Progressives Still Hold the Power - to Nominate and to Elect

[dpbrown]

Progressives still have the power to dramatically influence the outcome, in both the nomination, and in the general election.

More than 53 million voters in 2000 chose a progressive, while only 50 million chose a conservative.

In 2004, a Dean candidacy will require that the battleground takes place among a small minority of the electorate that either voted for Gore but wished he was more "conservative" or a small minority of the electorate that voted for Bush but wished he were more "liberal."

Following the 40/40/20 rule, only 5 million of Gore's 10 million in independent voters fall into this category. Same with Bush.

Contrast a Kucinich candidacy, that would go into the race with not only the 5 million who voted for Gore but wished he were more "liberal" but also a very significant number of the 3 million Nader voters.

Going into the race with Bush with 8 million progressive votes in your pocket means the race will entirely be fought FOR FORMER GORE VOTERS. Kucinich could lose 1.5 million previous Gore voters and still win.

Contemplate the strength of that position as you realize that Bush is on the ropes, is losing the minds and hearts of the American people, and you can easily see that it's the Kucinich candidacy that offers a potential 3 million vote spread or more - enough to take the election out of the black box voting theft spread.

A Dean candidacy will mean that EVERY Gore vote will be required JUST TO GET A TIE WITH BUSH, mandating that a Dean candidacy will be forced to cater to Bush voters to hope to affect a win.

Of course, I'm not saying this isn't doable. I know Dean people (well, the ones who aren't Republicans giving to this candidate to hope to get a weak nominee, anyway) believe as fervently in the strength of their candidate as others do in theirs.

But Dean people need to recognize the battleground they're choosing by pushing through a Dean nomination.

A Dean race will focus on getting Bush voters to switch. Part of the job is already done for them because Bush is such a sociopathic loser, of course. Nevertheless, Dean will need every Gore vote plus Bush votes to win. A "tie" means Bush wins, because enough electoral votes have switched since 2000 to put it out of reach.

A Kucinich candidacy is STILL easier, because it's about persuading previous Gore voters to vote for a Democrat.

It's also about nominating a candidate who lives and breathes core Democratic principles: taking care of the little guy in the face of corporate dominance, putting forth a helpful and democratic face to the world, giving up pre-emption, holding the Pentagon accountable to the taxpayers, universal single-payer health care for what we're paying now.

A Dean candidacy offers Democratic "centrists" a chance to legitimize their hold over the Democratic Party.

Because Bush is weak, and because Democrats could more easily nominate and elect a more progressive Democrat, pushing through a Democrat who's an avowed "centrist" means telling the progressives - the Green Party and progressive-thinking Democrats - to go take a hike.

Having the neocons take control of the Republican Party has given the centrist Democrats the chance to move the Democratic Party further to the right, and a Dean candidacy gives them a chance to consolidate their power.

Progressives (and I know this doesn't include some of you) should realize that they hold the cards here.

There were 8 million progressives to the "left" of Al Gore in 2000, and only 5 million to the "right."

It will take the acquiescence or support of significant numbers of those progressives to push through a nomination, and even more of them to actually elect an avowed centrist.

The eight million progressives to the "left" of Gore in 2000, if they participate, can have any candidate they want. They don't have to be persuaded by myths of "electability" (the 40/40/20 rule says we're stronger with a progressive nominee), they don't have to be lured into thinking they don't "deserve" the nominee with whom they most resonate on the issues.

But if progressive independents, who outnumber conservative independents, go along with the process of narrowing, "centrizing," and lowering our democratic expectation for change, then ultimately they will be responsible for the choice we have in the fall of 2004.

Keep that in mind in the upcoming weeks.

Progressives, it's up to you.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[helleborient]

1. I'm just curious...

Why do you keep posting basically the same thing over and over with different thread names?

[dpbrown]

2. This is a different point using the same facts

I don't think I posted this exact thing here already.

If I did, I apologize.

I think the numbers need to be examined by progressives, though, so I don't mind doubling up on the numbers a time or two.

Basically, progressives can pick any candidate they want and make him or her President, so they ought to take courage from that assessment.

People who've already made their choice on other grounds won't care what the progressives do, anyway, until it comes time to club them "into line" in the general election.

Then they'll wonder why there's so much resistance, or why Nader (or whoever, the candidate's not the issue) is getting so much play.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Al Gore is a Centrist, not a Progressive

He did not run as a Progressive in 2000.

[carpetbagger]

4. Gain 3M greens, lose 20M centrists.

No thanks.

P.S. There's been one poll that I'm aware of with Bush v. Kucinich. DK loses Ohio 61-32.

[OhioStateProgressive]

5. Centrists keep us stationary

Progressives give us progress

there will be a rise in the New Hampshire poll for Dennis after this debate...and sizeable, I believe...Dennis will get delegates come Primary time

Dennis will finish at least 3rd in Iowa...Delegates again

Florida will rise as well for Dk, and more delegates

California will have a strong Kucinich showing, delegates for Dennis

Dennis WILL win the Ohio Primary

The Democratic Party will have to contend with him, they will have to allow his ideas into the platform...he already is shaping the debates

[OhioStateProgressive]

6. i stand by it(nt)

[Miramar]

10. I support your stand by it!!

He will win our hearts and minds and the election.

[NNadir]

7. Progressives give progress?

All I see from "progressives" here is a focus on their two million votes, which, by the way, they may not even get again. Somehow we're expected to believe that getting these two million is more important than getting the other 100 million. Why?

I really fail to see how it is "progress to continually define 2 as being bigger than 50. Maybe you should try to make some progress on mathematics as opposed to wherever it is you claim to be making "progress." 2 is not bigger than 50.

Neither Nader nor Kucinich has ever managed even 5 percent. How is then that we here endlessly how this 2% is the only contingent that can win? Is it simply that having George W. Bush in the White House constitutes that victory?

You will all vote Green again. You will not help the Democrats. You will propagandize exclusively (ignoring Bush) against them. We need to regard you as part of the opposition. The Republicans have a stand-in in our party in Lieberman; and the Greens have a stand-in in Kucinich. These people are not for change; they are not for progress; they are for the status quo.

[OhioStateProgressive]

9. well, since this is off base i won't respond(nt)

[NNadir]

14. Probably because there's nothing to say. It's true.

50 is still bigger than 2.

[OhioStateProgressive]

16. and the fact you still believe you can speak for 50 million

is, in Dr. Deans words "kinda silly"

[ISUGRADIA]

18. No way Kucinich finishes 3rd in Iowa

Ain't happening. I'm in a college town and Democratic County, Iowa State, Story County. DK gets crowds of 50-100 when he is here. Kerry did a spoeech at ISU, gets 800 to show up, Edwards 500, Dean 1000+. I see a devoted but small DK cadre in this county. He maybe gets 10% here. Rural county Dem chairs I have spoken with have seen little DK support. Statewide polls put his at 2% maybe.

He'll come in fifth in IA with maybe 6% statewide, get 2-3% in NH, and will be out before there is the Ohio primary. If he does stay in, he'll be a blip with 5% here and 10% there if he is lucky.

In any case, we'll know which one of us is right about Iowa in a little more than a month.

[OhioStateProgressive]

19. well, yes, we will see (nt)

[Miramar]

8. Dan, you so artfully and beautifully

laid this all out. Thank you so much! I wish people would get over being afraid to vote for Kucinich because they feel he can't beat Bush. I'll have to save your arguments to use when I come across that position.

Another thing I fear about a Gore candidacy is that were he to become President is that he would keep the troops in Iraq, albeit a smaller number and with help from allies, and the quagmire would continue.

[WiseMen]

11. Kerry is the ONLY one with a Substantive Progressive Record

TALK IS CHEAP

John Kerry is the only candidate with an unsullied progressive record.
Yet he is being abandoned by a new generation of "progressives" who are too self-important to look at the record and see who has
really fought and sacrificed for his nation and for progressive
causes.

The rolling stone interview has some history. I wish my fellow liberals would make the effort to think before Dr. Dean takes us over the cliff.

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2454

[OhioStateProgressive]

12. im sorry, but Dennis hasn't changed his name to John Kerry

so therefore Dennis is still the Progressive Choice

is Kerry a member of the Progressive caucus?

[OhioStateProgressive]

13. Kerry voted for war...not progressive(nt)

[kvnf]

15. what about the rest of em

I'm half asleep, but your argument seemed to be based on the assumption that only people who voted in 2000 will vote in 2004, or at least that the proportion of votes going certain ways will remain constant.

Incease (or decrease) voter turnout by a few percentage points and then things really start to get confusing.

Can't ignore those possibilities.
-Kevin

[dpbrown]

17. It's interesting to see the lie people use to "debunk" this

Here it is.

I've seen it in several responses to this 40/40/20 rule breakdown.

"We will lose the core."

This is hogwash.

Especially since the argument is coming from partisans - most of whom would fit into the "5 million to the right of Gore" over this.

I think it's also important to remember that "progressive" doesn't carry the derogatory meaning that conservatives and centrists intend it to mean in these analyses.

"Progressive" is contrasted with "conservative" to show the unity that's the foundation of the idea that everyone on the "left" outnumbers everyone on the "right," even before Captain Codpiece set about alienating everyone in the world.

Anyway, the basis of the rule is that the core will vote Democratic.

The application of that rule, in this instance, is that, given a chance, Democrats will vote in droves for a Democrat who breathes fire and backs it up with action like Dennis Kucinich.

So I think dire predictions by people who a) don't understand the 40/40/20 rule, and b) represent fringe conservative or centrist positions, that DK would LOSE THE CORE (the sky is falling!) are complete, one hundred percent, poppycock.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[dpbrown]

20. A kick for public financing!

https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php

The BFEE is the problem - Kucinich is the answer.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota