Why do party strategists here assume our liberal base will always show up?

[bigtree]

no matter how much 'moderates' put them and their views down? Why do they assume that it's more important to get conservatives and republicans to vote Democratic when we can't even get all of our own registered (liberal)voters to the polls?

Where is the evidence that the moderate, republican appeasing route wins elections? Isn't that what the party leadership has been practicing all along? And, we've yet to take back the White House or the majority. How can more appeasement of moderates be the answer?

In midterm elections, the party base is the most predictable group to show up, but that's not at all assured. I don't see the wisdom behind 'reaching out' to moderates and conservatives at the expense of our liberal base. The attitude today from many is that liberals should just shut up so that our party won't offend some unknown moderate voter. What happens if our base sits this one out because LIBERALS are offended?

Bash them all you want, but liberals have been the originators and stalwart defenders of most our party's deepest convictions. Put them down, if you will, for their views and their alliances, but after doing so, don't expect them to show up with any enthusiasm to support candidates who don't support them.

The meme about risking a republican victory cuts both ways, with both liberal views and conservative ones playing an important part in our appeal. Both views should be given respect without denigrating either to the point of alienation. But, none of our voters should be taken for granted. Too much 'reaching out', and our party may lose its grip on its liberal base. It's a bad idea anytime, but it could be disasterous in the upcoming congressional elections. Folks are looking for clear opposition to the Bush regime and their supporters in Congress. Liberals offer that without qualification. Their viewpoint should be the first thing our party defends.

[geek tragedy]

1. The rightwingers' base is a lot bigger than the liberal base.

Democrats need to do two things:

1) Grow their base. However, this takes time--the Republicans built theirs over decades. Which leads to #2:

2) Until our base is as big as theirs, we need to be a big tent party. Some Democrats are going to infuriate us, make us feel betrayed, etc. And we should give them hell when they're not in an election cycle. But, when we are in an election cycle, we need to get ALL of our people--regardless of how pure or moderate or whatever they are--out to vote. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

[Marr]

3. I don't agree with that at all. The conservative base is miniscule in

comparison to the real Democratic base. They've got religious fanatics and the oddball fascists, we've got labor (at least we would have if the party would stick to it's ideals, rather than courting the country's Liebermans).

The right-wing is vastly outnumbered by the liberal base- but neither party wants to adopt the liberal bases' agenda. There's no money in populism.

[geek tragedy]

6. Self-described conservatives greatly outnumber

self-described liberals.

We got our base out in 2004, and lost the popular vote. Because the Republicans got their base out, and their base is bigger than ours.

[Marr]

8. Self-described conservatives in a country where "liberal" has been

turned into a dirty word, yes.

But how many of those self-proclaimed "conservatives" like the idea of national healthcare, or raising the minimum wage, or a windfall profits tax for oil companies, or stopping the outsourcing of jobs, etc.? I read a couple of polls on this (sorry I can't recall where), and a large majority of this nation is in favor of liberal policy, even if they'd never call themselves "liberal".

[geek tragedy]

10. That's how we build our base to make it larger.

But, voters tend to vote "whole package" rather than a list of issues. And, a lot of independents aren't YET ready to buy fully into the Democrats' brand of politics.

As I said, we need to grow our base long-term while being a big tent short-term. Welcome a lot of people inside the tent, and they generally tend to stick around. If we don't make them feel welcome, they'll never be part of our base.

[HardRocker05]

60. Correct. more people agree with 'liberals' on the issues. why can't dems c

capitalize on this? When they go repuke on the actual issues, but remain tagged with the label 'liberal,' that's a guaranteed recipe for failure.

[Wiley50]

64. Bullshit! They had Blackwell in Ohio and Diebold Everywhere

They didn't win Ohio or the popular vote across the country

We was robbed!

And it's long past time for our "I don't wanna be sour grapes"
voters to get with it

No, we don't have physical proof
but we have tons of statistical evidence
and the known hackability of the machines to prove it

Motive, means and opportunity

Let's get together and
Rage Against The Machines

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. And I think we're seeing evidence today of how the liberal base

is close to the breaking point.

There are some posts from the usual DLC cheerleaders traying to paint our objections as "loving a dictator," and there are some from the timid and cautious, who think that doing the same thing over and over will eventually yield different results, but the overwhelming response has been one of great frustration that the Dems can't make torture an issue.

[Individualist]

13. Absolutely

I'm so disgusted with the mindless memes and propaganda of DLC cheerleaders that I'm putting them on ignore. They have nothing to say that's worth reading.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. Not CAN'T.... WON'T.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Thanks for the semantic correction

:hi:

[bigtree]

29. I don't see how so much anger can be suppressed and contained this time

How many presidential elections have liberals been told to sit down while the party leaders trianglize to attract moderates? It may be prudent in some individual race in some state, but it's a poor strategy to expect your base to sit down and shut up every election to 'expand' the party. Progressives and liberals have been politically marginalized and put down long enough. There's no sense in supporting just a little war, just a little spying on Americans, just a little less tax breaks for the wealthy, just a little less subsudies to pharmacutical companies or other industries, just a little justice, just a little torture.

No core convictions=no core support. If we keep it up, no one will know what our party really stands for.

[stepnw1f]

45. You Said That Wonderfully... Thank You

I couldn't have said it better.

[LeftCoast]

4. Because they assume our base wants to win

Based on a number of posts in GD lately, I'm starting to think that's not a safe assumption.

[Marr]

11. If Democrats can't be bothered to vociferously oppose

something as vile as state torture or the suspension of habeas corpus, then I don't much care if they win, no.

[patcox2]

19. I demand a futile, but loud, gesture, dammit.

The first thing is, get elected, then you can do more than be vociferous, then you can change the law.

[Marr]

38. You win by standing up for something. Not by

sitting every fight out and cynically waiting to inherit power. Why would anyone support that?

[bigtree]

31. win like we 'won' in the last elections?

no thanks.

There's absolutely no evidence that this approach, which our party leaders seem enamoured with, will get us to a majority.

[AX10]

5. The party needs to stand up for our principles.

With that said, I have every intention on voting this November for Democrats!

[orwell]

7. The country was founded on the LIBERAL principles...

...of the enlightenment. But somehow, that is lost on the majority of airheads who run from the word as if it were the bubonic plague.

Your corpo/royalist/con media at work.

Liberal = Liberty and Justice for all.

Our "leaders" lost me a long time ago...

[patcox2]

9. Because we assume people will act logically in their best interest.

Of course, thats the fatal flaw of the Friedman-fre-market economics crowd.

If people acted rationally in their best interest, hell, the republican base would vote for us, the poor rural angry white men.

[HardRocker05]

61. True, but some of us may be thinking more long term; voting for a democrat

democratic party that is drifting farther and farther from supporting our best interests may prevent a more effective party from emerging or prevent the democratic party from reforming to better serve our interests (and win elections, which we haven't been doing, btw).

[wyldwolf]

12. why do you assume there is a such thing as a "liberal base?"

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. You mean that all we DUers who have been disagreeing with you

(a majority on the recent threads) are just figments of our own imaginations???!!!! Oh, no! Here I thought I was REAL.
:cry:

[wyldwolf]

16. you think DU is the "liberal base?"

:rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. No, it goes way beyond DU

:eyes:

and is much larger than the DLC "base," which is composed mostly of types who think that the only thing wrong with the Republicans is that they're intrusive on social issues.

[wyldwolf]

21. sorry, the "base" of a party is their single most reliable block of voters

the leftwing doesn't qualify.

[Skidmore]

23. Mm, let me guess...the vast squishy middle is the base?

Those who can't make up their minds until some politico tells them how to think?

[wyldwolf]

24. bad guess

The "base" is pretty much non existent, ideologically speaking, being that the Democratic party has been a coalition since FDR's time. Remember - single most reliable block of voters - which ain't the "prooogresssiiivves."

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sufrommich]

55. "The squishy middle"

far out numbers either extremes of both parties.Most americans these days are rejecting Bush and Co. because the perception is that they have let their extreme ideology take the country in the wrong direction.
Americans,on the average,don't really like politics and want a government that runs smoothly,protects it's people,adequately funds social programs,and is proactive in protecting its economy and jobs.
Every time I see posters on this board sneer at "the mushy middle" "the sheeple" "merkins" or any other number of derogatory name commonly used on these threads by pompous ideologues it makes me cringe.
The democratic base is working people who believe they have a right to a good paycheck,social justice perceived as fair to all,a government that does not interfere in their private lives ,a sensible foreign policy and affordable health care for all.
Extreme ideology is what is being rejected right now by most Americans and those tired of the right wings grip on this country,the democrats would do well to heed that.

[Skidmore]

56. I believe in all those things but I don't consider myself

part of the squishy middle ready to suck up to whoever demands it at the moment just to score political Brownie points. The people I have problems with have labels such as "Reagan Democrats." If you have a core set of principles, stand by them. What is "extreme" about that. You can't straddle two parties with such divergent philophies and be anything but ineffective. I would also argue that the extreme right has moved the political ideological "center" so far to the right, that we definitely need something to correct it--and I don't see the correction at the "center". That position is one of standing still.

[sufrommich]

57. Most people

do not see their choice of political leaders as "straddling two parties",they go with who speaks to them.They see it as more personal than that,as their own philosophy regardless of party,and that is their choice.The Republicans like to accuse us of being the party of gloom and doom,and in the past,it's worked for them.We have every opportunity right now to point out the gloominess that has over taken our country and expose them for what they are.Whether you admire people without a strong political philosophy is beside the point.We either speak to the majority of people,or we don't.
There are too many ideologues on this board who seem willing to make our party's platform,essentially"You're stupid,and we're here to help".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Gee, I'll have to tell all those supporters of Kucinich, Dean, Edwards,

Sharpton, and others who busted their butts (10,000 in Minneapolis alone, nearly 100,000 in the entire state) trying to get Kerry elected in 2004--and who delivered the state by a comfortable margin-- that they're not a reliable block of voters.

[wyldwolf]

like I said, the single most reliable block of voters

not the whiners who constantly threaten (and sometime do) support third parties or "more idealogically pure" candidates with sometimes disasterous results ('48, '68, '72, '80, '00)

The rank and file Democratic voters are the "base."

Some, not all, but some of the voters you mention were working against Bush, not for the Democratic party. The Democratic candidate was the easiest vehicle to their goal.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Won't deny that, but Kucinich, Dean, Edwards, and Sharpton are

all Democrats and remain so to this day.

[wyldwolf]

30. true. But many of their supporters...

... dropped out of the process when their candidate didn't get the nod, or voted for Nader again.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. Nader wasn't even a factor in 2004

Even the Greens didn't endorse him and he got so few votes that it didn't make a difference anywhere.

And I don't know anyone who "dropped out of the process" from the Kucinich campaign. Several became precinct captains, and one is now way high up in the state party structure.

[wyldwolf]

35. that really isn't the point. Those "d"emocrats that voted for him...

... or are prone to vote that way cannot be and are not the "base." Same goes for those who whined and pouted and threatened to stay at home when Dean/Kucinich did not win the nomination.

[lonestarnot]

62. Yes and this is something I simply will never understand no

matter what description of the animal is put forth, it just will never make sense to me!

[cali]

59. Oh really?

I suppose to you and others I'm a DLCer, even though I've never had any use for that organization, and have worked to get Progressive party candidates elected in the VT state legislature. Lord knows I've been called a DLCer more than once here because I don't hop on every DU bandwagon. Get a clue. I care about a lot more than Repuke intrusion on social issues. I was against this war, and I ve marched in DC 3 times and written letters to papers and members of Congress. Hell, I organized against the first gulf war. I'm sick to death of people like you defining what a liberal is. I don't oppose Chavez, but I don't think he's the fucking hope of the world either, and I think his pissing contest with georgie is juvenile. Ooh, I suppose in your world that disqualifies me as a liberal. I hate to break this to you, but outside of insular little DU , I'm a lot more representative of liberals than you are.

[tnlefty]

42. I'll admit that I have relationships with "Greens". I work with them for

local events and I've stuck my neck out to try to bridge a divide. Quite a few worked during a primary for a local candidate running for the 3rd Congressional District and I've already been informed that they will not show up to vote for the winner as much as they despise Zach Wamp the current rep. They're not thrilled with Ford, but will show up to vote for him.

They understand that I am frequently frustrated with the Democrats and I think that gives us a basis to try to work together where and when we can to work for change. In my red community there are many.

[warrens]

14. Not sure how you define liberal and moderate

Will the wacko left never be happy and continue to vote for Nader and the rest of the losers? Yes. I am as liberal as the next person, and there is nothing that could keep me from voting. Anyone who would in effect support Bush because you don't think the Dems are sufficiently far left is in essence putting a bullet in my head.

In point of fact, liberals turn out a lot less than conservatives do. Probably for the simple reason that if a candidate has 100 different issues and they disagree on one, they sulk and stay home.

[HereSince1628]

22. The entire left ISN'T Liberal or New Liberal if you like.

Certainly the Liberal movement dominated Democratic Party politics from FDR through LBJ. And consequently, much of "living" memory of Democratic successes surrounds the Liberal movement.

BUT,

Much of the non-radical left is part of the Progressive Movement as was the origin of the Party about 200 years ago. The contemporary Progressive movement within the Party is much more assertive about change than the Liberal movement and also much closer to workers who beginning in the 70s were increasingly left out of "Liberal" consideration.

As you might expect Progressives who organize aroung making positive change are rather fed up with things, and ready for an active opposition. They are ready to do something about it and in primaries for the upcoming election that has included turning out for alternatives to "moderate"/"mainstream(what is that?)" democrats.

Moderate/Centrist/Democratic Establishment Campaigns ought not take anything for granted about Progressive support.

[Recovered Repug]

26. For the same reason the right bitches about Rino's

it's a question of where else can you go? The party will chance it that it's base will still show up, because not voting will give the other side victory. However, it the party moves to far to it's base, the mod/center might vote for the otherside.

[mmonk]

27. What choice is there?

I'm tired.

[bigtree]

36. fight for what you believe in

within the party and without. Voters want a party with firm convictions, not a hedge.

*I* always vote Democratic, and I ALWAYS vote, but many don't share my convictions and dedication to the party. Many don't see elections as a zero-sum proposition. Walking away from it all is a popular conviction, especially in the midterms. Wishy washy won't draw these folks in. Solid opposition to the republican philosophy and agenda will, especially when coupled with a unapologetic party platform and appeal.

[riona]

33. Perhaps I'm wrong

but I believe that large numbers of liberals haven't been voting. Their candidates do not inspire them enough to go to the polls. Where's the message? Where's the fire? Show us what it means to be a Democrat! And, don't forget our values when you get to Washington. Sadly, I suspect we have lost huge numbers of young voters who have felt betrayed.

[Individualist]

37. I don't think you're wrong

All one has to do is look at congressional approval ratings. In spite of the fact that repug lies and criminality are becoming more obvious, there's still little enthusiasm for democrats.

[omega minimo]

34. Good question for the Greenbashers

"I don't see the wisdom behind 'reaching out' to moderates and conservatives at the expense of our liberal base. The attitude today from many is that liberals should just shut up so that our party won't offend some unknown moderate voter. What happens if our base sits this one out because LIBERALS are offended?"

Well, yeah, esp. since they already know from the past two prez election cycles that their mushy strategery DOESN'T WORK :wtf:

"But, none of our voters should be taken for granted. Too much 'reaching out', and our party may lose its grip on its liberal base."

Maybe it's the corporate overlords Democratic leaders are afraid of offending.

"Folks are looking for clear opposition to the Bush regime and their supporters in Congress. Liberals offer that without qualification. Their viewpoint should be the first thing our party defends."

Liberals offer that and the whole nation is ready for it. :kick:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. I don't like Dr. Phil, but when I look at recent history and see

1994: Loss of the House
2000: Loss of the presidency (Yes, I'm pretty sure it was stolen, but there never should have been 1/3 undecided voters three days before the election, given the worst opponent in living memory)
2002: Loss of the Senate
Since then, more right-wing ideologues on the Supreme Court
The Bill of Rights is circling the drain

And I look at that history and the mealy-mouthed response of the mainstream Dems, and I have to borrow a line from Dr. Phil and ask that question that is actually a good one to ask one's self in many situations:

"HOW'S THAT WORKIN' FOR YA, HUH?"

[geek tragedy]

41. Do you know why the Dems got annihilated in 1994?

It was because of four votes/issues:

1) Gays in the military;

2) Healthcare reform;

3) The assault weapons ban;

4) Raising taxes and balancing the budget.


Now, I would go further than Clinton tried. I support a single-payer healthcare system, and I support an end to all forms of discrimination in the military. I see no need for people to own assault weapons, and I think the budget should be balanced at least every other year.

But, the Democrats paid a HEAVY price for those two years.

Then Clinton went to the center, and beat the shit out of old Bob Dole.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. They paid the price because Clinton caved on the first two

issues, which immediately painted a "kick me" sign on his ass, as far as the Republicanites were concerned, and that's when "The Hunting of the President" really got underway.

Raising taxes and balancing the budget? Taxes were raised only on the wealthy, and balancing the budget is a GOOD thing, which Clinton and the Dems didn't brag about enough.

There might be something to the assault weapons ban, but the number of people who actually WANT an assault rifle is pretty small.

[benEzra]

65. Only thing is, the ban wasn't about assault rifles...

since those are already controlled by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act, and have been for 72 years.

It was about civilian (NFA Title 1, non-automatic) rifles, pistols, and shotguns, and that's why there was such an immense backlash against it from gun owners of all political stripes.

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What?

[derby378]

48. So, what's an "assault weapon?"

Is it nothing more than a semi-automatic firearm that has certain safety features and/or cosmetic touches that the Million Mom March doesn't think "We, the People" can be trusted with?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not the Bill of Needs, it's the Bill of Rights.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. As a former mod in the Gun Dungeon, I do NOT get into

those discussions anymore.

[derby378]

51. I can't blame you

Although I must say that Democrats' messages on guns have become surprisingly more diverse over the past four years, from where I'm sitting.

[omega minimo]

47. Yeah, let's goback to the Contract On America

and the putrid Newt Gettingrich and wannabe Frank Luntz-- who turbocharged the mindfuck being perpetrated on the American Public. And continued the "circling the drain" momentum started by Ronnie Raygun.

On Dr. Phil this week some 36 year old fireman (thought he was hotter than he is) dating numerous teenagers and cheating on the one he started seeing at 17, actually used the excuse that "The Bachelor" "narrows it down to 4 or 5 and sleeps with all of them" and "everything is marketed to men now to try and get young girls.................."

Phil let's him dig in deeper in his hole and then says, "So, what you're sayin is, You're a victim."

The idiot agreed. "Yeah, I am!"

Anyone who doesn't realize how insane consumer culture has become or recognize the connection between Luntz/Rove and selling Americans a pig in a poke, needs to do some homework. AND PUT DOWN THAT CARL'S JR. :puke: "milkshake" :puke:



LL-- If there was a Resident Genius of the Week (not a popularity contest) you would be it :applause:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Aw shucks

:blush:

[Grebrook]

40. No one is bashing the liberal base in the Dem party, so what the hell are

you talking about? Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel attacking Chavez has NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICAN LIBERALS.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. There's a history that you may not know about

:shrug:

[tnlefty]

46. As my spouse frequently states, "Where else can we go?" and he would

be considered conservative or moderate compared to the characterization of me "leftist, leftist nut, fringe", but the thing of it is I'm the one who attends rallies, meetings, sit on a local party committee (2 actually), stuff envelopes, etc., etc., I'm the one standing on the sidewalks doing visibility for candidates, etc., etc., you get the picture.

I know many older liberals (60's-70's) who may not like the candidates that they have to vote for (for many years, BTW) but they are also stalwarts who keep the party going. They're damned tired of being taken for granted - imagine that - after YEARS of always being there for the party. They want stronger labor unions, fairer trade policies, etc.

There is also a group in their 40's and 50's who feel like the party has lost its way, not to mention the college-aged group.

I refuse to shut up, and this upcoming senate race will be the last one that I'll consider voting for a hawkish, militaristic candidate.

Until Democrats take the time to speak and to try to educate people about those stupid "wedge issues" or "values issues" we will always be beaten over the head with them. This time we need to turn out in record numbers to win, then we begin the process of eroding the "wedges" or better known as the bullshit issues.

[Taoschick]

53. Any politician

Who wants to win is going to appeal to the desires of the majority of their electorate and that electorate includes ALL voters. Having the "best" ideas isn't going to get you into office if the majority of the people in your state reject your vision. We tend to get angry when our leaders seem to go in a direction that is contrary to what we want but they're depending on polling to tell them what the voters want. You can't effect change if you aren't elected.

[LoZoccolo]

54. Because if they don't show up, they are not a base. n/t

[bigtree]

58. that's an interesting notion

quite true, but disturbing nonetheless.

Liberals and progressives HAVE shown up, election after election. I think there's alot of folks who count on that and expect that it won't change. It probably won't, to any significant degree. But, my point is that in the effort to 'reach out' and in the attempts to avoid offending voters who don't traditionally show up to vote for Democrats, there are going to be those loyal Democratic voters who may feel slighted or taken for granted by efforts to play down or marginalize traditional Democratic tenets. There's an attitude from some of "where else are they going to go?" I think the danger in a midterm election is that these contests usually rely on folks who regularly show up to make the difference. It's good to talk about expanding the base, but I'm worried that our traditional voters have become apathetic about the party effecting any of the changes THEY have been advocating, no matter how much they may be derided for that. With so much of our agenda unrealized, it may seem an affront to these voters to change gears now and start casting aside and stripping down initiatives that form the base of our dependable voter's concerns.

For instance, we need a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, but the moderate position is to avoid talking about a timetable for fear of being sullied politically for it. The end result is a party leadership position which settles for withdrawal-lite, redeployment and promises of continued military support (albeit less support). The liberal, progressive position mostly advocates immediate, unconditional withdrawal. It's not a stretch that we could see serious erosion of voter support if the liberal voters feel the party isn't challenging Bush enough to actually get him to pull out.

Apathy and non attendance are real dangers that I think will stem from too much pandering outside of traditional Democratic ground by our party leaders. I worry that there will come a day when these voters who regularly show up bolt at the first sign of a retreat from liberal and progressive principles. As I say, in a midterm, the base could be critical.

[HardRocker05]

63. Because the theory of 'no accountability' for dems is quite popular among

the base and the centrists (within the democratic party). The theory is that one should always vote dem no matter what said dems do while in office, because hey, they're better than the repukes. Voting for a particular party no matter what they do is the definition of no accountability, is it not? It leaves dems knowing that they need not offer *anything* to their base, because those votes are a lock; all they need to do is craft some wishy-washy 'centrist' positions that will tip just enough fence-sitters their way, and they'll win. Many here believe that winning the next election is everything, and they do not think about the long term reality on the ground, i.e. if dems win *every* election, but continue to move further right with every election, we will end up in a worse position than if we had stood on principle, lost a few elections, and taken the time to regroup and rebuild our base so that we could win and actually govern according to what the democratic party is supposed to stand for.

[bbgrunt]

66. well, with the lack of response to torture I just gave up on voting.