The hard truth: independents and moderates were critical to our win

[onenote]

Yes, without the votes of Democrats and liberals, none of the Senate victories would've occurred. But none of them would've occurred if only Democrats and liberals had voted for our nominees either. Take Virginia, for example. More repubs voted than Democrats and a slightly higher percentage of repubs were loyal to their party than Democrats. So how did Webb win? He won a majority of independent voters. And it should be noted that the smallest bloc of voters in the election consisted of self-described liberals. Similar results in Montana, Missouri, etc.

The point is not that progressives can be ignored. Absolutely not. Without progressive support, these candidates lose. But it also means that moderates and indepdendent voters can't be ignored. We need to legislate consistent with the coalition that brought us victory. That means compromises on both sides.

There really is no other way.

[kenny blankenship]

1. here's another hard truth: they came to US for leadership

We lead now.

[gully]

2. We lead with a big tent.

nt

[kenny blankenship]

5. I think they knew who we were when they voted for us.

The Republicans made sure of that right?
Big tent, yeah we got it. ALWAYS HAD IT. If you think I'm moving out to make room for anybody's bigotry though you're dead wrong.

[Psephos]

7. Many dissenters on DU get the bum rush out of the "big tent"

All it takes is expressing an opinion that isn't identical to the majority line, and the vipers come out of the woodwork. I'm not talking about trolls and disruptors, either.

I hope we (Democrats) can keep this purging impulse more in check than the repugs did.

Just sayin'...

Peace.

[gully]

25. Where did I suggest we become bigots? Share with me what you're talking

about. We don't have to make room for bigots, but we do need to respect the majority of Americans - who we now represent in Washington. We are a democracy and we should work on issues that are important to EVERYONE. For example, national health care, minimum wage increase, student loans and education etc.

[benEzra]

22. Exactly.

And urban progressives need to keep in mind that the big tent includes people who aren't carbon copies of themselves. The tent includes people like me for whom gun rights are VERY important; people who don't like abortion, but who don't feel comfortable pushing their views on others so they're reluctantly pro-choice; people of faith who don't feel that the repubs represent true Christianity or whatever; people who are honestly scared by the repubs' violations of the 4th and 5th amendments, but who don't entirely trust Dems on the subject either; and people who object to the repubs' increasing tendency toward nanny-statism (gambling bans, porn bans, TV/radio/Internet censorship).

If Dem legislators wade in and start trying to ban more guns, or are perceived as promoting abortion as contraception, or giving preferential treatment to atheism over theism, or decide 4th-amendment violations are OK as long as Dems are the ones doing it (coughJanetRenocough), or creating a progressive-flavored nanny state instead of a repub-flavored one--then the independents and moderate repubs in swing states who voted Dem this time around, may not do so next time.

Dems have a fragile majority built on a "coalition of the willing." Coercive laws, gun bans, and non-Dems-are-assholes rhetoric will do nothing but undermine that, IMHO.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Which "us"?

If you mean "DU" and the attitudes represented there then no, they didn't.

If you mean "the Democratic party" or "the Democratic party leadership" then arguably they did, but/and many of the people therein are moderates.

[seabeyond]

30. here is a harder truth... if op isnt the way it happens you wont lead in 08

[Wilms]

3. A lot of "moderates" and "independents are people with little idea of what's going on.

They're not centrists. They're uninformed and misinformed.

Heck. Some just want to vote for who they think will win.

[tblue]

4. I think it's the Repugs who have no idea what's going on, tho they think they do

Indies don't care for either party for various reasons. This election, they just decided they can't stomach another 2 years of an unchecked *. We will have to earn their vote all over again every time. But we got a lot of unlikely people to vote Dem this time, which is huge. Once you cross that great divide, you're more likely to do it again.

[Phrogman]

11. You're totally wrong.

A lot of independents, myself included, are very well informed. I pitched in and voted straight Democratic because at this time it was the only logical thing to do to stop the slide into dictatorship.



You're going to run good people off with arrogant and incorrect statements like you just made.

[Wilms]

23. Welcome to the resisitance.

Glad you finally made it.

I said a lot of "independents" and "moderates"... as in so-called.

If that statement is considered "totally wrong" and "bound to run off good people" I'd wonder why they're here in the first place.

Vote based on your conscience and opinion, not mine.

[ItNerd4life]

27. Why insult them?

The OP just stated how they helped us to victory and you insult them? I don't understand.

I know many people who are registered independants. Their top 2 reasons for voting Democratic were:
1) Fiscal responsibility (Bush has none)
2) War with Iraq (again, Bush has no plan)

Those are their main issues.
They don't vote people in office based upon gay marriage, abortion, or healthcare. The above 2 issues are the decisive issues to them.

Me, I was glad they voted for our side and thanked them.

[seabeyond]

31. here we go again. this bullsht. not factual ... just a jab. so arrogant

[onenote]

33. that is sort of elitist thinking that works against us

Hate to break it to you, but not everyone who votes for repubs or for DINOs or whatever are "uninformed" or "misinformed". A lot of them have the same informaiton you do, they just interpret differently and have a different worldview than you do, or a different perspective. Labelling all repubs as evil or all indies/moderates as ignoramuses is beyond silly. Its stupid.

The Democratic party has enough of a problem overcoming the claim that it is "elitist" -- its a bogus claim, but it has hurt Democrats in the past because, to be honest, some Democratic activists are, if not elitist, insensitive to the fact that not everyone agrees with them. SUre the repubs are guilty of the same thing, but that's not our concern nor is it a valid defense. We need to make indies and moderates feel welcome, not treat them like their dolts or children to be patronized.

[hijinx87]

6. they came to us, didn't they?

it seems like we are important to them, as well.

[loyalsister]

8. I think there might be another way......

The following excerpt comes from a speech Obama gave speech on a "call to Renewal" where he laid out some interesting thoughts that seem to me to have potential. I would like to see what could be done with them.

"The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences."

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote/index.html

Obama is onto something here. Belief in belief is where we run into our greatest conflict. The biggest problem with it is that in order to compromise someone feels like they have to admit that they are wrong.
Avoiding "wrongness" by focusing on universals may be a way for the sides to find a way to work together.

What if we go beyond religion and try to sort belief from what is universal and verifiable?

The beauty of this there is no "compromise" the focus is turned to agreement on universal goals. Once that is accomplished, appripriate leaders can help guide us in a direction that help reach those mutual goals leaving the divisive ideology by the wayside. (As a matter of fact, I think there was a time when they did it that way).

Interesting proposition for the practical minded. Finding concensus in a body that has worked so hard to avoid it for so long.

[treestar]

20. This is all so true.

He has hit the nail on the head, here.

RW Christians do not seem to understand that any state involvement with religion is a danger to their own freedom of religion. They think establishing a state religion would put them in charge, but the actual danger is that the state religion would turn out not quite to be theirs.

These people are 350 years behind the times. They still haven't figured out what people in 1700 or so already knew.

[Polemicist]

9. Progressives need better branding...

and marketing. We've got 20 to 30 years worth of catching up to do with conservative media efforts to tear down liberalism/progressivism. This election was a great step in the right direction, because with control of Congress, we can control the governing agenda and the labeling of this agenda.

We need a continued emphasis on what is a progressive and we need to further develop a positive image, so more people will self-identify with progressivism politically. I believe a great many independents are really progressives but don't know it yet. I'm hoping their receptiveness to our message in this election will help.

Good honest ethical effective government by liberal/progressives will go a long way toward furthering these goals. Nothing succeeds like success.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. What you say is true. The right spent thirty years making liberal a dirty

word. Most people don't use dirty words to describe themselves.

Yet, poll after poll shows that Americans support liberal/progressive issues, from healthcare to education to environmental integrity, to fair wages, to social security and on and on.

Winning will help a bit, but the overwhelming concentration of mass media into what is it, five corporations,? will seriously impede the ability of liberals/progressive to label the agenda, even with control of congress. Until self indentified liberals/progressives find a channel into the living rooms of American homes, we will continue to be marginalized. And we will continue to second guess ourselves to try and fit into the frames provided by the media corporations.

[dmosh42]

13. Don't brand yourself as a liberal or conservative

Over the last 40+ years, as a voter I have seen myself evolve from being a Republican to Democrat, and now, Independent. I have always voted for what, I believe, fits the times we're in. The Vietnam period changed my outlooks, because I was a vet, then I worked as a labor union person, which gives other perceptions. I believe that when people lock themselves into a box, called liberal or coservative, they have limited their solutions to fit that ideology. I send my donations to this DU because, for now, this place has answers on where we should be going. The Republicans have locked themselves into that 'box' that doesn't allow for free thinking, thus the reason we're locked into Iraq, as an example.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. The problem arises if the political identy one choses is the box defined by

others. I call myself a lefty. I'm economically in favor of a mixed market, a blend of socialism and regulated free enterprise, and I'm a social libertarian. I've been this way since I cast my first vote in the early 70's. Maybe a bit more pragmatic now and a bit less ideaistic.

I know what that means to me.

This is the power of language we are talking about here, not issues, but identity.

Independent is fine with me, because we all gotta do what we gotta do, but to some that could mean you voted for Lieberman or Jesse Ventura, if you see what I mean.

Not that you did or didn't.

[sandyd921]

35. Yes, expanding progressive media

needs to be a priority for growing the progressive movement. I concur that even if people don't self-identify as progressive/liberal they hold progressive viewpoints and that self-identification is critical to strengthening our ability to realize a progressive agenda. Doing something in regard to media ownership in Congress would help but we also need to find ways to finance and support media. Unfortunately we have seen the real barriers to this with Air America's difficulties. However even with these setbacks, there is far more independent progressive media (i.e., radio, Internet, print) today than there was 5 years ago and its beginning to make a difference. But we definitely need TV to have a more substantial impact.

[John Q. Citizen]

37. If it isn't on TV, then it didn't happen is i think what Gore said. We need to

take back the public air waves to serve the public.

Air America was doomed from the start, not because the content wasn't there but because the station was shut out by corporate interests that didn't want that content available to the public.

[pat_k]

12. insiders v. outsiders; weakness v. strength; fascists v. anti-fascists;

The winners demonstrated strength; they were outsiders.

The labels -- liberal, conservative, progressive, right, left -- have become so loaded they have lost all objective meaning.

It's not about left v. right positions on "issues."

It's about fascists v. anti-fascists; insiders v. outsiders; weakness v. strength.

Analysis that tries to force candidates into right/left, liberal/conservative boxes just obscures the real forces at work.

Insiders v. Outsiders

You may be too young to remember, but not very long ago, politics wasn't viewed as the exclusive purview of the "professionals." Countless communities had vital Democratic Clubs and other associations where Americans experienced "politics" first hand. It wasn't always pretty, but people socialized, chose leaders, made decisions, and took civic action.

Over the years, people have been pushed out of their own game. These days, the "professionals" run the show and they are VERY protective of their turf.

For the so-called "Democratic strategists" of the world, we are game pieces that they -- the "professionals" -- manipulate. Heaven forbid any of us actually get involved! They may not even know WHY they feel so threatened when folks like Dean or Hackett or Lamont inspire citizens to act, but their fear has absolutely nothing to do with positions on issues or particular actions.

Weakness v. Strength

The BIGGEST problem members of the Democratic Party face is the perception that they are weak and unprincipled. We are as pissed off as we are because, instead of fulfilling their Congressional oath and challenging their wimpy image by standing up and demanding Impeachment, they are adding salt to the wound by "laying low" or appeasing the fascists by assuring them they have no intention of Impeaching Bush and Cheney.

Like addicts, they doing what they always do when simple truths and moral principles demand action: they are slaming on the breaks and looking for an escape route.

Time and again, when they fail to stand on principle and take bold action, the consequences are far more dire than the worst they feared would result if they had acted.

They are at it again, expecting a different outcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2964929">It is long past time for an intervention.

It's Ultimately About Us -- Not the Party. Not our Leaders.

The bottom line is that the insiders are protecting their turf from us. They live in a world of Republican propaganda.

WE are the REAL danger to their insular world. We are everywhere. We can insert reality and prompt them to take action. When they do act, they may suffer some frowns at Sally Quinn's next event, but that is a small price to pay.

When they do act, we must make sure we reward them -- like we rewarded Barbara Boxer for standing up on January 6th with a surge of support, dollars, and respect.

Our immediate goals are clear: Impeach Bush and Cheney and reject the results of suspect elections.

Actions large and small will make these goals a reality. As we move forward, we need to remember that, however they fail or anger us, we can't let it just be about them. Ultimately, it is about figuring out how to use our power to see that our will is done.

[w4rma]

14. But don't be mistaken: The indies and moderates have *two* major priorities.

They voted to get us out of Iraq. And they voted for Democrats to investigate and prosecute Republican corruption.

[SeanQ]

15. Nothing hard about it.

I've never had an issue with there being members, even leaders, in the Party with different views than mine. Even moderately conservative members. Indeed, I think having a few such in the party is vital to good dialog and developing balanced policy. Not to mention running someone like Kennedy in Georgia would never work. As long as they share our share our basic Democratic values, support the core party platform, defend their fellows, etc I am glad to have them with us.

The only thing I don't like are DINO's that say they are Democrats, yet throw the Party leadership and the chairman under the bus at any chance, vote with Republicans more than Democrats, criticize their own party while making nice-nice with the GOP as it walks all over the law and the well being of the nation, or says that the Party needs to divest itself of it's liberal/activist wing.

If our Party is able to have a big tent, and presents solid, well reasoned policy, the majority of Americans will generally vote for us. The Democrats should be representing the majority of Americas - the working and middle class - and be looking out for every ones well being. We now have a fresh chance and some vibrant new voices. I pray they are able to work together and remind the nation there is a better way!

I consider myself socially progressive, fiscally moderate (you balance the budget first), and a bit of an owl on foreign policy. I don't think it is right, or necessary, to try to shove the country to the left. I believe if we take care of the environment, improve education and promote reason over ideology (including breaking up MSM a bit and such), then the main stream will become more progressive on its own. JMHO

[OnionPatch]

16. Independents always make the difference

That happens in any election. It doesn't mean the rest of us are meaningless. It was us who were able to get the independents on our side. It takes a team to make a political party successful. All this quibbling about who should get the credit for the win is making me sick. :puke:

[depakid]

17. Whatever

Define "moderate."

[FredStembottom]

18. "We want your job to stay in the USA"

"Corporations doing business in the US should pay taxes."

"We will begin, today, to produce our own energy. Right here in America."

"Oh....and our New Energy initiative will produce millions of new jobs. Here's yours."


This is what Democrats should say to America. I do it all the time and Limbaugh-soaked Republicans go nuts for this kind of talk as much as anybody else.

Is that Liberal? Centrist? Conservative?

It's just EXCITING! People are DESPERATE and trembling over the outsourcing threat. The dependence on Mid-East oil. The radically unfair tax burden. The mere shame of being a country that makes NOTHING for itself anymore and has it's debt held by others!

JUST TALK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT HAVE AMERICANS SCARED AND WORRIED. OFFER TO CHANGE THINGS IN WAYS THAT HELP. THEN DO THOSE THINGS!

We can sort out how to label it all, I dunno, like, 20 years from now.:dilemma:

[Shrek]

19. Why is it a "hard" truth?

Isn't broad-based appeal something to be cultivated?

[onenote]

24. It shouldn't be hard, but I fear that its something that some don't like to contemplate

[Odin2005]

26. This election was a populist revolt against the corrupt Establishment.

The worst thing we can do is to bash the folks who are economically left-wing but socially conservative, because it is THEY who won the election for us. Jon Tester is a good example of the kind of people I'm talking about. The ideological purist culture warriors who think you need to pass a 1000 question social issue litmus test to be a "real Democrat" need to STFU.

[sampsonblk]

28. These damn labels

Assuming our side does a good job, a lot of those people will consider themselves both Democrats and liberals by 2008. If so, who should we appeal to then? All the more reason why these labels are silly self-descriptions that lack real meaning. Where have all the liberals gone? Nowhere. But the name has been given such a huge negative connotation that even the known liberals in office refuse to admit that's what they are.

Just my pre-dinner rant. Thanks for your support.

[election_2004]

32. As an Independent voter...

I split my ticket amongst Democrats and third-party candidates.

All of the Democrats who I voted for happened to be fairly progressive (Angelides, Bowen, Garamendi, Chiang, Padilla, Levine). The Dems whom I voted against were those who I viewed as corrupt or opportunistic, at which point I voted third-party.

The only truly moderate Dem who I voted for was Feinstein.

Not a single Republican on the ballot received my vote this election cycle.

[mmonk]

34. Do you know why they swung our way?

It's not because we're considered anywhere close to the republicans on issues. It's because they smell something rotten with this administration and what's going on.

[Infinite Hope]

36. Very True n/t