Report to Dems: Don't Tilt Too Far Left

[phanan]

Take out Perot and you have a different picture. There was no strong third party candidate the last two elections.

Are you saying that the election wouldn't have been a clear victory for Clinton if Perot hadn't run, or that it would have been a more decisive one?

 

[Dreadsox]

Are you saying that the election wouldn't have been a clear victory for Clinton if Perot hadn't run, or that it would have been a more decisive one?

Perot took more Republicans with him than Democrats....Bush and Dole would have been closer....

Personally....Bush may have won had Perot not run against him.

Dole, I am not sure...but it would have been closer.

 

[Dreadsox]

I'm not sure that Hillary ever really stood a reasonable chance anyway.

Your new avatar makes me feel funny....

 

[verte76]

I'm not sure that Hillary ever really stood a reasonable chance anyway.

Me either. She's too divisive. She still has to win enough primaries to get the nomination no matter who's head of the DNC. There are *plenty* of people out there who'd take a ride on a UFO before they'd vote for Hillary. I cannot imagine her winning a single primary in the South. Hell, even Kerry won primaries in the South.

 

[phanan]

Perot took more Republicans with him than Democrats....Bush and Dole would have been closer....

Personally....Bush may have won had Perot not run against him.

Dole, I am not sure...but it would have been closer.

It would have been closer without Perot in 1996, but the margin of victory in the popular vote most likely would have been about the same as Bush over Kerry in 2004, and the electoral vote still would have been a landslide.

However, in 1992, Bush the Elder would have certainly won without Perot, as there was only a little under 6 million votes separating Clinton from Bush and Perot received almost 20 million.

 

[anitram]

Your new avatar makes me feel funny....

Ah, so it's working.

 

[japes4]

I see the Democrats as being in a no-win situation. The DNC says that the party needs to stand up for what it really believes to energize the liberal base. The problem is that the liberal base is not that big.

Outside of New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco, no Democrat can win with a liberal agenda. They have to pretend to be moderates, and in places like Virginia, even lean to the right.

This is not to say that the United States is overwhelmingly right-wing. But I think Americans generally lean to the right as evidenced by the Democratic victories of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Neither president came out as left-wing ideologues. They presented themselves as moderate alternatives to failed Republican administrations (i.e. Ford and Bush), whether they actually believed in what they stood for or not. Dukakis and Mondale are examples of Democrats who stood for what they really believed in and made no pretenses otherwise.

As far as Gore and Kerry are concerned, I think their defeat demonstrates the weakness of the Democratic agenda rather than any strong popular support for Bush. With everything that these two had going for them ( i.e. a robust economy for Gore, and an unpopular war in Iraq and economic recession for Kerry) they should have mopped the floor with Bush. It shouldn't of even been close.

This goes to show how the Democratic Party is simply out of touch with mainstream America.