Reply #62: who knows for sure? I don't claim to have a crystal ball like you do [View All]

[wyldwolf]

The fact remains, Clinton was expected to tow the liberal line and he did - to his detriment.

And if he had avoided all the positions you blame for '94, again, why would he have deserved a DEMOCRATIC nomination?

Because Democrats favored him over the other choices. Say, you're not trying to fall back on that "progressive" revision of "Democratic ideals" are you?

The voters didn't want, and DON'T want, two conservative parties.

But they do want a centrist one, which is what the Democratic party always was (and is) when they're winning.

And we'd have lost in '68 if we'd renominated LBJ, as even you would have to concede. He was at someting like 35% public approval rating in September 1968(according to ALL major polls). Not being challenged wouldn't have improved his support level, since the country was already against the war.

Yet, the left still sat out the '68 election. :shrug:

Shouldn't you just admit that you don't want Democrats to be different than Republicans on anything?

Shouldn't you admit...

1. You have no grasp of Democratic electoral history?
2. You have a mistaken notion of what the Democratic party has been and what it should be?
3. You don't want Democrats to be different than socialists on anything?