If both parties are the same...

the Democratic party will be the one to die, along with the country.  No one will miss it.  The average American has no greater desire than to be enslaved by his own cowardice and stupidity.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 830 comments) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 1:30:11 PM
 

Miss Pratt asked:

If working class voters aren't happy, what are they going to do – go join the Republican Party?

Yes, actually.

Your supposedly rhetorical question suffers from two weaknesses.  First, "working class voters" are no more of a monolith than any other group, and their votes will be split, just like any other group.  Realistically, the presidential nominee who does not win the majority of  votes from the working class votes will still get 45% of them.

And second -- which is related to the first -- the things which are important to "the working class" are not monolithic among all of the members.  Some have one position oor another on taxes, on abortion, on other social issues, on child-care credits, on unionization, on the minimum wage, on the war in Iraq, school choice, Affirmative Action, you name it.

by Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 135 comments) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 2:01:46 PM
 

Not so

"Answer cause of the liberal bias in the method by which this party selects its delegates. This bias is one reason why the Democratic Party's Presidential nominees tend to be too far left to win the general"

Utter nonsense. The candidates that the delegates select are nowhere near as far left as the general population.

by Mark Welkie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 2:18:11 PM
 

Absolutely right, Mark!

If the Democratic Party were as far "left" as the general populace, there would be no Green Party or none of the other "splinter third parties".  They are made up of those who lost patience long ago with politicians who refuse to hear the voices of the average people or fail to understand their problems.  The party continues to marginalize the "working class" and promote their own brand of Republican Lite.  The working people want a candidate who understands their problems and is willing to use the "bully pulpit" to tell the American people the truth about the scoundrels who cause our distress.  Our only question now is whether Obama will do that.  We know that Hillary won't and, if Obama won't take advantage of that opportunity, the center-to-left of the party will once again spread out over the third party and any others that may appear by November and war-hawk McCain will win by default.

by Mary Pitt (60 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 159 comments) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 2:57:10 PM
 

Total bullshit

Articles like this are just so idiotic.  Hillary is so far behind because she is losing.  Her base has been steadily eroding ever since she was initially considered "inevitable." 

by Helen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Sunday, April 27, 2008 at 6:31:39 PM
 

Not only nonsense but boldfaced lie

If John Kerry had opposed the Iraq war in 2002, 2003 and 2004, we could believe Ms. Pratt's thesis that there is a liberal bias in the system.  The fact is that John Kerry to the conservative position in those years on that and several other issues.

The biases in the system have to do with forcing a two party system down the nation's throat.  Until Americans wake up and choose a new elections process and representation process for the 21st century, none of the parties will be really accountable to public biases---currently the biases are corporate and conservative propaganda.

For example, Clinton could have made numerous executive orders to aid the poor and under-respresented in America, but he was too concerned to how it looked to an ever-conservative oriented media.  E.g., Clinton was successful in executive orders related to minimum wage and health care.  congress repealed none of those between 1995 and 2000.  

Were Clinton a true progressive, he would have not waited till November 2000 to try to rush through executive orders in a frenzied and useles manner.

Neither Dukakus nor Mondale nor Carter nor many other Democratic presidential candidates have been very liberal in nature and statue.

So, the hypothesis above is not testable. It is nonsense and misleading. 

by ALONE (114 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 251 comments) on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM
 

Eyes of the beholder

Prehaps you protest too much.

Prehaps you are too liberal to parse liberalness.

McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry and Obama are liberal.  They are all more than a little left of center.

The bias come from giving more "clout" to districts that have higher democratic voting records in the form of more delegates than their population would actually result in.

by Angie Pratt (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 12:42:53 PM
 

Wrong Premise

Obama's strategy, in part, was to aggressively participate in Caucuses. Clinton was caught with their pants down without the same energy level. Therefore, many delegates were won with limited voters. Although arguably representative of the greater population of their state, no one can be sure. The result is that Obama won many more delegates with a relative (to full primary votes cast) handful of voters.

The noticeable delegate lead has very little to do with demographics and more with strategy. As the campaign for president is by far the most important (and by far observable) political endeavor in which either Obama or Clinton has participated, Obama has shown the best judgement, organization and planning. Clinton fails miserably by comparison. 

by Harold Koegler (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 9:39:20 PM