Wake up call-- Moderates and Conservatives outnumber Liberals in Dem Party

[Mike L]

Actually, there are VASTLY more moderate and conservative Democrats than liberal Democrats. It's 67% to 30%.

"The difference is that conservatives dominate the ranks of Republicans, while Democrats include a much higher share of moderates and even conservatives. Using data across the full length of this tracking poll, 51 percent of Democrats identify themselves as moderates, 30 percent as liberals and 16 percent as conservatives. Among Republicans, by contrast, 61 percent are conservatives, 32 percent moderates, 5 percent liberals."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=179352


Also, the Dems' lead in the percentage of Democrats vs. Repugs has been shrinking since the 1970s.


The Harris Poll® #15, February 27, 2004

by Humphrey Taylor

"Unlike some of the other polls, The Harris Poll finds that the Democrats still retain a small lead over the Republicans in party identification, although it has declined in every decade since the 1970s. Based on over 6,000 interviews conducted by telephone last year, one-third (33%) of all adults "consider themselves" to be Democrats, 28% self-identify as Republicans and 24% as Independents.

However, the average Democratic lead in party identification has fallen from an average of 21 percentage points in the 1970s, eleven percentage points in the 1980s, and seven points in the 1990s to only five points, so far, in the 2000s. There is no mistaking the huge change in party affiliation that has taken place over the last 30 years.

Some other polls report that the Democrats and the Republicans are now virtually equal. We believe the small differences between their numbers and ours reflect the use of slightly different questions; the trends are very similar."

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444


Of course, Independents are mostly moderates. Overall, American voters are mostly moderates. From the Harris poll article:

"Self-described moderates (40%) continue to outnumber those who consider themselves conservatives (33%) or liberals (18%). "


Still want the Democratic Party to go left?

[Deja Q]

1. In other words, 'does it make a flying fig of a difference?'

It does. Anyone seen as anti-* is going to get snubbed, in one form or another.

[Clarkie1]

176. First, let's define what it truly means to be liberal, which is this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1375075&mesg_id=1375075

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. My views, while spread across the spectrum, would make....

me a "moderate" Democrat.

I guess I'm in the majority of the Democratic Party!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

135. Apparently I am a "moderate" Democrat also

according to an on line test I took. So I guess I'm in the majority of the Democratic Party too.

[genius]

3. WRONG: ON ALL THE ISSUES, DEMS ARE ABOUT 90% LIBERAL

The issues is the label. Most people label themselves more conservatively than they are. However, when asked about the issues, 9 out of 10 agree with the liberals.

[LoZoccolo]

11. So that's why we don't need to go "to the left".

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Mike L]

22. Yeah, I'd actually like to win a few.

[Forkboy]

35. So would I

When will the Dems start doing so?

[Iris]

128. when people start feeling the pain of a neo-con controlled gov't.

[Forkboy]

154. Millions already are

:shrug:

[Iris]

173. Yeah, but wait until the people who are barely hanging on to

middle class status and don't seem to understand that suddenly are unable to buy their kids all the useless shit their used to buying for them. Or, better yet, wait until they can't afford to buy all the shit b/c they have TWICE as many children to support because they can't get reliable bc anymore.

[deutsey]

65. No, "we" in the rank in file don't have to go to the left

the fucking morons running (or is that ruining?) the Party need to come over with the rest of us. Maybe then we'll have a consistent, coherent message that energizes the base and quite possibly appeals to others outside the base as well.

[rman]

107. yeah... "heads i win, tails you lose"

funny, but it won't fly

[ventvon]

53. Most Dems voted to ban gay marriage

Most Democrats support choice, not have an abortion whenever you want to.

Most people in this country aren't "conservative" or "liberal."

[Iris]

129. how can you suppor t choice and then say "not have an

abortion whenever you want to"??

Gee. I'm not pregnant. I want to have an abortion now. I think I'll get pregnant tonight.

[Iris]

141. Damn! I replied to the same dead guy twice! eom

[Xipe Totec]

4. To Kill a Mockingbird

They're certainly entitled to think that, and they're entitled to full respect for their opinions... but before I can live with other folks I've got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience.

~Atticus, Chapter 11

http://www.quotegarden.com/bk-km.html

[FloridaPat]

5. So what is the official difference between a moderate and a liberal?

[madfloridian]

6. I call myself a moderate on polls if asked.

Actually I am, but here I am considered a fringe lunatic. Mainly because I thought our party was wrong to go along with this war.

[tsuki]

133. So did I, and was called "an enemy of the state."

I knew there was a label for me. Fringe Lunatic. Thank you, madfloridian. (And how do we get rid of Bushco Lite here in FL)

[tk2kewl]

7. 67% to 30%

who are the other 3%? communists?

[Walt Starr]

8. ROFLMPAO!!!! I identify myself as a moderate TO POLLSTERS!!!

How moderate do you really think I am?

[Rose Siding]

12. So do I!

Consistently but I doubt they'd really consider my politics "moderate".

I even have to id myself as fiscally "conservative", when that doesn't really reflect my self-id: fiscally "responsible"

[sugar magnolia]

19. I always tell posters I'm a moderate too

I consider myself very liberal, however. I know it probably doesn't make a difference in the bigger picture, but I want the pollsters to think that maybe moderates have views that aren't really all that moderate.

[newyawker99]

112. Hi sugar magnolia!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lorien]

32. So do I

the only way to move liberal values leftwards is to say that you stand in the center, while holding very liberal beliefs. That's how the RW does it; "Moderate" is now Bill O'Reilly, while Micheal Savage is merely conservative.

[Lorien]

33. So do I

the only way to move liberal values leftwards is to say that you stand in the center, while holding very liberal beliefs. That's how the RW does it; "Moderate" is now Bill O'Reilly, while Micheal Savage is merely conservative.

[KuTava]

40. You're serious?

You really, deliberately lie to pollsters?

Are our positions here so weak that we have to lie about them? Must we give up the moral high ground? Fight lies with the truth!

[trogdor]

50. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I would lie to them too, not because our positions are weak, but because the polls themselves are bullshit - bought and paid for by someone who needs the numbers to support their bullshit.

[Walt Starr]

51. I tell them the truth!

As far as I am concerned, my positions ARE MODERATE!

Supporting choice IS MODERATE!

Opposing the war IS MODERATE!

Opposing theocracy IS MODERATE

The conservatives are the whackjobs!

[Starlight]

178. I agree. Our Democratic positions are already moderate.

The biggest complaint I hear is that the 2 partys are TOO MUCH alike. So stop buying into their right wing propaganda. Just because Repubs tell you to jump, that doesn't mean you have to do it. Get some gonads & stop being so reactionary.

And for God's sake stop the "we have to be just like Repubs or we'll never win another election" crap. If you want to be like them, THEN GO, join their party, support their immoral causes & their corrupt leaders.

But for most us, our values & morals & principles are not negotiable. We won't engage in pathetic pandering & grovelling for votes.

What we really need is more tough, strong, principled LIBERAL people in leadership positions in the party.

[newyawker99]

113. Hi KuTava!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[tsuki]

134. It's none of their d*mned business.

[Coyul]

9. Wow, and yet they continue to lose elections!

Too late for moderate and liberal and conservative....it is us against them.....which side are you on?

[Mike L]

16. They continue to lose because they continue to run liberal candidates,

except for Carter and Clinton. And I'd say Carter was a liberal.

[Coyul]

20. WOW, and you really believe that don't ya?

That alone is scary. The only dems to win this time around were those left of the mark. Beyond hypocritical reproach. Dashle....see ya. Obama...welcome. You live in a delusional world where things are only gray. Republican Gray. The world is after all Black and white......And becoming less color blind by the moment...maybe we will see colors someday. But NOT WITH THE DLC!

Good night Terry MacAuliffe. Good morning Doctor Dean!

Now back to taking back our country!

D

[LoZoccolo]

27. I know where you /don't/ live, and that's Illinois.

Illinois only has 30% registered Republicans to begin with. The Republican party used to win offices here by running moderates. Fitzgerald, who was a moderate Republican, decided not to run because it would be too hard (last time he was aided by a scandal Carol Moseley-Braun was facing). It didn't have anything to do with "moving left". They ran a far-right candidate in a state where you have to be a moderate Republican if you want to win at all.

[Mike L]

29. "The only dems to win this time around were those left of the mark."

Yeah, but which states/districts were they in-- blue?

[Coyul]

39. Yep...and where did the moderates win?

Uh....NO WHERE!

I would rather have a small piece of democracy than a whole country full of SHIT!

And if you feel differently...well Zell Miller's seat was open.... why didn't you run for it!
Live proudly or die from your own inconsistancy.
I could not possibly care less!

But my advice from this message track.....stay the fuck out of Illinois! Moderation will buy you absolutely nothing! As it should, cause it is completely worthless!

Take a stand, or take a seat!

D

[Mike L]

49. Hey, I don't think blue state Dems should become moderates.

There is no reason for them to move right unless their electorate moves right.

[Cheswick2.0]

86. McKinney won / moderates lost big time

I find that incredibly telling.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Most Dem moderates today are to the right of Nixon

I'm not kidding.

Most voters haven't seen a real liberal in so long (never, if they're young) that all they know about liberals is that Fox News says they're bad.

Most voters have NEVER heard an economic liberal speak, just social liberals.

[evilqueen]

177. exactly

Hell, I remember (and met) Abby Hoffman. You think liberals today are anywhere near as "radical" as those in his day?

Not by a long shot...

But, as I recall, it was the "radicals" and "hippies" (and even vietnam veterans against the war) that stopped our involvement in the Vietnam War. Today, people say "hippy" like it's some kind of scourge or filth to be distained and rejected. That's bullshit.

I long for people in our party with such passion and courage to stand up for what they believe in. Maybe I'll yet live to see it, I don't know. I'm doing what I can.

***This is post #666 for me... I'm eeeeeeevil! Muahahahahaha!****

[LittleClarkie]

21. Oh goodie, a multi-front war --

those are ALWAYS a good idea.

I thought we were supposed to be the inclusive coalition party.

The division party is on the other side.

I'm already dealing with an "us against them" and a "which side are you on" I don't need such things in my own party as well.

We really will be sunk then.

[Coyul]

28. You know what?

I wasn't asking for it either, but someitmes you just have to call 'em like you see 'em. There are those of us here in the democratic party who will succumb to the "Overwhelming mandate" Shrubby believes he has, and will give him what he wants so we can win next time. How easy is it to steal three elections as opposed to two? How easy is it to let them destroy the social fabric of the nation, as long as it "Doesn't effect me."
Bull shit.
If it hurts the least of these it hurts ME!!!!!!

There is no more appeasement.

There is us against them! And as a matter of record....."them" don't give a shit about "us"! (Or whether we are moderate or not)

Welcome to the new age of politics!

D

[greenohio]

160. Kerry was not perceived as a moderate

regardless of wether he won or not. Clinton was a DLC New Democrat. Remember him, he actually BECAME president.

[vi5]

10. After a day on DU I'd probably consider myself moderate....

But in the "real world" amidst co-workers, families, and friends I'm a lunatic fringe liberal left wing proto-commie.

[lukasahero]

61. OMG - thank you!

You know, my mother thinks I'm a "slob". My ex-husband thought I was a "neat-freak". Guess it all depends on who's doing the labeling...

[GRLMGC]

110. Same here

weird, huh?

[Djinn]

13. Self Identify being the key words there

I'd identify as centre left - other people where I live would probably call me further left, most Americans would call me a Godless Commie.

It's all pretty subjective, do all these people who consider themselves "moderate" mean economically and socially, or just one of the other. If it's both do they really beleive in out-sourcing jobs for the cheapest common denominator, do they beleive in removing government control in regards to education standards and the environment but reintroducing it into people's bedrooms? do they beleive in the seperation of church and state, do they beleive in the church at all, do they believe taxation has a role tom play etc etc etc

this is utterly meaningless unless you know precisely what ALL of those people mean by "moderate"

anyway, there were more Nazi sympathisers than Socialist ones in Germany in the 1930's - didn't make Nazism the best way to go did it.

[YankeyMCC]

14. I think those numbers are suspect

I don't think I can put much to these numbers, politically apathetic people may not categorize themselves into the same category we would place them. I wonder for example just how "liberal" those Republican liberals.

And I use myself as an example. I always voted but for most of my life I was pretty politically apathetic like most people. And I often identified myself as moderate, even conservative. But as I became more aware of where my ideas actually feel in the political specturm I've learned I'm about as liberal as they come. :)

Also, I think it isn't quiet right to say the Dems should "move to the left". Perhaps you could see it that way, but as I see it what the party needs to do is be clearer about what they stand for and make themselves more distinct from the other party. Get back to the traditional economic positions that made the Dem party the party of the people in the past and thus get the focus off the politically irrelavent issues that drew so many of the religous right to the polls.

I don't mean to imply it's not important for example for same sex couple to have equal rights but the republicans are just using those issues to bring out the religous right and get over that almost 50/50 hump between party membership that truly exists.

People are enamored of the "free-market" even the religous right seem to have incorporated it and they've abandoned the dem party because it hasn't held up an alternative or provided a consistant voice on how to control the beast that is the free market for the benifit of workers. We need to get that back.

[aquart]

15. Be REALLY careful of these statistics.

Especially since definitions of moderate, liberal, conservative, progressive are sooooooooooooo subjective.

Me, I sign myself in Harris and Zogby polls as a moderate, because I adore the death penalty. But I also favor nationalization of our energy resources. Legalization of marijuana and heroin. Nationalized healthcare. Go figure.

It's a TRULY dicey statistic.

[DjTj]

17. I think this is very interesting information...

...and I'm not quick to dismiss it like the other posters in the thread.

Although it tells us very little about the political views of people in the Democratic Party, it tells us a lot about the perception of the word "liberal".

Although many people happily identify as "Democrats" people are more reluctant to say they are "liberal".

On the other hand, a majority of those who are willing to identify as "Republican" identify as "conservative".

Being a conservative is somehow more acceptable than being liberal, and that in itself is an important thing to note.

[GiovanniC]

18. Moderates and Liberals VASTLY Outnumber Conservatives in America

Sounds like a hell of a good idea to go left, wouldn't you think?

[LoZoccolo]

25. 2+2=5 n/t

[IndianaGreen]

23. How nice of the opinion makers to dump on the progressives

Perhaps we should all leave the party to the DLC. Let's go elsewhere!

[quaker bill]

24. Yes, I do

The numbers you cite are an artifact of 30 years of negative campaigning toward the term "liberal". In fact, if you look at attitudes on issues consistent with "liberal" positions the trend is in the other direction.

Simple questions yeild misleading answers.

I voted based on "moral values", for John Kerry, because I think war crimes are immoral. So had I been asked, I would have shown up in that 22 percent people have been wringing their hands over.

[greatauntoftriplets]

26. There are lies, damn lies....

...and statistics.

[Zorra]

30. According to latest polls, Dick Cheney is actually a liberal republican.

It's gotta be twoo, I saw it on TV!

sarcasm off

[Mike L]

31. What about Dems losing their party identification lead

from 21% in the '70s to 5% today? How do you explain that?

[sangh0]

36. The level of denial astounds me

DUers think liberals are not only "the base", but they think we're the majority.

And some of them are admitting that they tell pollsters they're moderates, while using that as an excuse to not believe the polls.

[Forkboy]

37. It's all them crazy libruls they've been running

[Mike L]

46. Right-- McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry

Gore was probably a moderate-- but he won.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Having been around in the 1970s, I explain it by

20+ years of relentless Republican propaganda and a steady Democratic tendency to wimp out in the face of Republican criticism.

The Dems have been "moving right" since 1980. Their biggest problem is that no one knows what they stand for because they keep refusing to stand up for their core constituencies. They wimped out when they had a chance to defend farmers. They wimped out when they had a chance to defend the air traffic controllers. They wimped out on foreign policy. They wimped out on the S&L scandal. They wimped out on funding every wasteful Pentagon project. They wimped out on Iran-Contra and refused even to investigate some of its aspects. They nominated two ridiculously inept candidates in 1984 and 1988.

I kept waiting for them to grow a collective spine. Despite the presence of a few spiny individuals, I'm STILL waiting. :grr:

[Mike L]

63. Hummm........so McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry weren't liberal enough.

That's why they lost?

And Carter, Clinton and Gore......exactly why did they win?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. You seem to be a one-note samba on this board

"We're losing because we're too far left."

McGovern and Mondale weren't particularly liberal, they were just painted that way. They were mostly inept and unable to counteract the Republicans' sneers about "liberal" being a bad thing.

Carter wasn't all that conservative.

Clinton won on his personality. Period.

Gore won narrowly in an election that should have been a blowout. He didn't start rising in the polls until he came out fighting instead of playing "me too" with Bushboy.

Same with Kerry. He's become less liberal in recent years, but anyone who didn't babble and drool should have been able to blow Bushboy out of the water, as Johnson did with Goldwater in 1964. I heard him speak twice, and while he said all the right things, he just didn't "connect" somehow.

During the early 1990s, the Oregon Republican party ran one right-wing idiot (Denny Smith) and one right-wing sleazebag (Bill Sizemore) for governor. Both times, Democrat John Kitzhaber defeated them 2 to 1. One of the key points in his platform was health care for the poor--a "left" idea if there ever was one. Yet he easily knocked out two Republicans without even working up a sweat in a state where only the largest cities have a significant Dem pressence. That's the way it should be when you're running against an obvious bozo.

The DLC needs to go back and wonder why the Republican party wasn't totally wiped out in this election. The hell with Gore's margin of victory--it should have been 5 million. Kerry should have been 5 million ahead at least.

[charlie]

69. If Cuomo hadn't played hard-to-get in 1988

I'm close to certain we wouldn't be having this tired conversation. Not only was he a charismatic and canny fighter, but he had the congruence that comes with speaking from conviction instead of spewing poll-tested soundbites. If I ever run into Mario, I'm gonna kick him before I hug him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

166. Cuomo Lost To An Asshat Like Pataki...

nt

[charlie]

168. And Nixon was whupped by Brown

In 1988, Cuomo was golden and on top of his game. I still think he could've handed a beating to Bush.

[Mike L]

70. Lydia, your excuses don't withstand scrutiny.

You can't dispute that McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry were more liberal than Carter, Clinton and Gore.

Liberals don't win presidential races. Face it.

ON EDIT:

Carter was sold as a moderate. He turned out to be a liberal.

[no name no slogan]

73. Dukakis was NOT a liberal, nor was Mondale.

I worked on his campaign in 1988, and I can tell you that, although Bush I painted him as a "liberal", he most certainly WAS NOT.

Kerry is from the same technocratic mold as Dukakis. He was his Lt. Governor for chrissakes. They are both what I would call "good government" types who don't hold to any dogmatism, but are more interested in making sure the busses run on time than in ideology.

Mondale is (and always has been) a middle-of-the-road old-school party hack. He is completely beholden to the interests that subsidized his entire career: big labor (AFL-CIO and Teamsters) and big business in particular.

The REAL liberals in the 1984 primaries were Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart. Mondale was selected for the very same reasons that Dukakis and Kerry were selected: he was seen as "electable", a solid Democrat with good credentials, but not one to "shake things up".

We've been running "moderates" at the top of our tickets for the last 24+ years, and look what it's gotten us: outside of Clinton (who won on his personality, but governed to the right of Nixon), we have NOTHING to show for it. In fact, we've declined everywhere else: the House, Senate, state legislatures, and governorships.

This party has nothing left to lose, since we've lost nearly everything already. What's the danger is running a liberal, who's not afraid of being a liberal? :shrug:

[Mike L]

79. As far as the country is concerned, any Dem from Massachusetts is a

liberal. In fact, they probably see any Dem from the Northeast that way.

[ibegurpard]

106. So, you're admitting that we have a PERCEPTION and not a fundamental

VALUES problem?
Do you change perception by altering your fundamental values? Or does that hold the danger of making you seem weak and vacillating? If you accept that the problem is the PERCEPTION of Dukakis and Mondale and not the REALITY then maybe we can get somewhere.

[sangh0]

117. No, Dukakis and Mondale were solid liberals

pro-environment, pro-social programs, pro-civil rights, pro-equal rights, pro-abortion, anti-prayer in schools, etc

Finding one or two issues where they deviate from liberalism is only significant to those concerned with Moral Purity. For the rest of us, they remain liberals. Imperfect Liberals, but liberals all the same.

[Julien Sorel]

114. Both Dukakis and Mondale were liberals.

For raising taxes, for cutting the military budget, anti-death penalty, against cutting the size of government: they were both 70s-style liberals. Mondale was certainly a party hack, but he was a liberal party hack.

And if you look at the elections both men lost, they lost as liberals. Dukakis got pasted as soft on defense and crime (in fact he did want to slash the military budget), and Mondale got his for being a tax and spend, big government liberal, which is what he was, and what he later essentially described himself as.

Revisionism is fine, as long as it is accurate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. Gary Hart Was Not The "Liberal" Candidate In 1984....

He was the "new ideas" candidate...


The "new ideas" he was touting was a rejection of past traditional liberal Democrats...


And you are somewhat correct about Mondale and the Duke...


Mondale was a traditional liberal or garden variety liberal... He was not a leftist... I don't think the Dems have ever nominated a "leftist"...

The Duke was a pragmatic non ideological problem solver...

I think we can agree on what a "leftist" is but I will elaborate if you like...

[Blue Wally]

169. Gary Hart

Wasn't Gary Hart the original "Atari Democrat" wanting to grow US jobs and business (and tax intakes) by investing in high tech??

[Cheswick2.0]

78. exuses?

Wow, I love a whiteguy bully. Nothing turns me on more the to democratic party than our propensity to be the other party of boorish men.

I dispute your point. Dukakus lost because he was not a fighter. Kerry and Mondale for the same reason. Gore is ran to the left of where Kerry ran. He won. Clinton ran on Universal healthcare. That is hardly a moderate position. No one knew he was going to govern from the center due to his opposition.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

111. That's your opinion, but you don't seem to have any excuses at all for

Kerry and Gore not being able to absolutely steamroller the worst candidate in living memory.

[sangh0]

125. You are very, very wrong about that

bush* is one of the BEST campaigners in history. Who else could run with no record, repeat lies day after day, and fool millions into thinking he was an honest man?

The level of denial on DU is just astounding. Somehow, bush* can't do anything right, but he's beating the pants off of us.

[Mike L]

130. Hitler was a great actor too.

The key is putting form over substance.

[sangh0]

143. Yes, he was

and knew how to run a campaign too. Losing to someone as strong as Hitler does not make one weak, just as Germany's loss in WWII doesn't mean that Germany was not a strong military power.

[tsuki]

136. Wrong, without Rove all would have been lost for Bush.

[Cheswick2.0]

76. Gore won when he went left/populist

Clinton ran as a liberal regardless of how he governed later. He won on charm.
Carter won because of Watergate.

[greenohio]

148. EXACTLY the OPPOSITE

Clinton called himself a New Democrat in every other sentence when he ran in 1992. He governed in left in 1993-1994 until he had his hat handed to him in Nov 1994. Then he returned to his New Democrat roots.

Gore rarely if ever called himself a New Democrat in 2000. He couldn't because he was afraid of Nader stealing people from his left. With that strategy Gore failed to become president.

[Cheswick2.0]

149. Nope

sorry, but that's nonsense

[greenohio]

162. From Clintons MY LIFE....

from MY LIFE by Bill Clinton:

"Going to the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense. ...

In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation....

I opened the convention with a keynote address designed to make the case that America needed to change course and that the DLC could and should lead the way....

...I was amazed by some of the criticisms of the DLC from the Democratic left, who accused us of being closet Republicans, and from some members of the political press, who had comfortable little boxes marked "Democrat" and "Republican." When we didn't fit neatly in their

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252794

[charlie]

163. Pfft

Gore trailed Bush by a huge margin until he amped up his populist rhetoric. Emphasizing his liberalism saved him from a blowout.

[greenohio]

164. Gore never became president.

Uhh, whatever. There is only one poll that counts and Gore didn't become president.

Bill Clinton, former chair of the DLC and proud New Democrat did. If you want to run left and don't care about winning, vote green. If you want to win, inch to the center. We need a DLC New Democrat from the midwest or south.

[Blue Wally]

167. Not necessarily only Republican propaganda

There are two phenomena at work here:

1. To a great extent, the liberals won all of their battles: social security, unemployment, medicare, civil rights. Despite our own "propaganda", most Americans don't believe that the Republicans will repeal these. They are pretty much locked in.

2. The "wheels came off" of the Great Society" in the 70s. Most of the programs collapsed in ruins or in cost overruns. The Republicans run against Carter in the same manner we ran against Hoover for 40 years. Liberlism got its bad name in the Carter years.

[ZombieNixon]

41. On DU, I'm a moderate

I go so far as to say an EXTREME moderate, as in middle of the middle. In the real world, however, where my name does not involve any reference to a certain impeachment worthy ex-POTUS, I'm...somewhat left of moderate. In truth, while I call myself a liberal, my views are all over the place, I'm a fiscal moderate but a social liberal.

These, one answer only polls mean little. A better way would be to poll people on their economic, foreign policy and social views. For instance, if you attended anti-Iraq war protests, are a strong supporter of affirmative action, but are firmly pro-life, what does that make you?

[LittleClarkie]

44. Comparatively speaking, I'm moderate too

But when I venture into my little red county, I'm continually identified as liberal, often before I can speak.

But I'm proudly moderate, as in willing to keep my mind open to a good idea, no matter where it came from. I'm not an absolutist.

And the extremes of both left and right make my teeth itch. So, yeah, I'm a moderate. So shoot me.

[xequals]

42. Liberalism is a bygone ideology of a bygone era (the industrial era).

To paraphrase Kevin Phillips, liberalism rose to power when it was seen as taxing the few on behalf of the many. Since the post industrial era and probably earlier it has come to be seen as taxing the many on behalf of the few.

Modern liberalism is America's version of democratic socialism, which is widely accepted in Europe and Canada. But America will never accept such policies, which stifle economic growth, upward mobility and individualism - American values. The liberalism that gave us 40hr weeks and the minimum wage was seen as curbing the excesses of industrial capitalism, and was indeed accepted by Americans. Once it became associated with stifling tax rates, urban welfare, pacifism, anti-Americanism, socialism -- i.e. leftism -- it ceased to be relevant. The fact of the matter is, Americans wouldn't be happy if they had everything given to them by the government. Having basic living requirements - basic food and a basic roof over one's head is not enough for happiness. Working hard and achieving one's goals is what makes for a happy American existence. It is less about greed and more about the desire to achieve and improve oneself, one's community and one's country. It is about growth.

Until Democrats can offer Americans the hope of growth and upward mobility, they too --like liberalism itself-- will continue to be irrelevant.

[YankeyMCC]

45. The problem is...

we have a revival of the excesses of industrial capitalism today. It's maybe less "industrial" in the form of the WalMarts and Microsofts of the world.

American indivdualism and upward mobility are born out of the idea of true repbulcian government (the style of government not the political party) which requires equal participation in our own government and that requires some effort to get everyone on a roughly equal footing to start out with. Of course leaving plenty of room to progress.

American freedom is not gained by the government leaving us alone it is gained by enabling us (by participating on equal footing in our own government) to be from from dominiation by anyone. That includes not being dominated by the government, achieved by equal free participation in our own government, that includes not being dominated by other indivduals, achieved by laws against slavery, and it includes not being dominated by corporations. We made a lot of progress in the 30's and 60's towards that end but there is a clear reversal going on with union busting becoming increasingly common, deregulation that doesn't promote compitition and job creation but monopolies and restriction of inovation and choice.

[Iris]

137. yes. And we aren't going to create even roughly equal footing

with a dominant party that thinks public education comes "straight from the 7th circle of COMMUNIST Hell!"

[American Tragedy]

90. I would like to address one term in your post: urban welfare

Urban welfare, as opposed to the massive rural welfare, which comes directly at the expense of metropolitan areas?

I live in a state with one large, relatively prosperous city, surrounded by a vast rural region that is overwhelmingly under the poverty line. Despite the fact that over a million people use our roads and theirs are rarely traversed, the country has pristine four-lane highways. We are straining with notoriously dangerous and narrow one/two lane roads, all in the midst of downtown traffic. I have known more friends to die on these roads than I can count on two hands. But of course, the city cannot afford it, because there are over one hundred counties that live off of us, and have deliberately fought state funding for our infrastructure.

Urban welfare is virtually a myth.

[bettys boy]

174. Kick. Post of the week.

[sampsonblk]

43. This is GOPer thinking at its worst

The test is not to ask people how they identify themselves, but where they stand on the issues.

On the issues, most Americans stand with us. That's why Repubs always campaign on personal characteristics, religion and greed. (What a hell of a mix there!)

Who cares what people call themselves?

[Mike L]

56. "Repubs always campaign on personal characteristics, religion and greed."

That's a good point. They do this because the know that's what sells with the public....and the media.

[greenohio]

161. Apparently here if you call yourself a New Democrat...

you're Satan.

[Walt Starr]

47. Ahhh, clear message to Liberal Activists who worked their asses off in '04

GO AWAY!

Okay, I will.

[Iris]

138. Can I go with you?

It stinks here.

[greenohio]

150. Think green

If you cannot stomach the DNC inching to the center and you don't care about winning, then vote green. Dems must campaign as Clinton did from the south/midwest and the center to win. If winning doesn't matter, why not vote green?

[ibegurpard]

48. Wake up call to you

You can't win without us.

[greenohio]

152. Clinton was a DLC New Democrat and won twice

The fact of the matter is, most will vote for ABR anybody but repukes. If you want to win, we need to run up the political center and from middle america. If winning doesn't matter then vote green.

[ventvon]

52. Duh

Of course they do.

The thing is, they are not the "face" of the party.

They are not the strategists. They are not the DU. They are not the grassroots effort.

They are the average Joe Blows out in the heart of the country who don't do anything but vote, and nothing else.

So, when the Dems like most on the DU who are are pro-gay marriage, anti-Israel, and have an abortion anytime that you feel like it without so much as asking people to make wise choices before they decide to have sex in the first place, go out on television, in marches, and protests, it makes it look like that's what the Democratic party stands for, when most registered Democrats do not.

People think that the ultraliberal wing of the Democratic party is the democratic party because it's the loudest and most active part of the party.

I blame the moderate and conservative Dems who don't speak up, because if they did, their numbers would make them have to be heard.

It's also one of the reason why "Moderate Southern Dems" usually win.

[Cheswick2.0]

83. woah...major ugliness and mysogeny in this post

So, when the Dems like most on the DU who are are pro-gay marriage, anti-Israel, and have an abortion anytime that you feel like it without so much as asking people to make wise choices before they decide to have sex in the first place, go out on television

Who the hell do you think you are talking about? You must truly hate and mistrust women to have such an opinion of why they have abortions.
Here's a hint for you: Men should keep their sperm to themselves and we won't have to worry about the problem anymore.

[ventvon]

98. Tell me

Why do most women have abortions?

I stand by my opinion that most of them have abortions because they don't want to have a child at that particular moment.

There's nothing hateful about that FACT.

Sure, some of them can't "afford" a child then, and even fewer of them are rape victims, but "most" of them don't want to be pregnant, although they wanted to have sex.

That's just a fact. Besides, guys can't get pregnant. Yes, if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, then she should be "EVEN MORE CAREFUL"!

My point: Make the man wear a condom if he doesn't want to, if you don't want to get pregnant. Take birth control measures. Neither of those are 100% preventative, duh. Don't have sex, I guarantee you you won't get pregnant.

Nothing hateful about that.

What I get sick of is people saying every statement that calls for more personal responsibility is a hateful statement, like I'm just supposed to tell everyone to do what the heck they want to.

Be responsible, period! If you don't like "telling people to be responsible and take precautions," then you have a poltical problem. Prepare to lose again.

[Cheswick2.0]

105. so men CAN"T be responsible so women have to be?

Guess what, we are.
Do you really think women have late term abortions because they just decide they don't want to be pregnant? Stick around and educate yourself. There are plenty of smart people here who will explain to you how wrong your are. I don't have the patience right now.

For my part I would like to suggest we make all men give semen deposits and then sterilize them. Later on if they get married and want to have children and the woman agrees, they can unfreeze a sperm pop and have at it. But in the meantime selfish men who can't control themselves, won't be able to put women in the position of being pregnant in the first place.

[Iris]

139. Hmm. . . I feel like having an abortion today. Problem is

I'M NOT PREGNANT!!!!!!!!!

[Iris]

140. Dammit!!!! I replied to a freakin' tombstone!!!

I really hate it when that happens!

But I'm glad he's gone. Hope he marries a woman who wants 2 kids and after they get here insists on marital celibacy.

[Cheswick2.0]

151. LOL... sorry, but apparently someone couldn't stand having him around

glad he's gone too.

[leesa]

54. Well, then I quit the Dems. I will never become a cruel, warmongering,

destroy all safety nets, "to hell with the people, I've got mine" moderate Republican-Democrat.

[ventvon]

58. Neither are most of the people who voted for Bush, duh

They just didn't think that Kerry was "strong" enough to lead during a war, and his campaign refused to display it.

The Democrats have the resume's to be the "strong" party, but they refuse to show it, and allow all of these draft-dodging, never been in the military Republicans to call them weak on security liberals.

Since they allow it to happen instead of taking a stand, then they deserve to lose votes over security issues!

The Democrats should have put on a Veteran's show by calling a press conference with all of the Dems from the House and the Senate who have served in war standing behind Kerry as they said, "how dare they call us weak on security when we put it all on the line in live combat, for this country, and they didn't serve or ran away from it when their country called!"

Then Kerry'd mention how Bush was AWOL. How Cheney had 7 deferrments. How Wolfowitz wasn't even in the military. How the vast majority of the GOP in Congress did not serve, but most of those Dems in Congress did, and how that is significant in the Bush administration's wreckless rush to war and the dems/vets calls for more planning, because as a soldier on the ground, you want as much international support as possible to shoulder the load and feel good about what you are doing.

That's why they vote the way they do. That's why Chuck Hagel and John McCain vote like most of the Dems do. Because having been in war, they understand what it takes and what's most important.

But the Democrats, at least Kerry's campaign, refused to do something like that.

It's like they want the status quo to remain for some reason.

The only thing the GOP had besides "values" was "National security." The Democrats have no business being seen as weaker on national security, but the establishment obviously want to be seen that way because they have the resume's to change that image if they want to.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

55. Definition of a "Liberal"

"I am a liberal. We live in a liberal democracy. That's what we created in this country. That's in our Constitution. ... I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principals of the Enlightenment. It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get stuck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back. "
-- Wes Clark

Guess that makes me a LIBERAL!

Not just a LIBERAL but a PROUD LIBERAL

[ventvon]

57. As usual

Clark says, "let me be clear," and then he isn't.

Nothing that he just said defines what "liberal" is.

So liberal is all about "compromise and dialogue"?

Please, that doesn't make one bit of sense whatsoever.

So, all liberals plan to do is talk and nothing else?

What about dropping the stupid labels and just presenting "GOOD IDEAS."

That's the most important thing that Kerry said: "Labels don't matter. X, Y, and Z may not be a liberal or conservative idea. It's just a good idea."

[YankeyMCC]

59. He wasn't defining "liberal"

He was explaining that part of the foundation of this nation is the idea of liberal democracy.

You might complain about the appropriatness of the quote to the subject we are discussing but Wes Clark was very clear when he said that.

And I do agree with your point that we should reject the labels that keep people from thinking about ideas. Conservative and liberal are not nouns they are approaches to a problem, sometimes a problem calls for a conservative approach sometimes it calls for a more liberal approach.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

60. The heading

is mine...not Clarks. He wasn't "defining" Liberal, but was stating that he is a Liberal, and not afraid to say so.

He also did a damn good job of pointing out the roots of our democracy.

So please do me a favor...don't diss a man who had the backbone to embrace the Liberal lable because my choice of a heading for my post was poor.

And yes, I agree it would be great if "labels" would dissappear from the discourse, but it ain't gonna happen. So if we're going to run Liberal candidates don't you think it's about time we tried running some who have a clue as to what Liberal actually is?

Wingers on both sides of the aisle may not like the thought of Compromise & Dialogue but like it or not that IS the way this country was created and it is the only way this country will survive...unless of course we're converted to a *ush Christian fanatic monarchy/theocracy. No compromise or dialogue needed then.

[Mandate_My_Ass]

62. yeah, no surprise

The way the word "liberal" has been so demonized, no wonder few people use it to identify themselves.

[Armstead2]

64. Hell Yes! What's a moderate?

I'm a damn moderate, but I'm also very pissed off and worried about what has happened to the US in the last 20 years.

We have traded "people power" for a complete surrender to corporate power. That has led to an oligarchy in which terms like "moderate" are completely meaningless.

UNLESS THE GODDAMN DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP ADMITS THAT DEMOCRACY IS IN GRAVE DANGER -- AND THAT TRUE FREE ENTERPRISE HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY A CORPORATE OLIGarchy THAT IS KILLING FREE ENTERPRISE -- IT IS DOOMED TO BE A MARGINAL EWCHO OF THE GOP.

You want to call telling the truth being "too left" be my guest. I say the truth these days is neither left nor right.

[sonicx]

66. going to the right or left will not win elections

having a message other than 'i'm like him but different' will.

[vet_against_Bush]

68. I agree. Moderation is the way to go, and it isn't selling out! nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. Good luck winning without liberal Democrats..we did the work this past

election

[Mike L]

72. It seems kinda selfish that "liberal Dems" would drop out simply because

they don't get everything they want. Is there a difference between a Repug who thinks all abortions should be banned and a Dem who is pro-choice, but supports some restrictions on late term abortions?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

77. WHERE THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN...IS THERE A LIVING WAGE LAW?

IS THE ENVIRONMENT A PRIORITY?
IS THERE AN EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT?
ARE WOMEN'S RIGHTS NOT UNDER FIRE?

PERHAPS IF YOU WEREN'T STUDIOUSLY POURING OVER WHAT COMES OUT OF THE ASSES OF THE TALKING HEADS AND STARTED READING UP ABOUT THE REAL POVERTY ISSUES IN AMERICA YOU'D HAVE A GODDAMN FUCKING CLUE ABOUT WHY THERE SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM SHORING UP A DEMOCRATIC BASE.

PERHAPS IF YOU READ YOUR LITTLE BULLSHIT POLLS A LITTLE LESS AND READ THINGS LIKE BARBARA EHERENREICH'S NICKELED AND DIMED YOU'D UNDERSTAND WHY THOSE SINGLE MOMS ARE JUST A BIT TOO MOTHERFUCKING TIRED TO READ UP ABOUT THE ELECTION AND VARIOUS ISSUES THAT MAY AFFECT THEM.

I AM SICK OF THE CONSERVATIVE TRIPE YOU FUCKING BARFED ALL OVER THIS BOARD SINCE ARRIVING.

WHOSE JOBS ARE GONE BY COMPROMISING? THE FUCKING JOBS OF THE FUCKING MODERATES WHO HAVE VOTED WITH THE MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICANS AND THE LIKES OF JOHN FUCKING BREAUX...I GUESS THEY'D RATHER FEED THEIR FuCKING FAMILIES GUNS AND FETUSES ...RIIIGHT?

[Mike L]

81. Thanks. I feel more enlightened since I read your post.

So why didn't all those pissed off people vote THIS time? Kerry campaigned on all those issues.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

82. well maybe they did

but their votes weren't counted. It's quite possible. Maybe even probable.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. Then that means you didn't read my post. Nice obtuse response

[Mike L]

88. Actually, I did fudge a little.

Kerry didn't campaign for an ERA.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

96. Nor did he campaign for living wage..btw...why all the haranging of

liberals over 130,000 votes? Why your incessant desire to get us to change everything over 130,000 votes? Why all the antagonism of liberals when most of Kerry's programs were moderate?

[Cheswick2.0]

92. He did not campaign on all those issues

which is exactly the problem.

[Cheswick2.0]

87. hey Mike, I have been asking you "moderates" to answer a question

and no one has.

Which of your civil rights are you willing to give up to win the next election?

[Mike L]

99. None. And I won't have to. You won't either.

[Cheswick2.0]

103. nice side later arabesque

can't answer huh?

[Forkboy]

180. Typical squishy centrist copout

[Cheswick2.0]

75. So? How's that working out for ya?

Win much lately?

[BuelahWitch]

74. Clinton won first time because of Perot

Perot split the vote of people who generally vote Repug.

He won the second time because the economy was doing well and he was running against Bob Dole (who normal people saw as Norm MacDonald played him on SNL. Had the Repugs given him a real opponent it might have been
more difficult second time around.

[Q]

80. Ah...the tyranny of the majority...

...and anyone can find a poll to support their particular theory. One could probably find a poll somewhere on the web that 'proves' the moon landing was faked.

- The RWing of the Democratic party loves to divide and conquer using labels such as left, right, radical liberal and extremist. But the pivotal issue has always been about the Dem party selling off bits and pieces of itself in order to 'win' and then deciding to sell a bit more when they come in second place.

- Do only liberals support a woman's right to choose? Does one have to be a liberal to support gun and environmental regulations? How about unions and the working poor? Civil and human rights? A social safety net? Health care for everyone?

- The RWing of the Dem party would rather talk about polls and statistics than issues. They lose on the issues every time...just like the GOPers...because The People are almost always left out of the equation.

- If things keep going as they are...you won't have to worry about 'libruls' mucking up the corporate dreams of the second Republican party. We'll be gone and you'll be left to pander to those who wouldn't vote for you on a bet.

[WI_DEM]

85. go left? I just want them to act like Democrats

and not try and constantly co-op GOP ideas, but to fight Bush on the issues.

[Mike L]

91. I wish most Americans would take time to study the issues.

Unfortunately, they don't.

[UpsideDownFlag]

101. exactly. just grow a damn backbone, and dont try to out-repub the pubs.

nt

[LimpingLib]

89. Kerry did better than Gore.Progressive views are the way to go!!!

New Mexico , Nevada , Iowa , and Colorado are all much more winnable with a progressive (infact the first 3 are in our bag giving us 269 electoral votes to clunt on compared to Gores 267).

Colorado went for +10% GOP in "moderate Democrat years" 1996 and 2000.

Now its just +3.5% GOP when we nominate a FAR LEFT WINGER and fast moving in our direction.

Shit on you moderate loosers!

[Mike L]

93. Sorry, Gore got more EVs than Kerry. Kerry lost IA and NM.

and FL.

[LimpingLib]

97. Compared to the national average , Kerry beat Clinton and Gore in Iowa, NM

And the differenc in Nevada and New mexico was unreal.

Plus 6%.


New Mexico was already a shitty state for the GOP and it got much worse despite Bush getting 45% of Hispanics.

We dont even need Iowa but it like Wisconsin went more strongly for us than in 2000 indexed to the national average.

[greenohio]

155. Fun with numbers...

That you can spin that Kerry lost states that Gore won as improvement is overwhelming.

[Justathought]

94. I think I am just

plain Democrat. I can go left on some issues, I can go right on some issues, and I can be front and center on some issues. I have no identity crisis....I am just a Democrat. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Bridget Burke]

95. What do you mean by "go left"?

Details, please?

I'd prefer they not go right. But it won't matter as long as the votes aren't counted.

[Justathought]

102. Go left on some issues

such as abortion....I do not believe in abortion for convenience sake or upon demand. That to me is too far left.

[eridani]

144. How the goddam hell would you know why any given woman has an abortion?

What's 'convenient' even mean operationally? Nothing, that's what.

[UpsideDownFlag]

100. you think people'd call themselves anarcho-communist vegan hippies....

...if polled by zogby? or would they prefer the term 'moderate'? i usually refer to myself as a moderate, too- but i am probably not considered one by most people's standards.

[Beacho]

104. So have we figured out

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?

[many a good man]

108. And 75% of Americans have no clue

what those terms even mean.

SURVEY: How do you define yourself: Liberal, moderate, conservative?

RESPONDENT: Hmmm...I think the right answer is conservative. Do I win a prize?

Watch any of the Peter Hart focus groups with typical voters. In the last one some lady responded that she thinks the whole idea of America was founded upon religion and stuff. Morality. In fact it was founded on the idea of escaping governments that impose their religion on its citizen and exclude them based on it. THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON TOLERANCE, DAMMIT, AND EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER LAW.

The figures you list are suspect, to say the least. Voters here are sorely lacking in knowledge of history, current events, politics and common sense.

[ulysses]

109. fine then. you don't need a coalition w/ the left, then do it yourselves.

Have fun.

[greenohio]

156. Inch to the center and win, or vote green

We either moderate as DLC New Democrat Clinton did in 92 and 96 or accept minority status. If principle is all that matter and winning means squat, then vote green.

[ulysses]

175. heh - I've already voted Green twice

in '96 and '00.

We either moderate as DLC New Democrat Clinton did in 92 and 96 or accept minority status.

Or, we could work at winning on the merits of our own values. Amazing how y'all tend to reduce everything in this argument to a binary.

[Cheswick2.0]

115. so?

Of course there are because democrats are just as sheeplike as republicans. We'll educate them, it'll all work out fine.

[salin]

116. and that has anything to do with most issues because...?

I don't think it is a liberal vs a conservative dem idea to be concerned that ongoing tax cuts will bankrupt the country and are thus unsustainable.

I don't think it is a liberal vs a conservative dem idea that policies that actively increase the number of uninsured are a really bad for society idea...(such as bush's new tax plans to increase tax shelters for the wealthy, and to cut corporate tax incentives for providing employee health benefits)

I don't think that it is a liberal vs a conservative dem idea that if we are going to expand our military exploits, then we need to be prepared for the costs (budgets, expanding not cutting VA hospital funding, etc.)

I don't think that it is a liberal vs a conservative dem idea that policies that increase our taxes via increasing state debt to offset wealthy tax cuts is a problem.

Perhaps talking about bread and butter ideas that unite us against the growing abuse of power and tilt towards increasing economic inequalities in this country is the way we should proceed rather than doing the smother each other from within routine.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

120. Hey Mike..when you get back to your little flamefest check this out

[Mike L]

124. Hi nothingshocksmeanymore. I agree with everything Salin said,

except for the 'talking' part. I don't think that talking will change people's proclivity to put their cultural interests above their economic interests. Things would have to get a lot worse economically for them to do that.

But we don't need to take a "hard right" on cultural issues to win the WH and Congressional seats in purple states. All we need to do is nominate solid, moderate candidates. IMO, those candidates will need to be pro-choice (but against late term abortions), pro-gun and pro-civil unions.

[salin]

118. question - on the linked issue

to go right should we support this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1367766&mesg_id=1367766

[Mike L]

126. Absolutely not.

On all economic issues, including tax policy, we can and should move farther to the left. I'm in favor of gradually withdrawing from NAFTA and the WTO. I'd also like to see tax penalties imposed on corporations for offshoring American jobs and physical plants. There are many other pro-American worker measures I'd like to see taken.

We should only go right on cultural issues enough to make us moderates.

I think Clinton really screwed the Party. He was a "moderate", but he went to the right on economic issues and the left on cultural issues. That lost us the support of many blue collar workers, and lost Congress.

[unfrigginreal]

119. Not by using the Republicans definition of moderate and conservative,

meaning Arlen Specter is a moderate. That's the problem with posts like yours. The MSM is also using the puke definition. The country is much more centrist and left leaning in terms of values and policies, although many of those would consider themselves moderate. Democrats just haven't figured out the right way to get that message out. They spend far to much time on defense over the language we use to promote our principles on hot button issues. Most of that is the fault of Party regulars that won't allow a 'moderation' of the language and has nothing to do with actually moderating our positions.

[bacchant]

121. Wake up Liberals and Progressives, if the Republican Lite of our party

insist on pulling it right, I propose we re-register Independent or Green. Let's see how they fare without that "30%". Hell no I won't go!

[greenohio]

158. Are you the same guys beating the crud out of greens a few weeks ago?

Kerry voted FOR NAFTA. He voted AGAINST KYOTO. He was AGAINST gay marriage. His plan on the deficit was IDENTICAL to shrubs. He voted to authorize shrub to wage illegal war.

Every time I mentioned any of this I was cursed. "ABB, anything to win, blah blah blah. Nader is Satan." And then, because we nominated someone to the left of Ted Kennedy we lose anyway. Well I could stand another 8 year of Clinton and would vote for that.

The fact of the matter is, we need to inch to the center to win as Clinton did twice. If winning doesn't matter to you, then vote green.

[sunnystarr]

122. Being a Democrat is being Liberal

by the very nature of the Party.

democrat

\Dem"o*crat\, n. mocrate.] 1. One who is an adherent or advocate of democracy, or government by the people.

1 a : an adherent of democracy b : one who practices social equality

democracy

de-moc-ra-cy, n. 1. Government of the peope, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 3 A social condition of equality and respect for the individual.

liberal

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives


Liberalism

a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

We are the party of the future. Conservatives are the party of the past, regarding proposals of change with distrust.

Liberal is a label I wear with pride, knowing that democratic principles are only served with a liberal approach to life and government.

[Q]

123. Great post...

...and welcome to DU.

[Iris]

127. If they lose 30% of the vote by going left,

how's that supposed to help them?

[WillyT]

131. And THAT... Is The Conundrum !!!

The party goes anymore to the right, and I (and many many others) go Green.

The party goes to the left, and you go.... Republican???

Is that the quandary we face?

:shrug:

[greenohio]

159. Did you hate Clinton?

Clinton ran as a Southern New Democrat.

from MY LIFE by Bill Clinton:

"Going to the Democratic Leadership Council. In 1985, I got involved in the newly formed Democratic Leadership Council, a group dedicated to forging a winning message for the Democrats based on fiscal responsibility, creative new ideas on social policy, and a commitment to a strong national defense. ...

In March 1990 I went to New Orleans to accept the chairmanship of the DLC. I was convinced the group's ideas on welfare reform, criminal justice, education, and economic growth were crucial to the future of the Democratic Party and the nation."

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=173&contentid=252794

[WillyT]

179. No... But I Hated When He Ran Home To AK To Execute A Retarded Man So...

he could earn his "moderate" wings!!!

Made me SO PROUD... to be a Democrat.

:puke:

Maybe next time around... we can get our standard bearer to burn a cross on somebody's front lawn before the general election. Might get some crossover votes that way, no???

:shrug:

[Forkboy]

181. lol

:thumbsup:

[Q]

147. Going left going left going left going left...

- Look...this is a phony argument...used by the DLC to rationalize their cooperation with the Republicans.

- It's not 'going left' to get back to orginal tenets of the Democratic party. It's just going back to what we used to be. What we were BEFORE the DLCers strangled our party with their corporate BS.

[tsuki]

132. Here we go again with the label, label, label.

Whose definition is Conservative, Moderate and Liberal?

Were the callers aware of the definition of these words. Were they told the definitions. Or were they supposed to use the Vulcan Mind Meld to devine the definitions.

Someone who considers themselves a liberal, might be looked on as a moderate or even conservative from some one from another area of the country.

This is not Libby, Libby, Libby on the label, label, label. These are words that have become highly subjective.

I am a moderate conservative liberal. Anyone want to challenge that?

[David Zephyr]

142. Wake up call-- Liberals Do 90% of the Work and Give 90% of the Cash

Liberals. You know, those people...the people that work their hearts out during elections and give their precious cash to the cause. Liberals who will never spend all night watching cable television "political shows" and then actually confuse viewership with real street activism and money raising.

Memo: Talking back to Sean Hannity on one's television will never get one voter to the polls. Don't get me wrong now. I know someone must do the hard "work" of chattering on here at the DU about what Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Scarborough might have just said. Example: "Quick turn on Fox News!" "Did you just here what Chris Matthews said?"

Give me a break!

I see that NothingShocksMeAnymore has already addressed the fact that it is the Left has historically done the work, but I thought I'd weigh in, too.

I am curious to know what you consider "moderate" and "conservative" since it sounds like you are speaking for yourself.

Where do you differ from the Liberals within your party? What issues do you identify or not identify with that make you a "moderate" or "conservative" Democrat?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. We Throw Around Too Many Labels...

Like the fella on my avatar I am philosophically liberal and operationally pragmatic...


The greatest intentions in the world are worthless in the political sphere if you are unable to convince a plurality or majority of voters to support your intentions with their votes....

[ScreamingMeemie]

153. Define moderate. I used to define myself as moderate until discussion

started on running to the center.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

157. It's Not Our Issues As Much As How We Talk About Them...

And don't forget a lot of folks who agreed with us on the issues still voted for Bush* because we were ineffective in communicating with them...

My favorite set of statistics from 04 exit polls...


Something like 62% of Americans favored civil unions and/or gay marriage and Bush* got 51% of the vote ....

Obviously some of the folks who agreed with us voted for him....

[NoPasaran]

165. Moderates and Conservatives outnumber Liberals in Dem Party

And that's why Joementum was unstoppable, boys and girls.

[Mike L]

170. You don't have to be a liberal to oppose the Iraq War

or other things that Lieberman is in favor of. I'm a moderate Democrat and I can't stand Lieberman. I'd like to see a moderate or liberal Dem run against him in the senatorial primary and take his seat. The Dem (Dodd) beat the repug in Connecticut's senate race this year by 34%.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/CT/

[fob]

171. You could also say that Moderates and Liberals outweigh conservatives

but what's the fucking point?

Same team man, same team.

[Razorback_Democrat]

172. Of Course MSM Says Kerry Was Most Liberal Senator

when actually they were just repeating the RNC talking points

Kerry actually ranked around 11th overall in terms of his "liberalness" and his votes were a mixture of some fiscal conservativism and liberalism, and liberal on social issues.

So do we believe every poll?

I consider myself a moderate

but all Rethugs I know think I'm liberal

[bloom]

182. Moderates rarely lead anything

You could say this for both parties. You have the passionate people about reducing taxes and industry regulation. And you have the passionate people against abortion and gay marriage.

On the other side you have the passionate people for social programs & health care and you have passionate people for choice and for gay equality.

And there are a lot of people in the middle who just don't care all that much - that figure people will sort it out or whatever.


I don't think that means that people on the left should just shut up and let the passionate people on the right get away with all the crap they want to get away with. Which is what I think would happen if it were left up the the moderates. Which is what has been happening all too much with Democrats in Congress - way too much going along....