Why do the Democrats persist in nominating candidates too liberal to be elected to the White House?
As we seem to march to nominate Obama, are we forgetting what happened with John Kerry, Dukakus, Mondale and McGovern? We generally succeed with moderates – Clinton & Carter (and arguably Al Gore) and fail spectacularly with liberal nominees. Personally I want to see the Party win, and am very tired of hearing Nancy Pelosi whine that Dems in Congress cannot be effective without a Dem in the White House – and we need progress.
Good question. Every now and then, Democrats choose to NOT sell out. This year (barely!) is one of those years. Obama will face an uphill battle this fall. No doubt about that. However, he is not too liberal, America is too darn conservative!!!!
Fox news report. LOL
I don’t get that either. You would think 40 years of history would give them a clue.
yeah…and they keep getting further left wing every time. all I can say is that the liberals have destroyed the education system in this country to the point to where what they are producing are becoming a threat to our national security.
That’s only your opinion and you don’t seem like someone that has that much knowledge in my opinion
You’re wrong, actually. Democrats don’t nominate left wingers. That’s all we get is centrist democrat-lites because conservatives have such a cultural stranglehold on this country that a real liberal such as Edwards or Kucinich wouldn’t stand a chance.
Clinton is low on cash and her anemic performance Tuesday means she may not be able to rely on a surge in Internet fundraising that she saw after winning primaries in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas.
Obama remains ahead of Clinton in every measure, and the final jury – superdelegates – have been trending his way, even as he charted rough seas. His strong showing in North Carolina and Indiana will undoubtedly speed up that pace.
Obama is still struggling to win some demographic groups, notably blue-collar white voters, who are a key component of the Democratic base. Exit polls in North Carolina found just 49 percent of voters believe Clinton is honest and trustworthy.
LOL! The exact opposite has happened this time. Obama actually has legs in red states as evidenced by the fact that CURRENT head to head polls show him capturing states worth 270 electoral votes vs. McCain and trailing McCain by less than 5% in states worth another 100 electoral votes.
The opportunity for the Dems to escape the red state/blue state prison is there because for once we overcame the wishes of the NE Libs who have given us stinkers who only appeal in blue states like Mondale, Dukasis, Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
An Obama/Richardson ticket could put Texas Dem for the next 16 years! Talk about redrawing the Map!
Obama is only 5% behind McCain in Texas and has almost no hispanic support. Richardson can carry S. Texas where most of the 30+% of hispanic Texans live.
Clinton wasn’t considered a moderate Democrat the first time he ran, so no….. I don’t think Obama is too liberal for the White House. He might be too much of a gentleman, and too intelligent, but not too liberal.
The winner of the Democratic will be the next president of this fine United States. The Republicans have made a mess of this country, and Mc Cain, would only do further damage. Now answer me this, why do Republicans insist on putting incompetent geizures in office? LOL. Peace and God bless.
Boo – I am afraid you have the facts mixed up. Bush is the one who screwed up the education system. The ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act is a load of crap. The school curriculum is getting compromised because the teachers have to prepare students for these (useless) tests. Plus the results are not anywhere near as positive as Bush will lead you to believe–the teachers teach the test so the students don’t really learn much except how to pass that test.
I think you made a mis-print, Obama is right where he wants to be, it is my own party, The RNC, who has nominated a liberal who can not, will not, be elected to the white house.
I for one, will not vote for him, and I don’t really know anyone else who will either.
The same question could be asked about the republicans, why do they nominate people to right wing for the presidency? But then someone has to win, either too right or too left for some people.
.
Sorry, but you’re not a democrat. Go back to watching Fox News.
=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Thanks for the question, you little jerk." — John McCain
=-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-= =-=-=-=-=-=-=
Because everyone in the media (left, right, and maintream) has been talking about the Wright controversy over the last two weeks, it has provided political cover for members of the right wing media (talk radio hosts, bloggers, pundits, etc.) to say a lot of ugly, racially-tinged things. In other words, because everyone is talking about this, a lot of what is being said is flying under the radar and not really being subjected to any scrutiny. That won’t last. If Obama becomes the nominee, no one on the left is going to be talking about this issue anymore, and certainly not in a way that is at all critical of Obama. And, as I’ve already noted, the mainstream media is already getting tired of this issue. As time goes on, if right wing pundits and talking heads are still obsessively talking about Reverend Wright, it’s going to look increasingly racist. When the white noise dies down, the things that people like Rush Limbaugh are saying will stand out more and will look more and more like a conscious attempt to stoke people’s prejudices. Without the political cover provided by the heated Democratic primary race, that will become more and more of a liability for McCain. The press will not allow him to run a racialized campaign, even if all the dirty work is being done by surrogates. He’ll have to rein those people in or risk paying a political price
I think it will be much harder for the McCain campaign to use the wright issue against Obama in a general election than most Republicans (and many Clinton supporters) seem to think.