Ford vs. Kos

Link (0.00 / 0)

Click whole show if you're interested, they are the first segment.

http://www.msnbc.msn...

---

by: JimC @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 16:50:06 PM CDT

Oh really Markos? (0.00 / 0)

Brendan Nyhan of the old website Spin Sanity and the best selling book All the President's Spin had this very keen observation.

Markos said:

MR. MOULITSAS: No, no, no. You?re talking about bringing the, you know, appealing to the vast majority of the American public. Bill Clinton never one with 50 percent plus one of the votes.

REP. FORD: But he was president twice. I?ll take his record any day of the week.

MR. MOULITSAS: The most, the most talented?the most talented politician of our era, incredible political talent, wasn?t able to beat?to win 50 percent of the American vote. Now, last year in 2006, running as strong unapologetic muscular Democrats, Democrats brought in 56 percent of the vote. We are appealing to the mainstream. We brought in independents in droves, and it wasn?t just George Bush.

Nyhan responds:

In short, Moulitsas is claiming that being "strong unapologetic muscular Democrats" outperforms Clinton's DLC-style triangulation at the polls. But his evidence is nonsense. Clinton never received fifty percent of the popular vote because Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate in 1992 and 1996. Democratic Congressional candidates didn't face a major third party challenge in 2006. It's apples and oranges.

Moreover, even if the comparison were valid, causality often runs the other direction -- candidates are more likely to run as strong partisans in favorable political environments and to move toward the center in unfavorable environments. For instance, the results of the 1994 election were obviously part of the reason that Clinton tacked toward the center. So we can't conclude much of anything from observing that "strong" Democrats do better than triangulators.

Well said Brendan! Sometimes Markos really likes to pull imaginary facts out of his "buster brown!"

For more check it out here.

"Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq and two pro-war candidates win the NH Primary. If that doesn't tell you how f-ed up the system is, what does?"

- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 21:06:12 PM CDT

Not at all. (4.00 / 1)

Cause and effect: did Clinton fail to capture a majority because of Perot, or did Perot get an opening because Clinton's strategy could not command a majority? I'm not sure how one could prove either position; this certainly doesn't.

Ford's DLC op-ed the other day warned that only three Dem Presidents won a popular vote majority in the 20th century.

Two of the Dems who did were FDR and LBJ: arguably the most full-throated liberal Presidents of the century. The other was Jimmy Carter, whose more centrist approach didn't bring a second term.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 21:20:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Did you read what Nyhan had to say? What did you think? (0.00 / 0)

"Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq and two pro-war candidates win the NH Primary. If that doesn't tell you how f-ed up the system is, what does?"

- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:24:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it begs the question. (4.00 / 2)

What creates a favorable political environment?

A big part of it is candidates who speak boldly and forthrightly.

The DLC search for and promotion of "centrist positions is itself creating an unfavorable political environment for progressives.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:31:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well put... (0.00 / 0)

That answers it well.

I like Brendan Nyhan. He's someone who can sift through the BS on a lot of stuff, Republican and Democrat. What he writes I take seriously, whether I agree or disagree, and he's got some sobering view points. If he's questioning Markos, he must know something better than Markos does. 

"Seventy percent of Americans want our troops out of Iraq and two pro-war candidates win the NH Primary. If that doesn't tell you how f-ed up the system is, what does?"

- Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

---

by: NH Ex-pat @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:37:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

I think they could do that, and it would be OK, but the problem is that they attack progressives.

In Massachusetts, we have a LOT of conservative Democrats. Too many, in my view -- but that's my view.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 10:41:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whaaa??! (0.00 / 0)

In Massachusetts, we have a LOT of conservative Democrats

Are you serious?  We need you to come in and testify up in Concord because I swear to God there isn't a day that goes by where I hear a Republican talk about the crazy Massachusetts liberals

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 16:18:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well I don't want to give them publicity (0.00 / 0)

But there are a relatively large number of state legislators who would absolutely be Republicans in another state, but they call themselves Democrats here in order to get elected.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 16:25:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It would be a good thing (0.00 / 0)

if they worked with the remnants of the principled GOP and some third party activists to form a new majoritarian party (by 'majoritarian' I mean one that tries to build a 50%+1 coalition. I just made the term up; it probably has a real and different meaning).

The GOP in the Northeast, and arguably now throughout the states, is on life support. I'm a committed Democrat but we need a two party system.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 16:47:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sometimes I think three or four (0.00 / 0)

Shhh ...

---

by: JimC @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 16:55:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Topic for another day n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: elwood @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 17:11:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hahaha, who voted for Ford? (0.00 / 0)

He lost the debate when long before he pulled out the "anti-semite" attack (he actually lost before it even began, when no one came to his convention).

Markos didn't just take him point-for-point, but he also demonstrated how truly in the past Ford and the DLC are when he refused to buy into the framing of many of Gregory's questions.  Meanwhile, Ford had talking points all lined up for them.

Kos: I just facilitate a website for a community of activists.  I don't set an agenda or an ideology, we all decide - it's democracy.

Ford: Here I'll list off our top 3 issues, formulated by a few dozen of the most elite thinkers inside the beltway.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 23:12:28 PM CDT

It wasn't me (0.00 / 0)

But I thought he recovered from that moment nicely, and, by the rarified rules of MTP, he answered the issues question. Kos could easily have named three issues that are hot topics on the site.

I still say both did well. Ford elevated his organization's profile for a week. The dynamic is interesting, though, because the DLC is on the decline (as it should be), and the netroots are on the rise. And I think everybody here knows I'm skeptical about blogs, so when I say that, I mean it.

---

by: JimC @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 08:50:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

He could have.. (0.00 / 0)

very easily.  But he didn't, and that was in itself a point, trying to demonstrate the difference between the old establishment way of thinking - "here's the platform now everyone get in line behind it" - and the new grassroots populism.  Even if Kos did an Issues straw poll on Daily Kos, he still wouldn't communicate that as the netroots' agenda - he'd say that they are some of the most important issues to many in the community.

It's hard for people like Ford to wrap their minds around the idea of something that involves a million people, but doesn't operate like an "organization" per se.

It's time we steer by the stars, and not the lights of every passing ship

---

by: Andy Edwards @ Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 11:51:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]