Why is it expected that in order to win, Democrats must pander to CONSERVATIVES instead of LIBERALS?

[mudesi]

:rant:

Thread after thread after thread I see people saying that in order to win, the Democrats absolutely, positively, must not dare alienate all those conservative Americans that are such a large voting block.

Don't alienate the gun enthusiasts! They're a large voting block!

Don't alienate the evangelicals! They're a large voting block!

Don't alienate the upper class white SUV driving suburban war hawks! They're a large voting block!


Do you know who else is a large voting block? The rest of America. The ones whose membership includes those who regularly post threads on DU stating that they are sick and tired of these Democrats In Name Only that are complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration and are owned by Corporate America, the ones who say they will vote for a third party candidate, and are subsequently told by many that their DU membership ought to be revoked by daring to have such a thought.

The base.

You know, the rest of us who want an end to government sanctioned torture; who want an end to all war and a department of peace; who want gays to have full and equal rights, not "civil unions"; who want women to stop being oppressed by a patriarchal society; who want minorities to have the same opportunities as the majority; who want an end to the barbaric and idiotic "justice" that is capital punishment; who want limits on the ownership of guns; who want to save the entire human race from the threat of global warming; who want the economic system to be fair and equitable; who want UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, FOR GOD'S SAKE; who want religion to get the hell out of politics; who want schools to teach science; who want liberals to lead the Democratic party so that there may be a true opposition party to the current one party rule.

What about that voting block?

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. The Democrats must be a "big tent". A big tent that includes everyone except the base, that is.

Because that strategy has worked so well thus far, hasn't it? :sarcasm:


End rant.

[Forkboy]

1. It's easier to try to appeal to people who only share the Dem's ideals when it's convienent..

..than it is to actually stand for the things Dem's used to stand for.

[NuttyFluffers]

18. same reason it's easier to take advantage of those loyal and love you

than those who hate you.

human society rarely gets beyond the junior high phase.

far more appealing to appease the "cool kids" who hate you than stand by the good kids who believe in you. it's a learning lesson about the self-hate of popularity politics.

[Forkboy]

19. That may be the best post I've read here all day.

:thumbsup:

[Selatius]

2. With Republicans, they pander to the right wing of their party.

And with Democrats, they, uh, pander to the right wing of the party? That sound about right? What happened to the New Deal Democrats?

[OzarkDem]

3. Its a myth, its not true

The GOP is having difficulty holding onto their own base. All the issues they ran on are now discredited or disliked by the public. The DLC's candidates did very poorly in 2006 when they ran like Republicans.

Any Dem who runs like a Republican is doing so because they're being paid to, not to pick up votes.

As Harry Truman used to say, "Give the voters a choice between and fake Republican and a real one and they'll chose the real one every time."

[cosmicv1234]

4. Its a simple bell curve distribution.

Hi there, and yes, Im new (First post actually!). Like a large number of statistical issues, most people don't fall fully into a left or right slot, but are mixed. Its these people that get pandered too, so even though a democratic candidate might be pandering right technically, they know that the far right are generally not going to vote for them no matter what they do. So they ignore the far right. The same happens for the right side too. Look how many of the middle-of-the-roaders are voicing how Giuliani is more centrist and can therefore try to lock into some blue states.

Ultimately, it may simply be a case of perception bias. If you see all this activity taking place on the right, it actually may be happening in the center and your mindset is simply on the left. Righties would see all the pandering going to the center and therefore look leftist to them. It's a normal artifact of perception.

[NC_Nurse]

7. Welcome to DU!

I think the frustrating things for us on the liberal side is that the center keeps moving right. What seemed right wing in the past in now cast as "centrist"
and ideas that are traditionally liberal get labeled "left wing" or "fringe".

[cosmicv1234]

8. Thanks!

And you may be right, but theres two possibilities overall. If you see an object (in this case the center) moving away from you, it can either be a case of it moving away, or you moving away from it, or both! One would need some objective standard to measure against to be sure. While I'm sure you could bring up points to show your position, that too could be biased by selecting only the variables that support your point while excluding any that don't. I personally am fascinated by perception bias. I think that understanding that concept is a fundamental key to this entire political game. Theres been a ton of meta-studies done on study bias even -- it really is an awesome subject.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. Ever check out the Pew Research web page?

[jgraz]

5. Don't confuse pandering to conservatives with pandering to corporatists

Most politicians know which side their bread is buttered on. Pro-gun means pro-immunity for the gun makers, pro-war means pro-defense spending. The Dems haven't figured out how to make money off of espousing liberal values.

[bonito]

16. What you said n/t

[Wiley50]

6. We should instead be trying to energize that huge pool of people who don't vote anymore

or never have because they don't see any candidate of either party who cares about them and what matters to them.

Instead we spend tons of money and energy trying to peel off a few liberal republics and swing voters

There is a great need for a true populist if only there was one running

I think Edwards sees that. If he just had the stance on pot laws that Dodd has.


So does Kooch, but he needs platform shoes and an ear job.

[NMMNG]

9. Hear, hear

Stop throwing Dems under the bus to pander to the RW, just assuming we'll keep pulling that lever no matter how many tire tracks we have on us. It's getting tiresome.

[cyclezealot]

10. because we ignore those who feel voting is wasted energy

revitalize the party and government and lets appeal to the larger numbers of poor, who feel it worthless to vote. they feel Democrats and Republicans are cut of the same cloth. Republicats they say. Prove we aren't that and take on a new strategy.

[ourbluenation]

12. not sure, but independants have been crucial in the last few elections.

all hail the fence sitters

:sarcasm:

[ozone_man]

13. Great rant!

Really we need a multi-party system. When you have a duopoly, the tendency is to play the middle, so we have this situation at hand with two faces of the same corporate party. The kinder, gentler face and the harsh, conservative face.

But, given that we have a two party system, we can try to pull the Democrats back to what they are supposed to stand for. That's the democratic wing of the party (Dean, Gore, Kucinich, ...) vs. the corporate wing (Lieberman, Clinton, ...). If it doesn't work, then maybe a third (or fourth) party will emerge to fulfill the need. Maybe even a revolution of sorts.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

14. what's your master plan for independants who go to church every sunday?

or own guns? or are against abortion? or are uncomfortable with gay marriage?

the strategy that hasn't worked is the one where we ignored campaigning in the south or in other red states or districts. i agree the dems need to stress why they are dems, but advocating that we purposely ignore perceived republican voting blocs is a sure fire recipe for failure. this is why we've lost in the past.

however, i believe we can keep our idealism and be pragmatic at the same time.

[Vincardog]

15. Because the DLC and "Leadership" pander to the same corporate class

of parasites. They have to marginalize us in order to maximize the profit to the criminal top 1/2 of 1%

[Toasterlad]

17. Excellent. K&R

[eridani]

20. The Repub "haves and have mores" despise their sweaty tent preacher base--

--every bit as much as the DLC despises its populist base. The really big difference between the two is that it took actual investigative reporting by Chris Kuo to discover the Repub contempt, but all you need to do to find out about the Dem contempt is to watch Sunday morning TV pundits.

This is probably because the Repub base loves lining up and following orders, but the Dem base doesn't--therefore we are more dangerous. Still, I really envy the comparatively better treatment the Repub base gets--funding for grassroots organizing (considerably more than the Dems spend), a serious effort to keep contempt for the base secret, and more than a few policy bone thrown their way.

[benEzra]

21. It was the DLC who pushed the party toward advocacy of new gun bans...

NOT the party's liberal wing. The nimrods fighting to ban the most popular civilian rifles in America did so to try to appeal to right-leaning law-and-order types, forgetting that half of gun owners are Dems and indies, that 4 out of 5 are nonhunters, and that a LOT of blue-collar union workers in swing states are gun owners.

The recent obsession with new gun bans at the Federal level was a Third Way/DLC thing, not a liberal one. Historically, most Dems have been pro-choice on gun ownership.

FWIW, Sarah Brady is a Reagan repub and proud of it, and the Brady Cammpaign is run by a repub.


----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

Alienated Rural Democrat

[western mass]

22. Dems know liberals will eat sh*t with a smile...

and ask for seconds. No matter what they do, liberals will still pull the lever for a Democrat, no matter how weak, ineffectual, corrupt, right-wing pandering, because they're too scared to do anything else. The DLC uses fear of the GOP like the right-wing uses the "war on terror" - to scare people into accepting anything.

The fact that Dems ignore the left and pander to the right is perfectly rational and logical. Nothing they do will lose the votes on the left, so why not pander to the right?

Things will never change unless you tie your vote to actions. The question isn't whether there's a difference between the Parties - of course there is. The question is whether America will survive in the long run without a real Democratic opposition party not controlled by corporate shills and right-wing enablers. I doubt it.

[Sufficient Voice]

24. Thank you.

This is the exact message I have been trying to put out into the DU for days. You have articulated it very clearly. I guess you are probably not voting for Hillary?

[rjones2818]

23. We're not smart enough to get rid

of those who colaborate with the Repugs on most issues, and since we haven't been the party's been pulled to the point where those out of leadership (except for a few like Dennis and Mike) feel they have to go along in hope that some of the percieved power of the leadership trickles down to them.

The Dems are the majority in Congeress in Numbers only. We have about 1/3 in each House who stand up and vote like Dems.