Democrats Have Lost 2008 - Wonder if they know

[bonito]

A. Alexander, May 31st, 2007

A political party's base wins or loses elections. The Republicans figured that out more than 40 years ago. Democrats, incredibly, remain stubbornly and willfully ignorant.

One is left to wonder whether or not the Democratic Leadership Council-sponsored (DLC) DC Democrats have realized yet, that their unfettered war-funding disaster has already cost them the 2008 Congressional elections? Probably not, because the DC Democrats have condemned themselves to the DLC's delusional belief that a nonexistent entity called the "sensible center" wins and loses elections.

The "sensible center" concept sounds great and would be purely wonderful...if it actually existed. It doesn't exist...well, except for in the mind of the delusional DLC.

The nonexistent "sensible center" is the same "sensible center" that the DLC told Democrats the party needed to placate in order to win in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004 - each year, of course, proved a stunning Congressional election defeat for the Democratic Party. Only in 2006, when the base physically disconnected the DC Democrats from the DLC's grip, did the party experience victory.

more. http://www.progressivedailybeacon.com/more.php?page=opinion&id=1561

[Jackpine Radical]

1. DLC?

Demagogues Lusting for Cash?

[Warpy]

18. Disgusting Lickspittles of Corporations

They are also the New Democrats, the Wall Street Democrats (think Clinton and Rubin) and the Blue Dog Democrats.

As for losing 2008, that's a little premature. We'll see what happens in September, whether they start asking questions about why those toothless benchmarks haven't been achieved and just what Stupid expects to achieve with another three months' funding or if they just roll over like good little puppies.

There will need to be a true revolution within this party if we're ever to achieve any correction of the horrible policies that have grown over the past 38 years, policies that held down wages, funneled wealth to the few, nearly destroyed the working class, and ignored public health.

If there isn't such a revolution, we might as well bend over and kiss our butts goodbye.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. A Progressive revolution.

We did it before, in the first part of the last century. That's the whole problem with these cash-focused, "centrist" Dems with their pragmatic world-views. At best they provide the means to a sort of "holding action;" they somewhat slow down our slide into Hell, but they sure don't promise to reverse direction.

[bryant69]

2. I think that's nonsense

First of all we are pretty far out from the election. While the spending bill was a dissapointment, in six months we will be consumed by new failures and defeats, let alone a year and a half out.

Secondly the assertion that Bush caters to his base is not entirely true. He caters to big business, but he cheerfully only pays lip service to the conservative Christians that are probably our best equivalent in their party. Look at the furor over this immigration bill and ask yourself is the Republican leadership is catering to their base.

Third where else we gonna go? We've seen 8 years of Bush, and most people have come to the realization that as wussy and crappy as the Democrats are at times they are still a damn sight better than the fanatics on the other side.

Frankly this seems like a canned column by a Naderite.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rfranklin]

5. Well, the Naderites could have won the 2000 election for us...

despite the crimes of the Bush junta.

[nebenaube]

32. then maybe... just maybe the DC dems will start listening to the base

that went to Nader in 2000. Because they are really dropping the ball on representation.

[Robbien]

16. The only bill the Democrats were able to pass into law is a funding bill for Iraq Carnage

The Democrats wrote a Iraq Carnage funding bill; The Democrats pushed for an Iraq Carnage funding bill's passage; The Democrats whipped their members into voting for the Carnage funding bill and rejoiced that their Iraq Carnage funding bill was signed into law.

These things you call a just a mere disappointment. Something you say we will "move on" from in six months.

I don't think so.

[bryant69]

19. Bet you 50 bucks

No wait, I gave up betting. Sorry to get your hopes up.

I presume that if one still supports Congressional Democrats, one is in favor of Iraqi Carnage.

Bryant

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Bet you 50 bucks what?

That any other substantive legislation will emerge from this Congress?

[bryant69]

27. That in 6 months or a year the Iraq Slaughter Funding bill

Will still be on all of our lips.

Bryant

[Aviation Pro]

3. Wasn't this the same refrain prior to the 2006 election?

I have far more faith in the glacially slow political process than that and I think Gov. Dean is one smart mofo. Given the "talent" on the other side, I'd say that things are still looking mighty healthy right now (and I think I'll write another check to the Dems today).

[Dhalgren]

4. K&R! Good article and sadly accurate...

[bonito]

9. My thoughts as well

It's my hope recognizing this "we" can recover.

[Ezlivin]

6. Didn't you get the memo? There won't be an election in 2008

Silly kids. Elections are for democracies.

For those of you keeping notes we lost our democracy in 2000. The events of 9/11 sealed its doom.

Is this your floor? Going down...



(WTC 7 collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 after being hit with no aircraft.)

[Gman]

7. The 1 - 2% of Democrat leaning people this pertains to

are more than outnumbered by the independents and moderate Republicans that are flocking to the Democratic Party. This article is sadly stuck out in left field, where those that agree with it reside.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. 1-2%?

Oh really? How was it that, for example, this 1-2% voted Lieberman down in the Connecticut primary? Do they all live in Connecticut?

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Oh I think it is worse than that. The people of this planet have lost.

The Democratic Party faction of the War Party will most likely coast to an easy victory in November of 2008. What will not happen is any substantive change in our imperialist endeavors, our intransigence on the looming climate catastrophe, our instransigence and denial on peak oil, or the rollback of social infrastructure (the remnants of the new deal) and the related increase in officaily sanctioned intolerance. Although in fairness, the rate of the rollback on new deal infrastructure and increase in official intolerance will likely decline.

That last bit is about all we can hope for: the worsening will get worse slower than it would with the other faction of the War Party in charge.

What was made clear, once again, is that our party does not represent us, hasn't for a long time, and its leaders have every intention of keeping things just the way they are.

[Dhalgren]

21. You're right. This can go nowhere but down from here. The War Party

won't allow another party to grow and so many of our citizens are so lock-step loyal to the party that if you try to discuss an alternative, they simple become angry and abusive. I suppose it is how they have been indoctrinated...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Not Sure Who A. Alexander Is, But Whoa What A Tremendously Silly Piece.

Just more of the same overdramatized garbage.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Oopsie.

[terisan]

13. Thanks for Informing Us Now so that we can Give Up in Advance-unlike those Republican activists who

work at winning.

[L. Coyote]

14. Did he buy a glass ball at the dime store? Or does Alexander use Fortune Tellers?

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Democrats haven't lost a damn thing except...

the segregationists we lost years ago.

What sorry scribblers like this one refuse to admit is that DEMOCRATS HAVE NO "BASE." As much as some would love to think of us as the party of Rooseveltian socialism, it just ain't so. We are a hodgepodge of factions that can't agree among ourselves just who we are.

I used to lice in a place where there were actually three Democratic parties, all trying to get, or retain, or regain, power. None of them gave the tiniest shit about policies, Iraq, Bush, or anything else but getting elected and grabbing county money. The primarily Black and Hispanic "base" of the most densely populated part of the county couldn't give a rat's ass about impeachment, and were divided over war funding. They wanted jobs, or at least a chance to steal along with the big boys.

The Democratic parties in that place, all controlled by bosses or would-be bosses, had absolutely nothing in common with Democrats in Greenwhich Village just across the river. Or San Francisco, or Miami.

So, that's who we are-- everybody. And, unlike Republicans, we cannot be stuck in a box or controlled by any "base."

That is both our strength and our weakness

[Felix Mala]

17. Lots of disasters yet to be until Nov. 2008... too bad for US

[AnnInLa]

20. Don't think so....

I think the overall mood of the country will propel the Dems into the Presidency in 2008....if we don't lose heart, like the above piece seems to suggest that we should do. I don't know much, but the one thing I do know is that we should not give up the fight.

[Nunyabiz]

22. Nope they don't have a clue

and on top of that the MSM is busy picking the LEAST electable democratic candidate possible either Clinton or Obama just to make absolutely certain the Neofascist stay in charge and since Impeachment is no longer in what is left of the god damned piece of paper we used to call the Constitution then they will stay that way.

Its embarrassing to be called American anymore.
When I travel I brush up on my Canadian accent, eh?

[MGKrebs]

24. Being in the center only exists

on the ideological spectrum because it means not being something else. But that doesn't mean there aren't people who identify themselves as "centrists". My feeling is that the ideological scale is defined by ones' beliefs on one or many issues. The concept of "the center" really only has meaning in relation to the actual ideologies surrounding it. For example, as an advocate for prison reform, your actions are based on your beliefs which are founded on your own concept of right and wrong. As a centrist, you are more concerned with finding winning election strategies and compromise issue positions that satisfy the most number of people. (I'm not saying centrists don't have morals, just that "centrism" is not the measurement for those morals.)

Nothing really wrong with either of these, except that DLC centrists often seem to suggest that centrism should be the philosophy of the Party. I believe that the Party should be driven by ideals, and centrists should find ways to market those ideals to the greatest number of people.

Progressivism is a philosophy.
Centrism is a strategy.

With few exceptions, winning candidates HAVE TO appear to be centrist for whatever constituency is going to elect them. It's the ideologues who must convince the electorate that their ideals are worth supporting. The candidates just react to where their constituency is. It is the very rare candidate who can lead their voters in a significantly new direction.

[rasputin1952]

25. Oh for Pete's sake...the "Gloom and Doomer's" are getting a

head start on the Season again.

Fact:

NO ONE knows what is going to happen tomorrow, much less in a little over a year. ANYTHING can happen, a candidate could get seriously ill or die; more candidates could enter the race; the war might actually end; we could get hit w/a meteor and not have to listen to these jugheads anymore...

I get disgusted when the fight hasn't even started yet, and people are tossing towels into the ring screaming about "defeat". There are times I wish people would just go back into their caves and leave what they consider "wisdom" within the cold dank walls of their self imposed hermitage.

When the cycle gets considerably closer to an actual election, we will be able make some informed comments and decisions, until then.....all of this inane blathering is worthless tripe tossed out like banana peels to sip people up.

We are not going to lose the election any more than we assured we are going to win w/97% of the vote. The whole thing will take work, and we just barely got over the last election...

I absolutely refuse to give in to the "Gloom and Doomer's", and I really wish they would just wait until there really is a problem before saying we are "going to lose". Work toward winning, not toward whining...:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. As much as I agree about the mythical center the Dems are going to have to work hard to blow 2008.

But, their timorous pussyfooting about the war isn't exactly an impressive way win the trust of the people.

[Skinner]

28. I don't really understand this one-or-the-other thing.

Completely dismissing the idea that there exist voters in the middle of the political spectrum who help decide the outcome of an election is silly. Of course there are lots of voters there.

The party that will win is the one that holds onto its base and grabs the undecideds in the middle.

Even though the Democratic base is angry right now, I predict that the Democrats will do a better job of holding our base and appealing to the middle in 2008.

[porphyrian]

30. "The party that will win is the one that holds onto its base and grabs the undecideds in the middle"

Less than half of all eligible Americans vote. The middle is not the only place to find those pick-ups, and if the past is an indicator, ignoring non-voters for the "undecideds" is a stupid strategy. We should be courting ALL votes.

[Skinner]

33. I'm all for courting all votes.

Seems like a wise thing to do.

[11 Bravo]

35. Not only court all votes, but his time let\'s be sure to COUNT all the votes as well.

[glitch]

39. The COUNT is the crucial part, and also the target of the Republicans.

We are fools not to address the fact that the Republicans are targeting the count rather than rebuilding their lost base.

[UpInArms]

31. sorry - I shall never vote for bush-butt-licker Sam Graves - repuke deluxe

what utter nonsense this article is -

I have the letter in my file from Graves that told me to quit asking him to question Fruknuts' goals and methods because he supports him 100%.

Give me a break and get real. (message to the article writer- not the opening poster)

[Clark2008]

34. Hmm. I think the Dems have lost, but for entirely different reasons.

First, they won't tackle the issues that will cause them to lose again, such as our corporately-controlled media, our inability to stay strong on a message and follow through - right or wrong - and our inability to nominate someone the largest voting bloc we need - white males in the South and mid-West - can trust.

The reason Bill Clinton won? He stood up to the media, he told the truth even when it hurt and he was just Bubba enough to carry most of the South and mid-West.

We don't have that this time around.

Screw whether the base is happy. We don't have a choice. It's whether we can appeal to our fair-weather friends.

[Johonny]

36. Oh well

I guess I'll go ahead and pick out my favorite Republican canidate then since the Dems already lost.

[The Stranger]

37. Ralph Nader was right.

[Beelzebud]

38. The Democratic party ignores its base at its own peril.

"White lines in the middle of the road. Thats the worst place to drive." -Nada from They Live

[WI_DEM]

40. Actually the "base" wins primaries and nominations it is the middle/independents who win the general

election. Which is why there is the old saying that a Dem "runs to the left when seeking the nomination and then moves to the center in the general" and a Republican is supposed to "run to the right for the nomination and then move to the center" as well for the general. The left is not enough to win a general election.

[MGKrebs]

41. Bizarre. Bruce Bartlett at the National Review

just a month ago predicted a big Dem win and encouraged conservatives to get used to the idea of President Clinton again.

What are we to think when conservatives are predicting a Dem win and progressives are predicting a Repub win?

[eridani]

42. Not if the Blue Grit Dems have anything to say about it

Blue Grit
by Laura Flanders
Subtitle: True Democrats take back politics from the politicians

A few excerpts--

Blue Grit Democrats have been doing more than voting, they've been doing what a generation of politicians has not. They listen to what's going on, not in the suites but in the streets; they organize; and they stick around after the ballots are cast.

AS the country looks forward toward 2008, people without portfolio (and many of them without pay packet) are stepping in, and they're making a darn good stab at filling the vacuum, where a functioning, people-focused Democratic Party is not. Fed up with the party's priorities, people who for years sat disgusted on the sidelines are stepping up and doing more than vote. Tired of watching the way the party treats the very Americans upon which it depends for votes, people who once contented themselves with voting "least worst" are taking politics back.

Gena Edvalson chose to engage rather than duck when she moved back to her native Salt Lake city from California. "People from outside Utah are shocked when they hear I come from an LDS family and live in a conservative suburb of Salt Lake. They're even more shocked when they find out I'm a lesbian, that I have a partner who's about to have a kid, and that my father, who is eighty-three years old and very Mormon, lives in the house with us."

On Utah's DOMA amendment: By Edvalson's account, it was a forward loss. Progressives in many red states talk about "losing forward." It's the notion that you can end up ahead of where you started--even if you lose, because during the fight you pick up allies. "Our job is to build bridges to potential allies," says Gena. "If you don't go near the water, it's hard to build a bridge."

If liberal funders spent half the time studying the successes of the Left that they spend obsessing over the Coors Foundation, they'd be better informed, not to mention cheerier. Funders searching for a model of successful infrastructure building by a foundation would be hard pressed to find a better example than the slow and steady grants program of the Liberty Hill Foundation in Los Angeles.

You'd think funders would be throwing money at the groups that mobilized downtrodden Angelenos to elect a mayor and that helped stop the Terminator in his tracks, but no. Adrienne Shropshire says that Los Angeles groups, which by 2005 had build a statewide coalition called the California Alliance, expected to see an influx of money, but it didn't happen. The California Alliance has since linked up with sister groups in Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, New Mexico and New York to go after national grant money as a united front.

The next Democratic candidate considering running for president would do well to talk to activists like Justin Turner of Cincinnati Citizens to Restore Fairness, fighting to overturn the anti-gay Article XII.

From a skimpy minority of 32 percent who voted in favor of repeal in February 2004, the Restore Fairness campaign won over 53 percent of the vote on November 2. The campaign set a goal of turning out 60,000 supporive votes; the repeal proposition won with over 65,000. The gains came disproportionately from the most conservative parts of town.

"The key was to put a human face on the message and to address it head on," Turner told me on the phone from his home after the proposition passed.

Kerry campaigned in Cincinnati with the losing, instead of the winning, side. He brought onto the stage with him the one group of African American leaders that was not part of the Cincinnati for Fairness Coalition.

Those inconveniently irreverent and striving real people--whom pundits dare not mention by name but allude to with the code name "culture" --those Americans are the Democrats' base, whether the party likes it or not. Just ask any Republican. No amount of reframing or remessaging or plain ol' distancing will change that.

The truth is that Democrats, progressives and fair-minded Republicans will never be anti-gay or antichoice or anti-racial justice enough to quiet their opponents. The only people left with any doubt about where Democrats stand on cultural issues are those whose lives are at stake--the Democrats' base.

In October 2006, on the eve of his organization's annual convention, Peter MacDowell, president of the Progressive Democrats of North Carolina, sounded invigorated. The featured speakers at the convention included a progressive young African American who had just been elected mayor of Asheville. Another was a member of the county board of commissioners, which had just defeated a slate of pro-developer candidates. The keynote speaker was president of the state NAACP, "a very dynamic speaker," MacDowell told me. Why didn't you bring in a national Democratic politician? I asked. Wel, MacDowell responded, he'd tried to book Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin senator, but he wasn't available. Democrats who'll stand up for Democratic principles at the national level, he said, were hard to find. "But if we can ever get one with some backbone to stand up, we'll have a great army ready to work for them."