Centrist Democrats fear party losing middle class

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-29 12:18pm

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030 ... -2183r.htm

PHILADELPHIA — A top Democratic pollster warned yesterday that the party is losing ground among middle class voters and that the erosion will worsen if Democrats nominate a liberal, antiwar presidential candidate in 2004.
"Swing voters are unlikely to vote for a Democrat unless he can offer a vision to compete with Republicans when it comes to national defense and homeland security," Mark Penn, chief pollster for former President Bill Clinton, told the annual summer meeting of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.
Citing data showing a 50-year decline in Democratic affiliation by voters — especially in the middle class — Mr. Penn said Democrats now are the majority party only among voters in the lowest income group.
As a result, he said, the party "is a shadow of its former self."
The Democratic Party "is threatened with a takeover by the far left," said Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, the DLC's national chairman, who opened the conference that was billed "Why We Are Fighting."
DLC founder Al From said "the problem with [the Democrats] is that we're not in the debate" on national security.
"We're at a time when our country is in peril. The Democratic nominee for president in 2004 has to first cross the threshold on national security so that voters will listen to him on the economy. If we do that we'll have a chance of winning. If we don't, we won't," Mr. From said in an interview with The Washington Times.
DLC leaders did not mention former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean by name, but made clear their concern that Mr. Dean — who has been harshly critical of the war in Iraq — has become the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination.
The Democrats' position on national security is threatened by "a big antiwar faction in our party," said Mr. From, who founded the DLC in the mid-1980s to pull the party more toward the political middle.
"The right position on the war is to be for the war. What's really at stake is our way of life," he said. "You've got to tell people how you can make the country stronger and safer."
At the same time, Mr. From had some words of support for Mr. Dean's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who voted for the congressional war resolution but who has been sharply critical of President Bush's handling of postwar Iraq.
"I think Kerry could be a very effective nominee. I think Kerry could run as a New Democrat," Mr. From said.
Hundreds of elected Democratic officials from 43 states who gathered here for the DLC conference were given a grim assessment of their party's shrinking base.
The Democratic Party "is hurt by current perceptions that Democrats stand for big government, want to raise taxes too high, are too liberal, and are beholden to special interest groups," Mr. Penn said, detailing the results of his poll commissioned by the DLC.
"Half a century ago, a near majority of voters identified themselves as a part of the Democratic Party. Today that number has declined to roughly one-third of all voters," he said.
Republicans held especially strong leads among white male voters, as well as married men and women with children.
"Democrats only lead among the lowest income category, voters who earn less than $20,000 per year," he said.
The Democrats' decline among middle class voters will continue "unless the Democratic Party broadens its appeal," he said.
And contrary to the belief that most Democrats are liberals, Mr. Penn said his poll found that two-thirds of Democrats identify themselves as moderate or conservative. Only 35 percent called themselves liberal.
The DLC yesterday showcased seven DLC-supported "New Democrat" governors, including Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan, Mark Warner of Virginia, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and James E. McGreevey of New Jersey. They told of how they balanced their budgets without raising broad-based taxes and in some cases by cutting taxes.
One of them, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico who has cut income taxes across the board, told the conference that Democrats "have to be able to use force when diplomacy fails and our national security is being threatened."

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-07-29 12:25pm

Who does these polls for them?

Once again, they've proved that the only ones answering these polls are the ones that they actually catch at home: ie, the elderly.

How do I know that the elderly are the only ones they catch at home? Ask SirNitram about his job as a telephone surveyer. *smirks*

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-29 01:23pm

The Democratic Leadership Council has PLENTY of experience in losing the middle - they've done so for four consecutive elections and five out of the last six. I don't believe a word they're saying - mostly motivated because their golden boy, Lieberman, is getting his ass kicked in the polls by Dean and Kerry. They're attacking the only man with a significant chance of upsetting the status quo because he's not beholden to them.

As a Democrat, I'm more worried about what will happen if the Dems can't nominate a candidate who will give people a reason to vote. Dean does. Lieberman doesn't, and never will.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-07-29 01:30pm

Iceberg wrote:The Democratic Leadership Council has PLENTY of experience in losing the middle - they've done so for four consecutive elections and five out of the last six. I don't believe a word they're saying - mostly motivated because their golden boy, Lieberman, is getting his ass kicked in the polls by Dean and Kerry. They're attacking the only man with a significant chance of upsetting the status quo because he's not beholden to them.

As a Democrat, I'm more worried about what will happen if the Dems can't nominate a candidate who will give people a reason to vote. Dean does. Lieberman doesn't, and never will.

As a registered Democrat, I agree. Dean is the only one so far even worth looking at twice.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-07-29 01:47pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Iceberg wrote:The Democratic Leadership Council has PLENTY of experience in losing the middle - they've done so for four consecutive elections and five out of the last six. I don't believe a word they're saying - mostly motivated because their golden boy, Lieberman, is getting his ass kicked in the polls by Dean and Kerry. They're attacking the only man with a significant chance of upsetting the status quo because he's not beholden to them.

As a Democrat, I'm more worried about what will happen if the Dems can't nominate a candidate who will give people a reason to vote. Dean does. Lieberman doesn't, and never will.
As a registered Democrat, I agree. Dean is the only one so far even worth looking at twice.

As a registered Republican, i also agree. George McGove...oops...Howard Dean is exactly what the GOP needs, A liberal firebrand to serve as a poster boy to A) motivate the base. and (more importantly) B) Alienate as many non-partisan suburbanites as possible.
What both parties consistantly fail to realize is that the general election is not won by voiting for they candidate that says the warm and furry radical partisan things during the primary (knowing that i was a McCain man in 2000). These types are only good for rallying the loyalists and making people like James Carville or Pat Buchannon cream their shorts The general election is won by who can win the most broad support and to do that you need someone that isn't from the radical wing element (be it left or right) of the party.
For a while i was really afraid that the Democrats had figured that out. Clinton was a genius, charasmatic and most importantly a relative moderate. Now however it's back to the same old formula that failed with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-07-29 01:49pm

and there is already a whole thread on this

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-29 01:53pm

The pattern of Republicans trying to scare the Democrats into nominating a crypto-Republican (i.e. anybody but Dean) is duly noted.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-29 01:56pm

Iceberg wrote:The pattern of Republicans trying to scare the Democrats into nominating a crypto-Republican (i.e. anybody but Dean) is duly noted.

It's the damn truth. You tried hard left candidates consistently for decades,
and never got into power, but when you moderated your message, you
got Clinton and Carter into office...

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-29 01:58pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote:The pattern of Republicans trying to scare the Democrats into nominating a crypto-Republican (i.e. anybody but Dean) is duly noted.
It's the damn truth. You tried hard left candidates consistently for decades,
and never got into power, but when you moderated your message, you
got Clinton and Carter into office...

This would be a valid criticism if Dean were a hard leftist. Which he's not - he's a centrist who is conservative on some issues (like gun control and the budget) and liberal on others (like civil rights). The difference is that he represents a CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO and isn't fighting his battles on the ground that the Republicans have spent the last decade preparing.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-29 01:58pm

Iceberg wrote:The pattern of Republicans trying to scare the Democrats into nominating a crypto-Republican (i.e. anybody but Dean) is duly noted.

Uhh....actually Iceberg Republicans WANT you to vote Dean in as your candidate.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-29 02:00pm

Iceberg wrote:The difference is that he represents a CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO and isn't fighting his battles on the ground that the Republicans have spent the last decade preparing.

Ah then, I guess the Republican party should have nominated Pat Buchanan
for President in 2000

Way to insure Al Gore's election.

WINNING IS EVERYTHING - you can always "forget" your campaign promises
later on once you're in power and have the ability to influence the government
through your own appointments of federal employees, judges, etc etc

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-29 02:03pm

People need a reason to vote...

In m experience with my own family, my family doesnt vote because neither party offers anything.

The poor for example, for them, the democratic party offers them something... financial security. For the more wealthy, business owners and the like, the GOP offers them something... Financial security(tax breaks etc)

Now for us in the middle class, we seem to be driven to vote(unless the economy is shit) on social issues.

People who value freedom more than security will vote Shrub out of office.

People such as myself with a political wish list(absolute church state separation, and gay rights mainly) will vote democratic...

This is just my understanding of things from my limited exp.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-29 02:09pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote:The difference is that he represents a CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO and isn't fighting his battles on the ground that the Republicans have spent the last decade preparing.
Ah then, I guess the Republican party should have nominated Pat Buchanan
for President in 2000 Way to insure Al Gore's election.

WINNING IS EVERYTHING - you can always "forget" your campaign promises
later on once you're in power and have the ability to influence the government
through your own appointments of federal employees, judges, etc etc

The Democrats can't win on promises to maintain the status quo. They've spent the last DECADE proving that point, by net-losing every single election since Clinton gained office.

In order for the Democrats to win, they have to offer a superior alternative to the status quo, and the Democratic Leadership Council is too enamored with the status quo to bother to change it (their positions are safe, even though they cause the party to lose election after election).

Joe Lieberman is STATUS QUO. Kerry, Gephardt, Graham, Kucinich and Moseley-Braun are all STATUS QUO (I'll ignore Sharpton because he's a lunatic). Dean isn't, and more importantly, he offers a superior solution to the present problem - one in which we re-embrace our international obligations, cut the budget, eliminate the deficit and start paying back the massive debt we've been accumulating under Republican-dominated governments of the last two decades.

You can't beat an incumbent by saying "I'll keep doing what he's doing," and that's what all of the Democratic candidates save Dean are essentially saying.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-29 02:12pm

Stravo wrote:
Iceberg wrote:The pattern of Republicans trying to scare the Democrats into nominating a crypto-Republican (i.e. anybody but Dean) is duly noted.

Uhh....actually Iceberg Republicans WANT you to vote Dean in as your candidate.[/quote
I don't believe anybody from the opposition party who tells me who they want me to vote for. That's the most pathetically transparent trick ever devised, Bre'r Rabbit.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-07-29 02:18pm

Iceberg wrote:This would be a valid criticism if Dean were a hard leftist. Which he's not - he's a centrist who is conservative on some issues (like gun control and the budget) and liberal on others (like civil rights). The difference is that he represents a CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO and isn't fighting his battles on the ground that the Republicans have spent the last decade preparing.

Wrong. He is as liberal as they come. but don't belive me, listen to Dr. Dean:

Dean On Labor pro union

Howard Dean wrote:Prior to my service as Governor, I had a 100% pro-labor voting record as a state legislator. I was proud when I was recently awarded the first Paul Wellstone Award by the AFL-CIO for my commitment to the rights of workers

.

dean on healthcare pro socialized medecine

Howard Dean wrote:we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.

a few more gems from Dr. Dean:

I will support affirmative action, from which we have all benefited, because it has strengthened our institutions and provided opportunity.

I will propose the repeal of every last dime of the Bush tax cuts

I will work to expand equal rights to same sex couples and ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, strengthen federal protections against anti-gay violence, give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries, remove bias from our immigration laws, and end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-07-29 02:18pm

Iceberg wrote:
Stravo wrote:
Iceberg wrote:The pattern of Republicans trying to scare the Democrats into nominating a crypto-Republican (i.e. anybody but Dean) is duly noted.
Uhh....actually Iceberg Republicans WANT you to vote Dean in as your candidate.[/quote
I don't believe anybody from the opposition party who tells me who they want me to vote for. That's the most pathetically transparent trick ever devised, Bre'r Rabbit.

Look. maybe you don't get it or refuse to...I detect a strong Wall of Ignorance when it comes to Dean within you, but the Republicans WANT to face off against Dean because they have read their history, looked at the polls and they know that a left leaning candidate has very little chance of upsetting an incumbent, particulalry where national security is a prime concern for the electorate.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-29 02:23pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Iceberg wrote:This would be a valid criticism if Dean were a hard leftist. Which he's not - he's a centrist who is conservative on some issues (like gun control and the budget) and liberal on others (like civil rights). The difference is that he represents a CHANGE FROM THE STATUS QUO and isn't fighting his battles on the ground that the Republicans have spent the last decade preparing.

Wrong. He is as liberal as they come. but don't belive me, listen to Dr. Dean:

Dean On Labor pro union

Howard Dean wrote:Prior to my service as Governor, I had a 100% pro-labor voting record as a state legislator. I was proud when I was recently awarded the first Paul Wellstone Award by the AFL-CIO for my commitment to the rights of workers
.

dean on healthcare pro socialized medecine

Howard Dean wrote:we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.

a few more gems from Dr. Dean:

I will support affirmative action, from which we have all benefited, because it has strengthened our institutions and provided opportunity.

I will propose the repeal of every last dime of the Bush tax cuts

I will work to expand equal rights to same sex couples and ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, strengthen federal protections against anti-gay violence, give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries, remove bias from our immigration laws, and end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy.

Well considering I am more or less pro all of those(save affirmative action in some places.. I dont like quotas, but giving people from poor socio-economic possitions a bit of a boost is ok...

I am pro-socialized healthcare(and communication, transportation, and utilities...)

And damn right I want this

I will work to expand equal rights to same sex couples and ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, strengthen federal protections against anti-gay violence, give federal employees the right to name same-sex partners as beneficiaries, remove bias from our immigration laws, and end the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-29 02:32pm

"Socialized medicine" is a conservative codeword for the national healthcare plans that are in use in every industrialized country in the world EXCEPT the United States of America.

The fact that there is no industrialized nation in the world that has less respect for workers' rights than the United States of America is NOT a point in our favor. I can think of no country in the world that is seriously debating stripping overtime pay from millions of white-collar middle-class workers, other than the US.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-29 02:34pm

Iceberg wrote: I don't believe anybody from the opposition party who tells me who they want me to vote for. That's the most pathetically transparent trick ever devised, Bre'r Rabbit.

Ha, seeing as the Democrats did that in California, with Bill Simon, they
managed to manipulate the Republicans into giving them Gray Davis Lite
who got defeated soundly.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-07-29 02:35pm

That's the Great Liberal Monster the American Republicans try to demonize?

Healthcare by the government for government employees.. You mean like WV's PEIA system, which 100% of those correspondants polled who were covered by, had no problems paying for healthcare in a timely fashion?

Pro-Labour? Well, I don't know what Americans think Pro-Labour is, but I find some support for hte UK's Labour party...

AA is broken, but it's more than nothing, and I've never had a true problem with it. Could it be improved? Sure, but not by wiping our asses with it and tossing it aside.

Most of those tax cuts helping who..? Not the everyman..

Equal rights for gays! OH NO! WE MUST GET THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT ON IT!

Seriously.. This is the Great And Terrible Liberal Foe?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-29 02:36pm

"Socialized medicine" is a conservative codeword for the national healthcare plans that are in use in every industrialized country in the world EXCEPT the United States of America.

The fact that there is no industrialized nation in the world that has less respect for workers' rights than the United States of America is NOT a point in our favor. I can think of no country in the world that is seriously debating stripping overtime pay from millions of white-collar middle-class workers, other than the US.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-29 02:39pm

Iceberg wrote:"Socialized medicine" is a conservative codeword for the national healthcare plans that are in use in every industrialized country in the world EXCEPT the United States of America.

Err...we already have this. It's law that you cannot be refused immediate
life saving treatments on basis of your income. And as for free health care,
just ask the Mexicans

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-29 02:41pm

Seriously.. This is the Great And Terrible Liberal Foe?

My kind of guy.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-07-29 02:41pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote:"Socialized medicine" is a conservative codeword for the national healthcare plans that are in use in every industrialized country in the world EXCEPT the United States of America.
Err...we already have this. It's law that you cannot be refused immediate
life saving treatments on basis of your income. And as for free health care,
just ask the Mexicans

Shep, you know I consider you a friend, but that you beleive that's the same as a good healthcare system, it speaks volumes, and they are not good volumes.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-29 02:42pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote:"Socialized medicine" is a conservative codeword for the national healthcare plans that are in use in every industrialized country in the world EXCEPT the United States of America.
Err...we already have this. It's law that you cannot be refused immediate
life saving treatments on basis of your income.

That's not a health care plan, that's "You can't leave people dying on the streets because they can't pay for emergency care." We do not have a national health care plan.