Why this pragmatist favors nominating a liberal

[LawDem]

I'm not a fatalist by nature, but I'm increasingly convinced that the outcome in 2004 really isn't in our hands. If the economy improves and Iraq quiets down nicely, and assuming no new mega-scandals, then, I"m afraid, we're stuck with Smirk through 2008, regardless of who the nominee is. On the other hand, if the economy and Iraq continue to go to hell in the proverbial handbasket, then the good guys probably win regardless of which of the leading candidates we nominate (this is based upon my assessment that none of the viable prospective nominees would be an absolute clunker as a presidential candidate).

Now, I'm in no way saying that "it's all in the stars," so don't bother to work against Bush. To the contrary, if the election is close, as seems possible, every dollar contributed and every leaflet delivered could make the difference.

Still, in my heart, I really believe that in the end, world and national events will decide this election. And right now there appears to be a substantial chance that these events will break in a way that favors the Democrats. And if that's true, then a moderately liberal Democrat, like Dean, will have as good a chance of knocking off Shrub, as will a DLC certified pure moderate, like Lieberman.

People are misusing history here. The true historical correlation isn't with McGovern in 1972, in my opinion, but with Reagan in 1980. People didn't vote for Reagan because they favored his far right positions. They voted for him because they were fed up (unfairly in my opinion) with the presidency of Jimmy Carter. In other words, in 1980 Americans weren't embracing Reagan's right wing agenda: They were overlooking it.

If things continue to slide down hill in this country for the next year-and-a-half, a majority of the electorate will probably be ready to vote Bush out of office. And if so, the "liberal" positions of his opponent won't stop them. In fact, poll after poll shows that on most actual issues a majority of the public is quite liberal. True, given Sept. 11, the American people won't elect a president they perceive as a wimp, but, the DLC’s recent BS notwithstanding, none of the viable Democratic candidates will come across as wimps in a one-on-one with Bush.

If, on the other hand, the country miraculously turns around 180 degrees before Nov. 2004, our goose is probably cooked come what may. You just don't beat an incumbent president under those circumstances, especially one who can outspend you at least 3-to-1.

What all of this says to me, is that if there is ever going to be a right time for the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party to reassert itself, this is that time. The pragmatic argument for nominating a wishy-washy moderate just doesn't wash this time.

THIS TIME, NOMINATING A LIBERAL IS THE PRAGMATIC THING TO DO.

[Clete]

1. Ya know, a little bird deep down in my psyche is telling

me that Lieberman lost states for Gore with that kissy, kissy debate he had with Cheney. I'm entertaining the idea that swing voters said to themselves, these guys are no different than Bush or Nader, so I'll vote for Bush. Lieberman will have the same effect again if he isn't bumped from this race.

[IDUDOYOU]

2. Your argument runs counter to basic group dynamics

In basic group dynamics, people will only look to the fringes if more moderate leadership has utterly failed.
Unless the country and/or Bush implodes, people are not going to look for a very left-leaning liberal.

I think some people on this board forget that this board is composed of only about 30,000 Democratic diehards.
Most people are not this left-leaning.
People may hold liberal ideas, but they LEAN towards being liberal, not being left-wing liberals.
Sometimes after I read this board, I have to stop, take a breath, and realize that most people are not this left-leaning.

[HFishbine]

3. More of the same

IDO, your posts seem to have one tactic in common, build an arguemnt on an unsubstantiated supposition stated as fact. I give you:

"In basic group dynamics, people will only look to the fringes if more moderate leadership has utterly failed."

You base this on what?

[Ripley]

4. Look at his name for crying out loud!

Rather insulting don't you think?

[Tansy_Gold]

7. Two things

1. DU is not composed of 30,000 Democratic diehards. Many of the 30,000 were disruptors who got tombstoned long ago, or are duplicate registrations (I have two myself), and many who regularly post here are moderates. There are, believe it or not, a lot of DLC supporters here. There are also a great many lurkers, not to mention those who receive the occasional thread via e-mail from a participant.

2. "People will only look to the fringes if more moderate leadership has utterly failed." Considering that 50% of the American electorate doesn't even bother to vote, and that most of the non-voters are the economically disenfranchised, one might be able to make a supposition that the centrist/moderate Democratic leadership has indeed utterly failed. And maybe it is time for someone with a slightly more liberal, slightly more FDR-ish platform to step up to the plate. AT least it would be worth finding out, wouldn't it? You know, the old "nothing ventured, nothing gained" ploy?

[chadm]

15. It isn't fringe when the guy is the nominee

Kucinich would not be considered "fringe" if he had the support of his party. He would be considered the mainstream candidate.

[tpub]

5. I agree and disagree

I agree that we should nominate a liberal.

I disagree that the outcome of 2004 isn't in our hands. Too much has already been revealed about the Bush administration and I think they are toast, if we play our cards right.

I've been posting around here about electability. I think that's very important. I believe if we put forth a nominee who is liberal but comes across as moderate to the general public, we will win in a landslide.

[Clete]

6. Dean fits your candidate profile n/t

[GreenArrow]

9. Actually, Dean is a moderate

who comes across as a liberal.

[tpub]

11. actually, Kerry fits my profile best--n/t

[w4rma]

8. Dean isn't a liberal, he's a centrist/moderate.

This is how he's always governed. The policy he espouses is moderate.

[revcarol]

10. If Dean WERE a liberal, and IF your assumptions WERE correct,

you might have a point. But DEAN IS NOT A LIBERAL. And YOUR ASSUMPTIONS HAVE HOLES IN THEM YOU CAN DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH.

[LawDem]

13. Gosh, some basis for your statements might be nice.

If you PROVIDED a basis for YOUR bold face pronouncements, perhaps we'd have something to talk about. Nice "ironic" use of CAPITILIZATION though.

[LawDem]

12. Dean's a libeal by today's standards

Being a liberal today ain't what it was yesterday. In today's world, Dean's a liberal.

[blm]

14. My two guys are real liberals...

with real progressive records in their resumes. Kerry and Kucinich. The Special Ks.