Winning so-called "moderates" does NOT necessarily mean "moving right"

[Sparkly]

Let's separate two ideas:

"Moving right" as in changing the Democratic party's agenda on everything from taxes to choice to education to civil rights to healthcare;

versus

"Winning over Moderates" as in persuading persuadable Bush* voters to vote for a Democrat next time.

Let’s face it: to win, we need a significant, unstealable margin of people who voted Republican in the past to feel comfortable voting for a Democrat for a change. I don't think this means the party needs to change on issues. I think it means we need a candidate people can relate to and trust – someone that makes them say, “I don’t usually vote for Democrats, but this one is different.”

That means there’s something they can relate to or respect in the candidate’s biography; the candidate doesn’t appear to be a narrow politician who understands Democrats only; the candidate overcomes the stereotypes that Democrats are weak on national defense, or that we want to ban Bibles and guns, or that we're intellectual elitists who look down on them -- you get the idea.

We’re talking about appealing to the center, where we need more votes; but that appeal can be more about the candidate than about the platform. Given a candidate whose personal qualities, characteristics and background transcend long-standing stereotypes, the platform itself can be quite far left and still hold appeal to these voters in the “center.”

The so-called “moderates” I'm talking about are simply people whose votes are winnable because they are already with us on most issues; and what they perceive as a “moderate” candidate is any person who could win their votes. I don’t think it’s as simple as “moving right” on issues, and I don’t think it means “progressives can’t win.” I think it means we need to think open-mindedly about what a progressive who CAN win might look like.

[Teaser]

1. Thank you.

What we need to do is incorporate moderates into progressivism. So that moderates will see that when the progressive agenda is advanced as a whole, so is the cause of moderation.

Think of the marriage of convenience between libertarians and Christian Conservatives that has lasted for decades, and is only now fraying.

If we can put together that kind of decades long alliance between progressives and moderates, we will be well served for a long time.

[Goldmund]

3. "The cause of moderation"

That phrase makes me chuckle for some reason...

[Pushed To The Left]

53. Yes!

I was one of those "moderates" and I am now a progressive-leaning Democrat! The message we need to get across to moderates is this: The extreme right-wing is in power right now. The best way to bring America back to the middle (moderation) is to strengthen the left!

[Lautremont]

2. I think the perfect democratic candidate would look like this:

But as for your theory, whether the choice of a candidate meant moving right or embracing moderates would depend entirely on the candidate. Was Kerry really considered too progressive? That I still find hard to believe.

[Sparkly]

4. Scary

I don't think Kerry was "too progressive" -- I don't think the voters I'm talking about were opposite his stands on the economy, Iraq, healthcare, etc.

I think we need a different kind of candidate to finally break through the decades-old stereotypes that have made voters uncomfortable about Democrats.

[sonicx]

5. Kerry WON moderates!

He mostly lost because freepers came out in droves.

[Sparkly]

7. I'm talking about a slice right out of the "center" -- by any name

The terms get in the way. I do think there are people who've voted for the Chimp who can be persuaded to vote Democratic -- enough of them to make a difference is all we need. Do you think I'm wrong about that?

[sonicx]

8. i agree. just making sure the facts are out there,

:)

[mvd]

47. And it's really frustrating to know that..

some of that high turnout was due to Freepers! It worried me on the morning of Nov. 2 when I read on DU that Repuke precints were reporting high turnout. I kept hope that it was untapped Kerry supporters.

I think we can run a liberal (who doesn't run to the center) that appeals to moderates if the liberal frames what they believe in in the form of good values, not the phony ones that many Repukes have.

[cruadin]

6. Very well stated. Sometimes I think that too much energy

is spent on trying to figure out "what's wrong with THOSE people?" If we Democrats are going to be a credible national party, which we must be, we have to express our progressive policies in a way that true moderates can relate to. We have to stop letting the opposition define us, and we have to stop reacting to the opposition's ideas and pro-actively offering our own.
The Democrats, as a national party, must start focusing on Congressional and Senate seats that can be taken back from Republican incumbents. The balance in the House and Senate right now is not truly representative of the political ideology of the country. We are not going to change that by obsessing about GWB, but we can check his power by taking back both the House and Senate. That goal is within our immediate reach and should be the focus of our energy.

[newyawker99]

54. Hi cruadin!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[cruadin]

55. Thanks.

[greenohio]

9. I agree.

It means picking a candidate that the liberal label doesn't stick.

[saracat]

13. There is nothing wrong with the liberal label.

We should be proud of it and not let the opposition define a word. Why don't we demonize consevative?

[greenohio]

14. Demonizing conservative works for me.

At a national level, which is what I think we're talking about, though I agree with being liberal, I don't know if the word helps get votes.

[LittleClarkie]

33. To tell you the truth

I don't have a problem with good old fashioned fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives, on the other hand, make my teeth itch.

Liberal is not a bad word, is true. Or shouldn't be. But neither should Moderate be a bad word, if one arrives there honestly and isn't just "swerving right." Moderate to me means keeping an open mind, and knowing a good idea when I see one, no matter which side it comes from.

Sometimes I think the Moderates from the Repubs and the Dems are going to end up banding together to fight the Neo-cons, with a few fiscal conservatives thrown in there for good measure. I hope anyway.

I've been liking how David Brooks sounded so concerned in his last two columns that Delay will have trouble unifying Republicans, and that the Administration will likely also have trouble unifying them. Most excellent.

[Ken Burch]

49. Whether or not we're "liberal", we HAVE to start DEFENDING liberalism

The worst mistake we've made is not spending more time saying
"hell yes, we're liberal, and the nation is better for it.
If it weren't for liberalism, we'd still have Jim Crow, we'd still be bombing Hanoi and we'd still be in complete environmental collapse."

Nobody votes for a party that acts as if its core values are shameful.

(And before somebody throws Clinton in here, Clinton basically won on personal charisma and would probably have beaten Number 41 on ANY platform.)

[Sparkly]

51. Not a thing wrong with that

But it'd help to have a candidate whose own biography and record defy the stereotyped villification of the word "liberal" that BushCo and its media have perpetuated.

[LittleClarkie]

52. Well, hell, if he'd had a better PR department

You'da thunk Kerry's bio would have fit the bill. He had liberal credentials, and yet voted with the Repubs and the Dems for budget reduction, was a district attorney (so they couldn't get him for being soft on crime), was a veteran so they shouldn't have been able to get him on national defense (but we've seen what they do to veterans on either side).

Clark should have fit the bill relatively well, except for his late start and inexperience politicking. He should be better next time.

Is Liberal a core Democrat value? So if I am a Dem and a moderate, does that make me a liberal Dem Moderate? Am I not a true Dem if I am not liberal, but instead more moderate?

Republican used to mean small government, and state rights, but both of those have taken something of a beating with the Bush crowd.

We're the party of the poor, the minority, the worker, yet more and more I hear key Dems calling for fiscal responsibility.

What the hell. Are we trading places again I wonder? Might be too soon to tell. I do believe the Republicans are about to have a bit of a split.

[Protagoras]

10. The center of what spectrum?

I keep wondering.

Really though...if you're willing to FIGHT for the term "Moderate" why not just use the same effort to FIGHT for the term Liberal or Progressive....if it's a war of words, why not pick the word that can mean the most?

[Sparkly]

11. It isn't a war of words, it's a "war" of winning votes

I'm not fighting for a term. I'm using the word "moderate" (often prefaced by "so-called," you'll notice) or "center" to describe people who've voted Republican, but who aren't entirely committed to their agenda and are thus persuadable.

I'm not fighting for the terms "liberal" or "progressive" either, but rather for the policies they stand for. We can't get those policies into effect until we gain power; we can't gain power until we win elections.

[saracat]

12. Lesson one: There are no moderates.

The RW has declared war on the few that were in the Senate and House. As far as voters are concerned. They are NOT EVER going to vote for us. They don't care about the "issues" If they cared about the "issues" they would have voted for Kerry ,who they agree with. They voted for Bush. "Safety" and Religion" are what is important to them. They have drunk the cool aid and are unreachable. You cannot "deprogram" these people. It is a waste of time. We must make sure the vote is counted. Fix the system and create more Dems with our values. And we must bring back objectivity to the news media. Otherwise all this effort is naught. If the media doesn't report something ,it hasn't happened. If we have to pander to the religous Right , I will leave the Party. That is exactly why we don't need any DLC inspired candidates. That is why Howrd Dean should be the new DNC chair. And I am not a Deaniac. I always supported Kerry. Deans gubernatorial record was too conservative for me, but he is the best chair nominee we have. The others are the usual'Bush lite".

[Sparkly]

15. There are persuadable voters

If they cared about the "issues" they would have voted for Kerry ,who they agree with. They voted for Bush.

And why? That's what I'm getting at. I'm saying we do not need to "move right" on the issues; we need to persuade these voters to feel comfortable with voting for a Democrat.

It's not about "pandering to the religious right" -- those people are firmly fixed in the GOP camp; they are not the people I'm talking about. I'm not talking about those who've "drunk the kool-ade."

You mentioned "safety" -- there's a good example. We need to shatter the stereotype that Democrats are weak on national defense. That's not about changing the party platform.

Yes the media is a problem, as is the voting process itself -- both are reasons we need a strong margin of victory and a different kind of candidate.

[forgethell]

16. I've heard this

every election cycle. so why do we keep nominating New England liberals? When we didn't, LBJ, JC, BC, we won. Of course, BC moved considerably to the right in his campaign promises, and he had considerable help from Ross Perot.

I don't think the American electorate actually agrees with us on the cultural issues, and they require some education. That is to say, I think socially they are to the right of where we are. I also think that our habit of using the courts to impose our views has ticked the right off considerably. They consider this as undemocratic as we do the 2000 election.

Finally, I do not see how we can find a candidate that the 'moderates' will trust and like. why? Because either he is truly progressive, and has to lie to attract the moderates, or he is truly moderate, and loses the left-most progressives. Or he is truly progressive and states so publicly and loudly.

If the latter, he is going to lose. the public isn't with us yet. many people that would vote Dem on economic issues are against the social issues that we espouse. No use calling them stupid, or voting against their own interests. Money isn't everything, and they have a better idea of their interests than anyone else does.

If the second, well, we won't make too much immediate progress on the issues, but we can put an substructure in place in the courts and bureaucracy.

If the first, he will lose. Americans are plenty smart enough to spot a phony. "Family values", "moral issues", "support the troops" etc. mean something different to the conservatives, and many moderates, than they do to progressives. Mouthing the words will convince no one. This, in my opinion, is the worst of the three options.

So, if my analysis is correct, option 2 is the only way that we will win elections. Now, this is an unpleasant prospect to many on DU. But it needn't be bad. I don't think we will be able to re-install many of the things we are going to lose over the next 4 years. But we can make a start. First, we must win the Presidency.

The only way we are going to do this is minimize support for the social issues, advancing them where we can, but never arousing the wrath of the beast once we have lulled it to sleep. Hard, hard, hard on the economic issues.

[saracat]

18. Americans are plenty smart to smell phony? Yet they elect Bush?

".The only way we are going to do this is minimize support for the social issues, advancing them where we can, but never arousing the wrath of the beast once we have lulled it to sleep. Hard, hard, hard on the economic issues."

This is an appalling statement. You are suggesting we become Republican. The definition of our party is our concern for social issues. We have already gone to far with abandoning them .You advocate that we minimize them to the point of extinction. That is the end of the Democratic Party.. The economic issues have been traditionally republican. So long as we have money, the hell with you. I am copying this statement .It is the quintessential reason that we should never abandon our principles as you have suggested.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. I agree. It is NOT about abandoning our core values.

It should NEVER be about abandoning our core issues. Never, never, never.

It is about winning elections.

And that is about gaining the trust of a sufficient part of the electorate that the election fraud would have to be so huge and obvious as to be unsustainable.

[forgethell]

22. I agree, but

an urban, Northeaster liberal is NOT going to gain the trust of the electorate.

[sangh0]

23. You're right. It's about PROMOTING our core values

instead of limiting our advocacy to issues and positions, while remaining silent on our values.

[forgethell]

21. * was and is wrong about

the issues. But you were never in any doubt about what he intended to do, if you paid attention to what he said. Call it stubbornness, inflexibility, wrong-headedness, one-dimensional, or whatever.

My second choice is a Howard Dean type, that will get out there and give 'em hell.

The economic issues have been traditionally republican. Huh?? Tell that to FDR and LBJ!!!

But I am not saying abandon the party issues, I said be more subtle about them. Be patient. Or lose elections. But, if you want the party to turn hard left, well, everybody is entitled to his own opinion.

Cheers.

[saracat]

32. We haven't won since 1992 with that system.

Clinton won because he was Clinton. He could have campaigned on a satanist position in the evangelical stronghold and won. If he could have run a third time he would have won in spite of the blow job! But we lost the House and Senate despite the temporary reprieve with the Jeffords realignment and we haven't gotten it back since. Repug lite doesn't work. Shading our values and compromising issues doesn't work. We haven't even tried hard left. We have nothing to lose.As Truman said "if they have to choose between a Republican and a Republican, they will vote Republican every time'! And Clinton himself said that the "definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different answer"! We have been running on the centrist platform since 1992 under the illusion it caused Clinton to win. If it worked then it will work now. Well, it didn't work then and it wasn't why Clinton won. It is obvious it didn't work if you look at what happened to congress right after Clinton. And Tom Daschle is a perfect illustration of this concept. Centrism doesn't work. Everyone who kisses the Republican elephant's ass ends up being tossed out on theirs.

[Sparkly]

35. What you're saying is not so different from what I'm saying.

"Clinton won because he was Clinton." I agree. (It also helped that Perot was in the race and Poppy Bush was unpopular.) By 1996, Clinton was known both as a leader who'd established good results. People trusted him.

"Repug lite doesn't work." I agree. Our basic policy positions should not change and they do not have to. We can appeal to the voters we need by choosing a candidate who's appealing to them. That doesn't mean "repug lite" or changing our positions.

Kerry was not too "centrist," in my opinion, but when you have a candidate who's perceived as being Very Liberal (because of the stereotypes, perhaps even more than the voting record), that candidate will emphasize 'moderation' a great deal. On the other hand, you can have a candidate whose biography gives the perception of "moderate" (because of stereotypes and/or voting record) and if the candidate really resonates with the voters I'm talking about, THAT candidate can put forth very liberal policies and make them palatable to a range of voters.

[saracat]

37. In 1996 Clinton still won because of his tremdous charm.

Legislatively, Clinton was no liberal. He sold the gays and the poor down the drain. His welfare reform act was an offense to all liberal princples. He signed the DOMA which is now being used to deny gay couples any rights of marriage. He promoted Nafta and other trade agreements that caused millions of jobs to be outsourced. All of that in the name of "compromise" .You would have thought that might have given him some coat tails, but it didn't, because appealing to the moderates doesn't work. We have blurred our message. I say we must go hard left so we have a message that is sharply defined from the Republicans. We had so much in common with them people couldn't tell the difference. Kerry was blurred because of this constant desire for common ground and this wanting to prove how much like them we are. We aren't like them and people might vote for us if we gave them a choice. The Democratic Party has become a codependent people pleaser catering to the moderates and the right, and it isn't going to work. As in the case of codependent people, the object of our affection ends up having no respect for us. They might love us,as in we agree with all your stands on issues, but we will not respect you, as in vote for you. It is time we demanded our respect back!

[Sparkly]

40. I agree Clinton wasn't liberal

He won twice whether it was because he had those policies or in spite of them.

That second win will be 12 years in the past by the time we get another chance; his first one, 16 years old. The differences between the parties have sharpened even more since then and will continue to split as BushCo continues their overreaching extremism.

Do you really think the parties are close on environmental policy?
On funding education?
On affirmative action?
On choice?
On international policy?
On taxes?
On fiscal discipline?
On voting reform?
On media consolidation?
On church/state separation?

I think the differences are enormous. And I think more voters are with the Democratic positions than the Republican positions. If they hear them from a candidate they like and trust, it can make the difference.

[forgethell]

39. I hate to be disagreeable, but I disagree.

Conservatives vote policies, just like we do. It's nice to have a likable candidate, but no amount of whipped crream is going to make mud pie palatable. And some of our policies seem to be mud pie to many of the voters.

Take those out of the picture, and we have a chance. This is one reason Democratic politicos keep yelling at the repukes to stick to the issues. Democratic issues. But they don't because they, and their constituents, have their own set of issues. And we keep losing.

Well, what do they say, "politics is the art of the possible". I think we need to take a long, hard, look at what is possible, and drop what is not helping us. We can always pick it up again, later, when we are back in power.

[Sparkly]

41. Nothing wrong with disagreement

and you're not being disagreeable. :)

I agree there are some Republicans who vote on policies and we couldn't win them over no matter what.

But I believe there are some people who've voted Republican but do not like what Republicans are doing; they are onboard with our policies, but can't get over the "cultural" or "stereotyped" hurdles to vote Democratic.

To use your analogy, I think there are voters who DO want our cream pies, but they want a pie vendor they feel they can trust, rather than one who seems alien to them. They'd rather have mud from a person they relate to, for whatever reason. Those are the voters we can persuade, with the right candidate.

[forgethell]

42. It's issues, issues, issues.

We need to find out what Americans want and get out in front of them. Then, in a wide arc, we steeer 'em in the right (left??) direction.

[Sparkly]

43. Well, I think our policies ARE what they want

in great enough numbers for a decisive, unstealable win at least.

I think most people DO want a fair wage, clean air, educational opportunities, a balanced budget, civil rights, etc.

[forgethell]

44. Good, that is a perfectly legitimate

position to take. Then we should get a candidate that believes in them, that will fight for them, and NOT try to appeal to the people that disagree with them. Clinton had the values, but he also had a lot more charm that Gore or Kerry. He also obscured his liberal positions in his campaigns. And he had a LOT of persnal charm. If we win, good. If not, we reconsider, not the candidate. Kerry was the most 'electable' we had. that's why he won the primaries. Get the man who stands for our values. If he wins, as I said, good. If not, we need to reconsider the message.

I hate to keep hammering the point, but I heard all this about the loss being due to "the candidate, not the message' since Reagan. In our whole party, don't we have one man who can successfully make the elctorate understand our message? I don't believe it. I think they do understand it, and have rejected it. That's why they need educating, and we must be patient.

[Sparkly]

45. The primaries and the general election are completely different.

We don't always select the candidate who will appeal to the cross-over voters we need.

I'm saying we can do that without "moving right" on issues.

[forgethell]

46. Well, maybe, but

why haven't we done it??

[Sparkly]

48. That's the Big Question...

I think there are stereotypes among Democrats, as well. Just breathe the word "moderates" and some people get really nervous.

A southerner who talks about "faith, family, patriotism and values" with a very progressive policy agenda is maligned as "Republican lite" or "running to the right."

Yet a New England Democrat with a fairly moderate record is considered boldly liberal.

I think Democratic voters need to do two things: First, we need to accept that Republicans exist and we need their votes; second, we need to examine our own stereotypes and be smart in nominating a different kind of candidate. For people who pride themselves on open-mindedness, we can all be amazingly closed-minded in some ways. (I'm a native New England Liberal, and I include myself in that!)

[Stinky The Clown]

50. In the primaries the hard core faithful are the voters

In the General, the ambivalent persuadables are the voters. Two different groups who need two different messages. Winning a primary is in NO way an indication of electability in the general. Witness .... Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern ... to say nothing of Gore or Kerry, where special circumstances (election cheating) was the issue as much as the candidate. And even in the case of the latter two, one never got far enough to overcome the cheating and the other .... the jury's still out, but lost the popular vote.

[forgethell]

38. Clinton was a premier

politician, but you're insane if you think he could have won as a satanist in the Bible belt. He might have won a third term, I grant you that.

But are you saying that tom daschle was tossed by disgruntled leftists because he was a centrist? sort of cutting off your nose to spite your face, if you as me, which you didn't. Because the center in power is better than the left out, or especially the right in, which is what we've got now.

I did say my 2nd choice was a Howard Dean, far left candidate. We'll still lose, but aat least our party will have its integrity. And we'll have someplace to start our recovery, a la Goldwater.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. In this or any other election, the early choosers will not be swayed.

But they are the hardcore in their respective groups. And they represent what? 30%? 20%? 40%? It really doesn't matter. They're likely not going to change.

Every other voter is a late chooser and is persuadable. Why do they not choose early? Who the hell knows. Disengagement? Inattention? True uncertainty? Issues?

I really doubt that issues matter all that much - particularly to them, but probably to a large hunk of voters. Before you flame me for that, please listen.

The really big issues matter. In the last cycle ..... for the war or against the war? ...... what is the plan for the economy? In terms of really big issues, these were probably it. Sure, many other issues seemed to scream from the headlines, but these two were arguably the only two *really* big issues.

And even here, the issue itself may not have mattered.

"I am unemployed and my two brothers just got killed in Iraq ....... but I will vote for Bush because he is a man of God."

And that's the **real** issue.

Not the "man of God" thing, but the emotion. The perception. How a given candidate is perceived.

And it isn't about moving left or moving right. Bush has proven that the most extreme, radical, reactionary, damaging, insane, fascist, hateful, out-of-touch agenda can get elected.

This last cycle, the Republicans put out a message about George Bush that, in fact, did NOT go to his real positions on most issues or his true nature. They painted a picture. Trustworthy. Man of God, etc. He won on perceptions. And on people's emotional reaction to that perception.

Dems (and I am VERY guilty of this myself) tend to engage in endless mental masturbation about issues and policy. This tendency, somewhat less obvious, but still very much there, gets into our public face.

And guess what? The eyes of the late choosers just glaze over. They tune out. They don't hear our message and instead go for the other guy.

We need a candidate who can overcome this. Who is on the right side of issues as seen by Dems, but not so overt - and, yes, preachy - about the issues? To be overt about them - wonkish - causes voters' eyes to glaze and then causes them to go for the other guy.

Clinton "felt your pain". He won.

Reagan made people feel good. He won.

Chimpus Khan "meant what he said and said what he meant". He won.

Gore (NOT to diss him) was a wonk. He hit the 49% wall. Kerry (not to diss HIM) was a wonk. He hit the 49% wall.

If either man had not been so wonkish, I believe they could have broken through.

We need a candidate who is seen only as a man who is to be trusted. A man who will not cause folks to vote against their own best interest for purely unfounded, emotional issues that exist only inside themselves. They need to **trust** our guy.

And fer crissakes, stop already with the issues. To be sure we can discuss them and hone them, and debate them and proffer them to the voters. But on the stump ...... in the election .... concentrate on getting elected.

And, sadly, in today's dumber America, that is not about issues, its about emotion and perception.

Our next candidate needs to be someone **generally** acceptable to the base. But he also needs to be seen by the electorate as trustworthy. We all laughed about who we'd rather have a beer with, but in the end, that mattered. Not about the beer, but that it spoke to something else. It spoke to comfort levels. It spoke to trust.

Find that guy and we'll get a sufficient plurality that election fraud would have to be so massive as to be laughably obvious.

Find that guy and we win.

[Redleg]

19. Good points.

EOM

[leesa]

24. So, we lie to them?

[Sparkly]

26. Absolutely not.

[geek tragedy]

25. I disagree completely.

The problem isn't the candidates--though Kerry was no world-beater in that regard. The big problem is that Democrats have let Republicans define what it means to be a Democrat.

Dems don't tell people what it means to be a Democrat. So, when the Republicans spread the message that the Democratic party is a bunch of Michael Moore-worshipping nuts and wimps, that's all they really have to go on.

Priority #1 is for the Democrats to articulate what it means to be a Democrat.

[Sparkly]

27. "Articulate what it means to be a Democrat'

In words? Fine, but then you've got to have a candidate who's able to bring something beyond the words themselves to make the words believable, trustworthy and acceptable to these voters.

We can use words to describe ourselves for another dozen years. I thought the words of our convention and Kerry's speeches and his website and his advocates were all superb. But we lost voters who agreed with them because they feared Kerry would take away their Bibles, or that he flip-flopped, or that he was weak on national security, etc. etc., no matter how clearly he articulated otherwise. They just couldn't align themselves with Democrats.

[geek tragedy]

28. The problem isn't what the Dems are saying at the moment, the problem

is that what the Dems are saying changes by the moment. Or election cycle, to be more precise.

Too much of what they say is either an attempt to target voters or to respond to the Republicans. The Dems need to find a core articulation of values and positions, and hammer it home.

Then they need to find candidates (Congress and the states matter too) who exemplify these values.

I firmly believe that if you switched Kerry and Bush from their respective parties, Kerry would have destroyed Bush.

The problem was that Kerry couldn't make up for the Dems PERCEIVED weakness on national security, and was a living contradiction of its strengths--populist economic positions.

The Dems need to find a message that isn't just for 2006, but for the next 30 years.

[Sparkly]

29. The two aren't mutually exclusive

Yes, we need a clear agenda.
Yes, we need to state that agenda clearly.
Yes, we need to keep our core values and positions rather than change them.

And yes, I believe having a candidate who defies stereotypes -- who appeals to a segment of people who've voted Republican in the past -- is helpful.

I think this is confusing to many people because the stereotypes are so profound, it seems having someone who even appeals on a personal level to these voters must mean "running to the right" on issues, or lying. It doesn't.

I agree these are *perceptions* and they've been around for decades. ('How can a feminized liberal peacenik be strong in defending our country against terrorists?'... 'How can somebody stand for progressive policies if they're southerners who go to church?')

[Guaranteed]

30. Yup. LEA-DER-SHIP. nt

[DuaneBidoux]

31. You see I think moderates, by the essence of the definition of moderate

means reasonable, able to compromise, able to disagree to disagree without rancor. Which means we find our common enemy...in this case the Neocons and Christofascists that have taken over the Repuke party. Truly moderate Republicans fear them at least as much as we do. We stop them together. Once that is done, we work on issues...they want a little more privatization, we want a little more guaranteed security for disadvantaged. Okay. They're moderates (i.e., they'll work with us) we'll find a way. I don't in essence mind some privatization, as long as it's not an excuse to tear apart the progress we've built.

THINK THINK THINK: In so many ways the moderate Republicans are much closer to us than to the fundies in their own parties. These are torn people, struggling to find a home. They fear government by nature, but fear corporations just as much: a balance of fear that can be manipulated. Right wingers fear the size of government more than whether we are paying for it or not. Moderate Republicans and Progressives/Dems fear not paying for the government we have more than its absolute size. And they are MUCH MUCH more likely to align with us on social issues...moderate Repubs are now TERRIFIED (sorry for the abuse of caps here...but this one deserves it) of the social agenda of the Christofascists.

These are old line industrial east coast Republicans...people who do understand that we DID evolve from a simpler form of life. People not willing to sacrifice competitive strategic business advantage because the US is putting out university biology students who believe Adam is the origin of biological theory. They know that producing world class researchers in bioengineering, the potentially next big industry, is critical to making money (they ARE still Republicans). In Oklahoma the Republicans don't give a flying fuck about science-it never made them any money.

Complex, powerful; an alliance like this has to be considered one of many possibilities within the strategic pallet of the left. Not the only one, but a possibility. The cliche is thinking out of the box-let's be true progressives and reconsider building a new box to gain back the power we deserve.

[LittleClarkie]

34. Well said

I think we're talking common sense here, and open-mindedness, and not being afraid to form a few alliances with people.

There were enough Republicans for Kerry for the campaign to print up bumperstickers for them. I know where to find a few. Perhaps we should start dialoging.

[RinaJ]

36. Agree

:)