Can a truly progressive candidate win a national election in this country?

[jpgray]

Poll question: Can a truly progressive candidate win a national election in this country?

[rinsd]

1. Define Progressive.....

[jpgray]

3. That's difficult to do

Kucinich I would define as progressive, for example, but I would hesitate to define Dean as progressive and I would not define Kerry as progressive.

[wyldwolf]

4. that isn't really a definition

..but if I had to answer based on that, then, no, Kucinich couldn't win a national election.

Rmember: Perception is as powerful as reality.

[jpgray]

7. Well, everyone lays claim to "progressive" at one time or another

But it's one of those "I know it when I see it" terms.

[wyldwolf]

10. I like your honesty

So many here who throw around the meme "he's a progressive" and "he's not a progressive" seem to believe their really is a gold standard for making that determination.

Glad to see someone admit it is a matter of opinion.

[NoPasaran]

19. You're just giving an example

of someone you define as a progressive, not a definition.

Was Franklin Roosevelt a progressive?
Were Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson progressives? (They were after all part of the Progressive Movement.)
How about Earl Browder?
Or William Jennings Bryan?
Or Abraham Lincoln?

[jpgray]

22. In terms of economics today, FDR would be progressive

In terms of civil rights, he would not be progressive. It's too complex to allow us to go through history and stamp people 'progressive.' In the FDR elections, Norman Thomas would probably be best defined as progressive.

[rinsd]

21. I think that's part of the issue...

Progressive cannot be defined based on the classification of various pols. Is there a coherent principle or "plank" in the Progresive movement? other than change from status quo that is ;-)

If the question was can Kucinich win? I would have to say no.

But progressive is fluid enough a definition that it's difficult to answer your question.

[BlueJazz]

2. Flame away, Fellow DU'ers but the reason is...

..because too large a segment of the American Population simply don't
know what's best for them.

[wyldwolf]

5. Radical conservatives feel the same way

[ulysses]

9. radical conservatives feel all sorts of ways, I'd imagine.

Your point?

[wyldwolf]

14. My point? ..Radical conservatives feel the same way

The poster said, "too large a segment of the American Population simply don't know what's best for them."

I wouldn't buy that from a "Radicalliberal" or a "radical conservative."

But you knew my point.

[BlueJazz]

16. My reasoning is based on the assumption that

the Democrats are more evolved socially and much closer to the much admired gorvernments of the world (Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia)

[wyldwolf]

17. I agree with you there

...but I find the attitude that "most people don't know what is good for them" to be something I would hear from the right.

Not that you meant it that way, but I can hear Limbaugh saying it right now.

[BlueJazz]

20. I understand your point but I'm slightly brainwashed in the sense

that I fix and install computers all day long (different people) and consequently,
hear the same worn-out, illogical, erroneous babbling of the average
(well-meaning) American telling me that the Republicans are trying
to make this a better country. I, of course, don't voice my opinions
or go into how I think that they are sadly mistaken but I have, over a period of time, come to truly believe that they "know not what they do". I don't blame them....I just believe they're misinformed.

[BlueJazz]

11. True...But I'm smarter than they are!

At least, I like to think so. :)

[jpgray]

15. I think the point is that, for a majority of Americans

The radical liberal stance would in theory lessen the gap between rich and poor and provide many social programs that would help disadvantaged Americans tread water without working 14 hour days, etc.

The radical conservative stance (I assume we're not talking true conservatives, but Bushism to the extreme) would be based mostly on false morality and laissez faire capitalism to the point of actually eliminating competition, combined with deregulation and massive government expansion, mostly aimed at improving the environment of the United States for large corporations.

So the radical liberal would in theory help a majority of Americans, whereas the radical conservative would not.

[ieoeja]

6. Yes, but only after we break the stranglehold of RW media.

I grew up in Southern Indiana and now live in Chicago. When I go back to visit it amazes me to hear what people believe. Then I start paying attention to the TV, newspaper and radio. They can receive, for instance, two different FOX stations. But they can not receive a single CBS affiliate. They get an extremely edited version of the news.

[sangh0]

8. Yes,

and Kerry WILL win a national election in this country. This year.

[jpgray]

12. Maybe in office Kerry will be progressive

But his campaign rhetoric is pretty centrist, and while it is certainly 'progress' from Bush's term, I would not define it as 'progressive' in the way Kucinich's campaign was. In my opinion Kerry needs to play to the center in order to win a majority of the vote, but I'm trying to gauge with this poll the opinions of DUers on whether or not a wholly progressive candidate could win the presidency/a national election in the current political clime.

[sandnsea]

13. Good one!

Pragmatic progressive, that's our boy!

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

18. of course they could

look what happened w/ gore when he went psuedo-populist after the convention in 2000. he pulled ahaead and maintained that lead until the debates (where he swung back to the right agreeing with bush on nearly every issue)

the only reason it wasn't more effective is that his record (pro-NAFTA,GATT,welfare deform, etc) didn't back up the rhetoric and it didn't sell to the eople the way a true progressive could have

in order to sell progressivism/liberalism to the american people, a candidate would have to break it down to basic kitchen table issues and show americans how electing the gop serves them no good whatsoever. things like health care, living wages, and so on could be huge if the debate were framed properly. the only person know who does this just right is jim hightower, but i don't think he's running any time soon

there's been a lot of talk about how 'extreme' ralph nader's views are, but when you really look at his ideas, they're nothing more than true progressive values. whether youy agree with campaign or intentions or not, the things he brings up could have a huge appeal if the democrats as a whole adopted them.

people know they're being screwed by big business, pure and simple.

[Radical Activist]

30. Great post

Most americans agree with progressive values and its a shame more progressives don't realize and take advantage of that fact.

[salonghorn70]

23. If Kucinich IS Your Definition of Progressive

The I have to vote no.

[SanFranciscoDemocrat]

24. Eek! Commies!

I seriously doubt that a truly progressive candidate will win a national election in our lifetimes. For whatever reasons, large numbers of Americans are terrified of and hostile toward socialism, and the progressive agenda, by necessity, includes many socialist ideas.

As someone said earlier, it's the perception that matters, not the reality. Popular perception: progressive = socialist = communist = they want to shoot Jesus and make me marry a homosexual.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

27. How about Jesus marrying a homosexual?

Or the Virgin Mary having an abortion... ;-)

A genuine progressive could win the election if the GOP lost its mind and started running on policy rather than image. Say Dubya stood up and said, "I will transfer the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class, because I believe the wealthy are America's truly productive class. This will wind up costing the vast majority of Americans thousands of dollars, first in loss of services, then in ncreased state and local taxes, and finally in increased federal taxes when we have to dig out of the deficit I create." Even Kucinich could beat that.

People who vote for the GOP are voting their perceived interests just like people who vote for the Dems are voting their perceived interests. We think they're saps and they think we're saps. Shrug. That's why it's a democratic political battle rather than having a few people who think they know best make all the decisions.

In theory.

[VOX]

25. Not in today's climate. But it is possible down the road...

However, there is much work to do in putting this current "dark age" behind us, and getting the public more confident and open to more progressive ideas.

As FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

[genius]

26. A progressive would have the easiest time

because people could see the difference

[jpgray]

28. Then why do all so-called 'progressive' candidacies fail?

The two that can best lay claim to the title in a national election would be Kucinich and Nader (forgetting Nader's hypocrisy and character issues, his platform is progressive). These candidacies have not succeeded. The claim that a progressive candidacy will be the one to ignite the 50% who don't vote seems to be a strange mix of wishful thinking and willful ignorance, since all the data seems to indicate Americans aren't waiting for a progressive hero, they're waiting for the next reality series.

[no name no slogan]

29. Many reasons-- foremost being money and the media

Most Democrats, when asked about the issues in the campaign, supported those of DK more often than those of the other candidates. There were numerous online polls that would match up voters and their issues to candidates, and DK scored highest among most democrats-- more so than Kerry, for example. If you were to ask the Democratic base even now, I think you'd find more support for the issues DK championed than you would for the ones Kerry is running on.

Also, DK did not have the access to money that many of the other candidates did: Dean with his amazing fundraising machine, Kerry's personal wealth, Edwards' trial lawyer connections, etc. His money came from small donors and unions-- no law firms, corporate executives, or personal fortunes.

Consequently, his lack of funds led to a media blackout. Dean really only got attention when his fundraising took off-- before that, he was an asterisk. Big media loves candidates with money, because they spend in buying ad time. Just look at Ross Perot in 1992: he was a "serious" 3rd party challenger because he could spend his personal fortune on self-promotion and 1/2 our prime-time "infomercials". You NEVER see that kind of attention for other 3rd party candidates.

Money talks, bullsh!t walks. Money and the media have much more to do with selecting candidates and elected leaders than ideas, issues or even the voting populace.

[Radical Activist]

32. Right. the media controlled this primary from start to finish

The media propelled the Dean campaign by giving him more coverage than he deserved for months early on in the campaign. They also falsely protrayed him as more liberal than he was, which took votes away from people who might have supported Kucinich if they ever read about him in the paper. So many comentators kept perpetuating the lie that Dean was the only real choice for anti-war liberals. The media made Dean the front runner and then destroyed him starting right before the Iowa caucus.

Kucinich was ignored in the media. Partly because he had little money from corporations, but also because his agenda was a threat to the companies that own the media. Consider the fact that Dean's top contributor was AOL/Time Warner employees. So, the media decides to give Dean more press coverage because he raised lots of money, but it was a huge media company that gave him much of that money. They controlled the process from start to finish. We need to break up some of the media conglomerates if we want real democracy.

[genius]

33. Kerry's more progressive than Dean. Did he fail. The news media

refused to cover Dennis Kucinich at all and he's still in the race. But it was the lack of coverage that cost him the nomination. No one outside his district and his supporters knew who he was. For all most people knew, he was a conservative. Had he won the nomination, everyone would have known who he was. Surveys show that the vast majority of Americans agree with him on all the issues.

[Radical Activist]

31. Can progressives grow a pair of balls and..

stand up for what they believe in a way that appeals to voters? Most Americans believe in progressive ideals but we lose because we're too afraid to try and express progressive values. I really don't get it. Is there something about being liberal that makes someone lack self confidence? Why are so many liberals pessimistic and overly negative about their prospect of winning based on their values? If liberals would stop being too afraid to stand up boldly for what we believe in then we could actually win a few more elections.

Republicans in the south run on themes of economic populism. If they know it works, then why don't we?