Revolt of the Middle - '06 and '08 looking like '94.

[wyldwolf]

...Something important has happened since President Bush's inauguration. America's moderates may not be screaming, but they're in revolt. Many who reluctantly supported the president and the Republicans in 2004 are turning away. The party's agenda on Social Security, judges and the Terri Schiavo case is out of touch with where moderate voters stand. Worse for Bush and his party, most moderates have a practical, problem-solving view of government and think these issues are far less important than shoring up a shaky economy and improving living standards.

The moderates have rebelled before. This period in American politics is beginning to take on the contours of the years leading up to the 1992 election. That's when Ross Perot led an uprising of the angry middle and Bill Clinton waged war on the "brain-dead politics of both parties." Bush's decision to read the 2004 election as a broad mandate for whatever policies he chose to put forward now looks like a major mistake. In fact, Bush won narrowly in 2004, and he won almost entirely because just enough middle-of-the-road voters decided they trusted him more than they did John Kerry to deal with terrorism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501354.html

Commentary from DonkeyRising:

That seems entirely correct to me. Bush is losing the center of American politics which, as Alan Abramowitz points out in his post on "The New Independent Voter", leans Democratic to begin with. Bush's actions seem designed to accentuate those leanings, rather than counter them, and have contributed mightily to his declining political fortunes.

The new Washington Post/ABC News (WP/ABC) poll provides exceptionally clear evidence of these declining fortunes. Bush's approval rating is now 47 percent approval/50 percent disapproval, as low as it's even been in this poll. His ratings on the economy and Iraq are, respectively, 40/56 (his second-lowest ever) and 42/57. On energy policy, his rating is 35/54. And on Social Security, his approval rating has sunk to 31/64, by far his worst rating ever.

The poll also demonstrates that Bush and the GOP are not faring well on the values front, supposedly a critical underpinning of their hold on power. Consider these data from the poll:

1. By 63-28, the public supports embryonic stem cell research.

2. By 56-40, the public supports some legal recognition of gay relationships and, by 56-39, they oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, preferring that states make their own laws on gay marriage.

3. By 56-42, the public says abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

4. By 51-47, the public thinks Bush does not share their values and, by 58-40, believes Bush does not "understand the problems of people like you".

5. And how about this one: by 47-38, the public says that Democrats, not Republicans, better represent their own personal values.

6. Does the public actually believe political leaders should rely on their religious beliefs in making policy decisions? No: by 57-40, they reject that proposition, including by 65-27 among Democrats, by 59-38 among independents and by 58-36 among moderates--once again showing how today's political center leans very close to the Democrats. Along the same lines, independents (46 percent) and moderates (45 percent) are almost as likely as Democrats (52 percent) to think religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican party.

The center is there for the taking. When these voters lean Democratic to begin with and are edging close to outright revolt against the way Republicans are currently running the country, Democrats would be foolish to ignore this opportunity. Mobilization is great, but without the center it's defeatable. With the center, it's not. Need I say more?

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/

[coloradodem2005]

1. In reverse I hope.

[racaulk]

2. This really gives me hope. Thanks for posting!

:woohoo:

[CrispyQ]

3. How can anyone read this poll & not question

the integrity of our election?

[Nederland]

6. Two reasons

1) Bush's numbers are have gone down since the election.

2) Bad as Bush's numbers are, Kerry's numbers were worse. Voters just chose what they thought was the lesser of two evils.

[sandnsea]

21. All Americans vs. voters

Not all Americans vote. Wealthier Americans are over represented in the exit polls, and they've always been better voters than lower income Americans. Last year all the polls were for registered or likely voters. This year, it's all Americans. I suspect if we'd had all American polls last year, we'd have seen numbers more like this and it might have been enough to sway a few more of those leaners who vote based on what they think the rest of the country wants.

[Paul Dlugokencky]

25. or the elections to come?

Polls are one thing, votes that actually get counted are another. We all need to work on that, where ever and when ever we can.



http://www.cafepress.com/kickindemocrats

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

4. Called Senator Reid's office today.....

Told them I was a Republican in Pennsylvania who is totally disgusted with the pandering by the Republican politicians to the right wing extremists. As a moderate, I wished to express my gratitude for his leadership of the Democrats in the Senate and asked that he continue his fight to save the filibuster and social security.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. Moderate Bush Voters Got What They Paid For

I have nothing against political moderates. In fact, on DU, I'm a relative moderate myself.

But I really have little sympathy for moderates who voted for Bush. I hope they've learned their listen, but was there not enough evidence for them before Nov. 2?

We had an election in the country. We had evidence of the President's incompetence and the Republican Party's extremism well before today. We knew they were controlled by the fundies. The moderates could have seen how those not on the Christian Right were demonized.

If those "moderates" saw all that, watched the debates, and still thought that "both parties" were extreme, well, I don't know what to say to that. It was obvious before, during, and after the election that one party is moderate and one party has gone of the deep end.

I hope the "moderate" Republican voters learned their lesson. But given the experience of the last four years, I'm not so sure. If after all that, many of them STILL voted for Bush, they either are completely irrational or they have their head in the sand. Sorry.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. Just remember that there were 'Republicans for Kerry'

Myself included.:hi:

[liberalpragmatist]

10. I know

And I applaud them :applause:

:patriot:

[rniel]

8. Who the hell are these 30% idiots

Who will support him even if he personally nuked the united states of america.

[tavalon]

23. They're Murkins

as opposed to Americans.

[lanlady]

26. my brother and his wife are 2 of 'em

Live in blue state, union members, no religion, no guns, think Bush is a god and woe unto anyone who criticizes * even in a joking way. Did I mention they're both racists (which is probably the key to their being smitten by Smirk),

[Patiod]

31. They're those who listen to Faux, Rush, Hannity, Miller et al

My brother isn't stupid. He was a Poli-Sci major, marched against Vietnam (more to save his own ass). He moved down South, and started listening to Rush b/c his work colleagues all listened. Now he spouts the Right Wing line chapter and verse.

Except now he doesn't have any dittohead work colleagues, because he and they were all laid off when his mill was closed and their jobs outsourced to China. He's becoming bitter about the economy.

I'm just wondering how Rush is explaining all this to him - is he managing to Blame Clinton?

[rndmprsn]

9. The Fighting Moderates - Krugman

i liked this one alot from krugman a couple months ago.

--

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/15/opinion/15krugman.html?ex=1266210000&en=06d40ec0946c8349&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

The Republicans know the America they want, and they are not afraid to use any means to get there," Howard Dean said in accepting the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. "But there is something that this administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of. It is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe."

Those words tell us what the selection of Mr. Dean means. It doesn't represent a turn to the left: Mr. Dean is squarely in the center of his party on issues like health care and national defense. Instead, Mr. Dean's political rejuvenation reflects the new ascendancy within the party of fighting moderates, the Democrats who believe that they must defend their principles aggressively against the right-wing radicals who have taken over Congress and the White House...

...By refusing to be bullied into false bipartisanship on Social Security, Democrats have already scored a significant tactical victory. Just two months ago, TV pundits were ridiculing Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, for denying that Social Security faces a crisis, and for rejecting outright the idea of diverting payroll taxes into private accounts. But now the Bush administration itself has dropped the crisis language, and admitted that private accounts would do nothing to improve the system's finances.

By standing firm against Mr. Bush's attempt to stampede the country into dismantling its most important social insurance program, Democrats like Mr. Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin and Barbara Boxer have, at a minimum, broken the administration's momentum, and quite possibly doomed its plan. The more time the news media spend examining the details of privatization, the worse it looks. And those Democrats have also given their party a demonstration of what it means to be an effective opposition.

[madfloridian]

17. That was a great article, very perceptive.

I forgot about that one. Thanks for sharing.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. I love reading

how the democrats have broken down Bush and the republicans! :applause:

[PATRICK]

29. The phrase "at minimum"

is most indicative of this stage in the "fight". We are still poised dangerously and leaning to falling to the GOP majority if ever it is whipped into line- or the shock of a new crisis that more dramatically hands the bullhorn to the exploiting plans of the WH.

It is more like we have waved our arms furiously in the air at the peak and pushed ourselves back to safety but without a regard to our backs and the one about to push us over.

[liberalla]

42. This was a great read. Thanks for posting!

[blue neen]

11. A great post and a hopeful post.

Is America finally waking up?

[dusty64]

12. Light in the darkness ,now

if our leadership ( I use this term kinda loosely) will ADDRESS the American Taliban manufacturered "voting" machines.

[Nikki Stone 1]

13. Recommended

nt

[jen4clark]

14. Sorry about this

I don't think I can start threads and I don't know how but this is one of the "must reads.". It's related to everything we're trying to do and makes it so clear what's going on with the media.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/042805.html

The Left's Media Miscalculation
by Robert Parry

To understand how the United States got into today’s political predicament – where even fundamental principles like the separation of church and state are under attack – one has to look back at strategic choices made by the Right and the Left three decades ago.

In the mid-1970s, after the U.S. defeat in Vietnam and President Richard Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate scandal, American progressives held the upper-hand on media. Not only had the mainstream press exposed Nixon’s dirty tricks and published the Pentagon Papers secrets of the Vietnam War, but a vibrant leftist “underground” press informed and inspired a new generation of citizens.

Besides well-known anti-war magazines, such as Ramparts, and investigative outlets, like Seymour Hersh’s Dispatch News, hundreds of smaller publications had emerged across the country in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Though some quickly disappeared, their influence shocked conservatives who saw the publications as a grave political threat.

Conservatives felt out-muscled on a wide range of public-policy fronts, blaming the media not only for the twin debacles of Watergate and Vietnam but also for contributing to the Right’s defeat on issues such as civil rights and the environment...

- cont.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/042805.html

[tavalon]

24. You have over 200 posts

and a star. I think you can post by now.

[glitch]

33. Never apologize for posting Robert Parry. :) nt

:hi:

[silvermachine]

38. He regularly does research...

...at the library I work at. Nice guy too.

[glitch]

39. Cool! Very happy to hear he's a nice guy, but not surprised.

His writing shows a thoughtful person, and most thoughtful people are nice. Thanks for posting!

[Rex_Goodheart]

15. I'd like to see the polling sources for those numbers.

[Lexingtonian]

16. it's the Washington Post poll

Published three or four days ago. The link's on this page (somewhere)-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/polls/index.html

Lots of interesting numbers in it on cultural issues and long term trends in them.
Everything about Iraq is a 40/60 split now,

[sundancekid]

18. a KICK and another recommendation ... thanks for the hopeful post

:applause:

[FreedomAngel82]

19. So now

I want to know where are all these "moral values" voters who were proud to vote Bush?

[tavalon]

22. Reading that, I would feel so optimistic

if not for Diebold. Diebold means never having to say you might lose (if your a Republican).

[ikojo]

27. Even as bad as it looks now for the pugs, 2006 is a LOOONG

time away. September 2006 will be the fifth anniversary of the WTC attacks and I am sure the pugs will exploit that for all it's worth.

The Dems need to begin cultivating its base now if they want it to get out in November 2006. Playing Repug lite in 2005 will not encourage people to get out in November 2006.

[silvermachine]

34. I agree...

...and to me the most interesting thing about this poll is that it really points out that there is no reason that the party needs to move to the center in order to get the moderates.

Look at this:

<<<His ratings on the economy and Iraq are, respectively, 40/56 (his second-lowest ever) and 42/57>>>.

We all said to hammer Bush about the Iraq war but too many within the DLC wing of the party thought we would sound too strident. Wrong!

<<<On energy policy, his rating is 35/54.>>>

Obviously, most people think there are ways to deal with energy concerns other than invading countries and drilling in wildlife refuges.

<<<And on Social Security, his approval rating has sunk to 31/64, by far his worst rating ever.>>>

Some (not a majority, but enough to make a difference) on this board thought that opposing Bush on this issue could be politically problematic for them but I haven't seen it. We are winning on this issue big time.

<<<The poll also demonstrates that Bush and the GOP are not faring well on the values front, supposedly a critical underpinning of their hold on power. Consider these data from the poll:

1. By 63-28, the public supports embryonic stem cell research.>>>

Another winning issue that some in our party fear talking about because we might look "too radical".

<<<2. By 56-40, the public supports some legal recognition of gay relationships and, by 56-39, they oppose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, preferring that states make their own laws on gay marriage.>>>

Again, another so-called wedge issue. We seem to have the numbers, why so fearful of taking a stand?

<<<3. By 56-42, the public says abortion should be legal in most or all cases.>>>

People may bicker about whether some of the recent remarks we've heard from Hillary and Howard Dean represent a desire to move policy issues on abortion to the center (rightward), or if it only suggests a need to communicate our current position more effectively. Regardless, it hardly seems to illustrate a burning need to seek common ground with the anti-choice segment of the voting public.

<<<4. By 51-47, the public thinks Bush does not share their values and, by 58-40, believes Bush does not "understand the problems of people like you".>>>

So much for all the talk of Bush's values reflecting the "heartland" of America, whatever that even is.

<<<5. And how about this one: by 47-38, the public says that Democrats, not Republicans, better represent their own personal values.>>>

We need to drive this message home. I can't believe that more hasn't been done to continually highlight Bush's connections to Ken Lay and his kind. This should have started the moment we knew about "Kenny Boy" and should still be going on every day, right up to the present. Each and every instance of Republican hypocrisy should be exploited mercilessly. Attack, not retreat.

<<<6. Does the public actually believe political leaders should rely on their religious beliefs in making policy decisions? No: by 57-40, they reject that proposition, including by 65-27 among Democrats, by 59-38 among independents and by 58-36 among moderates--once again showing how today's political center leans very close to the Democrats. Along the same lines, independents (46 percent) and moderates (45 percent) are almost as likely as Democrats (52 percent) to think religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican party.>>>

So much for the need to find common ground with the lunatic religious right. There is a huge difference between claiming a mantle of morality for our party BY TOUTING THE VALUES WE HAVE ALWAYS ESPOUSED AS DEMOCRATS WITHOUT FEAR, and placating the right by playing on their turf, by their rules.

The major flaw in the remarks from the article (concerning what the poll numbers mean) according to all this data, is that it seems to imply that the party needs to do something in terms of moving to the center in order to convert these poll numbers into actual voters. To me it sounds like WE ARE THE CENTER ALREADY. We only need to remind the public of this in a forceful, consistent, and savvy manner. I think we really do need to motivate the base more than we need to attract what the media identifies as moderates (who are actually what I call "neo-moderates" and lean conservative to begin with, more a media creation than anything else). When we abandon our principles, some of our base abandons voting Democratic. It's that simple.

[blondeatlast]

46. We need to be confident in our positions and make our messages clear.

I think the lack of CONFIDENCE in our positions have doomed us in the past.

We need to convey the message that we can make the country better.

Strengthening our traditional position will win it for us in '06.

The Right has truly become the radicals and the people are beginning to see that clearly.

[blondeatlast]

44. Of course they will, but we can beat them to the punch, with DIGNITY.

It's very simple, really. Just proclaim to anyone who will listen that we are unwilling to exploit the deaths of thousands in the interest of politics--then flatly refuse to elaborate on the issue.

Divert the issue to the underlying causes of terrorism.

In the wake of even Republican's disgust at the handling of Ms. Schiavo's predicament, this will strike a chord with voters looking to Washington to improve our lot as citizens--that is, virtually all of them.

It's time to get our best talkers booked on all the chat shows. The Dems need an in-house booking agency like the Heritage Foundation has.

Edit: booking agency, that is--not booing agency (although the theocons seem to have those, too!)

[PATRICK]

28. WAPO's reasoning is deeply flawed.

Simply take the fact, obvious to us that Bush KNOWS he lost the election because of his slippage with moderates.

That points out to me that since they have successfully impoverished slaughtered and wasted the middle like so much small change they have no real respect or fear of mere poll slippage. It does not weigh in the dynamic as WAPO is trendily reporting.

It still is the march of arrogance without real, concrete stoppage where it matters. It still presumes that Bush decides he progresses with the big roll, not the daily poll which conversely he watches too closely to be taken off guard by a few policy setbacks. They have nearly always failed to move the polls except on 911 exploitation. Even there, by stonewalling in plain sight and losing the minds and hearts of millions it still is a brutal tool to keep power.

I expect another 911 or simply a shrug and a continuance at the pathetic opposition they have received so far no small thanks to the weak reporting done by our "prestigious" journals like WAPO. Even weighed along with other WAPO musings it is just another muted sour note with little editorial substance, relying it seems on guessing what the WH is doing and thinking. Why guess? because the WH in its inner workings is so far from being probed it is dark territory and these kinds of pious imaginings substitute for real investigation.

[Doctor_J]

30. except they own the media and the voting machines

the only reasons * is in office today. I don't see any way around those problems.

[The Animator]

32. If Dems win the majority in 06...

There first order of buisness should be to get rid of the Diebold Machines. The second order of buiness should be to impeach this entire administration.

[GOPBasher]

35. I hope this is true. I don't know, though.

I was optimistic in both '02 and '04, and we know what happened.

[Gman]

36. The pendulum of politics is going back to the left again

[DemocracyInaction]

37. But, but, but in the end it all comes down to "da map"

Some moderates becoming disgusted in New York or California, etc. just mean that the Dems win those states by bigger votes next time. Think of how many people would have to cross that line in so many of those red states in order to make the electoral map change. This may shore up some of our leakage in blue states that came within a hair's breath of turning red. It may bring back an Iowa into our column, for example. We need even this far out from the midterms and then the presidential elections, to bombard those states that are red but not by the overwhelming numbers seen in some of those Southern states. We need to bombard those who barely elected Repub Senators who are up for re-election. We need to bombard carefully selected Congressional districts that can be turned from red to blue. Doc Dean needs to perform some very delicate surgery.

[paparush]

40. We've GOT to spread the word that...

the biggest fallout from '04 was Electronic Voting (Diebold, no paper trail, totals manipulation)

This issue is the biggest threat to Democracy. The right to vote and to have your vote counted is completely undermined.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" - Stalin

[dubyaD40web]

41. Those are some kick ass numbers!

Thanks for sharing!

[demo dutch]

43. Great! It's a mistery to me that these voter didn't realize this 5 months

ago! According to these polls it should have been a landslide in November in stead of boil down to Ohio or Florida!
Now I believe there was tampering and voting irregularities, but not on this scale. So are people in fact to stupid they couldn't foresee what this administration was going to do? Incredible!

Anyway Zogby's poll posted on his site shows that the Red states are squarely in favor of Bush's policies and that Kerry still would have lost if the election was to be be held today.

[blondeatlast]

45. Lots of positive news for our side lately, but we must be cautious.

I believe we got overconfident six months ago, too.

I'm pretty far to the left, but I know I'm not the majority.

We don't need to tailor our message to them, we just have be confident in it. Talk a lot about the deficit, Social Security, jobs.

Economic and privacy issues will win the midterms for us.