Will Dems Capture The Middle In 2008?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 ElectionMartin O’Malley and Harold Ford Jr. talk about strategies in the Wash Post:
The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don’t exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party’s leading centrist voice, aren’t needed anymore.But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before. George W. Bush is handing us Democrats our Hoover moment. Independents, swing voters and even some Republicans who haven’t voted our way in more than a decade are willing to hear us out. With an ambitious common-sense agenda, the progressive center has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win back the White House, expand its margins in Congress and build a political and governing majority that could last a generation.
Once in a lifetime? I’d agree with that, but I don’t think the Dem nominee can capture the nomination without appealing to the far left. Maybe that’s just me, but every single one of them just spoke at YearlyKos. And while there were none of CPAC’s “faggot” moments, you can bet the contingency there have their minds set on what their agenda is going to be…and it ain’t falling in the middle.
So who would be the model for this candidate? Why the Democrat’s Reagan of course…
Bill Clinton ran on an agenda of sensible ideas that brought America a decade of peace and prosperity. He was the only Democrat to be elected and reelected president in the past seven decades, and he left office more popular than almost any other president in recent memory.
Here’s the key graph…
As the caucuses and primaries approach, candidates will come under increasing pressure to ignore the broader electorate and appeal to the party faithful. But the opportunity to build a historic majority is too great — and too rare — to pass up.
Final thought…I don’t think the Dem will be able to be Clinton unless there’s a Perot…and soon. That way it’ll make sense to the Dem base to nominate a centrist. But if no 3rd party threat, the Dems are going to pulled more to the left and nominate somebody who the Repubs can easily paint with a broad brush. Not that they won’t do that anyway, but the paint stuck to Kerry because, well, it was mostly fitting. Will 2008 be any different?
By the way, even though I highlight it, this editorial was EXTREMELY vague. “Appeal to the center” is basically the point of it, but there’s not “how to.”
I’d like to see a little more meat on this bone guys. Good start, but then what?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
I can speak for myself only but I am about as far left as they come. The chances of me voting for a Democrat or a Republican come the presidential election are about 0% respectively.
I’m sick of the anemic one-upsmanship the Democrats are playing. I voted for them across the board in the last election to in hopes they would cut the funding on the War completely. I knew there was little chance of that ever happening, but there was no other options for someone against the war. It was the Dems or nothing. Now that I know where they stand I’m certain I wont be voting for them ever again.
These Democrats are complicit in the war as far as I am concerned, nearly every last one of them voted for the resolution to go to war.
I will be voting for the Green party, if that is, they are even allowed to be on the ballot. The Dems and Republicans have a history of shutting out any viable competitors so… we will see. I plan to continue to contribute to causes like Code Pink and Veterans Against The Iraq War because they are one of the few orginizations taking a visible stand against the war.
I figure it’s better to give to causes that are doing something rather than give to political candidates which are making a lot of promises but committing few actions.