Nobody Cares About the DLC Except You

[Placebo]

Seriously, what are you so freaked out about?

[RDU Socialist]

1. well it's easier to blame centrists for losses than,

you know, doing research into why we lost. Nevermind that in the previous three Presidential elections the man who ran as a Democratic centrist ended up being more popular than the "moderate Republican".

[Placebo]

2. It's so true.

Now I wonder why that is, hmm...

[Clark2008]

12. True, but the DLC isn't about promoting centrist Dems

it's about kissing corporate ass.

One can be a moderate Democrat without rolling over for coporations over the objections of the working-class.

True Democrats need to bust the myth that DLC = moderate and show that DLC = anti-worker, pro-corporate.

[jackbourassa]

3. Well I agree with you on something...

The DLC are irrelevant. We just like busting balls.

[jackbourassa]

4. That being said however...

The DLC's positions are both destructive and unnecessary. We should never allow them to take a leadership position within the party ever again

[Placebo]

5. Why not?

They've been pretty successful so far.

[RDU Socialist]

6. FUCK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THAT SINCE 1992 THE DLC

HAS WON THREE OF FOUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS!

MOTHERFUCKER!

For the dimwitted who won't understand: this is a joke.

[tavalon]

7. And a good one

It's very necessary to marginalize them because they really are just advancing the Republican agenda. New Democrats = Republican Lite. Granted, compare to the fascist neocons now in control, they look like really moderate Republicans but who needs another Republican, of any ilk?

[wyldwolf]

10. Define "republican lite"

Demonstrate to us that the policies of the DLC are not rooted in the Democratic party but, rather, in the Republican party.

[jackbourassa]

8. Placebo, are you drunk?

Successful? Is that what you call it?

Let's review...

There have been seven elections since the DLC took over in 1992. We lost five of them. We won 42% of the vote in 1992 (which was worse than Dukakis did in 1988 and at par with what Mondale did in 1984 and Carter did in 1980) - but in 1992 it was enough to win the election - but we lost 9 House races that year (and lost another 54 in 1994, losing Congress for the first time in 40 years). In 1996, we won 49% of the vote - which is at par with what Gore did in 2000 and Kerry did in 2004 - but again we lost 3 Senate seats that year. After we gained back the Senate in 2001, the DLC managed to lose it again in 2002. Meaning that they managed to lose us Congress twice in less than ten years. So basically we have lost every election that Ross Perot was not involved in since 1992, and HAVE NEVER WON MORE THAN 50% of the vote.

Maybe the problem with the DLC and its supporters is that they consider this successful.

As far as the 2000 election goes, Gore trailed by an average of 15 to 20% in the polls until he fired the DLC and distanced himself from them. Then he gained in the polls and eventually won the popular vote. There's a reason why Gore has become one of their biggest critics.

So Placebo, go back to drinking Al From's kool aid, because you are not making any sense here. Irrelevancy is a hard thing to accept, I know, but it's something you have to get used to.

[nickinSTL]

16. successful? How?

How many elections have they won lately? Hmm?

The fact is, the DLC-type dems can't win an election without someone who has the charisma of a Bill Clinton. Does the DLC have one for '08? I haven't seen one emerge.

As far as I can see, the DLC leadership has led to election failure after election failure. Isn't it time for a change?

[SOS]

9. The DLC 1985-2004

RIP

[wyldwolf]

11. LOL! Wishful thinking.

[SOS]

13. 38 Reps remaining...

Only 38 House Representatives still identify with the DLC. That's a whopping 8% of the House.
The DLC members vote with the Democratic majority 76% of the time.
Non-DLC Democrats vote with the Democratic majority 82% of the time.
The DLC barely even influences the votes of their own members.

In the Senate they've got Clinton, Lieberman and Bayh.
None of whom will ever be President.

DLC membership has collapsed. The membership list has been removed from their web site.
McCain-Feingold has crippled their finances.
MoveOn has 3 million members. The DLC won't admit how many actual members they have, but it's under five thousand.
McCauliffe is off living on his $18 million Global Crossing stock profits, thankfully out of the DNC Chairman position.
Howard Dean is the Party chairman. He's going to do whatever he can to derail the DLC.
The Iraq War is very unpopular, yet the DLC continues to cheerlead the "greatest strategic mistake in US history" (General Odom).
See "Why the Iraq War was Right" on the DLC site: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=252474
Not going to win any elections with that absurd position.

The DLC is finished. Born in 1985, peaked in 1992, irrelevant in 2006.

[GOTV]

15. Nice analysis....

.... where do you get your statistics?

[wyldwolf]

17. perhaps you should re-examine your number and consider other avenues

Democrats have steadily lost seats in the House and Senate since 1994. It would stand to reason that this would also affect the DLC. Certainly no ideological mindset or membership in any organization has excluded Democrats from electoral losses.

However, I must differ with you on some of your numbers and the conclusion you've drawn from them. Though I can't confirm or deny the House numbers, you've left off some big names in the DLC column in the Senate. Mary Landreu, John Kerry, Max Baucus, Maria Cantwell, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Christopher Dodd, Dianne Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, and Mark Pryor, bringing the total to 17.

This total doesn't include Joe Biden, not a DLC member but widely thought of as a "new Democrat."

Tell me, how many House and Senate members does PDA or DFA, or any "progressive" Democratic organization claim?

But that doesn't tell the whole story. The DLC claims governors in their ranks, like Tim Kaine - a big winner in a red state last year, Bill Richardson, Ed Rendell, Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius, and Tom Vilsak.

This total doesn't include Brian Schweitzer, not a DLC member but widely thought of as a "new Democrat."

MoveOn has 3 million members? All you have to do to be a member is give them your e-mail address. I know Republicans on their mailing list. Opposition researchers. Yet, they're still counted as members. And what has moveon ever won? Nada.

The DLC won't admit how many actual members they have, but it's under five thousand.

If they won't admit it, then how do you know? What actually constitutes membership in the DLC? Being elected and then giving them your e-mail address? No. Donating. You then get a free subscription to their magazine, which had a circulation of 40,000 in 2003. (Source: Ad Age, June, 2003)

McCain-Feingold has crippled their finances.

Proof?

Howard Dean is the Party chairman. He's going to do whatever he can to derail the DLC.

Pie in the sky fantasy.

Truth is, of the 11 leading contenders for president in 2008, 7 are DLC members (Clinton, Kerry, Bayh, Vilsak, Warner, Edwards, and Richardson) One is quite likely still in the new Democrat ranks (Gore), one is most definitely a new Democrat (Biden), and one was handpicked in 2004 by DLCer Bill Clinton (Wes Clark.)

The 2008 Presidential race has "DLC" all over it. As Jackson Diehl wrote just yesterday in the Post, "Marshall's group (DLC) also has ideas on how Democrats can build stronger ties to the Republican-dominated military, revitalize NATO and the United Nations, and reverse Bush's tax cuts... Don't be surprised if, after all the Internet noise fades away, such ideas are at the center of the next presidential campaign."

[LynneSin]

14. BUT THE DLC ATE MUH BABY!!!