Why does the administration STILL not get it?: there's NO "Center"...and no "Centrist" voters.

[Ken Burch]

There's only the haves and the have-nots now-only those who've won under the status quo and the much larger group who've lost.

If we represent those who've lost...we win. If we try to represent those who've won...they still won't vote for us and we'll lose.

Is it really that hard to understand that it's really THAT simple?

[FrenchieCat]

1. I wrote to the President today....

as did my husband, and my daughter.

Perhaps another letter won't hurt,
especially if you are articulating
what you feel.

The Speech is on Thursday.
Let them hear from you today.
I heard things are still fluid.

[Ken Burch]

2. I may do that.

Not holding my breath, given the pattern of policy and strategy so far.

[boston bean]

3. He knows. nt

[MisterP]

4. Overton window, baby

the only way to shift everything to the right, every time, is with this frame or worldview that there's a "vital center" (first invented to keep the Reds out of democratically-elected office, and the national forum altogether)
any dissatisfaction is blamed on "too extreme policies"--but since it's the Dems who mostly adopt this paradigm, this party is the one that cuts off any national movement to the left
it's also a great way to blame the Dems' left for not "appreciating" how it's necessary to play to "the center" and losing the elections because they're acting like 3-year-olds; they have to believe this no matter what the facts say

[applegrove]

5. Actually Presidential election are won by who wins the 20% of Americans in the middle.

[Ken Burch]

6. It's more like who wins the less-political, rather than who wins the mythical "center"

There really aren't that many people whose views are truly "middle-of-the-road", truly equidistant between the Right and the Left. There are just people who are naturally politically attentive, on the one hand, and those who haven't felt the need to be as attentive, on the other.

The way you win the less-political is by nominating a candidate who looks like "a leader". One of the best ways to demonstrate leadership is to actually HAVE strong convictions and to defend them, damn the cost. Our party never really tries that, for some reason. And that's why we usually lose the presidency.

Mondale didn't passionately defend any core values. Neither did Dukakis. Clinton won mainly on personal charisma and a willingness to stand up to personal attacks(which strongly suggests he could have been elected as a progressive if he'd defended progressive ideas or the rights and interests of those who aren't rich with the same intensity with which he defended himself against attacks on his defects as a human being). Gore didn't look like he had core values in 2000(I think we all know now that he'd have won solidly if he'd sounded as "Inconvenient" on the stump as he later did in the movie). Kerry didn't sound like he had core values(he had sounded that way when he ran for the Senate in Mass.)

The other way you win the less-attentive is by making a case for why they should be attentive...or working with the case that reality is making for us. The post-2009 behavior of the corporate class is causing the scales to fall from the eyes of millions. Our party needs to trust in that trend, and use it to our advantage.

The issue now is...who are the winners in the status quo and who are the losers. None of the "winners" are going to vote for us, no matter what...they simply aren't interested in the tiny number of things they might be liberal on to put their precious tax cuts at risk)...but we COULD win if we mobilized the ones who've been the victims in the current set-up and actually committed to fighting for a society in which they wouldn't be disrespected, disdained, and discarded... This group includes a larger and larger number of people who might once have regarded themselves as "centrist"-if we sent the clear message "we will fight for a society in which you aren't just cast away and left to die...a society in which you matter as much as any CEO" we could win. Why not try? Is there some reason this party shouldn't embrace a NON-masochistic, non-defeatist politics?

[applegrove]

9. All great ideas.

[creon]

7. Question is illogical.

It is not that simple.

Nothing ever is.

[Ken Burch]

8. Yes, it is.

The majority are losers in the current economy. The minority of winners aren't going to help this party anyway, and don't care about those who've lost. So why bother with the tiny group who've won? We need to have the heart and soul to stand with those who are being treated as expendable...not those who are expending them.

[creon]

10. good god

[Ken Burch]

11. Not really a rebuttal

Face it...there IS no "middle of the road" anymore. Why would you still think there was?

[okieinpain]

15. nope, you would be surprised at the numbers of people that

would not agree with you at all. matter of fact they would side with republicans more then you would like to think. like that ovation for rick perry killings folks, yeah they would sign on for that.

it's not that simple.

[Odin2005]

12. +1,000,000

[Ken Burch]

13. Thanks.

n/t.

[FarLeftFist]

14. There's a HUGE center. MOST people don't care much about politics, they are just 'Whatever works'

type of people. These people usually don't give a shit about social issues and only care if things 'appear' to be good in America. They usually never look for a deeper meaning.