it has nothing to do with fear of being called liberal.

[Shakespeare]

112. Hate to tell you this....

But under this administration, a mandate for change IS a mandate for liberalism.

And I'll back up that statement by pointing out than when polled on individual issues, this country comes down solidly on the liberal side.

[nofurylike]

25. sweet reading, jgraz. thank you for this list! eom

[nofurylike]

32. i complimented too soon. please take the vulgar racist word

mac--- out of that OP!!! too late to edit it, isn't it. damn.

i can not believe that seemingly otherwise enlightened DUers are using that word all over this place!

call that slime allen a frickin honky prick if you're looking to do racist slurs against HIM, versus re-victimizing his victims!!

damn. i was liking your point, but this can not go on in here.

please help with this!

[jgraz]

36. Hmm..no Macaca, but "Honky" is OK...

Personally, I'll be happy if that fucker ends up with Macaca Allen on his tombstone. Serves him right.

If it makes you feel any better, just imagine how it must eat at Allen to have that name turned around on him.

[sandnsea]

43. That's how we won the race

But now the 'true liberals' are insulted. :eyes:

[nofurylike]

75. if you have to become a fascist to fight fascists, why fight them

at all? they've already won.
poli-sci 101.

it's lower than i'll go, that's for sure. and no, that is not how we won. :eyes:


g'morning, all.

[sandnsea]

95. Oh my god

Are you kidding me? Macaca is permanently affixed to George Allen's name, he will never be able to shake it. There isn't anything racist about drawing attention to it, like saying Tony "Tar Baby" Snow. And if he hadn't said that, he'd be in the Senate today, absolutely. That's Reality 101.

[nofurylike]

73. not by me. but for those who use slurs, at least it slurs HIM and

NOT his victims.
i get it about HIM deserving it. but while i don't really care if he suffers even more than he will already, i do care about innocents who are made to suffer.
that word is n----r. would you be using that so blithely? wop? so on...

i am convinced DUers would not use those words as they are this one!

i really am sincerely asking you to help get it off these boards. and i am speaking it more strongly each time i see it here.
i have tried to get official policy on it, but...

meanwhile, it goes on, epidemic. alas...

thank you.


peace

[jgraz]

77. The problem is..

That for most Americans, Macaca just doesn't carry the visceral weight that other racial epithets do. It doesn't mean that we don't care about hurting people, it's just that this new word simply sounds like a goofy nonsense word, rather than a hurtful, evil expression. Furthermore, it actually has positive connotations for many of us, since it's associated with the disgrace of a man we all hate.

I hate to say it, but you might be stuck with Macaca for a while longer.

[nofurylike]

78. i appreciate your reply and thoughts on this. i lived in places

where it was used the worst ways, and i hear it that way, and am humiliated as a DUer and for DUers.

a good gauge might be: if allen had used n----- the same way, even if it had been his undoing, would you be writing it anywhere on here?

i'm off for now, but i'll be interested in your thoughts on this. thank you for talking of it with me!


peace and solidarity!

[malaise]

33. Great post

Still I'll wait and watch policies.

[xchrom]

53. k&r

[neebob]

58. Uh-huh, and I'll bet all of their campaign ads

made it really super clear that they're liberals, too, huh.

If it were true that it was a mandate for liberalism, same-sex marriage bans wouldn't have passed in seven states; Colorado would have partner benefits; English wouldn't be the official language of Arizona; pot would be partially legalized in Colorado, Nevada, and South Dakota; and Michigan wouldn't have restricted affirmative action.

[bigtree]

61. who fuckin cares? why not direct the comments to someone who actually said this?

is there someone you had in mind?

[jgraz]

62. Wow -- such a helpful comment

Do you always contribute so constructively to the discussion?

[bigtree]

68. contributing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2693827&mesg_id=2693827

[jgraz]

72. Thanks -- that's a pretty good post

But read the posts further down-thread. You'll see why I think this progressive vs centrist debate is far more insidious than just a labeling issue.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

65. Why is this information important?? Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=245527&mesg_id=245527

The MSM and establishment Dems are trying to get us to forget the message of the voters and cave in on oversight and fair trade. The main premise of their argument is the supposed "centrist" message of the election.

Unless we control the narrative and point out the truth, we will be stuck with another wimpy-ass Democratic Congress. And the most criminal, murderous regime in our history will walk away scott free.

[nofurylike]

76. very important post. thank you. eom

[mmonk]

66. Everyone won the election,

the "centrists" are just trying to run the party agenda. They must not do so by bullying and name calling.

[jgraz]

71. Not bullying and name calling

Just flat-out lying. Of the 28 seats we picked up in the House, only 8 were part of the original 22 that Rahm deemed worthy of support by the DCCC. In other words, if we had just stuck with Rahm's choices, we would have lost the House. And, if we had ignored Rahm's choices, we would still be in control of the House.

Couple this with the fact that almost all of Rahm's picks were pro-war, and you have the makings of a flat-out electoral disaster. It sickens me that this joker is trying to take credit for the success of others, and use that credit to further his pro-war, free-trade corporatist agenda.

My fear is that without continual reminding of the true message of the electorate, the Dems will revert to their natural form -- a spineless, amorphous blob of wuss.

[BlueEyedSon]

74. the pendulum is swinging back HARD! k&r

[skipos]

80. Too bad all those gay marriage bans passed, and Lamont lost CT handily

We still have a ways to go before I would describe most Americans as being progressive.

[jgraz]

81. Lamont loss is a great example of my point

Check out this fantastic article on why Lamont lost.

One of the factors is how Lamont was abandoned by the party establishment, in part because they thought that his aggressive stand against the war made him look "weak" to voters. Most Democratic leaders, still gunshy after the GOP painted them as soft on terrorism, stayed away from Lamont in droves.

If they had understood early on exactly how popular Lamont's views were among rank-and-file Dems, Ned would have gotten a lot more help from the party. Finger-in-the-wind Senators and prospective Presidential candidates would have been clamoring to share a stage with him.

The truth is that core progessive issues (minimum wage hikes, universal health care, higher taxes on the super rich, alternative energy, etc) are very popular among voters. Once our "leaders" understand that, they'll get right out in front and pretend they're leading the parade.

[skipos]

84. Lamont got about as much help as our other candidates

and still lost by a significant margin. He got more national press than most of the candidates too, especially Whitehouse or Brown. I don't think people like Salazar or Nelson saying they supported Lieberman had any effect on the voters. Part of his loss comes from the fact that before the primary Lieberman was never THAT unpopular in CT overall. Incumbents are hard to beat and Kerry won CT 10%, unlike RI and MA which he won by 20%.

And as I said before, blue states like MI, WI and OR have easily passed those gay marriage bans. And take a look at how many people consider themselves "liberal" vs. "moderate" or "conservative." America is far from progressive though, wether they know it or not, progressives politicians would be better for them.

[Pithy Cherub]

85. Republicans put sore loserman into power.

Joe is a wholly owned subsidiary of the republicans who need to have their own candidate next election. Traitor joe also has to figure out how to get money to make himself relevant. He's alienating everyone and is a professional whiner. National Dems were part and parcel of why Lamont did not win by seeking and getting Lamont's cooperation an classiness in not going completely political on Holy Joe, the Sanctimonious Senator with a party of one spoiled brat!

[skipos]

86. 27% of liberals, 53% of moderates and 66% of conservatives voted for Joe

according to CNN exit polls. Ned would have won with a stronger repub candidate, but we knew Schelsinger wasn't strong going into it.

[Pithy Cherub]

87. Makes the point Traitor Joe is not a Democrat. n/t

[Clarkie1]

127. The Arizona gay marriage ban failed. nt

[leeroysphitz]

82. Lefty McLefterman. Now that's funny.

I wish I could change my DU handle...

[Pithy Cherub]

83. Excellent!

Now the conservatives of both parties are calling them centrists. Whatever floats their boats - actions will tell!

:applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[caledesi]

89. VG. Another great argument for neo-cons that are saying we

ran as conservatives :puke: is oh really? Than why did ALL the incumbent Dems win?

[alarimer]

90. Absolutely

I was listening to Counterspin and they made the same point. I don't know that it was a mandate but the progressive caucus is the largest one.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

92. Do you REALLY think...

...that Harold Ford lost because he wasn't liberal enough? Really?

[jgraz]

96. There is little evidence to argue either way

...but we do have the existence proofs of Jon Tester and Jim Webb to show that it is possible for candidates with progressive values to carry the day in traditionally conservative states. I for one would like to have seen what Tennessee voters would have done had they been offered a real choice in this election.

[Lurking Dem]

100. There's a lot of evidence.

Like the 82% vote against gay marriage. Like the re-election of Lincoln Davis who is very popular in his district precisely because he is a conservative Dem.

[JudyM]

109. That doesn't make sense to me, either. nt

[Rosemary2205]

93. A mandate for liberalism?

I'd say there's a mandate to do something about Iraq and to tweek the system some to make people feel more secure about keeping the house and someday being able to retire.....but a mandate for a full on progressive agenda complete with gay marriage, federalized healthcare and getting gas powered everything off the planet?

Good luck with that.......

[jgraz]

97. Funny how gay marriage is always first on the list...

...for anyone trying to denegrate the so-called "Liberal Agenda". Aside from the obsession with buttsex, the rest of your list has broad support when not phrased in a snide and dismissive manner. Most people want some sort of federal solution for universal healthcare, and a new approach to energy policy, including alternative fuels.

People also want an end to the Iraq occupation, scaling back -- if not total repeal -- of the assaults on our civil liberties, reigning in of corporate power and truly fair economic and trade policies. All of which has to be counted as a "liberal agenda" since the centrists in Congress have either ignored these issues or actively worked against them.

[Rosemary2205]

99. I'm not denegrating anything.

All I'm saying is given the recent political climate of anti-gay laws, if someone things progressives have a mandate to come in and make gay marriage a federal law then they are going to get a rude awakening.

Likewise with federalized healthcare or gas powered autos. -- people want action in the right direction but if someone thinks they have a mandate for a full on destruction of the current health system and replacement by a federalized system is again going to get the same smack upside the head that chimpy just got. Go ahead, jack up taxes on gas and SUV's and see where that goes.

Having a mandate for a liberal agenda implies a full on run to the progressive agenda. I don't think America is quite ready for that. I think we need to start moving in that direction but an attitude of having a full on mandate to run for it is just asking for a backlash.

IMHO, of course, just MHO. --- and the slam on my personal character was really not necessary......

[noiretextatique]

121. dead wrong, on so many levels

universal healthcare...not whatever fantasy you have in mind about the current system, which doesn't work for too many people.
and alternative sources of renewable energy is a PRACTICAL issue that any thinking person should support.
i think america is ready for sanity, and if issues are framed correctly, and if our side stops repeating the rw memes and brainwashing, we have a shot at making some practical changes.

[Geek_Girl]

94. In the End I would say Populism and Anti-Iraq won the day

Yes some of these candidates were conservative on social issues but when it came to economics and the Iraq war they are very Progressive.

[sfwriter]

98. FORD - case in point....

When he endorsed Joe in Connecticut, I stopped a donation I had planned to send him and moved it over to MO instead.

Netroots is real and vital to a PROGRESSIVE campaign.

[yebrent]

102. Pelosi and everyone call keep calling it centrist...

as long as their actions are for the progressive ideas that the voters have shown they support.

[jgraz]

111. I'm with you on this...

but we need to keep pounding the Leftist Victory drums to make sure they don't lose their nerve.

Edit: cuz is doesn't all have to be bold.

[Morereason]

141. Me too, as long as they keep moving progressive

We *do* have to keep on them and remind them where the "center" is though. Movements are not about the "majority". The majority follows. If there is anything we should have learned, change is affected by a minority, **always**. That is why it is important to question and understand the verbage. If the terms are used to deflect while remaining true to progressive values than fine. But they can also be used to motivate and move the populace, or to make them feel comfortable where they are.

We (Dem underground)and groups like us, *are* that "minority", that will continue to encourage and use our means to move the country to more sound policies, (and yes Philosophies, because our existing underlying philosophies are bankrupt). Most of the population are like Deer in headlights. They react from fear. They take their cues from others that lead them. And if the Dem's do not lead them to better, more sustainable, and more practical, ideologies the Right will!

They can "talk" center. But they had better not stay center. Or the "center" just continues to slide to the right.

We can sit back and concede to the "center" because the public is still there because the work is not done. Or we can continue to define the better way, and MOVE that center.

[nam78_two]

110. K&R/nt

[2Design]

113. yes n/t

[jgraz]

114. lol

113 replies and you hop on with a "yes". Not a slam -- it just made me chuckle.

:silly:

[gully]

115. Being anti-war is not a leftist position. Being pro stemcell is not moderate.

We won because we ran an "all politics is local" campaign. We won with a big tent. It's not about centrism/moderation/leftism - it's about being practical.

[gulliver]

117. Is this pre-emptive credit grabbing or "post-emptive?"

Either way, it's silly. Low post count posts on divisive issues don't deserve to work.

The Dem coalitiion kicked Republican ass, and there is more to come.

[jgraz]

118. huh?

Low post count posts on divisive issues don't deserve to work.

I don't understand this at all.

[Quantess]

122. That was a cheap shot. An ad hominem attack.

Don't let them get to you.

That said, the topic of this thread is a big snooze, IMO. :boring:
Let's put it to rest before we put ouselves to sleep. :boring:

[jgraz]

125. What? He's slamming me becase I don't have as many posts as he does???

HAHAHAHAHAHA -- What's next? Will he tease me that my World of Warcraft character is only level 50? Sheesh

:rofl:

[Clarkie1]

119. Arizona became first state to defeat gay marriage ban. nt

[pstans]

123. Go Loebsack

He ran on Universal Health Care, a balanced budget, raising the minimum wage, and for a timeline to withdrawl from Iraq. And he beat a Centrist in Republican Jim Leach.

[cascadiance]

143. I love it! Leach was elected when I was a freshman there in College 30 years ago!

I love that Iowa City is FINALLY a blue city!

[PassingFair]

124. Progressive Populism RULES!

We must ensure that we DO NOT allow
our party to SELL OUT OUR COUNTRY
to the same corporate interests that
have been RAPING us for 14 years, under
cover of a new set of domestic practices.

Give 'em HELL, Howard!

[FogerRox]

126. But jgraz, those are all mainstream cnadidates. LOL

Afterall they all won, so they must be centrist candidates.... right... ?

[jgraz]

134. They are now :)

Where did I put that mainstream. Oh -- there it is, over to the left here...

[FogerRox]

147. I claim that mainstream issues from 40 yrs ago are still mainstream

The republican revolution is an atrificial construct, 2006 was just part of a correction.

[kdpeters]

128. I hardly think most voters cared; they voted against corruption and lies

Conservative, centrist, or liberal politics had little to do with it. They finally woke up to the Rovian politics and the lockstep fealty of the Republican congress. They rightfully concluded a Democratic majority was the best hope to stop it. Most of us would vote for an honest woman/man of any philosophy if it would help get rid of corruption and corporate influence. We're not anywhere near a place where we can gage the political mood of the nation. This was a vote against the clowns in power. They're giving us a chance, but they don't really trust us. Unless we make open, accountable government our top priority, all of us centrists and liberals will get what we deserve next go round.

Conservative, centrist, or liberal, good government will be rewarded. I finally think we're ready to confront the issues as adults. At least I hope.

[DAMANgoldberg]

146. An opportunity...

I voted for John Spratt D-SC and Mark Sanford R-SC for governor. These two politicians have done the job for the state IMO. Open, Honest Government and responsible stewards of the treasury must happen, or we are no better than we replaced.

LET'S GET BUSY!
- Arsenio Hall

[ThoughtCriminal]

129. You just have to have a liberal concept

of what a "Centrist" is.

[upi402]

130. k/r

What a sight for sore eyes!
:party:

[SPKrazy]

131. This Is a Great Thread

I'm so sick of the "house of Rahm" mentality.

Obviously it isn't the house of Rahm, nor the Senate of the center.

We live in a society that is sick of the Religious and Neocon right.

We have an obligation to take back the country now for the sake of the oppressed.

[Jcrowley]

132. Strong post

Right on

K&R

[williesgirl]

133. Great list - I felt it but now I KNOW it. Thanks - recommended

[crispini]

135. Actually, it was 42/42 in Dallas.

I've seen the article you got that from, and it was written just a wee bit before the final returns got in. Our last judge made it over the top by a few hundred votes at the last minute. I know, 'cause that's Rob Canas, and he's gonna be a great judge. :D

[jgraz]

137. I actually heard it on Thom Hartman (I think) but that's good news...

Do you have a link to the article he was quoting?

[crispini]

150. Here 'tis

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-dems_08tex.ART.State.Edition2.3e326fb.html

www.dalcoelections has the final updated election results, though, complete with Rob's win. We were all so happy for him... he worked so hard! :)

[cascadiance]

142. I think the public needed to focus on a few issues that the Dems were pushing...

the Iraq War, corruption, working against the constitution, the problems of ethics for people like Foley. Then their "cups were full" of info, and they knew what they wanted to do in this election and vote on. And that led to what had many Dems, including progressive Dems to win.

But many issues that were the subject of propositions, etc. were not thought about a lot about voters I think, and they are more inclined to reject measures that they don't immediately understand or that they don't perceive to be part of the most important issues of the moment for them (the Iraq War, etc.).

An example of this is here in California, prop 89, the proposition on Public financing went to a very substantive defeat. Now, I don't think it lost heavily so much from entrenched opposition as it was that it wasn't understood, and that it wasn't high on most people's radar of what needed to be dealt with in this election, which was a LOT for people to deal with in this election, just to see who they'd be voting out of office.

When I campaigned in various places, I rarely found anyone that was "entrenched" against 89, and I changed many minds to support it once I explained it. I think there are a number of issues like this that are going to take focused and heavy grass roots activism in getting people on board with supporting them. Clean money public campaign financing is just one of these. These aren't "liberal" issues, but ones that I think many centrists will support (even if the corporatist Republicans and DLC entities won't).

When I did polling on whether people wanted to have citizens be able to monitor how their votes are counted in the Zogby poll that was done here locally in San Diego, I only had ONE person feel that they shouldn't, and that was a hispanic person I don't think understood the question well. NOONE wants what these Diebold lobbyists have talked many corrupt politicians into doing in corrupting our election systems.

To fight through the corporate media spin on these issues, it's going to take time and additional effort to do so. Not only the voter was tired of sorting through issues that mattered to them in voting the way they did, but we out there doing the campaigning had to also focus our energies on the more important and winnable issues too. The other stuff that didn't win earlier I think might start to get more public support as we get a Democratic Congress articulating them and making them more visible.

[mhatrw]

153. It certainly wasn't a mandate for making nice with the bozos who

got us into this mess.