The Democrats who are calling for a moderate are those who want at least a snowball's chance in hell of getting their candidate elected.
However, I encourage you to go as liberal as you dare. That will not only guarantee a GOP landslide in the Presidential race, but boost our margins in the House and Senate also.
On this, we can agree.
Liberals are a no-no for any presidential run! The Democrats need to select a moderate to avoid a polarising election in which a conservative Republican has a sure-start advantage, simply, because the facts are simple: Conservatives (34%) outnumber Liberals (21%) by 3 to 2 and Democrats need to pay heed to that
Feingold would make a better VP nominee who can work the 'blue' states, while a bona fide moderate nominee can take the battle to the the marginal , and indeed, the not-so marginal, 'red' states
As long the Democrats go for liberals, they will be fighting a defensive election on their turf, in which the Republicans in 2004 scored a couple of goals: Iowa and New Mexico. It's a trend that bodes ill for the party
Dave
it's not enough to be against something, you have to offer a compelling vision of your own.
and i don't see how nominating Democratic versions of Nelson Rockefeller (as so many Democrats here on this forum favor) is going to get us back our majority if they have no other message other than that they are not Republicans. Democrats need to get their identity back and feel comfortable being in their own skins before expecting people to be comfortable with giving them power again. so far, i see some hope with Dean, and an increasingly combative Congressional minority, but that could all go down the drain if we nominate another lackluster centrist for president with no vision of where to take the country.
certainly, running as a centrist can win you this race or that, but in the broad scheme of things, it is not what creates a durable national majority that lasts across decades no matter who may occupy the Oval Office, or what party controls Capitol Hill. i am imploring the centrists to have a longer-term vision than winning the next election. running centrist in elections is a short-term strategy -it is no substitute for creating durable majorities. it is the vision of where the country should be that compels people to become lifelong Democrats or Republicans, and shapes the landscape in which our agenda can be advanced.
compelling visions have typically come not from the cautious centrist middle, but from the ideological poles. it has happened with the Republican Party (as we all can see), and the Democratic Party in the past when it took advantage of the rise of labor and the progressive movement around the turn of the century. never has it come from moderates.
bottom line: centrists by default are incapable of offering up compelling visions of where they would like to see this country decades from now. they are centrists because they are cautious -and caution has never been a source of inspiration.
