Nominating a "northeastern liberal" for president == suicide for the Dems

[no name no slogan]

Okay, I know this totally sets me up for a lot of flames from the Kerry/Dean/Liebermann (and possibly Sharpton?) supporters, but this is an interesting topic for discussion.

The last time the Democrats won the presidency with a nominee from the northeastern part of the country was in 1960. Since then, the winning Dem nominees have been from the south.

The Republicans relish the thought of painting our next nominee as "just another NE liberal", whether that's the truth or not about the candidate in question (Liebermann is certainly no liberal, and Dean is a moderate, IMHO).

Since most of the Democratic candidates are set on playing this campaign by BushCo's tried and true rules, would nominating yet another northeastern liberal really be a wise choice, if we want to win the White House in 2004?

Okay, I've put on my asbestos underwear-- flame away :evilgrin:

[clar]

1. We can't

select our candidates on the merits of geography, or allow the right wing of the republican party to dictate to us.

[diplomats]

3. The problem is swing voters, not the RW

Our nominee has to be able to win that segment.

[no name no slogan]

17. "Swing Voters?" THAT is truly defeatest thinking!

Why oh why are so many well-meaning Democrats obsessed with the so-called "swing voters"? At best, they are a measly 5% of the voting population in any given election!

These people will probably vote Republican anyway, so screw them! What we need to do is reach out to the HUGE numbers of non-voters out there-- the ones that Dean and Kucinich have been reaching in massive numbers.

It's hard to see Dean supporters so worried about playing the game by BushCo's rules-- if we do it their way, they're going to hand us our asses on a plate. People are thirsting for politics with meaning-- not just another run-of-the-mill nominee who appears to say whatever it takes to win!

If the Democrats want to continue the way they have for the last 20 years, then they'll not mind being the party in the minority in the government.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. How Can Swing Voters Be 5% Of The Electorate

when approximately thirty five to forty percent of Americans identify themselves as Democratic, thirty to thirty five percent identify themselves as Republicans and the rest as independents...

[no name no slogan]

33. Some terms may clarify

by electorate, I'm talking eligible voters.

In the last presidential election, barely 50% of those eligible to vote actually voted. Of those who voted, maybe 10% could be considered "swing voters".

That makes 10% of 50% of the electorate (i.e., eligible voters). 10% of 50% is 5%.

If we can find even 6% of NEW voters on the left side of the spectrum, we can win with a majority. IMHO, it's a lot easier to get new voters than to run towards the mushball middle and try to woo that 5% away from voting GOP.

[Capn Sunshine]

97. YOU SO DONT GET WHAT DEAN IS ABOUT

Deans message is BRINGING PEOPLE IN from outside the narrow confines of the "electorate" as we defined it in the past. Easily half of our group is composed of "never voted" or "haven't voted for ten years" people.They don't show up on traditional radar. They are not "likely voters". You'll see; it will become apparent after the first couple of primaries.

You are so blinded by the "swing vote mantra" you can't see the obvious: the numbers outside who don't vote; the same people Dean is giving a reason to become involved again: this comprises a number some FIVE TIMES the "swing vote"!

THIS is what we are changing, that and the funding model. When people see that their puny dollars five bucks at a time on the internet actually add up to 10 million dollars per quarter, they get hope back that we can defeat the entrenched corporate interests.We have the potential, with our donor base we have now, to raise 600 million dollars and not leave our living rooms to do it. With our numbers , which are massive.And unnoticed.

Do yourself a favor.Go to a meetup. Ask around. Why do you think we're so excited about this guy?

We don't NEED the swing voters. It's a new dawn of a new day.
Its about YOU. YOU have the power!

[no name no slogan]

102. I KNOW what Dean's about., and I can't support him

I KNOW how grassroots politics works, I've been busting my ass at it since I was a teenager.

Nor am I blinded by the "swing vote" mantra. I worked for Wellstone in 1990, and the right tried that against us then, too.

I agree wholeheartedly with your message-- however, to me, your messenger leaves much to be desired.

This is just my opinion, as somebody who was a potiential Dean supporter, but Dean's talk does not match his walk.

Dean is, if anything, a status-quo politician running a populist-style campaign. His record as Vermont governor (a liberal state, no less) is that of a DLCer. Big business loves this guy, and even says that they "got what they wanted" when he was governor. He'll even tell you HIMSELF that he's not a liberal, he's a centrist. He can rile up a supportive crowd with the best of them, but his record as a centrist won't do him much good amongst working folk.

I've seen his type before-- they have the style, the nice suits, the hair and the telegenic personality that appeals to the 'radical-chic' limousine liberal guilt-ridden middle-class who need to be assured that "it's okay to be successful". Hell, I've even CAMPAIGNED for many of them-- no lie! They talk a good line to the converted, but post-election, they govern just like the good DLCers they are.

If anything, Dean's campaign reminds me of the one Jesse Ventura ran here in MN in 1998. It was the insurgence of the so-called "Radical Middle" who also supported the candidacies of Ross Perot. Sure, they had the rhetoric and the outrage, but it was all sizzle and no steak. Their hearts were in the right place, but their program was just the same-ol' same-ol' that has failed us over the last 30 years.

And THAT's why I support Kucinich. He not only talks the talk, he walks the walk in his daily life. He's not afraid to STAND UP and TELL THE TRUTH. No, I don't agree with him on everything-- that flag-burning amendment was a stinker. However, he's a man of his convictions, and he's not afraid to stand up for them, no matter what. His program isn't even that unique-- it's basically the same one the Democrats have adhered to for the past 30 years!

Kucinich reminds me of another "shrill" diminuitive man I worked for and with in the late 80s and early 90s-- Paul Wellstone. On the issues, they're identical. THEY are the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party" (sorry Deaniacs). THEY have stood up for what they believed in and what is right, and even taken it to the streets when need be. Other than Sharpton, how many other candidates would be willing to be arrested to make an important moral statement?

Like I said, the message is spot-on. But the messenger who is tight with big-business and afraid of being a "liberal" is not one I can support in good conscience.

[janx]

4. Exactly. That's defeatist thinking.

.

[ryharrin]

2. I disagree, but my question is- why not Kucinich too?

Ohio is the northeast. And he's definitely liberal. And about 1960 being the last time the democrats won with a northeasterner- so what? When's the last time the democrats had a nominee from the northeast that had 400,000 supporters and (by the end of this quarter) probably $30 million dollars with more than a year before the election?

[diplomats]

6. When Dean closes the gap with Bush to single digits

like other Dems I'll feel more comfortable. (Notice I said when, not if :) )

[carpetbagger]

13. Ohio's not the northeast.

Certainly not the "liberal northeast". Vermont and Massachusetts are as stereotyped for their liberalism as Alabama and Mississippi are for their conservatism.

Ohio is more of a rust belt place, wedged in between Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

[jburton]

19. It depends

Ohio is not NE to you.

Some people (not me) think anything NE of Missouri is The Northeast.

[no name no slogan]

18. Ohio is Midwest

Ohio has been considered midwest geographically for as long as I can remember-- although it's still pretty "northeast" for Minnesotans like myself. Remember, it's "Rust Belt" country-- not the Hamptons!

[Capn Sunshine]

5. Isn't there anything else in Karls book today?

Wow, let's all go home, we wouldn't want another Kennedy on our hands.
:nuke:

[enkidu2]

8. i

am really struck by this, being a ne liberal myself. In lbjs biography he talks about his sense in the 1950s that he could not run for president as a southerner could never win, how profoundly our tables have turned, and sadly imho, nothing against all southerners here but we have some pretty smart good hearted people in this area

[no name no slogan]

30. What a thoughtful rebuttal!

Yeah, don't say anything on the merits of your argument and claim the poster is a Rovian operative. Why debate the merits when you can make baseless accusations?

FYI, I come from a long line of Democrats AND progressives. My great-grandfather was a Democratic alderman in Minneapolis during the Great Depression. As a matter of fact, my grandfather STILL received christmas cards from Hubert H. Humphrey up until HHH died in 1977.

In college in the late 80s/early 90s, I protested the madness of arms proliferation at Honeywell, at that time the manufacturers of cluster bombs, one of the most horrific weapons ever created. I got arrested for tresspassing and protesting on their property. So yeah, my actions do speak as loud as my words.


I first got my start in Democratic politics in 1988, when I was a college student and I organized my campus for Dukakis. My precinct caucus had OVER 400 people attending it that year-- when a normal presidential year turnout was maybe 12 at the very most.

1988 is also the year I first met Paul Wellstone, when he came to my campus and helped us unseat an arch-conservative neoCon from the state leg.

Subsequently, in 1990, I jumped headfirst in to the Wellstone campaign at the GRASSROOTS level. NOBODY, including the party elites (Mondales, Humphreys, etc.) thought Paul had a snowball's chance in hell of even getting the DFL NOMINATION, much less winning the Senate. Paul defeated the white suburban lawyer who was the "apparent" nominee with ease. I proudly went to the state convention that year (wearing a green shirt to match that crazy bus) as a delegate for PAUL WELLSTONE.

Wellstone's acceptance speech at the convention still gives me chills. After the convention we once again faced an uphill campaign to unseat the multi-millionaire businessman who had more money and name recognition. And once again, we won.

After the Dems veered to the right with Clinton in 1992, my activity dropped off considerably. However, I still built and managed web sites for a good college friend's state legislature race-- which she won with a "Kucinich-like" 70% of the vote.

When Paul died in 2002, I cried for half the day. It truly seemed that the dream was over. Many of us were devastated. I got angry, and got involved again, because I see in Dennis Kucinich what I saw in Wellstone, but don't see in any of the other candidates.

So, what have YOU been doing for the Dems all this time, Cap'n? I'm eager to know.

HOW DARE YOU assume I'm some Rove operative. HOW DARE YOU level that accusation at me, just because I raised a pertinent question that we, as a party, need to consider in 2004.

Maybe you should stop parroting the party line and do a little thinking instead. Otherwise, we're no better than the Republicans we want to send packing.

[aquart]

7. Best have a Southwestern conservative then.

Someone just like Bush?

[blm]

9. Times have changed.

The world is screaming for an American president of great intellect and a strong grasp of the world and its various cultures, and with the ability to speak wise and measured words.

And Americans are so OVER the shoot from the hip fratboy who acts like a straight-talker when he is actually quite crooked.

[jburton]

10. screw 'em

It may be "negative" to certain people, but are they going to vote for ANY Democrat?

Clinton won plenty of Northern states, even though he was "A Southern Bubba governor" or whatever.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. There's nothing better we could do than elect a real liberal to the WH.

And with Bush as wounded as he is, with all the polls and trends pointing towards increasing his unpopularity, this is our chance to do it!

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103&PHPSESSID=fb8949c5a00edc3c8fd3a8c37b889ba5#Liberal

[bowens43]

12. Maybe the country is ready for a liberal.

I know I am and I also know that geography plays absolutely no roll in who I chose to support. I doubt very much that it plays roll for others.

"Look Martha, he's a great guy but he's from Vermont, we can't vote for him"

I don't believe for a minute that that happens.

[NormanConquest]

14. I agree...

* is from the NE (originally) and his spendthrift policies are the most liberal in history!

Let's make sure the Democratic party never nominate anybody like *.

:evilgrin:

[no name no slogan]

34. touche

point taken. My point isn't that we shouldn't nominate a liberal necessarily, but that it will be harder for a liberal from the NE to fight the "northeastern liberal" stereotype that s/he's sure to get plastered with by the SCLM.

[NashVegas]

45. Best Way to Fight the Stereotype

IMO, is to fight back. When NE liberals are ready to stop being the party's whipping boys (and girls) you'll be amazed.

I'm tired of the cynicism in 'politics as usual.' Winning the election is not more important than getting the country back on track if winning the election means things go back to business as usual.

[no name no slogan]

58. I agree

Unfortunately, this party in the last 20 years has focused more on "electability" than on actually winning elections-- in other words, playing by the GOP's rules. I can only see three (maybe four) of the current Gang of Ten that are willing to fight differently, unfortunately :(.

That's why I think it's important to consider this question-- not too deeply, but we can't afford to ignore it either. Because I still have this feeling that whoever wins this beauty pagent will get suckered into playing by the same stupid rules and heading for the middle of the road like a good little doggie.

THAT would be the real tragedy. :cry:

[Capn Sunshine]

15. Maybe this country is ready for a Democrat

no matter where he hails from............

[zeemike]

16. Why

Are we being herded in a certain way by Republican talking points? We can’t win with a northern liberal or someone that does not have a military record. How about trial lawyers? That had better be considered also just in case Edwards moves up. It is not necessary to say that a black or a women could not win, at least for now.

[jburton]

23. Good points

"Northeast" candidate can't win is the same thinking as:

"Millionaire Trial Lawyer" can't win (Edwards)
"Old-style Democrat Bush Hater" can't win (Gep)

and on and on.

Any nominee will be labeled by the right.

[zeemike]

25. Oh darn

I forgot the “millionaire” I have to get my labels correct. And I forgot the “Old Style Demos” too.
Thanks for the help.

[no name no slogan]

31. Thanks for missing the point

No, I'm no GOP operative-- I'm fourth generation Democrat. However, I think we need to address this issue, as the Repubs are going to bash us over the head with it come November next year.

I could maybe see Dean being able to shed that label-- although Vermont has a reputation for being extremely liberal (Bernie Sanders, call your office). Although Lieb's not liberal in almost anyones sense, he's still from the northeast, and he's a Democrat, which is enough for people in the heartland ("flyover country" to you coastals) to be wary of voting for him.

[zeemike]

36. Screw the label

Why not just ignore it? Did it ever occur to you that while you are trying to overcome the labeling that the repugs use you are playing a defensive game?
We need to go on the offensive. Label them and let them defend it. Question their policies. Make them answer the questions.

[no name no slogan]

48. Dems "fight"? What a novel idea!

I agree, we need to go on the offensive and hammer the Repubs where they are the most weak. But we need to face facts that most of the Demo candidates are little more than sheep going along with BushCo because they're too afraid to appear "wimpy".

The only democratic candidates willing to stand up and REALLY fight are Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton. The rest of them are doing a great job being lapdogs for BushCo-- even better than Al "I agree with the shrub" Gore was in 2000.

I'm not saying that you should vote by geography-- far from it. Nor am I letting the GOP dictate the terms of the race. But you know darn well that the rest of the country is going to eat this crap up unless we have a candidate who is not afraid to kick some serious Bushco butt in the general election campaign.

[zeemike]

55. Yes that is right

We need to take the fight to them and the battleground is the media. We need to make news not let the news make us.

[Old and In the Way]

79. It's a non-issue.....it's a label.

See post 23 above. Fact is I'll vote for any democrat that wins the nomination, as will the clear majority of voters.

* We won by 1/2 million votes last time.
* How many Republicans are going to sit this election out?
* How many independents, mod/left Republicans, and 2000 non-voting Democrats will be motivated to vote Democrat this time?
* How many new voters (18+) will vote for this warmonger knowing they could be drafted into the Republican Imperial Army?

No, the only "issue" we have to worry about has nothing to do with our candidates, everyone of them is totally superior to the dimwit that plays pResident now.

The only issue is ballot box integrity.

[Kool Kitty]

104. I will never understand why the midwest is considered the

"heartland" and the coasts are considered the cooties. What makes the midwest any more "hearty" than the rest of us? We're all Americans, are we not? (I'm not asking that to be a wise-ass, no name no slogan, because I hear it and see it in print all the time.) I just wonder why it is. Coming from the East Coast, I don't consider the midwest "flyover" country. Just a question from a "coastal".

[janx]

64. I'm with you. To heck with Republican talking points--you know why?

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW IRRELEVANT

[HPLeft]

20. Can't Agree

Kerry is a thinking-man's "man's man" and Dean isn't Mr. Softy either (let's see Bush get through the gore of Medical School). Neither of these guys is your father's NE liberal. Both of these guys will kick Dubya's chickenhawk butt in November 2004.

[Khephra]

21. How many Senators have been elected President?

Sports stars don't back off from long-standing records because they've never been beaten before. They set out to break them.

It's time for us to stop being scared by the past. Just about any candidate on the Left that is running will have to beat some "trusim" or record to get in office.

[jburton]

26. Truisms are meant to be broken

Truisms are so overrated, aren't they?


No senator/congressperson has won since JFK. (Edwards, Kerry, Lieb, Kucinich, Graham, Gep)

No General has won since Ike. (Clark)

No NE "liberal" can win. (Dean, Sharpton)

No Black female has ever won. (Braun)



Looks like all of our candidates will lose!!!!!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. The 'conventional wisdom' also said

we had no chance to beat Bush Sr. in '92

[zeemike]

27. And remember

They said Clinton could not win because he had no experience in foreign affairs and dogged the draft.

[no name no slogan]

35. ...Unless we "out-Republicaned" the Republicans (which we did)

[zeemike]

41. Not so

Bush was a “popular wartime president” that had at one time during the Gulf War a 92% approval rating in the polls
And a “draft dodger” beat him.

[no name no slogan]

50. Oh come on! Clinton 1992 == Poppy 1972!

Clinton didn't even RUN as a Democrat! He did his damnedest to not be labeled as a "liberal" (which he wasn't), and had positions that were as far right as Poppy's on some very important issues, like the death penalty (execute them retarded folk! yeah!). Clinton ran as the Republican Poppy used to be in the early 70s! He out-Republicaned Bush!

And don't forget, Clinton NEVER WON any of his terms with a majority of the popular vote, with voter turnouts of <60%.

I'd call that a victory in name only.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. you know, 10 years ago I might have gone for that argument

but now, after the long national nightmare of the BushJr administration, I will never again doubt that there is a real difference between the parties. I know with absolute certitude we would be a thousand times better off with the most corporate-owned Democrat anyone could imagine in office compared to any Republican.

I don't believe at all that Clinton "out-Republicaned" the Republicwans. He didn't win on racist or other divisive appeals. He didn't win by systematically denying minority groups their vote. He didn't win by having his corrupt brother's administration rig the vote in Florida and then certify the results before the votes were counted. He didn't win by being installed into office by a partisan Supreme Court.

[no name no slogan]

54. Clinton race-baited in 1992-- remember "Sister Souljah"?

Clinton did hardly anything to play up his liberal credentials. However, he did play up the fact that he executed a retarded man on death row, and made some lovely race-baiting comments about rapper Sister Souljah, which resonated well with the white-fright/white-flighters in the 'burbs.

And I have to respectfully disagree about being better off with a corporate Dem than what we have.

Of those in the House and/or Senate, how many of our current candidates voted AGAINST the PATRIOT act? Also, how many voted against the IWR? Only Dennis Kucinich can claim both of these.

Yes, there's still a difference between parties to the rank-and-file voters, but you sure as hell can't tell by our candidates!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. This statement:

"Yes, there's still a difference between parties to the rank-and-file voters, but you sure as hell can't tell by our candidates!"

has got to be one of the most deluded I've ever read on DU.

[no name no slogan]

80. Oh really?

WHO amongst the current crop of candidates voted AGAINST the Patriot Act, which most DUers and rank-and-file Dems OPPOSE?

WHO amongst the current crop of candidates voted AGAINST the IWR, which most DUers and rank-and-file Dems OPPOSED?

Does that narrow the candidates down enough for you? :D

[unfrigginreal]

28. It's just a meme...

granted it is a popular one expounded by the mainstream media and our GOP friends.

It won't be an easy mountain to overcome unless our candidate can somehow rid themselves of the "pantywaisted liberal" label.

I think that Dean goes a long way toward that goal with his view on guns and his outspokeness.

[no name no slogan]

39. Not a meme-- but "liberal NE elitist" is a concern

I may have to modify my stance a bit, as I left out the class element in my initial posting. I think it may be harder for a candidate who can be easily perceived as a "liberal elitist from out east" getting play in the heartland, amongst working-class people.

Yes, the traditional latte-sipping, NPR-listening limousine liberal types will always vote for whoever gets nominated, but will that kind of candidate be able to energize working people, or racial minorities, or others who are part of the Democratic base?

[unfrigginreal]

42. It's just a meme...n/t

[no name no slogan]

51. and easier to dismiss to you, I see (n/t)

[Kool Kitty]

106. "...getting play in the heartland,

amongst working-class people." And what the fuck do you think we're doing in the rest of the country, you know, not the "heartland"? Do you think they just send us money and we don't work?

[KaraokeKarlton]

29. It doesn't even apply to Dean

He's northeastern, but he's not a liberal. It doesn't apply to Lieberman, either. It does, however, apply to Kerry. Clearly Lieberman sucks so bad he'll never win the nomination, but Dean is probably going to win it and he's perfectly electable.

[Julien Sorel]

40. 200 million dollars later, it would apply to Dean.

[KaraokeKarlton]

53. I'm assuming you're talking about attack ads?

If so, I'm not even remotely worried about it. Dean has faced a hell of a lot worse than anything Bush and Rove will throw at him...and Dean won under far worse conditions he will face in the general election. He's smart, a great campaigner and nothing sticks to him. He is the best prepared to face Bush.

[no name no slogan]

65. not necessarily attack ads

but public perception. Many people in the heartland find it easy to distrust a slick-talking "New England Elitist". I agree, it's stupid, but it's still a fact.

That's why I believe a populist has a better chance of winning the presidency than a "limousine liberal" will. Damn, Dubya played himself as a "populist" to Al Gore-- and Dubya's the poster child of the moneyed elite!

[KaraokeKarlton]

78. Dean isn't an elitist or a "limousine liberal"

He drives an old rusted out 1989 Blazer, lives in a modest house, sends his kids to public schools, can be seen hanging out at his son's soccer and hockey games, visiting with the other parents. Yes, he was born a bit of a "blueblood" but he hasn't lived like one eversince he left home. He got less than $50,000 from his parents and everything he has he got on his own. Hell, his house is probably no bigger than mine is. He doesn't live high on the hog. He lives like a normal middle class American.

[no name no slogan]

89. From a rich, connected NYC family

Do the math: the median yearly wage in the US is approx. $23k. I don't know of many doctors or others with Dean's background that only make that much a year.

He grew up on Park Avenue. He's about as populist as a yuppie.

He has major connections to Salomon Smith Barney, one of the largest stockbrokers in the world. Folks who have lost their 401(k) savings over the last few years are going to be mighty suspicious.

I'm sorry, but that ain't gonna play well in flyover country.

[KaraokeKarlton]

90. Who you were born to doesn't matter

How you choose to live and what you do with your life does. Dean paid his own way through medical school, and hid it from his family. He chose to go to a hospital in one of the poorest areas in NYC to learn. You're being ridiculous, seriously. Out of all the candidates running, Dean is probably the one who lives most like you do, and he does so by choice.

[no name no slogan]

100. But it DOES matter if you're born on third base.

Respectfully,

Since I have had to live out of my car at a certain point in my life, I'd have to say that I can relate more to Dennis Kucinich than to the priviledged upbringing of Howard Dean.

My father is a machinist. His dad was a subsistance farmer, who drank more than he was able to make harvesting rocks. My dad left home at 14 to find work in "the big city", and has somehow managed to survive in this world with an 8th grade education.

My mother was an office clerk before working her way up into middle management at a Fortune 500 company-- back when a divorced woman in the workplace was still a novelty.

My mom's dad was a self-made man who made his money installing gutters on houses during the post-war building boom. He had an 8th grade education, and patented a creation of his that made it easier to install soffit and facia. Before that he drove a truck and lugged 100-lb sacks of flour thirteen hours a day from the great mills of Minneapolis, back when we were the Mill City.

My grandfather's dad ran a garage during the depression, and probably gave away more gas than he ever sold, since they moved every nine months because they couldn't pay the rent-- just like Dennis Kucinich's family.

I am the first male in my family from either side to have the benefit of a college education. I am one of the most fortunate people in my family. I know where I came from. And people like me don't matter much anymore to the party establishment.

Dennis Kucinich's dad was a teamster. Dennis is a card carrying union member-- as far as I know, the only candidate who is. Kucinichs' folks never lived on Park Avenue. Therefore, I'd still have to say I have more in common with Kucinich or Edwards than I do with Dean.

Sure, the yuppies that inhabit cyberspace probably have a lot more in common with a professional like Dean, or Kerry, but that's not the America that goes to its crappy job (or jobs) for 50+ hours a week to keep the wolves from the door.

They don't give a damn about the new Al Franken book, or the new Starbucks flavor or what funny story you heard on NPR because their backs are sore and their ears are tired from scrubbing your toilets, serving your food, driving your busses, fixing your cars, writing your traffic tickets, and teaching your kids with outdated textbooks in buildings that are collapsing around them.

IF we truly want to win and "take back our country", THESE are the people we need with us, not more politicians saying one thing and doing another. People are fed up with the bullshit and lies, and any candidate who tries to be something he is not will eventually reveal himself as a fraud.

People are fed up with that already. They sure as hell don't want more.

[KaraokeKarlton]

108. Franken spoke at a Dean fundraiser in NY last night

Which would imply that Franken supports Dean. Listen, just because someone is born into wealth, it doesn't make them better or worse or even different than anyone else. We all wipe our ass the same way. Dean has chosen to live like a member of the middle class. He doesn't have to do that, but he has. The fact that he made that choice is proof enough that he relates better with average, everyday Americans than he does with the high society types. You know what, in South Carolina Dean met a homeless veteran on the street. Dean took him to the Democratic Party Fish Fry as his personal guest. The people at the gate didn't want to let the guy in, probably because of how he looked. Dean stuck up for him and told them to let him in, that he was with him. Does that sound like the Howard Dean you are believing him to be just because his family had money? I don't think you're being fair.

[Mairead]

111. "Dean took him to the Democratic Party Fish Fry as his personal guest"

How do you know that? Do you think the act and your knowing about it might be connected in some way?

[Le Taz Hot]

112. OK, I was cuttin' you some slack up until this one

First off, no one has a choice under what circumstance he/she is born The birth circumanstance itself does not make who you are as an adult. Does it influence you? Yes. Does it make you? Nope. YOU make that decision.

Bush was born into a wealthy family and has never done a meaningful thing his entire life. Dean was born into a well-off family and instead of living off his parents' connections and money, he went to med school. Both men had choices and each chose a drastically different lifestyle.

You seem to doubt wealthy people have the ability to be compassionate or impathetic. That's not only misguided, it's snobbish. People are who they choose to be and Howard Dean has chosen to be an honorable person. George W. Bush* has not.

I'm a Californian and have never been to "flyover country" (I hope to go some day before I kick it) but you imply that residents of "flyover country" don't have the ability to see the difference. If I were said resident, I'd be insulted.

[many a good man]

32. Doesn't have to be Southerner any more

After Civil rights, the "Solid South" went from solidly Democrat to solidly Rrrepublican. Not-so-liberal Southern Democrats were needed to appeal to the not-hopelessly racist conservative democrats there.

Mass migration to the sun belt has transplanted northerners there now and is building a new South. Any dem who can avoid wedge issues and instead speak to the concerns of average Americans has a shot at winning nationally. Issues of class, though unspoken, have overshadowed race.

Personality counts, too. The winner has to (appear to) be a "real" person, not some BS politician.

Dean says ardent gun-control automatically lose millions of votes in red states and he's right. That alone make millions more receptive, especially when mixed with issues of substance.

[no name no slogan]

37. Good points, and welcome!

I agree that we don't necessarily need a southerner. However, I think a candidate who is "from the heartland" will do much better at avoiding the "elitist NE liberal" meme which is sure to be launched against him/her.

Most coastal people don't appreciate this, but there's still a distrust of certain people (politicians especially) from the coasts here in "flyover country". IMHO, it may work well for the Dems to nominate a midwesterner (like Truman) who is harder to tag as an elitist liberal than one from the NE.

[young_at_heart]

43. Maybe the country is ready for an elitist liberal?

No matter who runs, he will be tagged with "elitist". I see it all the time in my newspaper...."those elitist liberals", they say, without naming anyone in particular. Bush is always dismissing critics so our candidate should quickly "dismiss" Republican jabs.

[ibegurpard]

38. Well, I guess that rules out Kerry, huh?

:shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. So we should nominate a NE right-winger - Dean?

[many a good man]

57. Cycles of American History

I'm no fan of Arthur Schlesinger, but maybe America is about to make a swing back in the direction of liberalism. God knows conservatives (both Democrat and Republican) have made a big mess of this country.

When you look at workers' rights and social policy in Europe, America looks positively third world. * is showing everyone how dark and frightening a right wing USA would look like. Wish we had a leader who could shed some light...

[NewJerseyDem]

44. Only one other has been nominated

Losses since 1960 have had nominees from South Dakota, Georgia, Minnesota twice, Massachussetts and Tennessee. From that you could say that no midwesterners should be nominated because a democrat from the midwest hasn't won since 1948 and has actually lost 5 times since 1948. Just because Michael Dukakis lost doesn't mean that no northeasterner can win. There just isn't enough evidence.

[mitchtv]

47. how 'bout we expel all northeastern liberals ,and only

nominate southerners? better yet Californians should stay home if a californian is not nominated?

[southern democrat]

52. Being from the south I can tell you priorites

are different here than the north.Odds are stacked highly agianst a northern Democrat nominee.The problem is not insurmountable but it will be extremley difficult.It hurts me to admidt it but in the south people are more shallow in their beliefs.Education in the southern states is so much behind the northern states.My state ranks 48th in h.s. graduation ranking.Many people in the south are followers instead of leaders.Independant thought is not welcomed or encouraged in the south.The religous institutions also are politically connected.Many many Sunday sermons are dedicated to helping a candidate for political office.Mostly republican I'd say at least 75%.I't dosen't sway most Democrats when this happens they just sit through it and keep quiet.But the odds are stacked agianast democrats in the south,especally liberal democrats and northern liberal democrats are even more under dogs.Come to think of there are `very few southern liberal democrats.Issues that resonate with northern voters stall in the south.Health care,minnimum wage,environment,affirmitave action,civil rights,education are not looked at too close in the south.Issues that get attention in the south are abortion,prayer in schools,gun rights,ten comandments,flag,pledge of alligence,defense,morality,and character. The southern issues are issues the republicans pander to southern voters with.It is so distrubing to see this ih action.You drive by a trailer in the country,there will be a 20 year old car in the drive,the yard probabally not mowed in a month.Without a doubt the people who live there are low income and you will see a confederate flag on a pole,a we vote pro-life bumper sticker on the car and we support president Bush and our troops sign in the yard. This is the mentality that Democrats are up agianst.Now on the issue of electibilty,lets take John Kerry for example:Kerry is pro-choice,Bad, pro gun controll, bad ,pro affirmitive action ,bad ,and so on and so on you see where I'm going here.Now take John Edwards: mostly the same positions as Kerry but there is a possibilty of carrying the home state and close neiboring state.But in the last presidential election cycle this theory didn't work as Gore lost his home state.I live in Tn.and what cost Gore was he took it for granted that he would carry Tn. He waited too long to come back and campaign here and didn't spend enough time and money here.The Tn.voters felt disconnected with Gore.The republican governor didn't help matters either.Now can a northern liberal/moderate dem. carry some southern states?Yes they can,but they cannot controll their own destiny.The republican must screw up so bad so the voters vote agianst him not for the democrat.Take the home state Dem. if he works hard and practally begs for his home states support he or she has a shot at getting it.This way the democrat has some controll of their own destiny.Lets take Dean and Clark for example:If the election was held in near future.Clark would have advantage in south.Fair shot at Ark.,La.,Ga.,and Tn.,I personally think Dean loses all of these.But the election is Nov 04 if Bush keeps sliding and economy gets worse and southern pocketbooks get thinner and Dean campaigns flawlessly he might have a 50/50 shot at two states.La.,and Ga., And Dean people I am not trying to put your guy down.If he gets the nomination I pray I'm proven wrong.While I support Clark I hold Howard Dean in very very high regard.As I do all the other Democratic candidates.And he wouldn't be the only one to have problems in the south.I was just using him as an example.

[southern democrat]

56. My advice to Democratic candidates, run campaign to the

center,if elected govern to the left.

[many a good man]

69. Center loses base

Good points, but to win Dems have to run an honest campaign and turn out their base. It may not play in the trailer parks but it'll get some urban voters and non-lemmmings to the polls. Combined with mass disillusionment with * it may be enough to win here or there.

If they only knew, I think they'd be OUTRAGED with the way * and his cronies are treating our troops and vets!

[Racenut20]

59. NE Liberal could never carry these states necessary to win

Florida
Missouri
Tennessee
Nevada
New Mexico
West Virginia
That is about 70 electorial votes a Democrat has to have to win.

[zeemike]

60. You are wrong

About New Mexico

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Dems Have Carried NM The Last Four Elections

NT

[no name no slogan]

66. How many electoral votes in NM? (n/t)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. My Guess Is Five

NT

[no name no slogan]

61. Don't forget Ohio (and its 20 electoral votes) :)

No Democrat has won recently without carrying Ohio, home of many a union worker (or ex-worker, unfortunately :( )

[janx]

77. Why Missouri?

Why is it on your list?

[unfrigginreal]

62. Republicans think that nominating a "northeastern liberal" for president..

==sicide for Dems. Hmmm...I guess we should be worried about what Republicans think?

[no name no slogan]

67. You're STILL missing my point!

I'm not saying we should be worried about what the GOP thinks-- I think we should be prepared for what THE NON-NEern PART OF THE US THINKS!

By simply ignoring the issue, we're going to be perceived as "liberal elitists" by the rest of the country-- double that perception if we nominate somebody from a wealthy background. That stuff simply does not fly in this part of the country.

What I'm saying is that, IF we nominate a NEer (which is not assured by any means), we should be ready to ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, and not let the GOP run with it-- which you know damn well they will (remember Dukakis 1988?). A populist, hands-on, grassroots campaign would be an easy way to deflate this meme. My only concern is (aside from Dean) are any of our other candidates ready to do this?

[unfrigginreal]

70. I'm not missing your point...I'm lasered into your point...

go back to your cohorts and tell them that these "liberal elitists" are ready to kick their asses!

[no name no slogan]

82. My "cohorts" are yours, too

Before you post yet another smart-assed remark, go read this.

NOW tell me I'm a RoveOp.

[unfrigginreal]

86. Interesting...I see that I'm not the first!

[Old and In the Way]

84. Gee, for a 4 th generation liberal democrat, he sure is concerned

about what people seem to think about liberal democrats...

Wear it loud and proud, I am a NE liberal democrat.

And I want to give special thanks to Dimbulb and the CEO of Halliburton for making the coming resurgence of liberalism possible. The pendulum is going to swing hard...when people begin to see (again) how democratic policies make this country better, there won't be a competitive Republican Party to worry about for decades.

Keep your eyes on the prize....and on the ballot box.

[no name no slogan]

93. Hey I'm on YOUR side!!!

All I'm saying is that UNLESS we nominate 1) a non-NEer, or 2) we NAIL THE ISSUE HEAD-ON AS SOON AS THE NOMINATION IS OVER WITH, we're going to face an uphill battle-- a battle that we WILL NOT WIN if we insist on playing by "their rules".

I don't give a fig about what "people" think about liberal democrats-- all I'm saying is that it makes it that much easier for people in the heartland to dismiss the most well-meaning and likeable candidate as "just another liberal elitist from out east".

At this rate, this election should be ours for the taking-- but we said that about 2000, too, and look what happened there. We may be devious, but you can bet that RoveCo are going to be twice as devious, and also unethical.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. There's no issue to address, it's just a Republican-inspired meme

[Flying_Pig]

71. This thread sux ...what b.s.....

:grr:

[Q]

74. Frankly...who gives a shit what the 'Republicans relish'...

- Dems should vote issues...not for the candidate the opposition likes the best.

- And..."liberal elitists' is a catchphrase often used by the RWingers to smear anyone that doesn't agree with their fascist agenda.

[Pastiche423]

85. I don't!

give a shit what the 'Republicans relish'!

[no name no slogan]

94. THAT'S what I'm saying!

Dems shouldn't vote for 'labels'. But at the same time, if we get ALL the Dems, that's only 35-40%-- still not enough to win!

We need to tap into the disaffected voters who think it's all a big game. It's going to be a lot harder for us to do so with somebody who'll get labeled as a 'liberal elitist', who's from 'the establishment' who has 'no connection to the little guy'.

THAT's what we need to avoid, unless we want the Democrats to become the party of guilty yuppies like we did under Clinton.

[unfrigginreal]

96. Why don't you stifle yourself Edith???

Do you really think that your doing a good job promoting your side by looking so idiotic?

[yankeedem]

75. The ONLY Northeast nominee

since 1960 was Dukakis- we really need to avoid the "middle America" nominees. Humphrey (MN), McGovern (SD), Mondale (MN) were all losers.

[no name no slogan]

99. Point taken. Well put.

I'll give you Mondale, who waged a weak and ineffective campaign. McGovern was done in by the conservative pro-war Muskie/Scoop Jackson wing of the party who refused to support him until it was too late, along with a few dirty tricks by Nixon (Watergate, anyone?)

Humphrey was very close. As a matter of fact, had the vote happened a week later, he very well could have won, as his numbers went up when he went on attack.

Same with Dukakis. He let Poppy and co. label him early, and his numbers showed it. Only when he started fighting back in October did his numbers rise. But by then, it was too late :(.

[JNelson6563]

76. so a far-left

non-statesman-like guy is a wiser choice in your opinion??

Hmmm. Interesting.

Julie

[no name no slogan]

87. Far left? The Democratic party platform is far left?

Kucinich's ideas are straight from the same Democratic Party platform that the party has championed for over forty years. I would hardly call that "far left", unless you're either Joe Liebermann, Karl Rove or Augusto Pinochet.

non-statesman-like guy is a wiser choice in your opinion?

What, perchance, does "non-statesman-like" mean? Shrub is a stumbling buffoon, I'd hardly call him statemanlike. Al Gore was "statesmanlike", and look how close we won that one by.

Abraham Lincoln was nervous in front of crowds, and had a thick frontier accent. Hardly "statesmanlike" if you ask me. Teddy Rooseveldt had a raspy, high-pitched voice. That's not very statesmanlike either, is it?

People called Paul Wellstone "shrill" and unstatesmanlike, too. But he wasn't afraid to stand up for the real principles of the Democratic party. Neither is Dennis Kucinich.

If you think selecting a president is like a poodle show, go ahead and vote for somebody who's "statesmanlike". :rolls eyes:

[indigo32]

113. I'm fairly sure that Dennis goes further than the Dem Platform

Not that thats a bad thing necessarily, unless you want to get elected President in the year 2004. If Dennis was capable of waking up the people you describe...I think we'd see that, and we don't, and partly I don't think those are the people who won the elections for Paul either...though he cared about them a great deal. Yes he has a lot in common with Paul Wellstone...I'm from MN, Paul won for 2 reasons. He hired a brilliant person to do his ads, and he convinced us with his honesty.
And frankly I haven't heard enough times yet that I'm a Starbucks Drinking Cyberspace Yuppie. Could you post that AGAIN!!!

[kwolf68]

81. I hate this

Then lets elect a Southern COnservative? IS that what the FUKK we want?

Lets get the best candidate for the job and if he's from the Northeast...GREAT>..

At least most of the folks up there know the goddamn civil war is over. It's a no-brainer for me...I DON"T want to vote for a SOutherner...This is the major flaw w/ Edwards in my view.

[no name no slogan]

83. Who said anything about a Southerner?

All I'm saying is that a perceived "liberal elitist" from the northeast is going to have a harder time convincing folk in "flyover country" that he's "one of them".

I never said anything about a southerner-- that's just what you've read into it.

[janx]

88. Define "flyover country". nnns, you are going to have to free

your vocabulary of these stupid right-wing slogans.

They are *irrelevant* now.

Chimpy is on the way OUT, and we're all Americans now.

[no name no slogan]

91. flyover country ain't right wing, it's west coast

"Flyover country" is a pretty common term in L.A. for everything between Cali and NYC. I would hardly call L.A., the hotbed of "Hollywood liberal elitism", right wing.

Flyover country is what is better known as the heartland-- the place where most of your food is produced, where your cars are manufactured, where regular folk work regular jobs, and where we like our politics in the no-bullshit variety.

Flyover country is the home to progressives like Paul Wellstone, Bob LaFollette and Russ Feingold. It's also the home of many noble Democrats, including Paul Simon of IL, Bruce Vento of MN, Dick Gephardt of MO, Tom Harkin of IA, and Tom Daschle of SD.

And, although we may not be the most fashionable or best educated or have the nicest toys, we still care a hell of a lot about this country, and our party, and our sad lack of leadership and resolve.

THAT's what I mean by "Flyover country"

[janx]

95. Well if it's everything between the coasts, that's one hell of a

lot of people and also a lot of different states and cultures.

The reason I thought of right-wing was because I've seen the term used on right-wing boards a lot.

I think it might be an over simplification.

P.S. I'm a native of Missouri, an alum of the University of Iowa (undergrad), and I now live in Colorado.

[no name no slogan]

98. I agree it's a broad brush

But I think there's still a "suspicion" (unfounded of course) among many middle-americans of anything that seems "elitist". Unfortunately, that's also the easiest meme for the rightees to latch onto, too. And they've used it in great effect against Dems for the last 20 years.

All I'm saying is, we need to be conscious of that, and not fall into their traps. People want to vote for somebody most like themselves, or for somebody they can feel is trustworthy. I'm not talking about the party activists, but normal folk who's entire political experience is casting a ballot of two or four years.

These people, as well as the ones who stopped voting because it "didn't matter", are the ones we need to reach. Having a candidate that's more "real" and honest will make this thing much easier.

[Isome]

101. anything that seems "elitist"

I think it's about time we force the next RW'er, or presstitute on television to define what an elitist is, and give an example of someone they consider to be one. As a group, we left-leaners tend to give credence or consideration to any garbage they throw out there. Instead, we need to start calling them on the many misleading or ill-defined labels they throw at us.

IMO, if they do define it, it will be too easy to point out how the label fits them better, or just as easily. Knowing their penchant for projection, I'll bet dollars to donuts the definition they come up with will describe them to a "t".

[no name no slogan]

103. BEST POST OF THE NIGHT

"presstitute". I love that. May I borrow it? :)

[Isome]

105. Anytime...

It's not mine, I read it somewhere. I doubt it's trademarked. :-)

[Kool Kitty]

107. That's what I was trying to say in my posts.

It is used by the right-wing all the time. "Only the midwest is the heartland, the REAL people, the working people", like everyone else in the country sits around all the time and the REAL people just send us part of their paychecks. It's a disgusting right-wing stereotype.

[southern democrat]

92. Hell I'm all for a northeast liberal

Whip up a forumla to get the Ev's.I'll cut him a check.The politcal enviornment the way it is today.Just too damn many red states.I wish it wre different.And the truth is we can't wish a candidate into the White house.

[mitchtv]

114. i don't want one either, but will vote for one

if he is nominated- I haven't made up my mind yet, but can tell you who I won't vote for in the primary- Edwards, graham, braun, gephart, holy joe,. hmm what does that leave MA,VT,NY AR OH

[Gore1FL]

109. it entirely depends on the strategy.

If the effort is to win "between the 40 yard lines" then yes, you need a southerner.

The critical flaw of your argument is the assum,ption that "between the 40 yard lines" is the only way to win.

Considering the huge untapped non-voting left-leaning adults in this country, and the size of said populace compared to the "between the 40 yard lines" pool, the real way to victory is nominating the most "energizing" candidate, no matter where he or she is from.

[Isome]

110. the only way to win

That is something we all have to remember. You need to have that printed on cards and hand them out to fellow Dems from time to time.