Yes, historically, the more liberal a candidate the less he gets nationally. The most liberal candidates in our lifetimes have been Dukakis, Mondale and McGovern, all good men. They all lost in landslides. However, a Gore or Kerry type could win, and they are plenty liberal enough, though a little more centrist.
If any of the Jesse Jackson, Eugene McCarthy or Jerry Brown types had been nominated, they too would have been wiped out. Maybe losing 49 states.
This is not a reflection of my own personal politics, it's pure pragmatism and knowing that almst any dem candiate is much better than almost any Repub. So why help the Repubs by nominating someone too liberal for the swing states?
Also, Naderites did cost Gore the election in 2000 and gave us Bush, though Bush also cheated in Florida. If Nader had endorsed Gore at the last minute and quit lying that he wasn't green enough, then we'd have had our greenest president ever in Gore. Instead we gfot a lobbytist for the polluters and big oil, Bush. Thanks a lot, lefties.
So what does this mean for 2008? Well it's why Feingold dropped out. He knew that even though he had a crusade, he wouldn't win in November. So he dropped out for the party. We all need to support the most solid centrist or centrist-progressive candidate we can find, preferably also a white male. Again, nothing to do with my personal feelings, but nominating a woman or person of color is really asking for it from the Republican smear machine. Though that will gradually change. |
