I know hardcore uncompromising "liberals" won't like this, but Rasmussen's research shows the clear path for the Democratic Party in choosing its next presidential nominee.

As Taegan reports here, a liberal Democrat nominee is in (yet another) "toss-up" election with a Republican nominee. However, if both parties nominate a moderate, they have a 42% to 38% advantage automatically.

The advantage for Democrats increases to 46 - 35 in a situation where Dems nominate a moderate and the GOP nominates a conservative (not a stretch of the imagination). By the way, if the Democrats nominate a liberal and the GOP counters with a moderate, GOP advantage 44 - 36.

One thing I would mention quickly is that what distinguishes a liberal, moderate, or conservative candidate is not terribly obvious. However, it is very important to remember that it is not what a candidate truly is or how they would govern but rather how they are perceived by the electorate.

As I indicated up front, there is great debate -- and it will only intensify as we approach the midterms in 2006 and the presidential election in 2008 -- in and about the Democratic Party's direction in choosing its candidates. There is great anger building on the part of certain segments of the party at the idea of nominating a moderate; the oft used nickname is "Republican Lite." There are merits to both sides and I do not believe the assertion that a moderate-by-name must be a person who does not share the progressive values of the Democratic Party. I think the Party can find a candidate that is both popular within and outside of the inner circle of party loyalists.

Bottom line: the Party must come to terms with whether it wants to win elections with broad support or whether it would prefer to lose but do so in an ideological flourish. Hence, my mention of uncompromising in the first line of this post.
- posted by C @ 11:34:00 AM