DLC candidates lost us a dozen Southern Senate seats in just 2 years.

[LimpingLib]

2002
Bowels lost to Dole
Clement lost to Alexander
Kirk lost to Cornyn
Saunders lost to Graham
Cleland lost to Chambliss

2004
Carson lost to Coburn
Bowels lost to Burr
John lost to Vitter
Tannenbaum lost to Demint
Castor lost to Martinez
Mahjett lost to Issackson

More DLC looses
Strictland in Colorado lost in 2002
Shaheen in NH lost in 2002

The list is endless. And its gets worse with Governors races.Plus when you coult near looses.Max Baucus nearly lost in 1996 in Montana yet progressive liberal Schweitzer nearly beat Conrad Burns in 2000 and won the governors mansion in 2004.

Thanks for all the help Al(From)!

[Radical Activist]

1. Good post. When are we going to start running populists?

Maybe economic populism doesn't work in New York or wherever the DLC think tank is based, but it works in the South. We need to ditch the idea that winning in the South means being like Republicans. It just doesn't work.

[LimpingLib]

2. The sad thing is that I stopped 1/3 of the way through my list.

And that was just for the Senate races.

[regnaD kciN]

7. The sadder thing is that, if you ask most of those candidates...

...why they lost, they will be quick to insist that it's because the national party is "too liberal," and that turned off the voters in their state. Therefore, the only solution is to purge the liberals and make the rest of the party just like them!

:eyes:

[LiberalFighter]

82. But they weren't running with the National Party

They were running on their issues.

[Tux]

3. South

Needs to know that being a liberal, Christian, and a NASCAR fan aren't exclusive. I live in the Bible Belt and letting people know that Dems aren't anti-Christian and the Bible won't be banned (can't be banned anyways). Once we get that connection that they are OK and liberals aren't atheist, pro-terrorist, anti-American commies, they'll vote for us especially since a lot of jobs have been lost here. Make the Reps and jobs connection and Dems should be fine.

[Radical Activist]

6. Its sick that we let the party

of corporate CEO's and Wall Street paint Democrats as the elitist party. The DLC corporate-Democrat crowd let that happen. It would help a lot to get the point across of Democratic leaders in the South would start vocally defending unions as well.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. Yep

I'm in Tn and we have a democratic governor. :shrug: I, personally, think it has to do with the voting machines. Here we use paper ballots and Bredesen won and he was mayor of Nashville (which was supposed to be Bush country) as well. :shrug:

[Clark2008]

18. Even Knox County voted for Bredesen and the county is the

heart of conservatism. Of course, Van Hillary is a nut... but that hasn't stopped some neo-con, christo-fascists before.
In any case, the city of Knoxville, went Bredesen and Kerry (the county still went Shrub, though).
The reason? We don't have Diebold, ES&S and/or Triad machines; however, they do have Triads in the rural areas. :scared:

[inthebrain]

4. Agreed

There is a huge progressive base down there but very little leadership. If the Dems try to play the game that they do Republican things better, they are in trouble. That was Kerry's biggest mistake in the campaign.

Dems need to start acting like Dems and rally their base. The days of acting like a Corporate suit are long over for this party. Hopefully they'll figure that out.

Thing is, I dont think its going to happen until Biden and Leiberman lose.

[Radical Activist]

5. Good point about Biden and Lieberman

A lot of DLCers can lose badly in the South, and the NYC and DC beltway crowd won't get the hint or even take notice until it happens to someone on the east coast. They live in their own little world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. was listening to ... shultz the other day

and boy lieberman may be in more trouble than he thinks

[Radical Activist]

9. Is that the guy running against Lieberman? n/t

[Geekscum]

19. We need socially moderate, pro gun, populists.

This will be long so please bear with me. I live in TX and I am a bubba. I work in computers but grew up blue collar and have a lot of blue collar friends. Heck one or two are Jeff Foxworthy jokes on the hove. I lost track of the number of times I hear these guys and other say when we talked politics that they would vote for a moderate democrat, if they could. The know that the republicans do not have their best economic interest at heart. But the social concerns of these people far out weighs that in their mind. To sum it up a labor poplurist who did something about the run away deficits who was pro-gun, and not in favor of gay marriage could have won last year. Keep im mind that since 1964 only 3 democrats have won the Whitehouse. All three were from the south, all three went to church, and all three were viewed at least partly as centerist.

NO matter how you want to look at it the democratic party has to compete int he south. If you write it off the republicans have two many electoial votes sewed up. No democrat has won the presidency in over 50 years without being competitive in the south. To be competitive in the south you need to at least seem a moderate.

And also keep this in mind, that if the republicans win in 2008 by 2012. They most likely will have picked atleast 7 if not all 9 supreme court justices. And how many time has the democratic party relied on the courts for change.

And lastly, I know that a lot of us are tired of moving to the right on things, but which is more tiresome seeing a moderate democrat get elected of a right wing republican in 2008.

[Radical Activist]

23. I know what you mean.

And the truth is we could elect people in the South who are liberal on ecnomic issues. It would require someone who will make the economic concenrs of working people the central focus of their campaign, so that cultural issues that Republicans do nothing about will take a back seat. That is exactly what the DLC is telling us not to do. The DLC has exactly the wrong strategy in the South.

[leyton]

34. Unfortunately there are plenty of democratic activists...

who insist on socially liberal candidates. Just as red-state swing voters will not let us elect a socially liberal Democrat, our own activists will not let us nominate a socially conservative but economically populist one.

[wyldwolf]

10. you know, there are back stories to many of these...

Let's look at each race you mentioned from 2002. 4 out of 5 were open seats and 3 out of 5 won by hugely popular Republicans in already southern red states. In fact, there were all southern red states.

Bowles lost to Dole - true, but Bowles wasn't an office holder at the time nor had he ever been. You have to be elected to be a DLC member so I won't even ask for evidence that he was DLC because he wasn't - plus Dole was hugely popular in an already Republican state.

This was an open seat formerly held by popular Republican Jesse Helms, by the way.

Clement lost to Alexander but he wasn't the incumbant. The seat was open. And again, it had been vacated by a retiring Republican.

Kirk lost to Cornyn - in Texas. And again, this was an open seat vacated by a Retiring (and popular) Republican - Phil Gramm.

Sanders lost to Graham - Again, another open seat and another popular Republican Lyndsey Graham. Was Sanders a member of the DLC?

Cleland lost to Chambliss - I know you're not seriously blaming Cleland's loss on being a DLC member. In Georgia, Cleland was targeted with a vicious smear campaign that essentially called him a bin Laden sympathizer. Also, 2002 was a bad year for Dems in GA, period, with Gov. Roy Barnes losing partially because he removed the confederate emblem from a prominant position on the GA flag.

But based on memory, I must point out that DLC candidate Mark Pryor won against incumbant Repub. Hutchinson in Arkansas and Non-DLC Walter Mondale lost Non-DLC Paul Wellstone's seat to Republican Norm Coleman.

We can play this game all day. I can list many Senate and House seats and Governor's mansions lost by non-DLC Democrats.

I can also list many DLC members who've won in the election cycles you list. In 2002, for example, we have Pryor in Arkansas, Landrieu in Louisiana, Baucus in Montana (and unlike you 1996 reference, he was by 33% in 2002), and Johnson in South Dakota.

At the end of the day, however, it would become clear that it is far easier to knock off Democrats in the south these day - and that has nothing to do with the DLC.

[Radical Activist]

11. Your examples

are pretty weak. The fact that a seat was being vacated by a Republican is hardly an excuse if its still an open seat. That makes it a lost opportunity Democrats won't have again for years.

Mark Pryor's record on poverty issues is actually pretty good. He isn't that much of a corporate DLCer for being one of your three examples of DLC victors.

Despite some details you can nitpick, there is a clear trend that the current "give-in to conservatism" strategy in the South isn't working.

[blm]

14. You would be right IF the campaigns were on ISSUES, but they WERE NOT.

The GOP controlled media kept hawking the line that Bush and the GOP were tough on terror while Democrats were perceived as weak and acting as obstacles to Bush's quest to make us a safer nation.

That was IT. That was the ONLY story.

Everything else is horseshit revisionism. There was no discussion by the candidates of any issue that was part of the Dem platform or the DLC mission. There was only ONE point for the media, and that was ROVE'S point.

Dems shouldn't be snookered into moving further right OR further left. The Dem platform is the best out there for a truly inclusive party of the left and the moderates.

Unless the Democrats expose the GOP control over most of the media and most of the voting machines, there will BE no Dem president and there will be no Dem senator in any race in a perceived red state.

[Radical Activist]

17. If the Republican agenda was the only one discussed

that is partly the fault of Democrats who didn't raise other issues effectively. When you have a weak DLC type message that doesn't offer anything compelling it allows the other side to set the terms of debate, which is what you described happening in those 2002 races.
Adopting the Democratic platform would have been a shift to the left for most of those candidates.

[blm]

24. Baloney...There was NO message allowed to be heard by the media.

In 2002, the only story other than terror that was allowed before the elections was the DC Sniper story.

It wouldn't matter if it was Mario Cuomo framing the issue in 2002 or 2004, the media wouldn't let it be heard, effective or not.

Most people still think Clinton was asleep on the terror issue, and, as effective he usually is on framing issues, he had a book, a promotional tour and a 9-11 commission report to prove otherwise and the media STILL has people convinced that he did nothing, while they promoted George Bush as the only one who can be trusted on terror.

You can name any silver-tongued lefty, and there is no way they get an effective message out with the media stacked 90% against them 24/7. Name just one.

Do nothing about the GOP controlled media and voting machines while we lay the blame on Democrats and their message. See how well that works in 2006 and 2008.

[Radical Activist]

26. It was the Democratic strategy.

It was the strategy chosen by Democratic leaders to vote for the war on Iraq and try to make the election about something else, but they had no strong alternative message. Yes, the media is a problem but you can't use the media as a cop-out for a poor Democratic strategy that year which was that we could beat Bush by agreeing with him. Even if we fix the media and voting machines we'll still have to deal with the kind of Democratic leaders who decided we should pursue a strategy in 02 of agreeing with Bush as often as possible. Stop making excuses for poor leadership. Good leadership would have found ways to circumvent the corporate media to get their message out. There are ways of doing that you know.

[blm]

27. There is NO media OTHER than corporate media to reach the masses.

You know damn well that Clinton is as talented as they come, but, even he has been unable to match the 24/7 networks when it comes to perception. And there is no known Democrat that has the juice to break through their GOP talking points on any regular basis.

You can't name one

. Dean has talent, but, they defined him as a whacko tree-hugger who gave gays free rein in Vermont and would do the same with terrorists.

Kucinich had a great populist message, but they defined him as a new-age hippie of no serious import.

Edwards became the Breck girl who couldn't be taken seriously as commander-in-chief.

Wes Clark was the perfumed general with no record who was only acting for Clinton.

The point is that ALL these men had effective messages, talent, brains and strong issues....and every one was characterized falsely in the media.

Don't expose the GOP control of the media....see how far you get even with the next Dem nominee Four Star General Jesus Christ channeling Dale Carnegie.

[Radical Activist]

29. That's why an effective Democratic leadership

will create more alternative media or find other ways to communicate. We have direct mail and going door-to-door, but what do you know, the DLC doesn't like the kind of grass-roots tactics that will get around the media. The fact that we haven't created our own media and found other ways around it is a matter of poor leadership.

And its untrue to say that we don't get any coverage in the corporate media. I don't think you can fairly blame the media entirely for what happened in '02. If it were ALL the medias fault we wouldn't win any elections anywhere. There has been a constant strategy in the South that hasn't been working and we need to come to grips with that. I agree with much of what you're saying about the media, but that isn't the topic of this thread, and yes it is possible to do address more than one problem at a time.

[blm]

30. Yea, Dems have a few billion $$ to buy their own media like the GOP did.

The GOP was gaining control over the media for twenty years. By the time AOL bought CNN it was all over. There is nothing left to buy.

Build it from scratch will take a decade.

We have to concentrate on exposing the media. Leaders are only effective when they can be heard.

You still cannot name ONE person who has the juice to get out a message on a regular basis that can't be distorted by the media.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

33. There is no there there. The GOP only wins because the media protects them

when they lie and distort about EVERYTHING. They do not win for ANY OTHER REASON.

I do not accept that the Democrats have a bad message. And it is wrong to say that they ran on the DLC message, when not even the DLC message was heard. NO message was heard. The DLC complains that Kerry ran too far to the left and the left complains that he ran as a centrist. They are both wrong. Kerry ran with a progressive, populist message that was delivered with the tone of a moderate. That should have been pure gold.

People think that Kerry never spoke about jobs, healthcare, national security and the environment during the campaign, because the media never discussed what he proposed in EVERY speech and at every rally. So, now when the media makes claims like "Kerry never mentioned one word about jobs" - people believe it.

If the media can get away with distorting Clinton and his record, even when he should be a known quantity, they can definitely get away with distorting any lesser known Democrat.

And THAT is why I think you avoid naming one person who can break through....because you know it can't be done without dealing with the media FIRST.

[Radical Activist]

42. Sorry, but its more complicated than that.

There are many other reasons we lose. If we depend on the media to get elected then we deserve to lose.

I don't know what you mean by breaking through but there are a lot of people in the states that have gotten elected with our current media. Like, Obama, Durbin, Edwards, Kucinich gets over 60% in his district without a page of positive news coverage because he organizes door to door. Depending on the media obviously isn't the way to get elected. The fact that we won't nominate people who can "break through" for President is the fault of backward thinking people who claimed Kerry was more electable because he didn't stand up for too many controversial issues.

[wyldwolf]

43. you want to talk "complicated?"

...you who looks at a few Dems losses in the South to household name Republicans in races to fill formerly GOP controlled vacated seats in red states and your only conclusion? Must be the DLC!

:eyes:

[blm]

50. Those are KNOWN Dems in specific areas. And you totally revised history

to claim anyone said Kerry was electable because he didn't stand up for controversial issues.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kerry has stood up for controversial issues for DECADES. Not just Vietnam. Kerry uncovered IranContra, BCCI and the illegal wars in Central America and worked on them for over FIVE years with hardly any help from other Democrats who didn't want to touch those issues. He investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history. You are welcome to offer another name of someone who comes even close.

Kerry was the FIRST Senator to submit legislation to protect gays and also testified to allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Kerry led the effort to normalize relations with Vietnam and negotiated the deal that allowed further investigation into POW-MIAs. Highly explosive issue at the time.

Kerry was one of the Senators who said the Senate was being used for gaybashing and voted NO on DOMA which Clinton signed and even Paul Wellstone voted for.

When everyone was running from Hillary's healthcare plan, Kerry sought to rescue parts of it and with Ted Kennedy crafted SCHIP bill to extend healthcare for children.

With Wellstone, Kerry submitted legislation for public financing of campaigns, the Clean Elections bill which was ignored by most of congress, but adopted by some states.

Kerry was the first to call out Bush on his military strategy in Afghanistan. While most Dems were praising his leadership, Kerry was trying to get the media to listen to the truth about Tora Bora and how Bush's decisions allowed most of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to go free.

And that is about the half of it. I will await your learned post on any lawmaker who took on more controversial issues than Kerry.

[Radical Activist]

59. I would have been happy

if Kerry ran on those issues. Typically when someone is called more electable, as many Kerry primary supporters claimed he was, it means he isn't as liberal as other candidates.

It also would have been nice if Kerry had talked more about the basic premise of NAFTA, the WTO and the war in Iraq being wrong instead of spending most of his time focusing on side issues about how those things were carried out. That was difficult because he supported all three, which opened him up to attacks of being a flip-flopper. Kerry could have had a more powerful message and an easier time getting elected had he voted the right way on those major issues.

[blm]

72. YOU claimed he never took on controversial issues. Defend your claim.

Kerry BELIEVES in global trade. He also believes in global responsibility and fair working conditions. That is why he always offered amendments to help make BETTER agreements, and why he worked for 10 years to help craft Kyoto.

As president he would have had the bully pulpit to push through measures in those agreements to make them fairer, including some of the language he tried to push through in the original bills that was supported by the labor unions.

Where do you get your information on Kerry? From the media?

[Radical Activist]

80. No, I never claimed that.

However, if you care to read the post again I already named three of the biggest issues in the election where Kerry only offered measured responses and half-assed solutions. Its hard to criticize things like our current trade system or the Iraq war when you voted for them. If he had voted the right way he would have been able to speak on those issues convincingly with more authority. I don't think Kerry's moderate record on those issue made him more electable at all.

[blm]

95. It was his work to change those bills that made him appealing. He GOT it

back then when the bills first came out, and he GOT how they could be fixed with the right president. He spoke about it at almost every rally during the campaign, but the media would not discuss the issues he raised or his solutions.

[wyldwolf]

39. and you've yet to prove "DLC style" losses elections

That is the core of your argument.

[Radical Activist]

40. Did you read the original post?

Hello!

[wyldwolf]

41. I did, and I debunked it in post 10

Summary: "DLC LOST... southern seats"

I showed without a doubt that the DLC did not lose these seats (except in one case) because they did not HAVE the seats to lose.

I also showed that the seats in 2002 were already GOP controlled in GOP trending states and were won by popular house hold name Republicans.

And still, the original post proves nothing.

[Radical Activist]

44. Maybe in your own mind.

No one else is convinced. The loss of an open seat is still the loss of an open seat. The fact that it was a Republican who retired is completely irrelevant. A loss is a loss, and open seats are the best opprotunity to make gains. The Republicans were able to take seats away from Democrats in those years. Any sane definition of not losing means that we win, as in a Democrat is actually elected. Did that happen? NO! We need to stop making excuses for losing DLC style and start winning.

You know where Democrats did take away a seat from a Republican recently? Illinois, where we replaced a republican with a very liberal Democrat. The voters rejected the weak DLC style candidate, Dan Hynes, in the Democratic primary and we're all much better off as a result.

[wyldwolf]

46. ok...

Tell you what... I want you to research the elections of 1938, when Republicans gained 81 House seats running against Franklin Roosevelt. Then research the mid-term election of 1942, when the the Democrats lost 44 seats in the House of Representatives.

Fast forward to 1981 when the Republicans won control of the Senate and retained it for six years.

Tell me which of the losing Dems were DLC in those losses? WAIT! The DLC didn't exist then.

So let's move on to 1986 - one year after the DLC was formed - when the Democrats won back the Senate on the wins of moderates Barbara Mikulski (a participant in the DLC's National Service Tour), Harry Reid (who recently said Democrats have to "swallow their pride" and move toward the middle), Conservative Democrat Richard Shelby, DLCer Bob Graham, DLCer Kent Conrad, and DLCer Tom Daschle.

Let's continue to 1994. Tell me which of the Dems who lost then were DLC. What was the DLC/non-DLC loss ratio for Dems that year?

'96?

'98?

'2000?

'2002?

'2004?

Take the argument to me, Radical Activist. If what you say it true, surely the evidence is there.

[Radical Activist]

48. First

I have a hard time giving the DLC credit for electing that many people in 1986 one year after it was formed. Weather the DLC was useful ten years ago in other regions has nothing to do with weather the DLC strategy is useful in the South today, so your post is moot.

I can talk about races like Tennessee where we couldn't beat Lamar Alexander in an open race because he's willing to run as a populist and Democrats aren't. Even Republicans understand that populism works in Tennessee. Its only corporate DLC Democrats who are too chicken shit to run that way.

[wyldwolf]

51. oh, I see

I have a hard time giving the DLC credit for electing that many people in 1986 one year after it was formed.

So, despite the DLC recruiting efforts in '85 to hand control of the senate back in '86, you have a hard time believing it.

But a few DLC Dems who lost in open races in red states to household name Republican for seats vacated by the GOP and you chalk it up to DLC style - that's believable? :eyes:

As for the Tennesse race - another example of the same.

A retiring GOP senator in a red state - popular Republican Lamar Alexander decides to run for the seat, andhe was governor of Tennessee from 1979 to 1987 and secretary of education from 1991 to 1993.

So you still have proved nothing and completely ignored my other points. But the facts won't go away.

[Radical Activist]

55. The facts are that we have a

clear, demonstrated pattern of the Democratic establishment supporting moderate Democrats who won't make on economic populist messages in the one region of the country where economic populism is the most likely to succeed. You can make excuses for a few races, but there are too many to dismiss. The OP put together a long list that shows an important pattern. Its time for a new strategy in the South.

Lamar Alexander had been out of office for over a decade and was not unbeatable.

[wyldwolf]

57. ok, back your assertions

Prove that the losing Dems did not have an economic populist message and that economic populism is the most likely to succeed in the south.

IF there are far too many races to dismiss, demonstrate them and show that a lack of a economic populist message resulted in the loss (and the fact that the state was red and voted Bush) wasn't.

..unless you're saying the GOP candidates had an economic populist message. :rofl:

[Radical Activist]

62. dupe

I hate it when that happens.

[Radical Activist]

64. I'm not going to spend the next three hours

researching every one of those races in the last two cycles. If you want to prove me wrong, then you do it.

I was there for the Alexander/Clement race so that is an easy example. And Yes, Republicans DO run on a populist message in Tennessee all the time! They know that it works there and its a shame that the old conservative Southern Democrats and the New England corporate Democrats like Lieberman don't understand that.

Lamar Alexander lost his first run for Governor. When he came back he got the plaid shirt and walked across the entire state. He was trying to shed his image as a rich ivy leaguer. Fred Thompson came from Hollywood so he rented a red pickup truck and drove it across the state visiting all the small towns and did his best to sound like the common man. The last candidate for Governor attacked his Democratic opponent for being a HMO millionaire and tried to run as a populist. East Tennessee is one of the most Republican areas in America and it has an odd style of conservative populism that Republicans have been fostering for years. Are you getting the picture now? Populism has worked in the South for a long time and Republicans have taken advantage of that while New York and DC based consultants were telling us what a losing strategy it is.

The Republicans have been wining in the South for a while because they are succeeding at making Democrats the party of liberal "elites" while painting themselves as populists. The DLC strategy of not running on liberal economic issues and being afraid of class warfare allows Republicans to do that. Its a failed strategy.

[wyldwolf]

75. in other words

You can't prove your assertions.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

84. no you didn't

Where are your links and documents showing southern moderate candidates lacked a populist economic platform?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

87. so was I and still am

But that is beside point.

Show us the proof.

Oh, that's right. You can't. So you try to turn it around with anecdotal "evidence."

[Radical Activist]

90. We're going in circles but

I'll wait for that example of the progressive populist backed by the DNC in a US Senate race in the South. I absence of that's its pretty obvious that it was DLC style candidates who were running. Anecdotal evidence is more than you have provided, isn't it? Can you give just one anecdotal example? Even one?

[wyldwolf]

94. waiting for what?

I'll wait for that example of the progressive populist backed by the DNC in a US Senate race in the South.

Why? I've never claimed there were. It is you who've claimed there are none so all I've asked is that you provide evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is more than you have provided, isn't it?

I've made no assertions on the topic that need evidence.

Can you stick to the point and prove your assertions without trying to spin your way out or taking the cop out routes you have?

[paulk]

77. where does Tenn. Gov Bredesen

fit into your "Its only corporate DLC Democrats who are too chicken shit to run that way."

Bredesen is DLC...

[blm]

45. The OP is wrong. NO Dem message, no DLC message was HEARD.

The ONLY message that was heard was that those Dems running were blocking George Bush's war on terror. That was IT.

[Radical Activist]

47. Come back to the real world.

Those candidates did get news coverage. Local news is more open and less controlled as well. They CHOSE not to challenge Bush, so if there was no message in the media challenging Bush they only have themselves to blame. It was a DLC strategy to look strong on defense by not challenging Bush on Iraq, so if there was only one media message on Iraq we can blame the DLC for not getting an alternative viewpoint out there.

Have you never knocked on someones door for a candidate? Have you ever gotten a mailing from a candidate? You don't call that a message? Campaigns are not conducted completely in the media. Have you never seen a weekly alternative/entertainment paper that every sizable city has? There are other ways to reach people.

[blm]

49. You are wrong. Millions of people in the streets were ignored because the

media would NOT allow Bush to even appear to be challenged.

There is no local power that is greater than broadcast media to reach the masses. And right before 2002, there was no breaking through the sniper story, either.

I face the reality that the GOP controls most of the broadcast media. You won't.

You want to operate on the premise that the people chose the Republicans for the Senate over the Democrats because the Democrats had too centrist a message.

I deal with the fact that the Republicans won because the media helped them define those Democrats as far left liberals who were against George Bush and his war on terror.

[Radical Activist]

52. If we ever really had millions of people in the streets

Actually knocking on doors and giving fliers to potential voters, then we wouldn't need the media to get our message out.

Even most of the people who volunteered in '04 were with a 527 or non-profit that couldn't even directly ask people to vote for Kerry. I recognized the challenge presented by the media but I'm also not willing to make excuses for the lack of good Democratic leadership and decision making. I don't understand why you can't see more than one issue at work here.

[blm]

54. The millions of people in the streets were during the antiwar protests

which we all know the media refused to carry in any comprehensive way.

Sorry, you thought I meant canvassers. My point was that millions of people in the streets were ignored BECAUSE the media was protecting Bush's image as popular leader.

[Radical Activist]

56. It was my intention to make a point about canvassers.

Protests don't mean anything if all you do is protest and expect the media to do the work of getting the message out. That's laziness.

If those millions of people who protested also spent three weekends a month canvassing with specific messages then we wouldn't need the corporate media to get the message out.

[bvar22]

71. They were also ignored because...

the Democratic Party chose to ignore them.

[bvar22]

58. The BEST opportunity to CHALLENGE the republicans...

...was at the Democratic Convention '04.

Whose bright idea was the "lets not challenge republicans" theme of the '04 convention?

[Radical Activist]

63. Yes, we were supposed to play nice.

You can't blame the corporate media for that one.

[bvar22]

67. The Democrats had an uncontested media spotliight...

...why didn't they use it to transmit a cohesive unified message of Economic Justice for ALL Americans?

Does the DLC/DNC WANT Economic Justice for ALL Americans?
Doers the DLC/DNC only want government of the RICH for the RICH?

Can you remember the MESSAGE of the Democratic Convention?

Can you remember the MESSAGE of the Republican Convention?

If the Democrats want Corporate Money, can they campaign on LABOR RIGHTS??
Who controls the Corporate funding in the Democratic Party?

Who made that decision for the Democratic Convention in '04 and have they been run out of town?

[Mass]

73. For what most DLC people did for Kerry, we could have skipped them

Each time somebody went on TV or talked to the media, they criticized him more than they supported him (not on issues, but on personnality). At the end, I really got tired of people like Rahm, Granholm. or Rendell talking of the quality of the campaign rather than of the fact that Kerry would have been a great president. (Sure they criticized Bush too, but they certainly helped a lot in pushing the image of Kerry as not connecting). BTW, Dean was very good not falling into the trap.

So I am not really inclined to defend the DLC as an entity. I like a few people there, but dont ask me to like From and Reed.

[blm]

78. I am the original Al From hater on this board. He hated Kerry first. Then

he switched to hating Dean more. I disagreed with Dean's campaign but NEVER from an Al From point of view. I thought Dean was too centrist based on his own years of governance using the DLC playbook. I saw Kerry as someone who maintained a pretty liberal record even while a member of the DLC, although obviously he represented the furthest left, which is probably why From never liked him.

[Mass]

85. I agree with you

[wyldwolf]

35. it's a legitimate reason

#1, the DLC didn't LOSE these seats. The GOP RETAINED them.

Mark Pryor's record on poverty issues is actually pretty good. He isn't that much of a corporate DLCer for being one of your three examples of DLC victors.

Nevertheless, he is a DLC member.

Despite some details you can nitpick, there is a clear trend that the current "give-in to conservatism" strategy in the South isn't working.

Really? Then demonstrate that trend for me.

[Mass]

74. It did not help that some of these candidates (DLC or not)

decided to shunt the Democratic Party or were afraid to be seen as too liberal (Carson and Tennenbaum skipping the Convention for example).

Frankly, if we want to win in these places that are not necessarily for us, we have to put out better candidates. If Dorgan who is fairly liberal can win in ND, there is no reason that a real Democrat cannot win in VA (against Allen). We need to have candidates who seem competent.

BTW, Carson has a post on the ndol.org website where he said he lost because of everybody except himself, basically. After having seen one debate against Coburn, I probably would not have voted if I lived in OK because, as much as I disagree with Coburn when it comes to policies and ideology, Carson came out as totally unprepared to be a Senator.

[lancdem]

12. I agree with you

[LynneSin]

92. Mark Pryor won the Arkansas seat because of Hutchenson's affair

Seriously!

Tim Hutchenson left his wife for a staffer. I had read an article where conservative christians refused to vote for him for basically an adulterous affair.

[wyldwolf]

98. interesting that you accept this back story

..but the anti-DLCers here refuse to believe the DLC candidates lost in the examples given for any reason other than they were DLC.

Glad someone here has the intelligence to analyze these contests. Thanks!

[LynneSin]

99. Mark Pryor won and Tim Hutchinson, the incumbant, is a republican

so basically what the heck were you trying to say?

[wyldwolf]

102. at the opening post

the poster lists candidates who were DLC but "lost the seats."

He conclusion: They "lost the seats" because they were DLC.

I pointed out that these were southern Red states, the seats were being vacated by Republicans, and popular household name Republicans were running for them against the Democrats.

But that didn't sit well with some. They wanted to cling to their opinon that it was the DLC that lost the race. Period. End of story.

Your observation that the Pryor race had a wildcard in it (the infidelity angle) that contributed to Pryor's win is the same as my explanation above - there were many circumstances that led to the defeats and wins.

[Mass]

13. Excellent post

I listen to a few Senate debates last year and I found myself wondering why I should vote for Carson or Tannenbaum (except as anti their opponents). I am not sure it is a question of DLC because Warner won in VA as well, but it is not very motivating to hear all these people talk like Republicans.
If Dorgan can be elected Senator in ND, why cant a real Democrat be elected in the South. Is there no way for Southern Democrats to choose real Dems?

[GOPBasher]

15. The DLC has it backwards in the South.

They think economic populism is a loser in the South. They're completely wrong. It's social liberalism that loses us the South. In that region, we need candidates to compromise on the cultural issues, but they can certainly be economically very populist. The DLC thinks we need to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative to win in the South; the opposite is true.

[Geekscum]

21. A socially moderate, pro labor, economic popularist

Will win in the south. It does not hurt if he is proo gun also.

[GOPBasher]

22. You're absolutely right.

Socially moderate, economically populist. And yes, definitely pro-labor.

[wyldwolf]

36. I would say that the DNC is guilty of that reasoning

No reason to pawn it off on the DLC (who, by the way, are a touch more socially conservative.)

[bvar22]

60. The DLC will protect their Corporate Owners at ALL COST.

They control the purse strings. If you are going to run as a Democrat and want their support, you can't be Pro-Labor, Pro-Middle Class, or Pro-Working American.

[MsTryska]

20. i don't think Majette-Isakson in Georgia

was as cut and dry as you make it seem.


plenty of other stuff at play.


Black Female Democrat against White Male Republican, Atlanta vs the rest of Georgia...more than just DLC issues.

[napi21]

25. You're absolutely righ about Ga.

The other thing was Isakson had a lot more experience dealing with cameras, microphones, and public speaking. Believe me, I watched every debate, tried to catch all the interviews, etc. Denise was a good person, but really no match for Johnny.

I moved to Ga from Pa. 5 years ago. I've also lived in SC and Tx. I still don't understand why no Dems even want to run in Ga. I always vote, in EVERY election, and I am absolutely shocked at the number of Pubs who run unopposed in this state!

[MsTryska]

28. Yeah - you and me both......

One thing i will say about Majette - my independent populist redneck coworker (he used to be my thermometer on wingnuttery) actually dug her advertising.


too bad she didn't have money for ads more than one month out.

[napi21]

32. See, that's where I think Howard Dean is going to help the Dems Nationwide

He's been preaching this local support program for a long time now! I think he's on the right track, and I'd give anything to see Ga. overturn Perdue, Isakson, and actually make the State go Blue in 2008!!!!!

I think it can happen. We'll never change the hard core, but there are more and more people moving to Ga. from other states. We need some good candidates, and the Dem party HAS to support them!

[MsTryska]

66. I wholeheartedly agree.....

We need to get some life in the down here. which reminds me i gotta give to my local party this weekend.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. This will change now that Dr. Dean has some serious say in things

He gets it, unlike the losers who've held our party for too, too long.

[wyldwolf]

38. unfortunately

you're taking the original poster's word at face value.

It has been debunked already in this thread.

Post 10 and the subsequent sub thread.

[Clarkie1]

53. This OP is bogus.

Not all of these candidates were members of the DLC.

Debunked in post #10

[bvar22]

61. Maybe an alternate opinion,

ceratainly not a debunking.
One could just as easily say that the OP is a debunking of post #10.


" Mondale lost Non-DLC Paul Wellstone's seat to Republican Norm Coleman."
This statement used as argument against the OP hypothesis is especially
egregious as non-DLC Populist Anti-DLC Wellstone was ahead in the polls before he was killed.


edited to add: Now THAT is a debunking!

[Clarkie1]

65. The fact is the evidence is not conclusive either way. n/t

[bvar22]

69. The FACT is...

...that Wellstone had pulled ahead in the polls. The educated consensus is that he was on his way to winning the election.

The FACT is Wellstone was the EXACT OPPOSITE of the DLC. One of his MAIN concerns was Corporate Money buying representation in the our Government.
The stated GOAL of the DLC is INCREASE Corporate control of the Democratic Party!
I am offended that ANYONE who supports the DLC would use the Wellstone name. It is like bush* supporters using Roosevelt's and Kennedy"s name.


I know.
Wellstone was MY Senator.



Wellstone kicking CorpoConservatives ass
shortly before he was killed.

[Clarkie1]

70. That is, indeed, a fact.

There are many facts, but no easy answers.

[Radical Activist]

68. The reason they

weren't DLC is that they weren't elected to office yet. They were still DLC style candidates, so that hardly invalidates the OP.

[wyldwolf]

76. demonstrate to us just how they were DLC candidates

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

91. Post 51

in no way responds to anything I wrote about the fact that Republicans use populist messages in Tennessee while Democrats are afraid to.
Your only excuse is that Alexander was popular? Alexander had been out of elected office for over a decade. Democrats put up what they thought was their best candidate against Alexander and gave it everything they had. They thought they had a chance, and failed with a DLC Democrat. It was their best opportunity to win back a Senate seat in Tennessee and they blew it.

This entire discussion is about running populists v. running DLC style conservatives. If you could name some good progressive populists that ran with DNC support in the South you could easily prove me and the original poster wrong. Why can't you do that? Is it because all of the examples in the OP were DLC? You haven't even challenged that claim, you just made excuses about why they lost. We don't need excuses, we need victories.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

101. You're very good

at avoiding every argument I make. In post 10 you made a list of some losing DLC candidates and offered excuses for why they lost. Can we agree that these were DLC candidates who did not employ economic populism as their main campaign theme? I think that fact is pretty obvious. Feel free to provide some evidence if you want to suddenly transform those Democrats into Huey Long populists.

Most of those races were winnable. They weren't easy, but they could have been won. Any one race by itself is excusable. But, they also show a clear pattern. There's a clear pattern that the Democratic strategy in the South is not working. Only an idiot would keep following the same losing strategy without question. Economic populism worked historically in the South and Democrats need to start using a winning strategy again. How many more losses will it take before you and the DLC crowd take the hint?

Here's an article about Lieberman blaming Gore's populist themes for losing the 2000 election. The comments were made at a DLC conference and were echoed by Al From, and Will Marshall of the DLC sponsored Progressive Policy Institute. That makes their position as a group very explicit.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/121600-02.htm
another:
http://www.sfu.ca/~joes/jnn/politics_articles/gorepopulism.html

Accusing me of being a liar about my personal life and experience is inappropriate and is not a valid replacement for you having nothing to say. I've worked campaigns in five states, including two Southern states, and I've gotten a pretty good sense that running Democrats whose only appeal is not being as bad as the Republican doesn't inspire people.

[wyldwolf]

103. corrections

In post 10 you made a list of some losing DLC candidates and offered excuses for why they lost.

Actually I demonstrated that the original poster's cut and dry/black and white reason for the losses (they were DLC) showed a political naivity.

Can we agree that these were DLC candidates who did not employ economic populism as their main campaign theme?

How can we when you won't show proof of two things:

1. That these DLC candidates DIDN'T employ economic populism
2. Economic populism was the make or break issue in the races.

Here's an article about Lieberman blaming Gore's populist themes for losing the 2000 election. The comments were made at a DLC conference and were echoed by Al From, and Will Marshall of the DLC sponsored Progressive Policy Institute. That makes their position as a group very explicit.

First, the Post article:

I don't see a quote from Lieberman in it. Can you point it out?

This quote stands out, though:

"Bush won the white working class by 13 points," said Will Marshall, head of the the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute headquarters. "The message does not seem to have prevailed with the group it was supposed to be aimed at."

I read this as Gore not being effective with his message, not a condemnation of the message itself. It is further shown that it wasn't the message but rather the presentation of it and the public's perception of it here:

The Gore populism theme of the "people" against "the powerful" worked effectively during the convention, winning the support of down-scale whites, but, Greenberg said, these gains were quickly eroded as Republicans focused on issues of trust and honesty, and Gore faced intense criticism for a series of misstatements and exaggerations

So I don't see Lieberman blaming Gore's populism nor do I see the DLC blaming his populism but rather showing that the message did not reach it's intended audience and was eventually buried by Republican concentration of values (which Gore did not successfully defend against.)

Your second piece was an editorial. Here is the Lieberman quote from it:

"The people-versus-the-powerful theme was too subject to misunderstanding..."

But that wasn't the whole quote and it was taken out of context. You can tell by those three dots at the end. Here is what was said:

``The people versus the powerful theme was too subject to misunderstanding and not representative'' of the economic growth that occurred during the 1990s under President Clinton and Vice President Gore

Again, we see that the message's presentation and comprehension - not the populist message itself - was the issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

100. Okay you can't deny that Schweitzer boasted a 100% NRA rating

Don't get me wrong, I like the guy and he's very progressive. He is one of the only red state governors with the balls to criticize Bush's Iraq policy. But even Schweitzer knew that there was an issue that would kill him, so he didn't push for gun control. Granted, I'm not sure that he even believes in stricter gun control, but the point is that he did run to the right in a big way on certain issues.

What this did, though, was get people to focus on his populist economic platform and forced the GOP candidate to defend his corporate whoreing.

I think the problem is ultimately that the candidates mentioned in the OP were running in VERY red states. In 2004 the coattail effect was huge and in 2002 the terra effect was huge as well. If we want to pick up senate seats in these states, we need spirited campaigners like Paul Wellstone. No, they don't have to be as liberal as Wellstone was to win, they just need to be as enthusiastic about their cause and what they believe in.

[PopSixSquish]

104. Do You Actually Live in the South?

Do you live in any of the states you mentioned? Have you actually researched any of the races and the issues pertaining to them or are you just making broad-brush statements?

I can only speak about GA and in 2002, Saxby Chambliss ran ads questioning the patriotism of Max Cleland. These ads featured Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein over and over again. Max Cleland won both a Bronze and Silver Star and lost lost both legs and part of one arm in Vietnam. (Sound familiar?) The Republicans targetted him because he pissed them off with his criticisms of Bush's national security (or lack thereof) policies.

By the way, Cleland (after being defeated) was also originally appointed to serve on the 9/11 comission and resigned shortly afterward saying that the Bush Administration was stonewalling.

And in 2004, Denise Majette simply could not raise the money to compete with Issackson. I don't think a lot of people actually expected her to even win the primary. The Democratic Party in GA had a lot of trouble getting people to run for this open seat (Zell Miller retirement). That says more about the Democratic Party in GA, than it does about the DLC. Hell, I'd heard they even approached Sam Nunn (who incidently held the other Senate seat for 24 years).

There are a lot of variables which come into play in local and state races. Laying it all at the feet of the DLC is too simplistic an explanation.

[Moderator]

105. Locking

enough flames for today