I was, once again, not judging the validity here. Progressive activists do not play well on the national stage for the party. If this is going to be the national face of the Democrats in November then they are going to have a tough time picking up some of the seats that they think are in play.
A tough win - or a well fought and close loss - with progressive candidates would be, in my opinion, better for the country than a moderate "cake-walk." After all, I don't think anyone would deny that, under most circumstances, sticking with the status-quo is the easist thing to do. Change isn't - but, looking at the opinion polls floating around right now, progressives (and those willing to join them) have a chance and they should grab it. Using myself as an example, I'm not just looking for a party switch in 2006; I'm looking for an all around different direction for the country. If it takes longer than 2006, I'm all for it. And I do see it happening.
Also remember, while Kerry may have only won 19 states, he was the second highest vote getter in U.S. history.
I was, once again, not judging the validity here. Progressive activists do not play well on the national stage for the party. If this is going to be the national face of the Democrats in November then they are going to have a tough time picking up some of the seats that they think are in play.
They're not going to run a Ned Lamont in every race, obviously. As far as the national message, I'd hope that we'll be able to move the center a little to the left this time around. After a decade of this GOP congress and 6 years of the current administration, maybe the country is ready to take a slight move to the left. One part of that will be to better define the words "progressive" and "liberal"; take away the negative connotation that conservatives have attached to them.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
A tough win - or a well fought and close loss - with progressive candidates would be, in my opinion, better for the country than a moderate "cake-walk." After all, I don't think anyone would deny that, under most circumstances, sticking with the status-quo is the easist thing to do. Change isn't - but, looking at the opinion polls floating around right now, progressives (and those willing to join them) have a chance and they should grab it. Using myself as an example, I'm not just looking for a party switch in 2006; I'm looking for an all around different direction for the country. If it takes longer than 2006, I'm all for it. And I do see it happening.
Also remember, while Kerry may have only won 19 states, he was the second highest vote getter in U.S. history.
I know what you mean and, personally, I can see the future of the Republican Party going a little bit more in my ideological direction as well even though nobody on this site will admit this. It is hopeful wishing though for both of us I think since the masses only come out to vote in general elections and the primary voters usually tend to live on a fringe of the party.
One part of that will be to better define the words "progressive" and "liberal"; take away the negative connotation that conservatives have attached to them.
In order to do that, people need to define themselves regardless of those labels. The progressives right now are the anti-Bush. In Lamont's case he was the anti-Lieberman. All people seem to know about Lamont around here is that he is anti-war and anti-Bush. The guy had Al Sharpton saying that stuff for him during the campaign. I looked up his issues and they seem pretty standard. There are no surprises in there and he seems to have copied and pasted them from the progressive handbook.
why is it nice to see someone run as an independent? That is how we got George Bush, if the Nader voters had voted for Gore we wouldn't be in the mess we are in right now (Iraq)
Comments
Also remember, while Kerry may have only won 19 states, he was the second highest vote getter in U.S. history.
They're not going to run a Ned Lamont in every race, obviously. As far as the national message, I'd hope that we'll be able to move the center a little to the left this time around. After a decade of this GOP congress and 6 years of the current administration, maybe the country is ready to take a slight move to the left. One part of that will be to better define the words "progressive" and "liberal"; take away the negative connotation that conservatives have attached to them.
I know what you mean and, personally, I can see the future of the Republican Party going a little bit more in my ideological direction as well even though nobody on this site will admit this. It is hopeful wishing though for both of us I think since the masses only come out to vote in general elections and the primary voters usually tend to live on a fringe of the party.
In order to do that, people need to define themselves regardless of those labels. The progressives right now are the anti-Bush. In Lamont's case he was the anti-Lieberman. All people seem to know about Lamont around here is that he is anti-war and anti-Bush. The guy had Al Sharpton saying that stuff for him during the campaign. I looked up his issues and they seem pretty standard. There are no surprises in there and he seems to have copied and pasted them from the progressive handbook.
the party needs a fair election to win
and thats all they will need in 2006 and 2008
the american public is fed up whether "the right" realizes it or not
How was the 2004 primary and caucus season unfair?