Why is it that in every Democratic Primary since Johnson that only...

[Ozymanithrax]

centrist moderates get nominated, while Republican primaries nominate far right conservatives?

This realization came to me tonight, and it is something to think about as DU fights out who they will back to Primary Obama.

I think it is a bad idea, but having learned of the 2% tax holiday from Social Security, and seeing the anger/Civil war here (DU being a cross section of the Democratic Party), a strong primary opponent is inevitable.

[Cant trust em]

1. 2 things.

1. I bet if you asked many republicans if John McCain were a far right conservative, I bet they'd say no.

2. Also, I think that DU is a cross section of the party as a whole, but not a perfect sample. I'd be willing to bet that DU is way more partisan than most people who vote democrat. I'd be surprised if most people in the party feel compelled to talk about it all the time on a chat board.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. Most people pay attention only 6 weeks or less from an election.

But they know how they feel.

At this point, some strong ego will rise to primary Obama. That person will lose but do sufficient damage to lead to whichever expensive suit Republicans put up. A loss of the White House will guarantee a loss of the Senate.

Damn, I have been demoralized.

[Cant trust em]

3. Exactly. They care right now, but call me in a month and we'll see what's happened. nt

[mrdmk]

4. I need to thank Art_from_Ark for the following

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9701280&mesg_id=9706643

You really can't say we lost in '68 because Johnson was challenged

The reason why he was challenged was because the Vietnam War was becoming so damned unpopular. In the primaries, Eugene McCarthy was attracting a lot of support from people who opposed the war. Then Walter Cronkite, the influential anchorman of the CBS Evening News (said to be "the most trusted man in America") came out against the war in his February 27, 1968 broadcast. Johnson, disillusioned at having "lost Cronkite", announced his withdrawal from the primaries shortly after that. In the same month (March 1968), Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy, and was building momentum, which culminated with his June 5, 1968 victory in the California primary. There is every reason to believe that Robert Kennedy would have won the nomination, and in all likelihood would have defeated Richard Nixon in the general election.

But Kennedy was killed on the night of his California victory, and the the nomination was given to Hubert Humphrey, a man who didn't even run in the primaries, while Richard Daley's thugs were beating up on protestors (sp?) outside the convention hall. Humphrey was the vice president at the time, and was thus viewed as the "establishment candidate". He also did not have anywhere near the appeal that Robert Kennedy had. To complicate matters, George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama, was running on the "American Independent Party" ticket as a Dixiecrat. Wallace siphoned off a lot of Southern votes that otherwise would have gone for Kennedy, and Humphrey ended up losing 5 Southern states outright to Wallace, and lost a few more states to Nixon because of Wallace. Nixon ended up squeaking by to win the election.


To add, Jimmy Carter was and still is left wing. Richard Nixon was a conservative, the John Birch Society was even more conservative during that time. Your reasoning does not equal with history!!!

[Ozymanithrax]

6. Actually this doesn't answer my question.

What I asked was why do we get centrist moderate Democrats out of primaries. Kennedy was, of course, assassinated. We got Humphrey. Carter was the classic, fiscal conservative social liberal. Kennedy was beaten by a bridge and a dead woman. Carter was certainly to the right of Johnson. Clinton was and is to the right of Jimmy carter, tough another fiscal conservative social liberal. Obama is slightly to the right of Clinton and Al Gore.

The base of the Democratic Party that turns out in primaries doesn't like anyone more than slightly left. Dean was destroyed by the Media. Kucinich could not win a primary, though it might be because he is just an abysmal candidate, even if his heart is in the right place. It just makes me wonder.

[mrdmk]

11. I will play 'The Right's Power of Media Money'

link: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/120210.html

<snip>
In assessing what went wrong with the U.S. political process over the past few decades, it’s easy to see the broad outlines of the right-wing Republican ascendancy and the liberal-left Democratic decline, an imbalance that has now left the nation incapable of doing much besides waging endless wars, bailing out too-big-to-fail banks, slashing taxes for the rich, and running massive deficits.

But how this systemic failure occurred is more complicated – and the blame must be shared by all the players, including the mainstream news media, which adapted to the flood of right-wing propaganda by avoiding pitched battles for the truth, and the progressive community, which adopted misguided strategies that failed to counter the Right’s surging media power.

Without doubt, the Right and the Republicans were the chief protagonists in this historical chapter. In the 1970s, they reacted with a fierce determination to the threats they saw in the massive anti-Vietnam War protests and in a more independent news media, revealed by the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.

Wealthy right-wingers began investing heavily in a media infrastructure to promote their views and to attack their adversaries, including going after mainstream journalists who dug up information that undermined the favored propaganda of rightists from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.
<end of snip>

There is a lot more at the link and worth the read...


During the late Sixties and early Seventies, leaders on the left were assassinated, put in jail, marginalized, or just put on ignore.

In the mid-sixties and early seventies the right wing made a major effort to expand their power by investing into think tanks to fuel the media with marketable propaganda. These institutions were given creditability while environmentalist, animal rights, women's rights, and others including vegetarians (more of dietary option than political choice) were labeled the extreme (loony) left and a major waste of time, resources, and money. Many Television Stations took the news out of a independent news department and put into the entertainment department so those shows would make more money. We will not dwell on funds removed from the public education system in the name of tax cuts i.e. saving money. Businesses needing the free-market system (i.e. deregulate) so those institutions can make more money. What all of this comes down to is the worship of power, the rich, and money. Politicians on the right promise their constituents, with their philosophy of society and law, an individual can be empowered to have more power and money. People in this society buy this bullshit hook, line, and sinker, hence the country keeps moving to the right. This should answer your question!

BTW: Carter, for his efforts to invest into alternative energy was given a label of the loony left. Since the late Nineteen Fifties, the U.S.A. was fighting a war in Vietnam which was very expensive. By 1971, paying for that war put a strain on national resources (i.e. the gold reserve). Because of this situation Nixon changed our monetary system. The system was changed from a money backed currency (the Bretton Woods system) to a fiat currency (now known as the Nixon Shock). As far as Carter being a fiscal conservative, the real truth is he was attempting to get a handle on a out of control economy handed to him by the previous administrations.

[OHdem10]

5. Every now then Pundits such as Tweety slip and tell the truth.

He has commented that only certain kinds of Democrats
can be President. You know the narrative--This is a Center
Right Country. Center Right means the Center of the Republican
Party---the Center of the Republican Party.

Think about this seriously. When Howard Dean was running
for President--remember the crowds--even in Texas and
other Red States. If people are honest that silly scream
was not a reason to stop him. However the DLC collaborated
with the Media. The Media showed it over and over and
over to belittle Dean and marginalize him. The Rest is
history. In other words Dean was becoming a threat and
had to be stopped. Dean, being a true outsider could not
be counted on to play the DC game. This is my opinion.

Obama did not run as New Democrat. but as soon as he
got the WH, it was like he had a swift brainwash. Just
my observation.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. I tend to think you have that right. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Please, watch the framing - it's not a 2% tax holiday (sounds like FUN!)

it is a de-funding of a program which they claim is already in crisis.

De-funding of Social Security. Just because our side did it, doesn't mean we have to cheer.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. I accept your framing, and it is why I am demoralized.

Whatever you want to call it, it will just lead to more money borrowed, exacerbating the economic crises. The Bush tax cuts did nothing for under Bush. Extending them won't make them good now.

I still approve of extending unemployment, but it will still make things worse.

[Cherchez la Femme]

15. The only sense that makes

--this 'tax holiday'-- is if the Democrats want to make the SS situation worse.
And after the Cat Food Commission.

Seems like it's right there in front of my lying eyes and I refuse to believe it; it's so bold as to be astounding.

[jobycom]

10. McCain and Dole weren't far right. Gore wasn't centrist.

Neither Bush ran as a far right candidate.

General elections are decided in the middle. Middle votes count twice. A vote in the middle that goes to the Republicans takes two votes to overcome on the left. Neither party can win the general by running for their edge. They can win a primary by either strategy--trying to get the edge of their party, or trying to get their centrist voters--but if they focus on their center in the primary, they will usually lose the general. Simple math--they don't bring along enough of the fringe to win with the middle.

So candidates run in the primary on their party's edge, then shift to the middle, hoping most of their primary voters will not notice, or will just assume it's a strategy and still support them. The candidate that can win the middle wins the general. Simple math.

Same with winning a vote in Congress, although the equation is different because of party power. A president has to get a bill that the majority of his own party will support, and for every candidate he loses on the fringe, he has to pick up one in the middle, even if it comes from the other party. If he (always a he, so far) loses a vote in his party's center, he has to have two fringe candidates to overcome that, or get a crossover, which will only come from the centrists in the other party. So bills have to appeal to the middle and the fringe, and that's why many are so bland, or even internally contradictory. Of course, it's more complex than that because of party realities, such as whether your party holds Congress, and also because of the individual needs of those you are trying to win over. If a candidate's constituency won't accept a bill, then that candidate commits suicide by voting for it, so a strong leader (Speaker or president) has to work with that, maybe by giving them other legislation their constituents will love, or maybe by trading their vote. Vote trading works when a Republican's district would benefit from a plan his party opposes, and a Democrats would be harmed by a bill his party supports, or vice versa.

All that wheeling and dealing is what Obama really fails at. It's that simple. Clinton would set up a block and start auctioning votes to pass his best legislation--that's how he got his wealthy tax increase through a conservative Congress (not to mention his medical reform bills, job growth bills, etc). If he needed five votes, he'd work out a deal with five Reps that gave them some sweetheart deal they needed (for their district or their campaign or whatever--it could even be an endorsement) for the vote. When the Republicans took Congress, that meant compromising with Republicans, and that's where he gets so much flack from some people around here who don't understand what he was doing.

Obama doesn't know how to do that. When he does, he gives up too much in the wrong areas. He gets played. People think he's selling out, but he doesn't believe he is. He believes he's getting the best deal he can for our (moderate left) side. That's why he, and some of his supporters, get mad hearing us saying he's selling out--he honestly just doesn't know how to do it better, so he thinks it's impossible, and we're just being impatient and pony-wanting. So he complains about us, and that makes us see him as even less of an ally. He lacked the experience for the job, but he doesn't know that, because he doesn't have the experience to know that (and none of his advisers will tell him, because they like him depending on them). So we think he's selling us out, he thinks we are unreasonable, and things start to crumble. Hopefully he'll fall far enough that he'll just give up trying to please everyone, and start pushing people around, and maybe he'll have a good third and fourth year. Who knows? His first year wasn't bad.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm sure it's not everyone's. :)

[David__77]

12. Since Johnson? You mean since Stevenson?

And just what does "centrist" or "leftist" or "rightist" really mean now and what did they mean then? I think that 2008 was evidence that someone publicly positioned as a "progressive" can win the presidency. We just need to make sure that it is real and not more post-modern pragmatism.

[WI_DEM]

13. Well apparently "the base" isn't that influential after all?

if the base were really far left we wouldn't be nominating center-left candidates? The other reason is that two of the more liberal nominees, McGovern & Mondale lost 49 states.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Never mind that Obama RAN as a center left candidate -

in his campaign he advocated closing Gitmo, universal health care with a public option (of course the real left position would be single payer), repealing DADT and DOMA, eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy... It's not OUR fault that he didn't live up to his campaign stances.

A progressive candidate WAS elected - then he quit.