Which of these two pictures do you like better?

[LoZoccolo]

[Writer]

1. Yup :thumbsup: [n/t]

[Beacho]

2. what's the point of this poll?

????

[LoZoccolo]

3. It is to see which of the two pictures you like better. n/t

[Writer]

4. I think it forces us to look back...

before 1992 so that we can remember what Democratic life was like before Clinton.

[MollyStark]

12. When we controlled the senate and congress?

Those were good days for america.

[LoZoccolo]

15. Not the DLC's fault.

No one's been able to prove this.

I should keep a little scoreboard.

Excuses-for-dismissing-the-DLC scoreboard
1994 elections: 1

[MollyStark]

25. Is the DLC's fault n/t

[LoZoccolo]

32. No it isn't.

Excuses-for-dismissing-the-DLC scoreboard
1994 elections: 2
gain right by moving left: 2
no explanation: 1

[Writer]

16. Wrong.

The south still was quite Democratic then which is why we still held Congress... before the religious right took over during the 1990's (I suppose that was Clinton's fault, too.) If you think a southern Democrat, even during the 1980's, was like a northern Democrat, think again!

After living in Texas for 18 years, I learned during my time there that not much difference existed between Texas Democrats and Texas Republicans. Many, many southern Democrats became Republicans during the 1990's, which is another reason why we lost control of Congress. LBJ predicted that after the Civil Rights movement, Democrats could kiss the south goodbye. That is precisely what happened by 1994.

If you think many of those Democrats in Congress during Mondale's time were "progressive" I suggest you do some research. To raise Democrat's control of Congress as some type of comment du triumph is ill-informed.

Writer.

[LimpingLib]

19. Mike Synar of Oklahoma, John Bryant of Texas.....

....Harold Volkimer of Missouri ,etc.

WE had progressives in southern states.

Texas has more liberal Democrats in congress than almost any other states even today.

Pat Williams was a liberal in Montana who survided a member verses member race in 1992 when Montana lost its 2nd seat in the 1990 census. He survived in 1994 but retired in 1996.


Montana is a liberal state and Clinton wrecked us in that state. Democrats are coming back though. Kerry way outperformed Al Gore.

Same with Colorado.

[Writer]

22. And Zell Miller of Georgia...

One or two examples on either side, but overall, southern Democrats could not get elected to office without having some conservative leanings (pro-military, pro-fundamentalist, etc.)

Colorado: my state, you know? Get this: so an anomaly occurs in Colorado in 2004. Democrats capture a senate seat and the state legislature for the first time since 1960. Would you like to know what happened next? Progressives in the state, hacked-off that the state party chairman put his support behind Salazar (and not Mike Miles) toss out the party chair who WON THEM THE DAMN STATE! :rofl:

Ken Salazar is a CONSERVATIVE Democrat who WON COLORADO! A CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT WON COLORADO. Helloooo?

[wyldwolf]

26. so true...

In fact, the Democratic party (or should I say the neo-left McGovernites) had already lost the south by the early 70s. Southern Democrats still voted Democrat on local and state levels but not nationally.

Jimmy Carter temporarily called them back - mostly because of Nixon's scandals.

[LimpingLib]

33. Gore lost every southern state.Including West Virginia.

Kerry at least made us competitive in Virginia , a state we can win.

Statewide Democrats kick butt in West Virginia.They are more liberal on economic issues than Gore and Kerry both.

Clinton and the DLC started the loosing trend.

[Writer]

34. First of all, Gore actually won that election...

Secondly, do you think that it was only because Gore was from the south? Is it really all that simple?

[LimpingLib]

36. Im saying the South is lost PERIOD.

And the DLC isnt helping.The DLC is narrowing our looses from 20 oints to 18 points there.

Out West its more progressive politics that generally helps us.

WE must keep populism in kind hen analysing the mix however.

The DLC issues hurt us and not just their conservative positions.

Their general support for gun control hurt us too especially in 1994.

All 33 Democrat incumbents who lost in 1994 were Pro Choice and voted for the assult weapons ban.

[wyldwolf]

37. I'm confused

you're saying the DLC positions of pro-choice and gun control made us lose?

You're serious??

[LimpingLib]

39. Made us loose many soutern seats in 1994 , yes,Clinton says so too.

Clinton once said that members "threw their seats away" for voting for the assault weapons ban.


Thats just one piece of the picture mind you.

[wyldwolf]

40. but wait - you're saying pro-choice and gun control are DLC issues?

[LoZoccolo]

41. I've never heard that one before.

The ones they usually bring up are NAFTA, WTO, welfare reform, other economic issues, but I've never heard gun control/abortion, and I don't see how moving left on these would help us.

[wyldwolf]

43. he is stating that we lost by listening to the DLC and that the DLC said..

...we should be pro-choice and pro-gun control.

Now stop me if I'm wrong - but aren't those positions progressive?

Is he saying the DLC caused us to lose by being too progressive?

Sounds that way to me.

[LoZoccolo]

50. Yeah that's what I think he said too.

I didn't know that about the house seats being lost. I'll have to use it when people blame the DLC for losing the 1994 election.

It's not often that during the course of an argument, your opponent hands you a pretty solid talking point you could use later in another argument. It's like leaving a strip club with more money than you came with.

[wyldwolf]

53. if you confirm that, let me know.

Thanks!

[LimpingLib]

56. Eveybody knows this already.

If you want to see some "ulterior motive" then consider it a preemptive strike against the "health care hurt us" line.

Clinton blamed Gore for loosing in 2000 on guns as well.


The 2 most popular Presidential hopefuls on DU are against the assault weapons ban.Feingold and Clark.

[wyldwolf]

59. actually, this is the first I'd heard that

Usually, the line of attack against the DLC is that they took the party too far right, not the opposite.

[Sparkly]

44. In addition, there's some debate about which way is "left" on gun control

and which way is "right." :shrug:

[LimpingLib]

I was tying to broaden the picture.

Some liberal positions hurt in SOME places.

Im saying the DLC isnt just wrong on their pro corperate stance.

Most people at DU know this already.

[wyldwolf]

47. it still doesn't make sense

Most anti-DLCers blame the DLC for not being progressive enough.

YOU say they were too progressive.. :shrug:

[LimpingLib]

51. Im saying SOME liberal isues hurt in some places.

Look at it this way.

New Mexico is about 60% minority but we lost it in 2004 and only won by 200 votes in 2000.

Id say that indicates that we arent appealing to voters who have been opressed and would warmly recieve a message of scoial justice and economicly progressive positions.

[wyldwolf]

54. so, the DLC should have told southern Dems to be more conservative?

[LimpingLib]

57. Ill give the DLC Alabama if they let us handle Montana , Colorado, Nevada,

plus more western states.

Kerry did the best in Minnesota since Dukakis.

He got 51.2%.

Kerry won Wisconsin by a wider margin than Gore.

Only in the South and North East did Kerry do worse.

Except Maine , Vermont , Virginia, New hampshire, states where we needed to do better.


Kerry solidified Washington and Oregon.

Montana, Colorado ,and Nevada Kerry really improved alot.

Thats in a much worse national election for Democrats too!

[wyldwolf]

58. you didn't answer my question

[LimpingLib]

60. Even progressives dont oppose Pro Life,Gun Southerners.

Ive seen endless online fund drives for Pro Life Pro Gun congresional candidates by progressive sites.

Like a dozen times in one election alone.

[wyldwolf]

62. but you didn't answer my question

[LimpingLib]

70. Your question was classic backtracking.

The thread started as if the DLC was superior in every and in all ways.

Now you are down to just taking an admition that (HERE IT IS...) SOME PLACES A PRO LIFE AND PRO GUN DEMOCRAT HELPS US .

Fine.

Have one on me pal.

[wyldwolf]

72. so you're not going to answer my question?

OK.

[Writer]

38. Okay, maybe I'll give you California, Oregon, and Washington...

as areas where progressive politics may work, but that is the reason why Democrats win those states in national elections already!

Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah... the Rocky Mountain west bends conservative. To win here we need conservative Democrats.

Frankly, the 1994 elections were a statement about the mobilization about the religious right. I do not believe those 33 incumbents lost on account of two issues. The changes were too widespread for it to have been only about that.

[LimpingLib]

42. Colorao has liberal whites and Hispanics.

Its also a Pro Choice state.

Right now both moderates and liberals can win it statewide but we will depress our base and ultimately loose if we throw out our progressive hope.

We can either rebuild or loose.

Dukakis matched his national average (46% of the vote) in Colorado in 1988.

Clinton won a close race in Colorado in 1992.

By 1996 Clinton was kickig butt nationwide (49%-41%) but actually lot Colorado and only got 43%.

Dukakis won 46%.

Clinton never got higher than 43% and Gore only got 42%.

Kerry got about 47% I think.

[Writer]

45. So conservative Clinton won Colorado...

Then lost it after the right wing took over the Republican Party.

Is that what you're trying to tell me?

[LimpingLib]

48. George Bush set a record low for a President with 37%.

My dead pet dog is as liberal as they come (used to sniff butts and hump any strangers leg---- J/K)and he could have beaten Bush.

Colorado is a Pro Choice state w/ liberal and conservative elements.

Armstrong held the Senate seat for years while Hear held the other one.

The GOP pleased and buyoed their base.

We pissed on our base.

Clinton didnt encourage liberal people to vote for him.

[Writer]

55. I'm sorry...

about your dead pet dog that sniffed butts and humped strangers' legs.

So back to pissing on things, why do progressives keep forgetting about Sept. 11th? Here's Bill Clinton in 2002: "I could never have won in this political climate!" or something to that effect.

I think the main reason why Bush won reelection, among many others, is fear. The Osama bin Laden tape. Wolves. We were skeptical, but the psychology of America will continue to be warped as long as those narcissists sit in The White House.

[LimpingLib]

63. Yea some elections dont have the best climate.

Thats why we move forawrd and keep our principles strong.

The thing is that we loose when we compromise at times and we loose when we stand strong at times.


I dunno.

Maybe we better just stick with strong issue stances and keep moving with our heads high and spirits srong knowing that there will always be another day.

[Writer]

69. I agree about moving forward...

But to attack one part of the party (the DLC) is not going to help us. For example, I personally believe we need the progressive left so we can have energy and vitality in the party. But all of this badmouthing of the middle and conservative Democrats only strengthens the very, truly evil men in the White House right now.

Conversely, I also don't support DLC'ers who "warn" the progressive left. Although, after what happened in Colorado with the state party chairman, I'm wonder if some progressives can't see the forest for the trees. We kicked out a person who won major elections for Democrats in a state - in 2004 - because he didn't support the senate primary candidate they liked. Oh. My. God. :eyes:

[LimpingLib]

73. The problem is the DLC is the Goliath right now in most cases.

But perhaps progressive types bully at times when it isnt wise.

I dont know enough about the Colorado party situation but I know progressives are under represented in general.

Maybe they just wanted to reclaim some of what is theirs.

[Writer]

75. Well there are less progressives nationally...

I think wyldwolf posted an interesting Washington Post article today that discusses this (at least tangentially.)

But from what I've read on DU, so far, the DLC doesn't exactly have a majority opinion on this board.

[LimpingLib]

79. Forget labels look at demographics.

Blacks 12.5%
Hispanics 13%
Asians 4%

Jews 2%
Union members 12%

(warning slight overlap)
Citizens Part Of Union Households 25%
Muslims 2%
Homosexuals 2%
Liberal whites "some"%


Face it.

Progressives are easily at 50% if we can tunrn the voters ut.

[Writer]

82. Yes, but, the problem here is...

Not all of these minority groups vote, and if they do, they don't always vote Democrat. Also, even if they do vote Democratic, why are we assuming that they are necessarily progressive?

Another wrinkle to this is signified by Bush's lame appearance at the Pope's funeral. He thinks he appeals to Catholics (including Hispanic Catholics) by doing this. Although we see his actions as lame, not every Papist Catholic will fall for it.

[LimpingLib]

84. So we compromise everything we believe because Bush went to a funeral?

Im saying that we need to just focus on issues.

Its not like all our compromising has exactly won us much anyway.

The fact that we are flashing pictures of 1992 and 1984 like its some lock for all time tells me enough already.

[Writer]

86. Are we really compromising everything?

I was going over this in my head today - what really is the difference between a progressive and a moderate Democrat?

The only differences I can think of are corporatism (I love how we've made this into a new 'ism! We're Democrats - we're good at that!) and the military, I believe.

Even on the issue of abortion, the DLC's statement is safe, LEGAL and rare! This means keep Roe v. Wade.

On the environment - the DLC believes, just as progressives do, to honor the environment with true protection. Here is where the DLC DEFIES corporations.

What else... oh, here's something else that came to mind. We are The United States of America. We are a capitalist country. Even as a moderate Democrat, I personally believe that corporations have a place in our society, although I do think many must face anti-trust action and must be held to account for their abuses. Again, we are a capitalist country, unless you want to revert to socialism, a mixed economy, or (my personal favorite) bartering.

Writer.

[LimpingLib]

87. The goal posts have moved so far right, I dont know what.

Sometimes I wonder if the "center" was REALLY center (meaning w move the gaol posts much farther left to be where they should be) if 80% of our Democatic Senators would move back to the real center-left or stay way out in right field.

I dont know what our elected offocial even think. They just go along with whatever the media makes an issue and frankly I dont think they care about anything but getting elected.

Even "liberal" Democrats only differ slightly on actual policy proposals from the moderates.

Its the DLC that constantly has a cow over peanuts differences and messes with primarys with a flood of corperate dollars.

The DLC wants to put the brakes on progress even minor progress.

Thats why they are so unpopular and are frankly in need of being reduced if not purged outright.

[LoZoccolo]

46. Throwing out our progressive hope.

Are you saying we should rely on unreliable voters, ones that stay home without "progressive hope"? If that didn't work, how would you know it wasn't working?

[LimpingLib]

49. Look at it this way man.

The GOP used to win the Northern and eastern states.

It was a "moderate" party in perception though conservative on economic and foreign policy issues.

They thought with the Christian right and the South they would win 49 states every time.

They did for a while but the bottom fell out.

There are consequences and you cant have it all ways.

We cant expect to win progressive and populist voters with a DLC agenda.

Period!

[LoZoccolo]

52. Also then, why didn't these people turn out in droves for Kucinich?

They could have voted for someone as progressive as almost any of them wanted during the primary. Why didn't they?

And which state would turn blue by going left?

[LimpingLib]

61. Why not just use Stalin as an example then?

We can take the most flawed straw men we want so why not.

Your straw man poll and straw man arguments arent going to change the general reality.

[LoZoccolo]

67. Or Dean, Carol Moseley-Braun, Sharpton?

So you're saying none of these people could have drawn those voters who are looking for "progressive hope" out to vote?

Why court them then?

[AntiCoup2K4]

64. Zell Miller couldn't win Idaho or Utah.

Let alone any Real OR DLC Democrat. There's just some states where it would literally take a miracle from God to put a state in the Blue column. And given that all of Utah and half of Idaho is dominated by Mormons, that probably wouldn't even be enough, because their right wing "prophet" would overrule it.

[AntiCoup2K4]

65. Did From tell you guys you all had to work each thread as a tag team now?

Three of you working tag team on one topic. Should we be impressed?

[LoZoccolo]

68. I've expressed my dismay with From a couple times before.

That's why they don't send him to give me my DLC marching orders.

They send that other guy, what's-his-name.

[Writer]

74. No, just more of us are coming out of the wood work

and there's more of us out there.

BTW: If you're a lurker who's a little gunshy about the progressive tyranny of the majority on DU, come on in and try a few rounds - it'll be cathartic!

[Writer]

71. But he sure as heck won in the Deep South.

"Birmingham did love the guv'nah" ooh oooh OOOH!

- Asylum Street Spankers

P.S. And Ken Salazar won in Colorado.

[wyldwolf]

35. I think you just made my point

by the early 70s, Southern Democrats were voting Republican in Presidential races.

Carter briefly won them back because he was a Southerner and the Nixon scandals.

But the south defected again to Reagan twice and Bush once.

However, Clinton won the south his first time up, which blows your theory.

[LimpingLib]

28. Gary Hart was progressive on most issues.

Conservatives can win from time to time.

If going right was the trick then why did Clinton take this state from the "D" collum and put it strongly in the R collum?

Conservative started winning every time they tried during the post 1996 days.We only nominated moderates.

[Writer]

30. Because of...

the Civil Rights movement, the upsurge of the religious right, the end of the Cold War...

so many factors contributed to the change in southern political structure since the 1960's. It's not simply "this man was in The White House and didn't do his job."

[MollyStark]

24. It made a big difference who controled the congress

to pretend otherwise is denial.

[Writer]

29. Yes, but these southern Democrats are the same folks

that progressive are decrying as "Repub-lite!"

[ET Awful]

5. Does there need to be a point? n/t

[Warpy]

8. It's an attempt to discredit progressives

by painting Mondale as a loser (and by extension, all progressives) and Clinton as a winner (and by extension, all DLC conservatives).

Of course, don't ask them how they lost all 3 branches of government.

[LoZoccolo]

9. But you still voted for the Clinton picture.

:woohoo:

[Beacho]

10. That's what I thought too

But the irony is the situation with Mondale is similiar to the DLCs situation today.

Both out of touch, irrelevant insiders out of touch with the rank and file of the party and losing their asses for it.

[MollyStark]

13. Yes, good point there. N/T

[Renew Deal]

6. The modest, confident coolness of Clinton

vs. the out of touch Mondale?

[Mend]

7. I also loved the following eight years after Clinton won....

it was nice to be free in America then.

[LimpingLib]

11. Which do you like best?

The top 400 income earners paying 25% of their income in federal income taxes after the 1886 tax reform

Or

The top 400 income tax earners paying 22% in federal income taxes after Clintons corperate welfare policys?


Whats sad is that Clinton and Mondale both campaigned on tax increases for the rich.

BTW, Mario Cuomo would have beaten Bush in 1992 by an even wors margin.

Clinton would have lost badly in 1984.

Mondale didnt loose seats in the SEnate 2 years last , the Democrats gained 9 seats in 1986.

Clinton lost 52 house seats in 1994 plus 5 party switches and another lost special election in 1995 , 58 total. Not to mention lost special elections in 1993 and 1994.Democrats had 267 eat majoritys in congress before 1992 and as Clinton won in November 1992 , Democrats dropped down to 260.Democrats were down to 198 seats by late 1995 and all the way till they gained a few in 1997.

Clinton lost us 69 House seats plus the Democratic Snate majority went from 57-43 to a 55-45 minority.Lost 12 Senate seats.

We are fighting to rebuild and its not in DLC districts that we are making gains.Its progressive states that we are making gains in the electoral college as well.

[LoZoccolo]

14. Clinton had to deal with a Republican congress.

Mondale didn't have any congress to deal with, because he lost.

[LimpingLib]

17. Clinton GAVE US the GOP congress.

And the corperate welfare policys were his.

He ran as a progressive and governed like a conservative.

Clinton couldnt even stop a right winger from winning an open Senate seat in Arkansas in 1996.A liberal Vic Snyder however won an open House seat in 1996 ,which is more conservative than the state as a whole.

Isf thats success on Clintons part then whats failure?

[LoZoccolo]

18. See Writer's good post on this above, #16.

You fail to establish how the DLC or centrism contributed to this.

Excuses-for-dismissing-the-DLC scoreboard
1994 elections: 2

[LimpingLib]

20. Study Montana and Colorado for starters.

The DLC demolished all the progressive energy and motivation in the country.

Liberals keep winning , but its the conservative areas that we loose.

[LoZoccolo]

21. Nice try.

Then how come Republicans won?

Excuses-for-dismissing-the-DLC scoreboard
1994 elections: 2
gain right by moving left: 1

[LimpingLib]

23. I didnt know 43% was the DLCs shinning moment.

Thanks for letting us know that!

No wonder you ignore election results in every 1996 race in states as diverse as Arkansas , Colorado, and Montana.Those were states where we have races that represent the typical election.

[Writer]

27. Where do you live?

I gotta ask why you assume Colorado is "diverse."

[LoZoccolo]

31. Nice try.

Why did the Republicans win and not the Democrats?

Excuses-for-dismissing-the-DLC scoreboard
1994 elections: 2
gain right by moving left: 2

[ulysses]

66. yeah, yeah - the liberals are the source of our problems.

Heard it already.

[Writer]

76. Noooooo!

The liberals aren't the source of our problems! We simply don't need to push out a large portion of Democratic voters (which is comprised of moderate and conservative Democrats) so we can be a full, inclusive party that will win! And we will win again!

[ulysses]

77. liberals aren't the source of the problem???

Have you run that by Al? I think he might disagree.

[Writer]

83. Frankly, I think Al is frustrated with progressives...

I am too. Al needs to mind his manners, imho, but it certainly doesn't legitimize tossing out moderate and conservative viewpoints.

[ulysses]

85. Al is trying to toss me out of the party.

I don't plan to go without a fight.

[Writer]

88. Mr. Al is tired of having his organization bad-mouthed

by progressives like you!

[ulysses]

89. Mr. Al should get used to it.

Tough shit. He picked the fight.

[tkmorris]

78. I'm convinced

Principles are over-rated. Let's just chuck em and be political windsocks.

[goodhue]

80. Fritz all the way

[LittleClarkie]

81. This one is good too

Which is Jimmy Carter: progressive or centrist, do you think.