So How Does Kerry Get Out of The Box?

[rucky]

What can Kerry do - if anything, at this point - to reassure the "Left Swing" vote (can we call it that?) that he is sympathetic to progressive causes WITHOUT losing potential support from the Center-Swing vote?

Are the two mutually exclusive, or is that just a fear we have? Have we really pinned down the Center-Swing? Will our efforts to do so be for nothing if we lose the Left-Swing?

Considering that the Center-Swing doesn't have a voice (their choice), and we're just guessing how they behave, wouldn't it make sense to open up a REAL dialogue with the Left-Swing and ask this exact question: How can we get your vote without losing the center?

Well, how can he?

[sangh0]

1. LOL!

What can Kerry do - if anything, at this point - to reassure the "Left Swing" vote (can we call it that?) that he is sympathetic to progressive causes WITHOUT losing potential support from the Center-Swing vote?

Do you really think Kerry has a reputation for being a centrist?

Have you ever heard of "pointing to his record"?

Well, how can he?

Why don't you tell us?

[rucky]

3. Oh fer chrissakes

it's how he's campaigning.
it's his record of the past three years. do I care, personally? no.

But to say it's not a real problem is LOL-worthy.

From your response, I'm guessing you're voting "no" to real dialogue.

[sangh0]

11. "real dialogue"? LOL!

During a campaign? You expect "real dialogue" in a political campaign?

Have you studied many political campaigns? Can you name one which featured "real dialogue"?

And I noticed yuo said nothing in response to my comment "Have you ever heard of "pointing to his record"?"

[rucky]

20. See post 13 if you care

but I don't think you do care. your response was snotty & dismissive, so why do I owe you the courtesy of a thoughtful response?

[sangh0]

23. Your #13 supports me

"He can't really wink at us without the cameras picking it up, but I get the hint. Call me crazy."

If you get the hint, what makes you think other liberals aren't also?

[rucky]

29. Plenty of us do...

but the ones who don't are making some noise - and raising some valid points. Now Nader's in & the media is loving this.

Maybe a dismissive response to it is a good strategy for Kerry, but it's just us talking here. if Kerry can't give 'em the wink, then maybe somebody not towing the kerry line can. ;)

[sangh0]

31. "The ones who don't"

There's always a few. You can't risk thousands, if not millions, of votes to cater to the demands of the fringe. Most liberals and progressives, like you, understand what Kerry's positions are.

Maybe a dismissive response to it is a good strategy for Kerry, but it's just us talking here. if Kerry can't give 'em the wink, then maybe somebody not towing the kerry line can. ;)

I would argue that Kerry *HAS* given the wink over a thirty year long career, as well as his positions on a variety of issues like gay marriage, DOMA, health care, labor, etc.

The only people who don't see the wink are those who refuse to open their eyes and look at one of the most liberal Dem Pres. candidate in almost 30 years.

[JHBowden]

2. Kerry already is mega-liberal.

If people want to punish Kerry for being 95% liberal instead of 100% liberal, they have serious issues.

[onehandle]

25. 95%!!!

OhMyGod! He's worse than Bush. He's worse than Nixon! He's worse than.....zzzz...snore........

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. It is unlikely that the few voters who are strongly opposed to imperialism

or other pillars of current US policy, such as invading other countries to steal their natural resources and shred their children will be convinced that Kerry's considerable talent for making it sound a lot better than bush did is all that and a bag of chips, but we are talking about such a very small number of voters here - the Dems don't need the fringe wackos who want actual policy change, and the Patriot Act will take care of them after the election anyway.

The campaign has been very effective in rooting them out of their holes.

[JHBowden]

5. Knock off the paranoia.

The occupation of Iraq is squarely Bushit's responsibility.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. Kerry believes he can do a much better job of running it

bush has botched things by being stingy with America's Iraq oil. Kerry knows that a little generosity can go a long way toward getting some European boots on the ground, and traditional Sunni-Shia rivalries can be used to very good effect to engage pro-American governments in the region to join America's sons and daughters in achieving US military goals and objectives.

This will be especially helpful in the liberation of Iran, and Kerry's strong Israel ties will avoid the risk of any quibbling over deploying America's Israeli resources to liberate Syria.

It's multilateralism. Instead of a situation where you have the US occupying, stealing, massacring, seizing peoples' wives and kids, by something as simple as giving allies a share of the loot, you can have people from LOTS of countries occupying, stealing, massacring, seizing peoples' wives and kids - and you can bet that those countries that are helping the US will put a lid on the anti-American talk!

[sangh0]

16. Kerry is right

You're wrong.

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. "Debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape"

Arundhati Roy

http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/18/stories/2004011800181400.htm

[sangh0]

24. Wow! I'm impressed

Talk about non sequitors

[bread_and_roses]

42. DuctapeFatwa is right

I fear. The pattern of US imperialism is intrenched. Though I don't see any choice this time but to vote for ANY Dem...I would even have voted for Dean or Lieberman.

The only shred of hope is in Kerry's Vietnam experience...that it might influence him away from Imperialist wars.

On domestic issues I regard Kerry as better than Clinton, and the best of the current crop except DK.

[sangh0]

12. "the few voters"

Make that "the dozen or two" who feel that way

75% of the Dems who voted in IA consider themselves "anti-war" and most of them voted for Kerry

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. see post 21

[sangh0]

28. More non-sequitors

I'm impressed!

[jpgray]

6. There's literally no way for him to win the left without losing the center

People will demand he politically neuter himself before they support him (i.e. say he was wrong about several key votes--politicians hate that).

It looks like he will end up beating all the favorites of the liberal folks in the primary, which will initiate the grudge factor. Second, he voted the 'wrong' way on three of the most important votes for leftists. Both points will work together, one or the other being dominant depending on the leftist, and the perfect excuse to not vote for Kerry will be readily available.

Of course, there's no real *reason* not to, since a voting leftist who doesn't vote for the nominee is indirectly helping Bush. Just as a fundie crazy who doesn't like immigrants who doesn't vote for Bush is indirectly helping the Democrat. If you notice, Bush won in 2000 by playing heavily to the center, while throwing out hints to his crazies. Our 'crazies' aren't crazy, but throwing them hints tends not to work very well.

[rucky]

13. Yep, and that's just how Bush campaigned

to the center. We know now he's one of the crazies.

So why wouldn't Kerry be doing the same? He knew that 2004 was going to be his year three years ago, when his center campaign really started. And judging from his lifetime record, election strategy is the only reasonable explanation for his recent shift.

He can't really wink at us without the cameras picking it up, but I get the hint. Call me crazy.

[jpgray]

15. I agree that strategic thinking probably had a role in his votes

And being a far leftist who is voting for Kucinich in my caucus, we're not crazy. :)

But really, if someone wants to not vote for Kerry because of their values, there is no real argument against that. He has violated some key liberal values. If people use that as their reason to not vote for Kerry, there isn't an argument that defeats it. I would say there are some very good reasons to vote for the Dem nominee, but I can't make Kerry something he's not.

[Atlant]

7. He doesn't. That's why he was a terrifically poor choice. (NT)

[jpgray]

8. Almost every primary state disagrees with you

National candidates pander to the center more than the pole because elections are won in the center, and traditionally they haven't been won from the far left/right. I WISH Kerry would pander to the left, and I wish he hadn't voted poorly on some key votes.

[Atlant]

17. But a Democratic primary doesn't actually answer the question of...

But a Democratic primary doesn't actually answer the question of
whether people will vote for the winner of that primary over George
W. Bush.

It merely answers the question of who the plurality of Democrats in
that state think we should send up against Bush. And it's not in-
conceiveable that the plurality has it quite, quite wrong. As a
simple example, if candidates A and B split a portion of the vote,
then candidate C could emerge with the winning plurality even though
both candidates A and B are actually better candidates.

November 2nd will answer the question of whether these various
pluralities-for-Kerry got it right or wrong.

Atlant

[jpgray]

22. Right, but if leftists can't elect someone in the primary...?

It's tough to imagine that they can elect someone in the GE--the candidate has to have significant centrist appeal along with even the most stalwart leftist appeal if he's going to win.

It's true that primaries pick the wrong guy sometimes, and the GE is lost. But not winning over far leftist voters isn't a sign that you will lose the GE, because most GEs are won from the center. It's a balancing act between not wholly pissing off your leftist base and at the same time pandering heavily to the center. Many people fall off. :(

[Atlant]

36. No, the question posed in the primary is entirely different.

It says almost nothing about whether a given candidate would
prevail in the General Election. After all, isn't every "D" going to
vote for whomever is the GE candidate with a "D" after their
name?

Weren't all you guys going to vote for Howard Dean if he had won?

Atlant

[David Dunham]

9. Kerry is already the most liberal likely nominee ever, except McGovern

[Scott Lee]

39. And my ass is a banjo.

[mitchum]

40. What, it has hillbillies' hands all over it?

Thanks:)

[Scott Lee]

41. no, I doubt you've touched it. I hope not anyway.

[absyntheNsugar]

10. Um...all he has to do is highlight his voting record

Up until just recently, the man was one of the most liberal people in the Senate. Outside of Mass, all of us only know him for his three cave-in votes (IWR, Tax Cut, Patriot Act). He needs to shine light on his prior record. I know that reassured me!

[sandnsea]

18. Can the left read?

Seems to me the left ought to be able to look at his record and need nothing further. I don't know what else the man can do if 20 years of fighting for liberal causes isn't enough.

[sangh0]

19. Should we answer based on DU posters?

.

[molly]

34. I'd be careful with that - they obviously haven't

been reading along - they keep asking the same questions over and over and over and over again. Do they think they'll get a different answer?

[sangh0]

35. Should we answer based on DU posters?

:evilgrin:

[Scott Lee]

38. Kan Kerry NOT enable Bush?

His record says not likely.

He has supported Bushhole in almost all major election issues. You vote Kerry, you vote Bush v. 2.0

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. For the record, I think this is a good question, dependent upon reception

I do think ONE thing he can do is BE HIMSELF (I know I am ready for all the Botox statements) My point is that the POTUS has the podium during press conferences and in the MANNER in which things are framed from the top down. If those whose issues are trade, justice, bigotry and the politics of division , wedge issues and the like would stop and consider for a moment....the message coming from on high would RADICALLY alter the moment Bush was defeated.

The issues facing the working class would be altered and perhaps we could get away from an administration who has the fucking nerve to call the poor "lucky duckies."

I don't know what he CAN do...I DO know what people CAN consider while they continue to work towards a more equitable solution to progressive issues.

I have already commented on the role the COURTS play in this and feel a bit vindicated by the USSC decision on the Divinity school issue that is in LBN today.

[turnhardleft]

37. Divinity school issue

I won't be happy until the US Government cuts all benefits to working and retired Divinity school employees and members. Seperation should be 100% not piecemeal.

[Armstead]

30. It's not "left" -- it's populism

He could start by acknowledging that it is more than some amorphous "special interests." The econmy is not just about "jobs" but about concentration of wealth and power. The consolidation of the media has been a disaster.

Healthcare is about a lot more that Bush giving subsidies to the pharmaceutical industry. It's aboiut how the whole system has been taken over by the profit motive.

Things like that. That's not a "leftist" message. It is about addressing what intelligent people of left and center already know is wrong.

[Uzybone]

32. How does ANY Democrat???

This doom and gloom is starting to irritate. if "liberals" are so sure their positions are an anathema to the general public then we might as well give up.

If Kerry charges hard to left....he loses the center. Well gee if Bush charges harder to the right, he loses the center as well. All winning candidates have to strike that balance.

[sangh0]

33. And, part of making sure Bush* charges hard to the right

is by making sure our candidate occupies the middle. Kerry has made it harder for Bush* to occupy the middle by taking a reasonable and moderate position on gay marriage. Going to the left on gay marriage would let Bush* take the center by emphasizing his support for protecting civil unions (which he would undoubtedly drop once an actual amendment was being debated)

[Polemonium]

43. It continues to amaze me how few people get it

How did Dean a man with a more conservative record than most of the folks in the race win the left?

1. Dean developed a populist platform, and backed it up by shifting the campaign financing burden further from corporate special interests. He made people believe that govenment could be for and by the people. Kerry can give all the lip service in the world to this but there is nothing in his record or in his campaign to give credibility to the idea that Kerry would avoid the corruption of big money.

2. Dean was outspoken when few others dared to be. Most Senators and Representatives spend their entire career choosing their battles, and avoid going out on a limb lest the bigger issues that they and their constituents care about get forgotten about. On many levels this suggests a lack of leadership and a lack of sincerity. There may be a reason why former Senators are not winning the White House.

3. Most liberal ideas are simply populist ideas, and when you take the time to really engage people they begin to see that. Dean was not for the most part painted as a liberal, but he got liberal support because his campaign was demonstrating how a populist agenda would be a huge step in the right direction for progessives.

So how does Kerry appeal to the left. Well in all honesty I doubt he gets it. Kerry and others like him continue to believe the big ogre of corporate special interests and media conglomeration can be ignored if we pass stronger environmental regulations, improve short-term social services etc. What most progressives are coming to accept is that in the long term a progressive agenda will not be addressed until the big Ogre's are no longer controling the political debate. bush* is goolish enough that many progressives will hold their noses and vote for Kerry. Until Kerry and others can demostrate to the left that they understand populist concerns it seems unlikely that he will ever truly win our support. Vote perhaps, but not money, time etc.

[PurityOfEssence]

44. Switch to alkaline batteries

Just a thought...

If nominated, the left's not going to be his problem, the South and Yankee Liberal hating centrists are.

[jsw_81]

45. You lefties need to face reality

This is a rather conservative country at the moment. Just the other day, for example, Gallup had a poll showing something like 45 percent of Democrats supporting a gay marriage ban. So spare us all this nonsense about how our nominee should get down on his knees and grovel to the Nader/Kucinich fringe. Any candidate who did that would get creamed on election day.