Comments on: Pushback http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/08/06/pushback/ Like Kryptonite To Stupid Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:04:12 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Quaker in a Basement http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/08/06/pushback/#comment-3362 Quaker in a Basement Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:08:04 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=233#comment-3362 <i>Clinton won only because Ross Perot got into the race,</i> Uh, no. <blockquote>DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush. An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run. </blockquote> Clinton won only because Ross Perot got into the race,

Uh, no.

DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush.

An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.

]]> By: Charley http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/08/06/pushback/#comment-3361 Charley Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:08:53 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=233#comment-3361 I think Ezra made a few analytical mistakes here. If we take a hard look at the last two Democratic presidents, we know that they were not elected because they were moderates and chummy with business interests. Carter was elected after the Watergate debacle when almost any Democrat could have won. Clinton won only because Ross Perot got into the race, and neither of them can be said to have advanced the Democratic Party. Why does the Democratic Party have such bad candidates (Ezra's rationale for our consistent losses)? Could it be because no "leading" Democrat can articulate a coherent, moral, economic and foreign policy vision for this nation, and thus cannot excite the Democratic Party base? And why is that? It's basically because they are too moderate and "chummy with business". I think Ezra made a few analytical mistakes here. If we take a hard look at the last two Democratic presidents, we know that they were not elected because they were moderates and chummy with business interests. Carter was elected after the Watergate debacle when almost any Democrat could have won. Clinton won only because Ross Perot got into the race, and neither of them can be said to have advanced the Democratic Party.

Why does the Democratic Party have such bad candidates (Ezra’s rationale for our consistent losses)? Could it be because no “leading” Democrat can articulate a coherent, moral, economic and foreign policy vision for this nation, and thus cannot excite the Democratic Party base? And why is that? It’s basically because they are too moderate and “chummy with business”.

]]>