Why (I believe) the Democratic Party must be aggressively liberal and progressive to actually WIN

[Armstead]

I posted this on one of the numerous threads bemoaning the effects of the 2010 election we are currently seeing. I kinda like it so I'm re-posting it here, as one alternative to simply blaming voters and the false claims of a Vast left Wing Conspiracy to Not Vote....Also as a different view than the claims that "Voters aren't ready for a real liberal."

(I also emphasize that many progressive Democratic politicians did not fall into the characterizations below. But those real liberals and progressives often have to contend with opposition from their own party.)

Basically what I believe is that if Democrats/Liberals/progressives are to make real progress (both politically and in terms of governing) we have to acknowledge the actual way many people relate to politics and do a better job of reaching people on that basis, instead of bemoaning the "stupidity" or apathy of voters.

The real challenge is to make liberalism and progressive populism the "default" political orientation of more people...It was in the past, and it can be again.

The problem is not necessarily that people are dumb -- and not that they are apathetic and don't care. It has more to do with the nature of peoples lives and the other concerns they have -- plus some basic facts about human nature.

There are people (like me and you and many others) who for a variety of personal reasons follow and react to public/political affairs on a gut level. We pay close attention to it because we instinctively find it to be both fascinating and vitally important. We naturally pay attention to the details and overall issues because of that.

But not everyone is "wired" to follow very deeply below the surface. It should be otherwise but it is not.

This may be a bad comparison, but it is like professional sports. There are people who can remember very detailed statistics about players and teams, have a deep grasp of the performance and strategies of different teams. And they feel a direct emotional connection with their particular team, and are elated when the team does well and despondent when it fails.....There are other people who know nothing about the same sports and couldn't care less. It is just a baffling bunch of stuff, and they see no reason to care and understand it.

Yes, the difference is that politics and public events have a direct bearing on real life.

But not everyone sees it that way. They aren't connected to it, and to them the battles between parties and the performance of individual politics seems irrelevant.

In part, that is because issues really are complicated and hard to grasp....Someone who is not a follower of sports can't suddenly jump in and comprehend things like different coaching strategies. Likewise, people who aren't predisposed to following politics and policies don't see the nuances and implications of different policies -- or how it actually does relate to their lives.

It's also due to a certain degree of fatalism and cynicism. Many people I know who are intelligent and do care about things, do not see politics as relevant to real life. They don't believe politicians and political parties really do intend to change anything for the better. They see them all as ineffective and/or crooked. "They're all the same."

Again, I am not defending this, but simply acknowledging that this is the way many (if not most) people are.

The job of politicians and political organizations is to break through that wall. Success is when they are able to get more people engaged and also to make them believe that what they represent is worth getting excited about and supporting. That requires a mix of salesmanship, showmanship and actual substance.

Over the years, the GOP have been able to do that. They relentlessly hammer home the message of Conservatism, and they package it in ways that seem to make sense to the people who don't pay close attention. That consistency and relentlessness has given them the ability to both get the "swing voters" to often go their way -- and they have also managed to convince many people to become die-hard conservatives and partisan Republicans.

The job of Democrats (IMO) is to become as relentless and strategic to revitalize liberalism as a default position. IMO the Democrats have failed in that job for too many years because the institutional party leadership has become too allied with the same corporate conservative worldview as the Republicans. It has become dependent on their money, and there is a lot of philosophical inbreeding between Democratic politicians/leadership and the Corporate/Wall St. Oligarchs.

That has led to Democratic support of bad policies (NAFTA, Media Consolidation, Financial deregulation, etc.) over the years. And thus their contention that "We're better than the Republicans" rings hollow to too many people.

Obama did it in 2008 and won.....But he yet again moved to the center-right as President, which just reinforced the stagnation of the entrenched status quo in many people's eyes...Which has the potential to add more to the wall of cynical apathy.

Voters will continue to either be apathetic and cynical or become ideological conservatives until more Democratic leaders actually separate themselves from the Corporate Elite Worldview and actually support and promote a REAL liberal/progressive agenda as an alternative to the GOP CONservative machine -- and be more proactive about selling it.

[northoftheborder]

1. Very excellent analysis. Who and how to restate and relate to people?????

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[xchrom]

3. i would rather say it's not by failure but by design:

'IMO the Democrats have failed in that job for too many years because the institutional party leadership has become too allied with the same corporate conservative worldview as the Republicans.'

that's the legacy of the conservative think tanks of the 70's, reagan/thatcher, friedman, etc -- and a significant portion of the democratic party BELIEVES in these philosophies.

you even read it here at DU from our moderates -- strong party loyalists.

medicare as it has progressed is progressive -- HCR is not.

SS as it has evolved is progressive -- welfare to work was not.

[Armstead]

5. I think it's a result of inbreeding

By that I mean too many Democrats who get into a position of power, and start hobnobbing with the oligarchs....They get to like them, buy into their smooth salesmanship, and eventually become part of the same club. Their worldfview gets shaped -- as well as their bank accounts.

As a result, they start seeing thge real liberals and progressives as the barbarians at the gates.

That should not be occurring on the grassroots level though, and I have no idea why that has occurred....The only possible explanation is the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome.

[Scuba]

6. The reason for the Democratic Party....

...is so there's no alternative to the Republicans.

[NV Whino]

4. Absolutely!

This has been my contention for years. This middle ground shit is exactly that– s.h.i.t. It works for no one except the opposition. We already have a conservative party. For heaven's sake, dems, stand up and promote a liberal, progressive agenda. SELL the program. DEMONSTRATE how it benefits the populous.

:rant:

[tekisui]

7. KNR!

[treestar]

8. The way the right did it was to start unglamorous at the bottom

Progressives around here expect others to do it, and from the top.

You have to start running for school boards, county councils, state offices and work up. Hard work and unglamorous. But that is how the right got such influence.

Being on the internet demanding that the POTUS say or do certain things just doesn't work.

[Armstead]

9. I think you are making a gross generalization

You assume that progressives on the grassroots have not tried and done actual work over the years....or are not now.

You also assume that things like posting on DU and being engaged in the real world are mutually exclusive. (But it's funny how that only seems to apply to progressives.)....People can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I would also add that many people who are very dedicated to liberal and progressive goals also work hard in other spheres, such as actually working at delivering social services, community organizing and advocating on specific issues outside the partisan framework, using their skills to advance goals through work...etc.

[treestar]

11. What progressives are elected to what offices?

And I don't see anything on DU about the campaign, etc. One would surely boast of having worked on such a thing, yet no one on DU does much but demand that the POTUS do or say things to their specifications and/or yammer on about how the "corporatists" are victimizing us and how helpless we are unless the POTUS "stands up" for us.

Where are the threads about how we organize to elect people to those boring lower level offices?

[Armstead]

13. Apples and Oranges.....And you don't seem to want to see a lot

1) When you are talking about a national message board, I doubt you are going to see a lot of strategizing about how to elect someone to the local school board, city council, etc. There are more specific places for such things (including the specific groups on DU)...After all, this particular board is called Presidency....I sorta assume that means it is primarily for discussions of presidential politics....And, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Barak Obama is the President.

2)I have often seen people mention (not necessarily boasting) about their experiences in political activity and what they are doing in various contexts here. There also are fairly regularly posts to provide information or calls to action, etc. here.

And a P.S. I have never run for office and never intend to, because that is not in my personal skill set. (If You want to elect a Republican, run me against him or her.) I have helped out on campaigns and done other things over the years. Plus we all contribute to the things we believe in in different ways, based on our own particular skills and situations.

[dionysus]

34. +1000000 it took the rethugs 30+ years

[Armstead]

10. Oh I love the "Unrecs" with no counter comments

[musiclawyer]

12. Everything you say is true. But....

That discussion is too complicated. You can't explain this to a poor single mom who lacks education and doesn't vote. The Gop figured out that simple consistent unequivocal messaging resonates even if it's false. If you want to turn a state blue then do the same thing but with a message that is true and articulated the same way by all politicians from local to national :
1. The GOP only cares about millionaires and billionares
2. The GOP dream is to to re create the 19th century with a corporate oligarchy in charge where a few get rich and everyone else stays poor by design
3. The GOP is racist
4. The GOP cares very little about our most vulnerable -- the young old and sick
5. If you are voting for the GOP because of social issues your vote is going to people who want to harm you economically

I know #3 is controversial but it's true for the most part and needs to be told to the millions of young people of color and immigrants who are coming of voting age

That's why the leader of the dnc matters. Right now there is no leader. Now Imagine the uproar from the talking heads if all this messaging actually went live? Everything would suddenly be examined through that prism. No downside only upside for us because it's always easier to play offense than defense. Always.

[Armstead]

15. That is my point

Although the discussion is complicated, the job is to make it relevant to people who are either cynical, have too many other pressures to worry about, etc.

Where I would differ is that I believe that we can't just be negative about the GOP. It is also vital to promote, and actually push for, an actual agenda that offers a positive reason to vote Democratic and identify with progressive populism and liberalism.

In other words we also need positive sound bites that grow out of the complex realities.

Why progressive taxcation is important. (Instead of soaking you for more taxes, have the wealthy pay more of their fair share.)

Why regulation (including anti-trust enforcement against monopolies)is necessary to protect Your job and Your interests as a consumer. Also why it is important to protect a diverse business economy.

...,Things like that.

[Exilednight]

16. You hit the truth right here:

"You can't explain this to a poor single mom who lacks education and doesn't vote. The Gop figured out that simple consistent unequivocal messaging resonates even if it's false."

Progressives do not want to come up with bumper sticker slogans. We feel it's beneath us, but sadly it's all that some peoples attention spans can handle, and attention spans keep growing shorter and shorter with each new generation.

[ProSense]

14. "Obama did it in 2008 and won.....But he yet again moved to the center-right as President"

So Barack Obama's campaign was "aggressively liberal and progressive"? Obama campaign took a more progressive stance than his policies reflect (mostly because Congress is now in the mix). Still, on what planet was his campaign "aggressively liberal and progressive"?

"the Democratic Party must be aggressively liberal and progressive to actually WIN"

That conflates the Party's platform with the candidate. The President runs on a platform. During Presidential elections, the focus is primarily on the President. Democrats benefit from the coattail.

It's completely different in a midterm when the focus is on the candidate, and the focus is mostly on issues related to the state, especially when gubernatorial elections are driving the debate.

Feingold and Grayson lost campaigning "aggressively liberal and progressive," and other candidates won who didn't.

[Armstead]

17. First of all....You focused on ONE paragraph about Obama

That was not the point of my post. In fact the point of the post was to consider much more than one person.

I would say that Grayson and Feingold both lost for reasons other than being progressive. Feingold had a shitload of money thrown against him, and he also has always been somewhat of a lone wolf. Grayson is sort of obnoxious.

Rather than look at them, look at all of the PROGRESSIVE Democrats who WON, either in election or re-election -- especially compared to how many timid and/or Blue Dogs lost.

For example, while Ohio was getting redder in 2010, Marcy Kaptur one of the staunchest progressive populists when it comes to issues of money and power -- won re-election with 117,890 votes (59%) compared to 81,876 (41%) for her Teabagger opponent.

[ProSense]

19. Hmmm?

Feingold had a shitload of money thrown against him, and he also has always been somewhat of a lone wolf. Grayson is sort of obnoxious.

Rather than look at them, look at all of the PROGRESSIVE Democrats who WON, either in election or re-election -- especially compared to how many timid and/or Blue Dogs lost.

For example, while Ohio was getting redder in 2010, Marcy Kaptur one of the staunchest progressive populists when it comes to issues of money and power -- won re-election with 117,890 votes (59%) compared to 81,876 (41%) for her Teabagger opponent.

Kucinich won too. There are solidly Democratic pockets in Ohio and some members of Congress have loyal bases there.

The irony is that you're claiming that Kaptur won and blue dogs lost, validating that the issue was the candidate not the platform as they mostly ran against the Democratic agenda.

[Armstead]

20. Maybe you might stop looking for excuses -- Unless you like where we are

Look at Kaptur's economic positions over the years. They are hardly Democrat Centrist ones.

And the perpetual excuse that progressives can only win in safe "blue" districts is exactly the kind of defeatist conventional wisdom I am talking about. Kaptur lives in a part of Ohio that could go either way.

Maybe you might look at why progressives have loyal bases. Part of it is that as individual politicians they are CLEAR and DIRECT about their beliefs, and they back it up with action. Plus they are good at the nuts and bolts of politics and constituent service, and they know how to represent the people who live there.

Despite the stereotype of Vermont, for example, there are a lot of rural hardasses and blue collar people there. But, an avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders continually wins overwhelmingly there, in part, because the working class people know that he is on their side and fighting for their interests on the issues that matter. He knows how to "package" liberalism in a way that people relate to -- and he is totally upfront in all of his positions.

[ProSense]

22. Wait

"Look at Kaptur's economic positions over the years. They are hardly Democrat Centrist ones."

Who the hell said she was a centrist?

Grayson lost and you made the excuse that it's because he was "obnoxious." The fact remains that every candidate in a midterm election is going to stand or fall based on state level politics. There is no national campaign for them to ride.

[Armstead]

23. Um, no national issues?

Tell that to the Republicans, who seemed to do fairly well running what was in effect a national campaign with national money.

You must be deliberately missing the point.

I SAID in the previous post that the individual merits of candidates and local and state factors DO make a difference too. But it is also within the larger national framework.

I didn't say you called Kaptur a centrist.

"The irony is that you're claiming that Kaptur won and blue dogs lost, validating that the issue was the candidate not the platform as they mostly ran against the Democratic agenda."

The point is that she is NOT a mainstream centrist Democrat and she won. She has long opposed those corporate-friendly "free trade" agreements that Clinton and Obama push.

For another example, she opposed the Wall St. bailouts. And compare this (from Wikipedia) to the Democratic soft-stepping around the tough realities of our economic crisis and Obama's apologetic attitude towards Big Bidness these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcy_Kaptur


"She also blamed Wall Street executives for their greed and held them responsible for the crisis and said

"You have perpetrated the greatest financial crimes ever on this American Republic. You think you can get by with it because you are extraordinarily wealthy, and the largest contributors to both presidential and congressional campaigns in both major parties."

She pleaded a "Wall Street Reckoning" and an alternate plan whereby "America doesn't need to bail you out. It needs to secure real assets and property. Federal regional reserve banks should have a new job to help renegotiate mortgages. American people should get equity in any companies. Major job creation to rebuild our infrastructure. Regulate, we need a modern Glass–Steagall Act. Refinancing must return a major share of profits to a new social security and medicare lock box."

---------------------

And this, from her website. Does this sound like she is blindly supporting the centrist approach of Obama and the Democratic Establishment?

http://www.kaptur.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=637&Itemid=122


"We have suffered the largest transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street through both the housing crisis and the financial crisis. The six largest banks, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Metlife, Inc, now hold over two-thirds of our nation’s assets.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill did not go far enough in addressing the challenges facing our financial system. For example:

• It did not replace and strengthen Glass-Steagall, separating commercial banking from investing or speculation.

• It did not reform the credit rating agencies, which had a starring role in the misdirection of investors, including the fundamental business model of the credit rating agencies.

• It did not force every derivative to be traded openly and transparently on an exchange.

• It did not end too big too fail.

• It did not prevent Wall Street banks from replacing community banks.

• It did not encourage prudent lending.

• It did not strengthen support for those agencies finding and fighting fraud in our financial system.

• It did not properly address the housing crisis.

Almost two years ago, I fought against the Troubles Asset Relief Program and I did not vote for it the two times it was brought up in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The clever comedic tale that is being spun by Wall Street megabanks here in Washington is that they are paying back the $700 billion our taxpayers bestowed on them in the fall of 2008, and so the cost to the American taxpayer will be low.

They want everyone to look at the TARP and not at the big picture, the real cost of the crisis, or the real losses thrust upon the American people. The American taxpayers need to be paid back for ALL the damage the Wall Street and its reckless banksters did to our economy."

[ProSense]

24. "Um, no national issues"

I said: "There is no national campaign for them to ride."

Was there a Presidential campaign?

A campaign for Senator of Nevada isn't the same as a campaign for Senator of Wisconsin or Florida.

That's a fact.

[Armstead]

25. Was there a national Republican Presidential campaign?

I don't know if you just like to contradict me for the sake of contradicting.....But let me try to spell this out. I will type slowly so you understand....I don't care if you agree or disagree, but please do so based on what I actually say.

One of the problems in 2010 (and for a long time before that) is that the Republicans did run a national campaign. They drew up a national narrative and offered CONservatism as a "solution." Their candidates followed that narrative and pushed the same message, fueled by the RW Corporate Money Machine.

The Democrats did not. They did not have any a national message beyond maybe saying "We're nicer than Republicans."

YES, YES, YES the individual abilities and situations of individual candidates did make a difference. Some Republicans did well, some went down. Some democrats did well, and some went down.

But on balance, the fact that the GOP had a strong national message (which also incorporated the fringes of the Tea Party) gave the momentum -- and gave voters a perceived reason to support them -- greatly enhanced their ability to skunk Democrats.

And, to reiterate, Progressive Populist Democrats, on balance, fared comparatively well despite the overall massacre of 2010.

At the very least, that ought to provide food for thought as to how Democrats could do a lot better electorally.

[ProSense]

26. Who said there was? You admit there was no national campaign.

The races were at the state level and incumbent on candidates to win against their opponents. What worked in California, Colorado and Nevada wasn't going to work in Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

[Armstead]

28. On a sunny day the sky looks blue.

I assume you can find something that is wrong with that statement.

[ProSense]

30. Does that mean you can't come up with a relevant rebuttal? n/t

[Armstead]

33. You can do better than that.....You didn't rebut that the sky looks blue

You just distracted from my distraction

[Armstead]

29. It worked for the R's in gaining a majority in the House and gains in the Senate

[ProSense]

31. What helped the Republicans

was the turnout for Governor (see Florida).

[Armstead]

35. One of many reasons....Control of Congress being another

And one might ask why Democratic gubernatorial candidates didn't inspire turnout?

Lack of a national message and strategy might be one reason for that too.

Heckfire, I even saw one of the Wisconsin legislators who left the state acknowledge that the Democratic Party "basically sleepwalked" through the last election. Surely you don't think he is a nitwit too?

[ProSense]

37. "And one might ask why Democratic gubernatorial candidates didn't inspire turnout?"

Dayton, Hickenlooper and O'Malley won.

"Lack of a national message and strategy might be one reason for that too"?

[Armstead]

38. You forgot Deval Patrick

My governor. He won too.

You know, the world does not exist in black and white. There is not a need to disagree with people just for the sake of disagreeing when you don;t agree with everything they say.

In this little volley alone, we have been agreement on certain things. But in your interpretation, I "admit" those things, rather than already recognizing them.

Debate and discussion is not a zero-sum game. I don't have to "win" a point while you "lose" a point...or vice versa.

[ProSense]

39. Deval Patrick

was an incumbent. The three I mentioned weren't.

[Armstead]

41. Oh gosh, You were right and I was wrong...somehow.

So I guess the fact he was an incumbent had no bearing on your point....Whatever that was.

Like I said, perpetual disagreement is not mandatory.

[ClassWarrior]

52. LOL...

Maybe I'll change my sig line to that. "Perpetual disagreement is not mandatory."

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

53. I remember Rachel Maddow covering the GOP "national campaign" story multiple times.

You're exactly right.

NGU.

[robcon]

18. There is no way to win the presidency without winning INDEPENDENTS.

I think the OP analysis is dead wrong, unless there are more than 2 major parties.

In the current setup, moving left is electoral poison in the presidential election (lose more than you gain, when the left has no one else to vote for.)

The president's approval is doing fine in the polls. He'll win easily in 2012.

[Armstead]

21. Defeatism

We're are probably not going to agree on this as long as you assume the things liberals believe in are so strange, exootic and unhelpful to average people that there is no way they can ever be mainstream.

If you believe that, why bother having more than one political party?

[robcon]

45. If you don't why we have a Democratic Party, why are you on Democratic Underground?

I voted for Barack Obama, and will vote for him again.

[Armstead]

46. Because I believe in many aspects of the Democratic Party but don't agree with everything

The Democratic Party is supposed to be the liberal progressive counter;party to the GOP. I believe in liberalism and progressive populism, so the Democrats are the only game in town.

But I sure do wish the party as an institution would get more liberal again.

The "liberals don't matter because they have to vote for us" is ultimatrely oging to be self-defeating if it pushes enough people away into a 3rd party and/or makes them sit it out. Remember 2000? Remember 2010?

[robcon]

47. Ok. You changed your story.

At first you didn't know why we had a Democratic party if it weren't going further left.

Now, you don't believe in some aspects of the party.

You join 100% of other Democrats in disagreeing with what some Democrats, or some Democratic Party leaders, or some Democratic Party politicians say or do. That's boilerplate: if you agreed with everything every Democrat says or does, you'd be unique, IMO.

[Armstead]

49. Didn't change anything

Maybe my rhetoric was confusing, and your wasn't very clear either.

So, stated clearly,since we have two major parties a liberal and a conservative party, the liberal party ought to clearly represent liberal values and policies. The Republican Party represents conservatism very strongly. But the Democratic Party is too often half-hearted and apologetic in its liberalism.

I am not speaking about the difference between moderate and more ideological. Each party should be able to accommodate different degrees. The Republicans have their moderate conservatives and their ideological right wingers. But they are all generally pulling in the same direction.

But the Democrats pull ourselves in conflicting directions. The so-called "centrist" faction is not the same as moderate liberal. Instead they more often represent corporate conservatism, and push policies and a worldview that is too often contrary to those of liberalism and progressive populism.

Personally, I support all aspects of the Democratic Party that supports moderate liberalism and progressive populism. But I don't believe that Democrats ought to be either reinforcing the values or policies that favor the interests of corporate monopolies and oligarchs -- they already have a political party.

[ClassWarrior]

50. So the way to win is to stand for nothing? To stand for Rape-Publican values? What?

NGU.

[Keith Bee]

27. K&R

[dionysus]

32. i think dems too often treat the situation as a political battle, where it should be an ideological

battle.

however, instilling an ideology is a long term process.

for example, in political terms, running a conservative democrat in a conservative state gives you short term better odds to win an individual election.

the long term approach would be to install a liberal\progressive ideology in the voting populace, therefore turning the voter pool itself into progressives.

i don't think simply running the most liberal candidates everywhere will cut it, unless you've spent a lot of time instilling progressive\liberal ideals inthe voters. It takes way longer than a single election cycle, imho

[Armstead]

36. It's a chicken and egg situation

Which comes first...The Candidates or the ideology?

I agree that it doesn't happen overnight. But we gotta start spomewhere.

It's possible to do both, IMO. Liberal ideas make sense. But they can only make sense if they are presented in a clear way, and in a sincere way. By sincere I mean not diluting it so much that it becomes meaningless.

Good candidates who are liberal should be able to sell those ideas and win....And it would be a lot more likely if it had the backing of the national Democratic infrastructure.

Here's an example of one effective to present these things, in my opinion.

Last week Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced an Emergency Deficit Reduction Act. It would basically make careful cuts in the budget, but would also offset that by a small surttax on incomes over a million dollars.

While it will not get enough Democratic support to go anywhere, it is the kind of solution that would both makes sense to people, spell out a complex problem in a very basic way -- and could actually work.

[Exilednight]

43. Ideology needs to come before the candidate.

Ideally, you want the candidate to pick up on the message of the constituents. Instead, we get stuck with candidates who try and sell their ideology.

Republicans have been able to win because they use the former, not the later.

[dionysus]

48. +1

[craigmatic]

40. Messaging is only part of it. Until we get rid of alot of the money in politics, we're never going

make any real progress. What good is electing a Dem if they're owned by the same coroprations as repubs? The result we get is that they seem weak when they have power. They're not weak they're willfully holding back.

[Armstead]

42. I agree partly....That's why I referred to candidates who break out of that straightjacket

Yes, messaging is only part of it...And the grip of the corporate money machine isn't easy to break.

All the more reason to hold Democrats' feet to the fire when they tell us one thing but then sell us down the river.

[ClassWarrior]

44. K&R

:kick:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

51. "You speak to ('centrists') the same way you speak to your base: you discuss progressive values..."

"...and if you are talking to folks with both progressive and conservative values, you mainly talk about the issues where they share progressive values. What that does is evoke and strengthen the progressive values already there in the minds of biconceptuals.

"And of course, you don't negate or argue against the other on their framing turf - remember Don't Think of an Elephant!

"That was the winning strategy of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown is a thoroughgoing progressive who never moved one inch to the right. He talked about the issues where he agreed with his Ohio audiences - and legitimately spoke for them..."

The rest, from distinguished Professor George Lakoff, at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.