Why We End Up With Centrist Presidents

[MineralMan]

Unlike our local, district, state and congressional elections, the President is elected by all 50 states. All 50. To win, every President has to win majorities in enough states to get enough electoral votes to be seated. That includes blue states, purple states and, sometimes, even red states.

The result of that is that presidential candidates have to campaign in a way that gets votes in places where he or she probably couldn't get elected to be Governor or Senator. It takes a broad appeal to be elected to our country's highest office. So, the center holds the key to becoming President. Some years a Democrat gets elected and some years it's a Republican. It's extremely rare for a person who holds positions near the edge of either party to get elected. So rare that most Presidents are somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum.

We can, and do elect progressives to be our congressional representatives, our Senators and especially our state legislators. Those are all more or less local elections and districts even in Red states elect people from the left and even the far right to those offices. But the President is a special case. It's our only national election. Becoming President requires a majority of electoral votes, not popular votes. That's a tough challenge. A candidate positioned too far on either side rarely wins. We couldn't elect McGovern and the Republicans couldn't elect Goldwater. We elect our Presidents from the political center, either the center right or the center left. That's what we do.

Work on your local legislative races to put the most progressive candidates possible in office. But don't expect too much success in electing a truly progressive President. History's not on our side with that, I'm afraid. Put your energy into races in your own states and districts and elect legislators who share your goals.

The President is different, and the election for President is also different.

I await your denial.

[Peacetrain]

1. The same 50 state strategy from Dean

that some are now demanding.. and I happen to agree with.. will by its very nature be a more center left strategy for President..

And while I agree with your OP MM.. I would like to add.. that even the most liberal or progressive of canidates, will track to the center once in office.. because they have to be the President of the entire United States.

Senators, House Reps, even Vice President, can be totally, wrapped up in the ideology that got them there..

But the President has to work the whole room, as they say

Edit to add.. which like you makes me so adamant about getting our and working local elections and going out for every election..

[MineralMan]

4. I think you're right.

Presidents are forced to deal with the Congress that is in session, which makes those congressional district and Senate elections so important, even in mid-term elections. I've never understood the low turnout for those elections.

[Andy823]

13. Exactly

" I would like to add.. that even the most liberal or progressive of canidates, will track to the center once in office.. because they have to be the President of the entire United States."

Some don't seem to understand that.

[jeff47]

16. Uh....

And while I agree with your OP MM.. I would like to add.. that even the most liberal or progressive of canidates, will track to the center once in office.. because they have to be the President of the entire United States.

Yeah, that's why W became such a moderate once he won. He didn't push for massive tax cuts to the 1%, less regulation, start multiple wars for the neoconservatives.....

Oh wait...

[JI7]

27. 9-11 helped him

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

50. And the corporate media that pushes right-wing, pro-Republican propaganda and talking points.

[treestar]

82. He did from the POV of the right

They thought he was too liberal.

[stevenleser]

87. I agree with the other poster. Without 9/11 he would have had to do that. His popularity

was cratering before 9/11. He was going to have to reach out to Democrats to try to save his Presidency.

9/11 changed all of that. With a popularity of 90% and an enemy just about all of the country wanted to destroy, he had virtually a free hand.

[jeff47]

88. Which perfectly explains 2004 and later.....

Oh wait....

[stevenleser]

89. Nope, no "oh wait". It explains it.

He was able to maintain just enough popularity to get re-elected. Then, once re-elected, he behaved as if he didn't have to worry about anything, which produced the massive Democratic victory in 2006. You don't have to believe me, the graph of his popularity explains it all.

[jeff47]

93. No, once re-elected he declared he had a mandate to destroy Social Security.

Boy, how moderate!!

[stevenleser]

94. And paid the price. Which again makes my point. nt

[jeff47]

95. No, your point was that he governed as a moderate. (nt)

[JoePhilly]

73. To that I'd add ...

... there is a key difference between Dems and repukes ...

Dems want government to work, to get things done.

Today's GOP does not care about that. They are perfectly happy if government grinds to a stop.

So Dems end up compromising to get anything at all done. We could just obstruct too, which the GOP is fine with because they don't want a functioning government anyway.

Creates a nice catch-22 for our side. One that cause our far left to demand the same unwillingness to compromise and inaction the GOP loves.

[wyldwolf]

2. "I await your denial."

Well played.

[Union Scribe]

3. Ah, Mineral-Mansplaining. nt

[MineralMan]

6. Thanks.

Sincerely,

GOTV-way MineralManny

[MineralMan]

10. How nice of you to say that. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

34. ...

[SixString]

39. ...

[BlindTiresias]

48. Lol, yes

Thank you.

[Rex]

58. Never mind the fact that he is wrong.

It was a nice try to gel them all into the gooey center. I guess somebody will buy it. Nixon was center? Regan? The Bush crooks? Bill Clinton was pretty center but still a moderate. We elect moderate POTUSes and tragically sometimes GOPers, which are far far to the right of center.

Obama is a moderate. Centrists sounds like the garbage of melding the two parties together ideologically.

[abakan]

5. I didn't think he was a centrist when I voted for him...

I thought him to be a progressive in the ways it was important. I was wrong.

[MineralMan]

7. If you listened to him during the campaigns,

he made his centrism clear. Despite the Congresses he's had to deal with, he's done a lot, though, in progressive directions. It's difficult to get progressivism done with a Republican Congress.

[abakan]

11. you are right about the republicans but I took some of his promises seriously.

I expected to see Bush and his group charged for war crimes, I expected to see GITMO close, I expected the US to quit torturing people and I expected less war not more. This may not qualify as a progressive agenda but I believed him when he said he would do those things.

[MineralMan]

12. I don't remember Obama promising to prosecute Bush.

He did try to close Gitmo, but was prevented from doing so by Congress, which refused to fund it. We do have less war that involves US troops.

[abakan]

18. I knew you were going to say that...

What I heard in one of his speeches during the first election was he would hold the people who made the mess responsible for their actions. I know I am not the only one that believed he was talking about the bush admin.

[treestar]

83. He did not say he anything about

Bush and war crimes.

[Revanchist]

70. It's difficult to get ANYTHING done with this Congress EOM.

[Cosmocat]

52. He isn't a dictator

I will say, he is too cozy with big finance for my taste. He is a little too comfortable with the security state than I like - but IMO, that was all pretty apparent when he was running.

Nothing about him is a surprise to me, because while I too was inspired by him, I LISTENED to him.

That said, he can't just do whatever he wants.

He was given a democratic majority, but not one strong enough to be overtly liberal.

He would have READILY signed single payer if it got to his desk, but he got the ACC because of Max Baucus.

He would have done a LOT more and better if he had a congress that had dems with more heart in year one or two and something other than a clown show for a House after that point.

[BillZBubb]

9. Reagan was far right for his time. Same with w bush/cheney.

republicans run in the general elections like they are center-right, but they govern from the right or far right if they can get congress to allow it. And the republican presidents will only get farther to the right as their cadre of potential nominees comes up from the rabid right lower ranks.

Democratic presidents are usually centrists because the Democratic party is all over the political spectrum. Democratic primaries aren't decided by who is the purest liberal.

[Maedhros]

14. Your post is correct, for as far as it goes.

Our elections by design have a moderating effect on our candidates. However mass media, group psychology and political marketing are actively employed to manipulate the vote and undermine the will of the people. Yes, a "candidate positioned too far on either side rarely wins" - but the center is being defined as farther and farther Right. As long as we buy into this groupthink, that reasonable candidates are Too Far Left, we're digging our own graves.

We have two options:

1. Give up, realize that money-fueled propaganda campaigns will always win and Leftist candidates are pipe dreams never to be realized, and try to convince all the Leftists to go along to get along because their time has come and gone.

2. Fight back.

#2 is by far the most difficult option, and it is not yet clear how to fight back, but it is also by far the better option.

[jeff47]

15. Here's my denial: Electoral college.

Almost all of the states are winner-take-all in the electoral college.

As a result, if the presidential candidate "couldn't get elected Governor or Senator", they will be getting zero electoral college votes from that state. The same 50%+1 they'd need to win governor is what they need to win any electoral college votes.

So no, being kinda appealing to Alabama voters isn't going to get a Democrat elected President. Just like being kinda appealing to Vermont voters isn't going to get a Republican elected President.

[brooklynite]

20. But being kinda appealing to Virginia, North Carolina and (maybe) Georgia might...

[jeff47]

23. Actually, no.

The way the electoral map currently looks, we need 1 "purple" state. There's options that are to the left of Virginia and NC.

And if you actually want VA or NC, you actually can't be a moderate - there aren't many moderate voters in those states. You have a large urban/rural divide, and you need high urban turnout to win. Weak-ass moderate positions aren't going to get you the urban turnout you need.

For 2016 at least, it's the Republicans who need to become more moderate. The Republicans need to win all 9 "purple" states, and pick up 1 "blue" state. That's why Cruz and Paul aren't scary for 2016. A Republican who can campaign as a moderate is.

[Erose999]

25. Tell that to the "kinda appealing" candidates from GA in this past election. Demographics suggest GA

will elect democrats in the future, but the party got fucked trying to meet that phenomenon in the middle. There is just no swaying the middle aged white male vote in GA. They are motivated by bigotry and racism, and thats that.

GA will probably go blue when enough of them die off in such numbers that they are not a majority, but not before.

[MineralMan]

26. And yet, in 2008, Indiana elected its Republican Governor

with over 57% of the vote, while Barack Obama won a narrow victory for President and got all 11 electoral votes from that state.

What you say is true some of the time, but not always, and it's those exceptions that often make the difference.

Alabama may not go for a Democratic President, but some states will, even though they normally elect Republicans. It all depends, and most Presidential elections hinge on just a very few states. Gubernatorial and Presidential vote counts are often different.

Another example from 2008: President Obama won there decisively, but the open Senate seat was a dead heat, and Al Franken didn't become Senator until months later, after a long statewide recount and just 512 votes difference.

Legislative seats are often held by a different party that the one won by the President. It's just how it goes, since those legislative seats are local elections, where voters may think differently.

A strongly Democratic Congress will lead the country and the President where it wants to. A Congress with majorities of a different party than the President will often force compromises that wouldn't be made if both were the same party. We've seen that through most of Obama's term in office.

[jeff47]

33. Take a look at the 2016 map.

Democrats need 1 "purple" state to hit 270.
Republicans need all 9 "purple" states, and to flip 1 "blue" state.

And you're arguing the Democrats need to be more moderate. Uh, no. The Republicans do. Yet their last President was an unapologetic radical, and their party continues on the radical path.

We need to stop this stand-for-nothing bullshit. Because standing for nothing gives us nothing. Including no voters.

[MineralMan]

35. The map I'm interested in is the Congressional map.

It's always the Congressional map. Yes, I believe 2016 will bring us another Democratic President. I don't see that going the other way. But, it will do us little good if we don't retake Congress. And that's the challenge we should be looking at right now and planning for. Haven't we had enough of Republicans in Congress dictating what the President can or cannot do?

We need both houses of Congress to have Democratic majorities. That's not going to be an easy job, frankly, but it's the primary job we should be undertaking. If that happens, there's no worry about having a Democrat as President. If it doesn't happen, we'll just be continuing the disaster that has been in place for almost 6 years.

I'm not even thinking about the presidential race. I'll be voting for whoever is nominated. What I want to do is flip two Republican congressional districts in Minnesota. That's what I want. And I want the voters in other stated to do the same, while electing a majority in the Senate.

If we can manage those things, we'll have a decent government that can actually do something. If we don't we won't.

[jeff47]

40. So your entire OP is a waste of time then?

But, it will do us little good if we don't retake Congress. And that's the challenge we should be looking at right now and planning for.

Republicans have to defend 24 Senate seats, Democrats have to defend 10.

Of the Democratic seats, 1 looks difficult. Of the Republican seats, 12-18 look difficult.

We'll have the Senate back in 2017.

The House, OTOH, will remain Republican until 2023. Republicans did an excellent job of gerrymandering after the 2010 census, and that will remain in effect until after the 2020 census.

I'm not even thinking about the presidential race.

So your OP was for what purpose then?

[MineralMan]

42. My thread is about legislative branches, not the Presidency.

My point is that we elect a President, but it's far more important to elect legislatures. That we do not focus on that is why Democratic turnout is so damned lousy in mid-term elections. We need to reverse that situation by refocusing on what really matters.

The legislative branch is the most powerful branch of government. It passes laws. It passes budgets. Presidents can urge. Presidents can veto. Presidents can use Executive Orders, but only Congress can legislate. As long as we have Republicans in charge of Congress, we are very limited in what can be done. Our expectations of the presidency are overstated.

As individuals, we can have far more impact on congressional and state legislative races than we can even dream of having on presidential races. If we're not taking advantage of that, we're missing our primary opportunity.

[jeff47]

56. Which is why 75% of your OP is talking about the need to run a moderate Presidential candidate.

.....

[MineralMan]

59. Actually not. The first half is descriptive of how we elect Presidents.

The second half is about why that makes it so important to focus on legislative offices. Maybe a rereading will help.

[jeff47]

62. I did before posting that.

Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Your first 3 paragraphs are justification for "President must be moderate".

Your fourth paragraph says "work local". Out of the blue. Sure, you bring up legislative races in paragraph 3, but only as a contrast to presidential elections.

Your fifth paragraph goes back to the message from paragraphs 1-4.

And your sixth paragraph is an attempt to discourage debate.

1 out of 6 is not "half".

[RiverLover]

17. Obama ran in 2008 as a Progressive Populist Liberal.

He didn't turn out to be one.

But he won on those grounds.

[abakan]

19. Thank you

I was convinced he would be what he said he would be. I am now cynical about there being any difference in party or person, where money is concerned. It is after all the only thing important to any pol.

[Zorra]

31. +1~ And the fact is, my neighbor's dog could have run as a Democrat in 2008, and beat any republican

after Bush wrecked the economy and the county after his tenure as purported leader of the most disastrous presidential administration in the history of the US, with the possible exception of the Hoover administration.

[Cosmocat]

53. No ... he ... didn't

He ran as an inspirational progressive - but not a liberal.

Nothing about what he has done has been a surprise in the least to me.

But, I LISTENED to what he said when he was running.

[JoePhilly]

74. He did?

I saw a rather moderate dem candidate who's policy positions were nearly identical to Hillary's.

Like saying he'd add troops to Afganistan?

He beat McCain because (a) Iraq war, (b) the economic collapse and McCain's incredible bungling around that.

Obama, as always, stayed calm during that collapse, never promised to end corporations, and argued the govern can work.

Some on the left saw a savior because they wanted to. They seek one now.

[Marr]

96. Many saw a liberal because his campaign worked very hard to give that impression.

As for being identical to Hillary, yes-- I thought as much as well. But people who actually believe the words that come out of politicians' mouths can certainly be forgiven for thinking he was well to Hillary's left, after mocking things like the insurance mandate, talking up Single Payer, and insisting he would not sign a healthcare bill with no 'public option'.

[Prophet 451]

21. So how did DimSon get elected in 2004?

2000 was stolen, no question there. But by 2004, it was apparent that CheneyBush weren't centrist, that they were the most radically right-wing administration in US history. So how did they get elected?

[MineralMan]

28. Incumbents have a stronger chance of being re-elected.

That explains 2004, I think. 2000 was very, very closely divided, and was then stolen. Had it gone the other way, the second term would have been Democratic, too. It didn't.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. If that is so - there is no hope of saving our country and the future is indeed bleak as truly

the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer and the middle class will grow smaller and smaller and more indentured to debt than ever before.

Actually the Republicans elected two Presidents well to the right of Goldwater - Reagan and Bush Jr. The difference is when Goldwater lost in 1964 by a landslide - that campaign and that loss was the basis to build the modern right-wing Republican Party so right-wing that poor old Barry Goldwater was not longer welcomed in the movement he helped create. He was too liberal for the new Republican Party

IN contrast when George McGovern who lost by a comparable landslide in 1972 - The Democrats never nominated a progressive again. Instead of using the incredible accomplishment of nominating a progressive as a basis to build a new movement like the Republicans used the in 1964 loss to build a movement - This loss became the constant excuse for why the Democratic Party must forever keep moving farther and farther to the right - perhaps liberal on many social issue but farther and farther to the right on the economic issues that determine how we actually live. Because only moving farther to the right can they raise the enormous sums of money from special interest lobbyist to fund their campaigns.

There is not a shred of evidence that the American people as a whole are pro-Wall Street, pro-investments banks, pro-insurance company and pro-out sourcing. There is not a shred of evidence that a message of economic justice and equity is unsellable in any region of the country.

But frankly, I think most professional Republican politicians whether elected officials or professional operatives are movement conservatives - people who are ideologically driven. Most Democratic professional politicians whether elected officials or professional operatives are not. They are career goal driven and base their career plans on a balancing act between raising money from lobbyist and satisfying demographic and constituent blocks.

Your message is to give up all hope of moving our country forward and seeking a newer world. I am not prepared to do that.

[kentuck]

24. Instead of 50 different states...

I think we are probably more alike than different?

[MineralMan]

29. Well, nationally, we're pretty evenly divided on party lines.

That's why individual states matter so much in Presidential elections. States like Indiana, which split its vote for Governor and President in 2008.

For me, Congress and state legislative offices are far, far more important in terms of the direction the country takes than the Presidency. Whoever is in control of Congress ends up setting the course, most of the time. Even a single legislative house with a majority that is opposite of a President can kill a President's agenda very effectively, as we have seen so clearly in the past 6 years.

The same is often true in state legislatures. In 2010, for example, Minnesota elected a Democratic governor, but both houses of the state legislature had Republican majorities. The result was awful, with things like Voter ID and a ban on same-sex marriage ending up on the ballot as constitutional amendments in 2012. Fortunately, the voters reversed the legislative majorities in 2012 and voted down those amendments.

Legislatures make laws. Laws govern. Executives, either the President or Governors are at the mercy of their legislative branches to a large degree. They can only veto what the legislature passes, and are often forced to sign budget legislation to prevent shutting down the government. That's why my efforts go toward legislative races.

[JEB]

30. George W. Bush was not a centrist.

Only Democratic Presidents of recent vintage have tried to find the nonexistent middle ground.

[cali]

32. so you're seriously claiming that Reagan and bush 2 were centrists? really?

[MineralMan]

36. I'm claiming nothing. We haven't even defined what makes up the center, frankly.

And that's not the subject of this thread.

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. when I hear comments like that - I cannot help but wonder if some these folks are simply too young

to remember the world before Reagan and the whole right-wing lurch. Gerald Ford picked Bob Dole as his running mate in 1976 to appease the right-wing of the Republican Party and to make up for having previously picked Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. But in 1976 Ronald Reagan announced that if nominated that year he would nominate Sen. Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania, a liberal Republican as his running mate. Of course today that idea of a Rockefeller Republicans being selected for Vice President by a Republican President is completely unimaginable and - Bob Dole of 1976 would be way too liberal for today's Republican Party.

Gerald Ford was considered the centrist of the Republican Party back in 1976 as Walter Mondale was considered the centrist of the Democratic Party back in 1984. I'm just guessing people who make comments like that are simply a bit too young to know better.

[delrem]

77. That's certainly how I understood his (oft repeated) message.

And it's how I understand all of the "reality based" claims made by the right-wing set.

But now it seems that he's claiming to be unclear on the concept.

Figures...

[dawg]

38. It's the money, Lebowski.

Candidates like Barack Obama run on fairly progressive rhetoric because they know it motivates the base to get out and vote. Then they govern from the center because they are beholden to the much more conservative donors who funded their campaigns.

[MineralMan]

41. Focus on congressional and state legislative races.

Truly, they are the ones that can go either way in many cases. They're local races, every one of them. The Presidency is more a matter of money than anything else. We elect a President from one party or the other, but it is Congress that really matters, and we pay far less attention to that, to our peril.

In 2016, it's highly likely that Hillary Clinton will end up winning. Not a shoe-in, but very likely. What will happen next will depend on the makeup of Congress. It will depend on that far more than most people realize.

We must focus on races where we can have an influence in the result. For the Presidency, we have almost no influence. In your Congressional District, however, you do have influence and can affect the outcome. Not in every district, but in many districts - more than enough to gain control of Congress. The Republicans know this and they've been using that strategy for years now.

We need to focus our attention on the legislative branch, both federal and state. That's my opinion, and the point of this thread.

[dawg]

44. We should attempt to compete at every level of government, right down to the city council.

But tacking to the right is pointless, especially when you consider that mainstream Republicans have entered delusional territory. If we can't win elections with center-left policies, then we need to work on being more persuasive ... not more conservative.

[MineralMan]

46. Yes, we should. And we shouldn't tack to the right in those races.

I'm just saying that we should focus on more local races, where we can actually have an influence. The overall voter turnout in the US was under 38%. In my precinct, it was 50%. That still sucks, but GOTV efforts helped to boost it. Every Democrat on our ballot won. They're all progressives to. They all won their election, from local conservation board members to Governor and our Senator Al Franken.

The voters turned out and Democrats won. That's my goal in every election. I can't influence any Presidential election, but I can knock on the doors in my precinct and affect the rest of the elections to some degree.

Presidential elections are what they are. Legislative and lower office elections are what we make them.

[pa28]

43. By "we" you mean Democrats only right?

Republicans manage to install ideologues like Reagan and W. who successfully shape the national political agenda and form conventional wisdom for years after they've left office.

You seem to be saying "we" can't do that or should not try. Very de-motivational.

[MineralMan]

47. Yes, of course. And I'm not actually talking about presidential

elections. Read the entire post. Its focus is on legislative elections. We can influence those. We can't do much about presidential elections, frankly.

[Cosmocat]

57. Yeah, unfortunately

republicans can wrap extremism into thinly veiled bullshit and this country will eagerly gobble it down.

So, they elect the moron who they would want to have a beer with.

We can try, but end of the day this country will follow the republican's down the rat hole 99.9% of the time ...

[Marr]

45. That's the official excuse, yes. The fact is that our "centrist" presidents are solidlly right

of center on economics and foreign policy, and achieve their Democratic bonafides with social issues that won't cost the billionaire class a dime. This political calculation is done with the varied sentiments of the fifty states in mind, yes, so in that respect, the diversity of the country plays a role.

But the real reason we get these 'right wing on everything that matters most' presidents is because our system makes it fairly easy for wealthy interests to control elections and media messaging, and to make sure that people who advocate economic policies that favor the 99% are never part of the dialogue. Those rare few who do manage to communicate such a message in this environment seem to gain fast support.

[MineralMan]

49. That's why presidential elections should not be our primary focus.

That was the point of my original post. By focusing on legislative and other local elections, we can actually influence what happens. What we think about any presidential election has little to do with who is elected. But it has a helluva lot to do with all those other offices.

[Marr]

54. Who said it was? Every liberal activist I've ever known stressed the

supreme importance of working at the local level.

That doesn't mean we should ignore national offices or refrain from pushing for the most liberal candidate we can find.

[MineralMan]

61. There is only one national race - the presidency.

Every other office is local, right up to the Senate races. We have only one national office holder, elected by the entire country. The larger the electorate the more difficult it is to influence the outcome. The more local, the easier it is.

[Marr]

64. No. A national office is one that is part of the national government.

Running for Senate is running for a national office. A state office is a part in a state government, city office/city government, etc.

[MineralMan]

65. I should have said national election. My mistake.

Senatorial races are statewide. The only nationwide race is the presidency.

I edited the post title.

[Marr]

66. My mistake as well-- I actually deleted my post when I realized what you meant. /nt

[BlindTiresias]

51. *

Only applies to Democrats, Republican presidents can be as far right as they please.**

**Said by a former freeper and right winger

[MineralMan]

63. Who said that? And where? Link, please.

If that's a quote by someone, I'm sure you can provide a link. If it's not a quote, I'm not sure what your point is.

[BlindTiresias]

71. Link? Sure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025829457

[MineralMan]

84. The words you wrote appear nowhere in the post at your link.

And yet you make accusations about me as though they did. That is a dishonest strategy. I'm very disappointed in it.

[MineralMan]

69. Still waiting for your link to someone saying that.

If you can't find it, maybe you should self-delete.

[stevenleser]

85. Jury results

*
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5830426

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a personal attack. It is possible to discuss and disagree, even passionately, without "reminding" everyone here that MM used to post on Free Republic. There is a group here that will do the "you used to be a freeper" to every single MM post, no matter what the topic. It is something he has never denied and I believe he's given a hundred explanations for. This type of bullying is really pointless and stupid.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 17, 2014, 06:45 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I think Bind Tire Ass is trying to stifle discussion
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I understand what is happening, still not enough to hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I may be wrong but it seems BlindTiresias is referring to her/himself as a former freeper and right winger.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter. This is a personal attack and a complete Red Herring. Behaving like this should result in a hide and other penalties on DU (i.e. temporarily unable to post).

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[sadoldgirl]

55. Due to redistricting we can howl and scream,

but for a long time nothing will change. So why not try a different approach?

Let many states put new laws or amendments on the ballot, like the ones about the minimum wage.

sooner or later most states will find that those kind of changes define their voters' wishes.

[Rex]

60. No we end up with moderate POTUSes if we are lucky.

If not they tend to be GOP authoritarians, which is not anywhere near the center. Centrists is a made up word that applies to melding the parties together in one huge fail. NO thanks give me a moderate any day. Obama is a moderate. Much to the chagrin of some here.

[delrem]

67. I always thought George W. Bush was a "centrist" - I'm glad you confirmed it.

Nice to see that we're on the same page, MineralMan.
Now, all we need to do is keep on hammering the "centrist" meme until '16 and we're sure to get a nice continuation of reality-based politics.

[TheKentuckian]

68. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are "centrists" now? No wonder Democrats are disgruntled.

Half of our party identifies more closely with two far right wingers than they do with the hated left.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

75. That's a good goal, your paragraph

about local legislative races. As Tip O'Neill said- 'all politics is local' If we could sustain the pattern of controlling things at the local level, eventually it would work its way up. 'Course we'll all be pushin' up daisies by then but.....................

[Niko]

76. Do you have any CLUE how conservative you guys are?

I'm sorry, but every time I see an American talking about "moderates" and "centrists" and "independents", I can't help but wonder if you're all living in a bubble.

Do you guys have even the slightest clue of how conservative that "center" is? Let me give you some perspective. Right now Canada has a Conservative MAJORITY GOVERNMENT. In the parliamentary system, that means they can pretty much pass whatever law they want, without any opposition whatsoever. There is no Veto, no filibuster, no gridlock.

The affordable care act is an idea that would not even be floated by the Conservative party of Canada. It's far too right wing for them, far too right wing for the people. Cutting funding to our single payer, universal health care system would cost the Conservative party dearly.

There are no abortion laws here. None. Abortion is provided on demand. Do you know what the ruling Conservative party is doing about that right now? Nothing. They won't touch it. Remember: Majority government, Conservative rule. Not even passing the slightest little regulation regarding abortion.

Guns require a license here. The Conservative government removed the registration for long guns only, which was not a very popular move. They are not touching restrictions on hand guns. When the Liberals do finally get back into power (hopefully next year), they'll probably reinstate the long gun registry, which law enforcement supported and were sore as hell about losing that very helpful tool to fight gun crime.

Gay marriage has been legal here for almost a decade now. The Conservative government is not reopening that debate, despite being totally opposed to it back in 2005, when the Liberals were in power. Same party, same Prime Minister, even, who was the leader of the opposition and against it at the time, and they're not touching gay marriage.

Women get to choose up to 12 months maternity leave here. It's guaranteed, and you can't lose your job if you take the full year. Drugs are cheap if not covered by the health care system. News channels and news programs are required by law to report facts, not fiction, or else they can be fined. Elections are counted by hand with paper ballots. Municipal elections that use voting machines still have a paper trail. There are laws against gerrymandering - All electoral districts have to abide by strict rules to keep things fair. Banks are regulated to the point that we hardly even felt the great recession of 2008. Seriously, like it almost didn't happen at all. The conservative government, in power right now, with a full majority government, is not touching anything above.

Don't get me wrong, we love Obama here. But only because we know what the alternative is. Your presidents are not in the center. Not even close. You're so far to the right that one wonders how you can even call them moderate, let alone liberal.

[TheKentuckian]

78. Yes, many of us are painfully aware that our "liberal" party is the 2nd most conservative

governing party in the west, yes that includes LIKUD who might be warmongering but would never float our right wing economics for their people and the Torries and yes, many are working to elect our own Thatcher as we speak.

[gyroscope]

79. FDR wasn't a centrist

yet managed to get elected and re-elected 4 times.

and (arguably) neither was Kennedy.

[MineralMan]

80. Were you alive then. I wasnt and I was born in

1945.

[gyroscope]

81. Your point?

FDR and Kennedy seem to prove you don't have to be a centrist to get elected to the highest office.

though another FDR or Kennedy-like figure (ie: Liz Warren) getting into office would be the corporate and rightwing's worst nightmare. and you can be sure they will do literally anything and everything to prevent that from happening again.

[TransitJohn]

86. Bzzzzzzt.

We end up with centrist Presidents because it costs a lot of fucking money to get elected, and we peons don't have that kind of cash.

[loyalsister]

90. Well said

That is also exactly how MO wound up with Jay Nixon and Claire McCaskill. Even the Democrats in rural parts of MO are extremely conservative. They have to represent their districts to get elected.

[Jim Lane]

91. A President of centrist ideology isn’t a given, because so many voters are nonideological

Your implicit model of voter behavior is that the voter locates each candidate on the left-right spectrum, and then votes for the candidate who’s closer to his or her own position.

While it’s true that millions of voters act that way, millions of others don’t. They look at other factors – strong leader, nice person, whatever.

Goldwater and McGovern lost partly because of their ideologies but also partly through other factors. In each case, an incumbent President in the pre-public financing days outspent the challenger, and the media went along with the incumbent’s devastating picture of his opponent. (Goldwater’s a reckless lunatic whose Inaugural Address will begin “5...4...3...”; McGovern’s a naive idiot who’s pro-LSD.)

As others have pointed out in this thread, if the advantage of centrist ideology in appealing coast-to-coast were the only factor involved, then Jimmy Carter, who had the advantage of incumbency plus being from the more conservative wing of the liberal party, would have crushed Ronald Reagan, who was certainly no centrist.

So how did Reagan win? Anecdotal evidence: I was canvassing and phone-banking for Ted Kennedy. More than one person said something like, “I’ll vote for Kennedy in the primary but if he doesn’t win, then I’ll vote for Reagan. We have to get rid of Carter.” Both Kennedy and Reagan were perceived as being strong leaders precisely because, to some extent, of their lack of centrism – of their willingness to take the “positions near the edge of either party” that you say are fatal.

The unanswered question is whether there is room in American politics for a Reagan of the left. Such a candidate would indeed, as you say, lose some votes in the center, as ideological centrists who might have voted for a centrist Democrat would turn instead to the Republican. The tradeoff would be that some swing voters would choose to vote for a bold, forthright candidate, one not perceived as trying to hunker down in the center. Another factor, of course, is that a strong progressive/populist might be able to motivate a lot of the nonvoters to turn out.

Therefore, I’m not willing to join you in completely writing off the chance of “electing a truly progressive President.”

I do agree with you that legislative elections have a different dynamic. I’m addressing only the subject of your subject line.

[Art_from_Ark]

92. Why we end up with centrist Presidents

November 22, 1963
and
June 5, 1968

and for good measure,
November 7, 1972

[Martin Eden]

97. We need to move the "Center" back towards the true middle -- not keep chasing it to the right.

Over the last 3 decades the "Center" has moved steadily to the right, and that is largely due to false narratives (with complicity from the corporate media) which have molded public perception and deceived a huge chunk of the electorate into voting against their own interests.

Nevertheless, in 2008 & 2012 the presidency was won by a mixed race candidate named Barack Hussein Obama who was widely vilified by the right as an extreme liberal. While it is true he is actually much more of a centrist than perceived, he defeated candidates who were quite "centrist" within the increasingly rightwing Republican Party.

It was voter turnout more than Obama's "centrism" that won those lections, especially in 2008.

The task for the Democratic Party is to move the Center back where it belongs by destroying the false narratives and convincing the 99% we truly represent their interests.

We need to put forward candidates at every level of office -- including President -- who can make that case and inspire voters to come to the polls.