>What are you talking about? Gore received 50.9 million votes. Kerry
>received 55.3 million votes, almost a five million vote increase. As a
>percentage of eligible voters, Kerry got a higher percentage of that
>potential vote than and Democratic candidate since Jimmy Carter won in
>1976-- who got roughly the same percentage of the potential vote-- and far
>more than Bill Clinton did in either 1992 or 1996. (Nathan Newman)
Rather than thinking that Kerry received 55.3 M votes try Kerry received 15 M votes and Bush received 40.3 negative votes in addition to his 58.9 M positive votes. People went out in droves to vote FOR Bush and trickled out to vote FOR Kerry and turned out in respectable numbers to vote AGAINST Bush. (JT)
>Kerry had his weaknesses but he also had his strengths. He ran on a very
>progressive platform-- pro-union, anti-death penalty, pro-choice,
>pro-education-- with concrete goals to improve the lives of people we all
>care about. (Nathan Newman)
"Very progressive"? Dude you made me blow iced tea out of my nose laughing at this line. Give us a humor warning next time. Progressive next to Bush's almost ultra reactionary platform sure but Kerry's platform was moderate not "very progressive". (JT)
> And he never pulled a Sister Souljah maneuver or screwed
>welfare moms as a political ploy, as Clinton-- a far better politician
>admittedly -- did to gain moderate support. (Nathan Newman)
But was Kerry really the BEST that the Dems had to offer? If so they should close up shop and consider themselves irrelevant from this point forward. Of course they won't and shouldn't do this because Kerry was far from the best they had to offer. I don't know how to make the Dems more responsive to the needs of working people and less enthralled with sucking up to capital but it needs to happen. Again too many working people stayed away because they do not see the Dems as representing their needs but the Dems will probably see this as the need to move further right. A happy coincidence that this path offers greater financial reward for them too! When the Dems spend as much effort chasing the votes of people who make less than $30,000 a year as they do chasing after those who make over $45,000 then maybe they will mobilize enough people to get votes but unfortunately that isn't happening this year or next. Chasing after Republican votes is a losing political strategy for the Dems but rewarding for the individual members who choose it. Change that and the Dems have a shot at being a force for positive change on a decent scale. (JT)
>There are many things we all need to do better as progressives, especially
>engaging the religious population in a vigorous and respectful way that
>will pull them away from the Bush-GOP embrace. That takes real organizing
>over years, not just rhetoric from a candidate, so that's a big project for
>progressives to take on in coming years. There are groups working on it,
>but they are underfunded and not strongly supported, so that needs to
>change.
>
>Nathan Newman
The Dems still tend to chase out too many people who want these things, join them to fight for them and them become disillusioned and leave. Why are they underfunded? The Dems suck but they don't have to. They suck by choice and it's damn frustrating. Maybe the progressives in the party need to kick out the reactionary elements like the DLC and take over but I don't know how to make that happen either. Small caliber weapons maybe?
John Thornton