Is Ned Lamont "Triangulating"?...I hope so...

[SaveElmer]

If he wants to win...

According to Eli Pariser..triangulating is defined as

...the policy of seizing the political middle ground...

Something Pariser has declared dead Here

As DonkeyDigest has noted however, Lamont seems to be preparing to do just that...

http://www.donkeydigest.com/

In the New York times this ...Lamont has accepted the offer of the master triangulator himself, Bill Clinton to campaign for him...

And according to this article ...As the newly proclaimed Democratic nominee, Mr. Lamont is moving to adopt a general election strategy that attracts more moderate voters, who are crucial to victory in Connecticut elections. He is also seeking at least two experienced fund-raising aides to tap more donors in Connecticut and nationwide, particularly those who are excited by the antiwar message.

Bringing in the Clinton's, adopting a strategy to appeal to moderate voters, bringing in outside consultants and fundraisers...

Sounds like Ned is taking some sound advice!

[LittleClarkie]

1. Well, whether you agree with Bill or not, he's a master campaigner

So we shall see.

[oscar111]

2. AAR can move "middle ground" to the Left. That is what we REALLY need

to do.

some states have no AAR stations. So, expand AAR.

Get your union to buy a radio station, like IBEW did in Anchorage, for KUDO. Cost was one hundred sixty thousand. they spent for advertising too, upping the outlay to half million.

Details, google KUDO.

Dem Party ought to also buy stations. Anyone here in the dem party? LOL.

[MoonRiver]

3. My understanding is that Lamont has always been fairly moderate.

He's intensely anti Iraqi war, and wants national health care. Those are not really radical ideas though, as the majority of Americans, and vast majority of Democrats, agree with him on these issues.

[SaveElmer]

4. He can't win as a strictly anti-war candidate...

Which is how he is perceived now...

Bringing in the Clinton's is a good idea!

[MoonRiver]

5. I don't disagree!

I'm just wondering about his other positions. He needs to articulate those.

[TankLV]

6. Sounds like a PROVEN LOSING strategy to me... just like all the other

times candidates have given over their campaigns to "triangulators" & "strategists" instead of FIGHTING FOR THEIR PRINCIPLES AND WHAT THEY BELIEVE.

I hope I'm proven wrong, but I doubt I will be - just like in 2000 & 2004.

He didn't get to where he is by playing it "safe" and all this other crap.

I don't like this at all.

[SaveElmer]

7. Really?

Lets see Bill Clinton elected twice...

Al Gore elected once (stolen)

John Kerry - seems to be the consenus here that it was stolen

That is four winning Presidential contests in a row...all DLC


Blaming the DLC for losses is the crutch the left uses to avoid having to admit to more serious and systemic problems in the party and its apparatus...

Republicans outhustled and out demogogued us...and crassly used terrorism as a political weapon. That is why we lost in 2004...

I am happy to say Howard Dean is doing a great job with the systemic problems of the party, and the DSCC, DCCC and DNC have done an outstanding job recruiting candidates for this cycle...

Fact is Ned Lamont is losing 58% of Connecticut Independents and 35% of Democrats...

Running as the liberal anti-war candidate, with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at his side on TV is not gonna sway those people....he needs to get those parts of his message which are moderate - and I understand that he is moderate on some issues - out to these voters or he is gonna lose!

[CTLawGuy]

8. context

1992: Ross Perot was a TP candidate, the conservative base was unhappy with George Bush. Bill Clinton campaigned on universal health care and gay rights in the military (among other things). (Triangulation wasn't a concept yet)

1996: Bill Clinton was the incumbent and Dole was a say-nothing wimpy moderate. Perot was also in the race but much less of a factor.

2000: Al Gore barely wins the popular vote over Bush. He was trailing badly until he STOPPED triangulating and went on his "People vs. the Powerful" message (which Lieberman criticized him for doing).

2004: Public is generally dissatisfied with Bush, Dems have a big opportunity to win. For the past two years, Kerry had abandoned his normal liberal self and followed Bush on issues such as the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. The entire lynchpin of Kerry's campaign was that he served in Vietnam. Polls taken right after Bush's election would show that the public was still generally dissatisfied with him.

-----------------------------

Triangulation was a term invented by Dick Morris (working as an adviser to Pres. Clinton) around 1995. It essentially means to take a position (loosely used) that is in between the "left" and the "right" position. Clinton used it to co-opt Republican issues (ie welfare reform) and recover his popularity after the disaster of 1994.

[sandnsea]

9. I wouldn't describe it that way

I'd describe it as couching your views and words in the kind of language necessary to appeal to a particular issue of the political middle. There are lots of completely honest ways to get the swing vote and they don't require selling out the rest of your party.

Obviously Lamont has to broaden his appeal, it doesn't mean he has an intention to maneuver around his past words or views. What I've seen so far is Lamont knowing what the missing ingredients have been for the last decade and incorporating them into his campaign.

One being straight talk on low income issues that are quickly becoming middle income issues - poverty, health care, education, inner cities. Bringing Edwards into CT isn't exactly something Hillary would do.

Nope, I think Lamont is going in a completely new direction and may well be forging the platform for the party for the next decade.

The era of triangulation is over!!