Democratic (Party) Direction

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

or hollywood actor

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

xpost

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

I don't think it's necessarily too liberal, but it definitely lacks the primal grip of "values"

I mean, we all value things, right? We value ethics, for example, since honesty, fairness, & justice are core principles.

not necessarily, but quite possibly, and yes, respectively.

name one

I don't think they need to use the words "morals" or "values" at all, but on the other hand I don't think "ethics" is necesarily what we're talking about either. "Ethics" to me connotes a branch of philosophy - ie., sterile debates which have little to do with people's daily lives. What they need to communicate is that they are decent people who voters would admire/like/agree with. If the voters think you're a good person, then they will gloss over lots of little policy details. If they don't think you're a good person, you can promise them the moon, but they won't believe you. Unfortunately, things like abortion and gay rights have become a short-hand for some voters on figuring out whether a candidate has values. That is probably a moral fundamentalist fringe whose votes the Dems will not be able to win and probably shouldn't even want to win. But they do need to capture the votes of more moderate voters who worry about rampant sex on TV and loose values among their childrens' friends.

also, we should probably clarify who we're talking about here. "Dems" includes everybody from DLC types like Clinton & Biden to guys like Feingold...

Also, it seems like we're only limiting this to talking about a very specific range of national politics(akin to referring to states as "red" or "blue"), but this doesn't address the other aspects, like state elections(e.g. Montana electing a Democratic governor and Democratic State House & Senate)

There was some major (spring?) 2005 poll all the progressive press was reporting on that found Americans favor Canada-style healthcare, taxing the rich, full domestic rights for gays, etc. Was it Quinnipiac? Can't find it...

It's pretty simple - the population is much more interested in pulling troops out asap. The Dem leadership is not - in fact, many still appear to be trying to out tough Republicans. You know things are odd when it's people like Murtha who are the furthest left on an issue like the war.

yeah, exactly. I think these things just get talked about in some simplified media narrative(again, "your state is RED," etc), and this narrowing just plays into the hands of guys like Rove who are pretty good at taking advantage of such limitations.

OTMFM

Yes, OTM.
I read an article to the effect that Dean is putting most of his effort & resources into rebuilding the party at the local level, precinct level basically, which seems urgent and key. Karl Rove has prob always been a right wing ideologue but he started out doing direct mail, not working on message or on policy. I am not a huge fan of Dean whenever he opens his mouth but if he's getting stuff done at the ground level, it's about time.

I'm not sure which one this was either, but there have been numerous similar studies going back years that support this. In fact the point made upthread about the Dems latching on to movements like civil rights, women's rights, etc supports this as well.

to be really reductive, perhaps unfairly, Lakoff is essentially arguing that Democrats should reframe their most liberal policy positions in a secular language of values and presto change-o, they win. the people in Ruta's article are arguing that Democrats shouldn't just give passionless names to their values, they should talk about where those values come from - family, community, place, country, religion, work, as relevant.

tombot's observation is most otm. while i don't think the work discussed in the piece is free from problems or contradictions, the key takeaway is that there are lots of potential Dem voters who aren't voting Dem because they really believe in the myth that Dems are hedonists, or at least permissiveness freaks, found most often in your big bad cities or somewhere else where people act in ways that folks like you don't (or can't). the Tim Kaine example suggests that if you show them upfront that their stereotype doesn't apply, they will revert to their better nature and vote for you, which they kinda sorta want to do.

xxpost

yeah, i think that what needs to be mentioned that since the rightwingers are really good at controlling media discussion and promoting complete bullshit, Democrats seem to be responding to that, as opposed to what their voters actally think.

Example: Dick Durbin's thing last year, where the rightwing noize machine drummed up so much shit that he felt the need to apologize for a statement he never actually made(calling u.s. troops nazis, as opposed to a comment on Gitmo treatment)

This is probably the party's only hope. Nothing gave me greater pleasure than renouncing my Democratic affiliation on my voter registration card a few years ago. It's ridiculous to me that positions and the discussion of positions trumps philosophy, i.e. "I'm a Democrat cuz I'm pro-choice, support gay rights, against the death penalty..." Millions of Americans like this kind of reductive thinking and good for them; it makes me queasy because, at the end of the day, positions are stupid when expert politicans like FDR, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton get elected and make a hash out of your precious positions.

Maybe this goes to the "values" issue = Feingold perceived (accurately?) as someone with an independent streak who votes what he thinks is right and doesn't stick to the party line.

this defeatist, victimized myopia that the Republicans are somehow playing by a different set of rules (or tactics) has got to end.

did you read the article i linked? it says that the drift is not on policy, but on attitudes. people are voting attitudes first, and the Dems are still running on policy.

Regarding that poll, I ask whether it polled "adults" (I'm betting) or "Registered Voters". I'm sure most Americans do support taxing the rich. Guess what? We already do that, and changing the progressivity of the tax code more than marginally has always been a non-starter. I think it's quite conceivable that most Americans do support nationalized healthcare (though it would be interesting to see how the question was phrased and how much support drops off if you say some call it 'socialized medicine'), and accordingly there have always been Dems who push for that. Clinton sought to take baby steps toward it, in Clintonian style, and Dems got gunshy for years after given the political fallout. But its time is coming back. As for full domestic rights for gays, that doesn't surprise me either, because it doesn't say "gay marriage," which many Americans support, but not most. But most Americans, afaik, would go for civil unions.

In your summary, it still sounds like both of these approaches are only dealing with the way Dems talk about the issues - rather than their actual policy ideas. I think Dems do need to change the way they talk about issues, but I also think they need some new policy ideas which will crystallize this identity shift in a way that speaks to voters. Clinton in '92 didn't just talk about issues in a different way - he had some new ideas, like welfare reform, that split open the old left-right dichotomy.

dude, that's what he talks about. that's what his last book was about. The entire point was to make folks on the left cognizant that they had a concrete set of values every bit as valid and cohesive and fitting in with American history as those trumpeted on the right. He's taken pains to point out that what he goes on about is more than just the magic spin words that will ensure the right folks get elected.

He also has gone on at length that part of the problem is that there is a paucity of new ideas coming from Dem leaders, and that even with his newfound fame, those leaders aren't listening to what he's saying. There's a bit in that NYT piece about Pelosi & others only wanting "the three magic words" and everything would be fine, which is more Frank Luntz/spin territory.

I also think they need some new policy ideas which will crystallize this identity shift in a way that speaks to voters.

exactly.

exactly. building a storyline around your guy is far more powerful than just a laundry list of attractive programs

people are willing to be on our side, but aren't voting for us, because they think we're not on theirs. to the extent issues come into play, we have to, not 'frame' the issues better, but explain why we take the sides we do. and there are a few issues on which we're going to have to recognize that people really aren't on our side. and we're going to have to decide whether we're going to be more accommodating on them, or better at explaining to people why they're wrong. guns are the first one.

The entire point was to make folks on the left cognizant that they had a concrete set of values every bit as valid and cohesive and fitting in with American history as those trumpeted on the right.

yes, i know that. the thing is he's talking about "folks on the left", not the Democratic party. the people we're going after DON'T SHARE the values of folks on the left, so we'll be talking past each other. they do share the more centrist, diffuse values of the party writ large.

My wording might have been a little too strong (at least the asap part), but even the newest Gallup has 50% saying set a timetable regardless of the situation on the ground. That number seems to grow with every poll I see. And Clinton meanwhile, but not just her, still entertain the notion that we should send more troops. What Murtha has to say here is pretty interesting (and this link also contains some poll info). One possible irony is that the Republicans will turn on the war before the Dems are able to in attempt to retain control in the upcoming elections.

people are willing to be on our side, but aren't voting for us, because they think we're not on theirs

exactly. It's one of the main reasons I have trouble considering voting for a Democrat.

But while the Republicans are farther up the tree, look what they're doing. You can craft your message and sell yourself or your ideas or whatever, but your actions must validate your message somehow.

I'm not sure if the Dems talking about "who they are" is really going to solve anything. Yes, maybe in a predominantly Christian state, it helps to say that you're Christian - but have we ever had a Democratic presidential candidate who didn't say they were Christian? Kerry made many references throughout the campaign to his faith. In the end, it didn't seem to help. I think the voters saw someone who was trying to have it both ways on Iraq, they bought the GOP's flip-flopper accusations and absorbed the Swift Boat propaganda, and that kind of settled it, as far as Kerry's moral fiber was concerned. Unfortunately, Kerry was not able to convey any overarching message about values. His proposal to roll back tax cuts on the top income bracket was given no moral context - it came across as the crudest sort of class warfare.

Yeah, I'm not making any sort of point here about timetables (yes, they're nebulous) other than to say it's a pretty clear sign that the general populace is willing to listen (WANTS to listen) to talk about withdrawal. Polls, however, use that word so the answer given is limited by the question.

kerry's an interesting specimen b/c he's half jewish -- something he's always been forthcoming about but not something he ever brought up in debates about religion/morality. he was raised catholic, and it's fair to say that what you're raised as is your religion, but it would be interesting to find out what fundie voters concerned with lineage think about kerry's none-too-distant heritage.

I kind of doubt that was an issue or that many people were even aware of it. In any case, I don't remember hearing much about it during the campaign.

mostly defensively. the point of this article is that you have to define yourself from the beginning. also, making many references does not equal getting the message across. did he do it in tv commercials? in ways that would cross over to free media (i.e. making it the message of the day/week)? and do you think he was believable (whether or not you believed him) to a skeptic?

I don't think the point is that the broad mainstream of voters is not interested in economic issues, it's that they're more interested in cultural ones. Cultural issues does not mean (only) abortion, teh gays, etc., though, it means community, family, time, stress, and culture in the consumer sense. These are issues that resonate with both the middle class and the "working class." To the extent that the working class has more pressing concerns, they're already on our side. The anti-poverty message is a good one, but it appeals mostly to upper-middle and upper-class (Democratic primary) voters. The middle-middle class searches elsewhere for meaning that the Dems just aren't giving them.

Yes, it's true that these people don't respond to messages about the preferential treatment of the wealthy, because they perceive themselves (sometimes correctly, adjusted for community standards) as wealthy, or wealthy enough, but they might respond to messages about the corruption of the wealthy (which is happening right now), or even the ways in which the wealthy use them. But telling people that they're fools, even if true, is a more desperate move that I'm not sure we're ready for in tone or substance.

Those are good issues, and I could see the Dems seeking some advantage on that ground, but I think they'll need more than just talk to be convincing - they'll need some new ideas. If a Dem candidate comes out and says, "I'm pro-family and I want you to have more time to spend with your family", then I think that's a great message. But they need to convince voters they can make this a reality - and not just by providing government aid to the neediest - this has to be something that makes a difference to the middle class.

and, to the extent we're going to innovate, maybe this is what we have to work on. not doing some kabuki move that sells universal health care, but coming up with some project that most Americans can feel involved in. the Republicans have the great advantage of largely owning the War on Terra, though we'll see how long that lasts. we need to come up with something similarly big-sounding that appeals to hope rather than fear. energy independence might be the logical choice, but logic isn't how we win. if that were going to be our bridge (as it were), we need to find a way to bring it into peoples lives and make it meaningful or even exciting.

of course not. you work at the margins, or even on the micro level, and tie the larger theme into your big policy positions that connect with traditional Dem strengths like health care. Clinton knew exactly what he was doing with the Family and Medical Leave Act.

which are who, exactly? people who are 'politically active' but don't vote?

i don't think this is true at all, either assertion.

yeah, you made that point before, and it's totally wrong as respects the modern parties, i.e. since 1950. all you have to point to is Kennedy, who barely won/didn't actually win, and only because he had a Veep who brought in the last of the Democratic South (which promptly turned against him after the civil rights era began at the Presidential level), and Johnson, who benefited from a self-admitted extremist opponent. Kennedy also benefited from a rare optimistic (and youthful) moment in our social history, and Johnson benefited from sympathy after the death of that moment. it also probably didn't hurt that the Depression generation ran society in those years.

well yes. and this is going to be an important part of the Dem Congressional platform in 2006, and perhaps will also be on the Presidential agenda in 2008 (as it was part of Clinton's agenda).

but while disaffecteds shouldn't be neglected, they are not the richest source of potential voters.

Or look at how they handled all the complaints of voting irregularities in the last two presidential elections - how can the Dems expect to maintain a monopoly on the black voting bloc when they won't even bother to defend their voting rights?

(h - you know I'm a pro-union guy, perhaps I'm being unduly harsh, but I just don't see the labor unions as the political force they were, say 40 years ago.)

And the Democratic legislative successes since 1950 have been...? Civil rights? Wouldn't of succeeded without the mobilizing force of black southern churches. Post-Watergate reforms? Wouldn't have happened without Nixon's self-destruction and Republican party infighting. Clinton didn't have any successes, as far as I can tell. Apart from winning elections - which, as I said, you can tie directly to the involvement of Perot.

First - they should do it because it's the right thing to do! But then there are all those people who will be voting for the first time, and are probably the same people who hold minimum wage jobs. And then there are people like me - who never vote Dem (w/ very few exceptions) because there's nothing I can ever get behind.

Shakey- yeah, unions aren't the force they were because nobody holds union jobs anymore. (Membership is the lowest it's been since about 1934 or so.) Otherwise, you're absolutely right about how Dems handled the war.

Not me. And anyway, it isn't just about simply appealling to swing voters - its about mobilization and capitalizing on developing political infrastructures. The anti-war movement could have benefitted and amplified its message and conceivably reached a lot of swing voters IF it had had the support of Democrats - but it didn't. So their message got buried, didn't make it into the mainstream media, and was effectively sidelined by DubyaCo. If the Party had been willing to work with them, it would have conceivably amplified the anti-war movements core arguments and convinced other people and brought about the national turnaround in opinion on the war that has happened over the last year and is still ongoing.

show me the mobilizing force of black southern churches on the Presidential vote. in '64, Johnson won 44 states, but lost Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, and (By the Time I Get to) Arizona. in '60, Kennedy had won all those states except Mississippi (which went Dixiecrat) and (more Western than Southern) Arizona, sometimes by large margins, but his was the only ticket with a Southerner on it, and even then the anti-civil rights movement was beginning to lead the South from the Democratic party

that's true, but that's different from saying they're all corrupt and ineffectual. they do have an affect, just not as great as they used to.

My first and greatest b-day!

As to your larger point, yup. I tend to find hope in events that happen outside of electoral politics anymore.

And trying to hog the center, as they've been doing for, oh, the last 2 decades is working really well.

Oh I agree completely. I just hope people remember this.

I can be over-optimistic electorally, but I think it's quite likely that Warner, for one, early and easily develops into a credible Hillary alternative (if not the dominant player on the field), and Kerry gets laughed out of town. I think Feingold has the potential to be a serious contender in the pre-primary stakes, but isn't going to go anywhere once people start voting.

anyway, there's another thread for personalities. it would be nice that if we talk about personalities here, we try to talk about them in context of the discussion, i.e. what (real, rather than imagined) message they're using

*sigh* I heard a Wisconsin woman, a party activist apparently, say on "Morning Edition" recently something like 'we can't nominate so far left as the last two in 2008.' I reached through the radio and strangled her.

Yes, OTM.
I read an article to the effect that Dean is putting most of his effort & resources into rebuilding the party at the local level, precinct level basically, which seems urgent and key. Karl Rove has prob always been a right wing ideologue but he started out doing direct mail, not working on message or on policy. I am not a huge fan of Dean whenever he opens his mouth but if he's getting stuff done at the ground level, it's about time.

-- dar1a g (dar1a_...), January 19th, 2006.

Absolutely, absolutely. OTM OTM OTM. That's why he's in that position in the first place.

And I think this is the most important part of the solution by FAR. If you build up the party at the grass roots level, you not only have local people to canvass their neighbors and get out the vote, but you have a much larger TALENT POOL from which to pick candidates and strategists. No amount of triangulation using focus groups and advanced polling software is going to replace that, especially since the Republican party will always have the same cheap tricks at their disposal.

There are now better means to get the word out than there were before. Now they just need to figure out what to say, and how know how long that will take.

The people who engineer GOP victories these days are people who are working at the top and doing pinpoint market research the way the guys in the article linked at the start of the thread are. It's about targetting these voters directly and through paid and free media. The organizational base helps only at the margin.

36 are up for grabs, 14 D, 22 R. I just wish stuff like this(i.e. states voting for governors of a differing party than president) would be incorporated into all the shit "red/blue" talk.

it would be interesting to find out what fundie voters concerned with lineage think about kerry's none-too-distant heritage.

They don't like Catholics.. I am guessing neither part of his heritage would be a plus there.

About finding new voters, the Dean campaign's big plan in the primaries was to inspire & bring out all these people who never had a reason to vote before & get them to vote Democrat. That didn't work out too well for them. Through the churches & megachurches in particular the GOP seems to have had more success in this.

-- gabbneb (gabbne...), January 19th, 2006.

But that strikes me as a little like answering the question of "How do you become the most powerful country in the world?" with "By having the best weapons." Where did Republicans get the strategists who came up with these campaigns? Where and how did they get the money to do it?

No offense, but what the fuck are you on??

even I'm not that paranoid. newsflash - there's no such thing as "the Dem leadership". yes, there are Dems who worked to bring down Dean *before* the scream, some of them quite wealthy and most of them aligned with rival candidates (in particular Gephardt, who is only further to the right of Dean if you judge ideology by how they voted on the war and ignore the fact that Dean didn't need to get elected in a Red state)

to the extent the 'Dem leadership' did anything about Dean, they mostly helped rather than hurt him - the CLintons threw Clark into the mix so he could have a Veep who would reframe 'crazy' as 'crazy like a fox', then Gore endorsed him giving him some measure of legitimacy (which you can argue hurt rather than helped him)

No offense, but what the fuck are you on??

no offense, but what the fuck are you on if you don't think Kerry lost because he was perceived as too 'liberal' (i.e. too different attitudinally/identity-wise from swing voters)?

Kerry did not lose for that reason. Kerry lost (and maybe didn't lose at all) because he was a mediocre candidate running against an incumbent in time of war with a position that wasn't in any way distinctive. On foreign policy there wasn't a difference and Bush had the advantage of holding office already.

I think this comparison highlights the Democratic party's huge disadvantage. MoveOn members aren't exactly meeting every Sunday to network and soak up the latest party propaganda. Without a strong, organized union base, what social networks still exist that can bring liberals together to discuss issues and provide an organizational foundation for party politics?

This is a common error in the way the left thinks about the conservative movement; if we were to look at a 'hinge' moment, most historians are starting to see the nomination of BARRY GOLDWATER - yes, BG - as the moment in which conservative politics grabbed a foothold. Sure he lost, but he lost representing a conservatism that was essentially presumed dead, and he did it working with grassroots orgs. Despite the historical noise about the rise of the left's grassroots organizations in the early 60s, the right as we know it now was basically born in the 60s with the Goldwater campaign and the alignment of a bunch of different strands of social + economic conservative thought.

...alignment of a bunch of different strands of social + economic conservative thought powered by grassroots organizations - PTA groups, john birch society, Phyllis Schlafly, Ayn Rand. Everything came together with the parents of the baby boomers.

and also worth remembering that our culture -- as opposed to our politics -- is still largely trending liberal. the culture is globalizing and multiculturizing a lot faster than our politics. politics will catch up.

ideologically, yes. attitudinally, no.

So how can Democrats compete with a powerful top-down structure like the church? Without unions how can Democrats organize supporters and potential supporters in a social situation that meets regularly? Can MoveOn and Dean-style internet "activism" really mature into effective replacements for genuine grassroots organizations that meet in the flesh?

Without unions how can Democrats organize supporters and potential supporters in a social situation that meets regularly?

what would be the purpose of meeting regularly?

The Christian Coalition may be a "top-down organization," but you have to understand that the power of the church comes from the fact that people actually get together and meet. In many non-urban places in America, the Church is THE place for social and family life -- it's the only game in town.

they're an essential part of the chicken. their reach is very much real.

The thing about the Goldwater 'hinge' is that it would likely never have resulted in a conservative revolution if a genial front man like Reagan hadn't emerged. To win the presidency, the Dems need someone who can recast their attitude/ideology/wotdafuck in positive terms, and who doesn't sound like inauthentic and grating with every breath like Gore and Kerry.

RWR was inaugurated 25 years ago today. To update the smartest thing I've heard Michael Moore say, we're entering the second quarter-century of the Reagan Administration.

Well, even if all he manages to do is to get two conservative justices on the Supreme Court (thereby shifting the swing vote to the right) who will likely be there for the next 30 years, he's already been quite effective from the right's perspective.

http://www.ourtenwords.com/about

About OurTenWords
The idea for OurTenWords.com came from a post by Michael Faris on the community blog at HeartlandPac.org.

Michael asked, "What ten words should Democrats use to define their message?"

Tom Vilsack responded with his own ten words, and challenged others to submit their own ten words.

Since then over 500 people have responded to the challenge, making it one of the most active discussions at HeartlandPac.org.

Tom Vilsack found the discussion so promising that he asked the project to be expanded.

His idea was to get as many people as possible to submit their ten words and to discuss them with others. To accomplish this goal Heartland PAC has launched OurTenWords.com to encourage more discussion and ten words from many different Americans.

OurTenWords.com

This site is designed to start a discussion about the Democratic Party’s message by obtaining as many ideas as possible. This is a conversation that everyone needs to participate in -- it must not be limited to certain members of the party, whether they be the grassroots, elected officials, or policy experts. This effort matters so much that we cannot afford to leave anyone out of the process...

Tom's initial suggestion: "Here is my first effort at meeting the challenge and over time I expect my words may change: meaningful opportunity, personal security, individual responsibility, sustainable communities, progressive alliances."

That's the point: people attend church anyway for a multitude of reasons and have strong ties to their religion that can date back into childhood. On the other hand a person's connection to a strictly political organization like MoveOn is much more casual and fleeting. People come and go around election time or when they feel a small victory has been won but apart from a small number of dedicated activists, most people don't shape their entire social life around these groups.

Unions used to be a similar constant presence in people's work lives in the way that the church shapes their private lives but this traditional Democratic base is vanishing with nothing similar to take its place.

and little if any of what I'd consider political organizing - at least of the electoral sort - goes on there.

Perhaps not political organizing in a direct sense but politicians certainly use the church as an ideologically organizing force to rally voters around issues like abortion, gay marriage and other "values." In other words they may not neccessarily be "organizing" in the sense of registering voters or canvassing but they use the church as a way to conceptually organize a group of issues and ideas around an existing group of potential voters.

In fact, if it did go on there, they'd be in danger of losing their non-profit status.

Um...

Midway through the meal, I innocently asked how the "Big Brother is listening" issue would play in November. Judging from his pained reaction, I might as well have announced that Barack Obama was resigning from the Senate to sell vacuum cleaners door-to-door. With exasperation dripping from his voice, my companion said, "The whole thing plays to the Republican caricature of Democrats -- that we're weak on defense and weak on security." To underscore his concerns about shrill attacks on Bush, the Democratic operative forwarded to me later that afternoon an e-mail petition from MoveOn.org, which had been inspired by Al Gore's fire-breathing Martin Luther King Day speech excoriating the president's contempt for legal procedures...

Fire the consultants, I say!

The problem with a consultant-driven overreliance on polling data is that it is predicated on the assumption that nothing will happen to jar public opinion out of its current grooves. As Elaine Kamarck, a top advisor in the Clinton-Gore White House and a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, argued, "These guys [the consultants] just don't get it. They don't understand that in politics strength is better than weakness. And a political party that is always the namby-pamby 'me too' party is a party that isn't going to get anyplace."

Kamarck also shrewdly pointed out that if leading Democrats follow the consultants and abdicate the field on the NSA spying issue (Hillary Clinton, please call your office), "They're going to leave the critique open to the far left. And that will exacerbate two problems the Democrats have: one, that they look too far out of the mainstream, and the other, that they don't believe in anything."

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

The key word there is "consider". Yes, why shouldn't Congress at least consider it? No one except die-hard Republicans would probably disagree with that. But that's still a ways from saying, yes, he should be impeached.

Kamarck's analysis is self-contradictory. How could the Dems simultaneously be "too far out of the mainstream" and not "believe in anything"?

Just like last year -

Carville went on to point out that on the day the U.S. Census Bureau announced an increase in poverty and millions more Americans lacking health care, what did Kerry do? "The event they did," said Carville, "was credit-card debt . . . because someone in a focus group must have said something."

because different people can dislike the Dems for different reasons? I don't see anything contradictory in that statement - she isn't saying people simultaneously hold both positions (altho, that too is possible - people pass contradictory judgments all the time). The public is obviously not monolothic in its thinking.

It seems that Kamarck's basic argument is that the moderate Dems shouldn't be afraid of embracing issues that seem "lefty" because if they don't then the leftists will embrace them, make a lot of noise about it, and basically be seen as the voice of the party, which will reinforce the perception that the Dems are out of the mainstream. And meanwhile, the moderates will stand around looking weak and conflicted as they hem and haw and beat around the bush, which will reinforce the perception that they don't stand for anything.

Unfortunately, this scenario is not implausible. A lot of the blame for this should lie with the news media, which tends to prefer confrontation and controversy over subtlety and nuance - but the Dems still need to figure out how to deal with it. But I don't think the Dems should give up the ability to pick their battles. If they let the GOP and the news media dictate the playing field, then they've already lost. I think the Dems need to identify the issues that they want to stake their campaigns on and force the media to acknowledge those issues. If they don't think that wiretap spying is the right issue, then I think they need to figure out how to change the topic of conversation.

This is exactly right. You guys need to stop talking about "ideas" and platforms and the like as if they mattered! As I said upthread you need an amiable demon of boundless charisma – a Nixon, Clinton, a Reagan – who can look citizens in the eye, convince them that their mother was a man, and lock their votes for the next election.

This is exactly right. You guys need to stop talking about "ideas" and platforms and the like as if they mattered! As I said upthread you need an amiable demon of boundless charisma

Wrong! Once again, this is kicking the can down the road. Yes, the charismatic demon is very important, but you can't conjure him out of thin air. Ideas and platforms don't matter, attitudes do. Demons are charismatic, because they have the right attitudes or know how to simulate them. It's very important to find candidates who come as close as possible to fitting the bill, but the attitude also has to be expressed in the party's language and programs and supporters as well. When the right succeeds at taking down candidates by comparing them to their less attitude-appropriate fellow-travelers (which the GOP is currently trying to do to everyone prominent in the party), you have a problem that even a charismatic devil may not be able to solve.

"Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world," Rove told Republican activists. "That doesn’t make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong — deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10946712/

I don't think that nitpicking the Republicans on specifics of the "War on Terror" is a winning strategy for the Dems. The wiretap spying issue would fall into this category. Yes, Congress has an obligation to investigate the legal justification of this, but I don't think that Dem candidates should seize on it as their road to victory in November.

or say that the current group in charge has made us far weaker as a nation, has betrayed our trust, etc.

no! that just sounds weak. it's asking someone else to take care of the problem (message: because we can't on our own). also, as above, you need to let people draw conclusions, not hand them over asking that they be accepted.

and where is your fucking memory, Kerry VOTED FOR THE INVASION OF IRAQ, that's what screwed him (among other things, but in the War on Terror(tm) that was his real achilles heel). He didn't say he wouldn't have invaded Iraq, he said he would've invaded it BETTER. Duh.

when has this ever worked? When has one side putting out info and letting folks decide worked better than the other side deliberately and/or disingeniously pushing the other side of it with an explicit conclusion? i think this is way too simple and expects way too much of most folks who can't be bothered to pay attention to any of this stuff.

it does not. One of Kerry's problems is that he WOULDN'T say this. He wouldn't come out & say the obvious, and ran against a guy and an entire set-up which had no problem is repeatedly reinforcing their version of it. It is not a sign of weakness to say that we've been fucked over for a while now, we're worse off than we were before, and new people need to get in there to fix the damage.

It's a hell of a lot more compelling to make your complete case, conclusions included.

Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo,

i thought that was a GOOD idea, since it seemed like something they could just stand back from and watch the republicans thrash about against the florida court system.

patriots, company men, churchgoers -- people who really want to belong to the mainstream. people who use the phrase "good old-fashioned" a lot.

I dunno, that splash page reads pretty much just like Kerry's rhetoric.

hahaha it's statements like that that if not changed soon will result in another 500 post thread in 2009 on 'A New, New Democratic Party Direction'. When American voters who consider abortion and homosexuality to be big issues are considered fringe fundamentalists whose vote SHOULDN'T EVEN BE WANTED it shouldn't be a surprise when you lose elections. You're saying that at LEAST 33% of the country should be ignored and their votes not even desired by the Democratic party. It's like you're trying to polarize people and lose elections.

At a cost, son. I don't give out my golden internet wisdom for mere conversation.

At a cost, son. I don't give out my golden internet wisdom for mere conversation.

Begala told a great Bill Clinton story -- Begala and Carville were going on about how awful they thought the 2004 Dem Convention was, largely because the Kerry campaign insisted on "nothing negative" in the speeches.

Well apparently Bill Clinton didn't much buy this idea, and prepared a pretty strongly anti-Bush speech anyway. At the last minute, he's waiting to go on, Begala at his side, and this "dweeby kid" from the Kerry campaing comes up and says "Mr. President, you can't give this speech. It's too negative." Begala is fuming, but Clinton just calmly says, "That's alright son, I think it'll work out just fine. Run along now."

My own point that I like to add is that you have to make sure you have people other than your candidate do all the dirty work and savaging. Bush himself always came across as comfortable and positive. He might jab at Kerry, but he'd do it with a smile. It was everyone else who did the real savaging. And admittedly it was a brilliant move to get a Democrat (as it were) to deliver the harshest speech of all.

Meanwhile, Kerry was inconsistent -- sometimes trying to play "positive" and then sometimes attacking Bush but falling flat and coming off as cranky.

Considering that political campaigns are nothing but marketing I think the major players are stuck in a button-down 1960s ad agency frame of mind. Where are the Chiat/Weiden/Saachis (not to mention the Putney Swopes)?

Yeah, if only Saatchi could work some of the magic for the Dems that he worked for Margaret Thatcher in the UK.

It wouldn't be hard.

to the extent the 'Dem leadership' did anything about Dean, they mostly helped rather than hurt him - the CLintons threw Clark into the mix so he could have a Veep who would reframe 'crazy' as 'crazy like a fox', then Gore endorsed him giving him some measure of legitimacy (which you can argue hurt rather than helped him)

that's completely nuts.

why?

1. clark didn't help dean, not even "mostly help"
2. gore /= clinton, possibly even gore /= "dem leadership"

"Last year I was appearing on a Boston TV show... This was about the same time that Harriet Miers was nominated for the Supreme Court role for which Judge Alito just completed his audition. Preceding me on the show were two women who were involved, mostly behind the scenes, in the Democratic Party. They were there to discuss the nomination. As we were chatting in the green room, one of the two mentioned that she had been one of Vice President Gore's key staffers.

"Hold on," I said. "Were you involved in preparing him for his first debate with Bush?" She replied in the affirmative. I was practically salivating now. "I have been waiting five years to ask this question. In that debate, the first question to your man was, 'Is Governor Bush qualified to be President?' At that moment, experience was a key issue in the race. Gore had been in the Congress, had spent eight years as VP doing all kinds of high-profile stuff, while the other guy had the reputation as being a naïf. It was a big advantage for your side. So," I said, nearly shouting now, "when the moderator throws you a gimmie like that, an obvious chance to score points, WHY DID GORE SAY 'YES?' DON'T YOU REALIZE YOU LOST THE ELECTION RIGHT THERE?"

The women glanced towards each other while I wiped the spittle off of my shirt. "No, no, no," they said, nearly in unison. "Saying 'no' would have looked petty and mean. You let proxies do that for you. You stay above it."

I was nearly speechless. "People liked the other guy because he seemed honest and direct," I said in a high, airless voice. No answer. They were still in denial. They had learned nothing from the tactics that had been used against them for roughly six years, if not since Joe McCarthy. In today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd had a column about how the Republicans have consistently succeeded in casting the Democrats as effeminate wimps.

It's actually kind of a simple bit of reasoning: people don't like you personally, and fair or not there is no way of convincing them to like you. As such, you might as well go down stressing your objective qualifications rather than subjective ones that no one believes anyway."

http://www.yesnetwork.com/yankees/pinstripedblog.asp

(Jan 18 entry)

i'm talking about intentions, not results. and neither of us knows for certain what their intentions were. but i would dispute you on results - the Dean/Clark ticket became an instant talking-point.

2. gore /= clinton, possibly even gore /= "dem leadership"

that's because there's no such thing as the "dem leadership", but gore has as much claim on it as the Clintons do. and i see no reason to assume that their tactical intentions diverge significantly.

i meant no, of course

rahm (sorry, still smiling about that one)...gabbneb, you don't actually pay for that echo chamber, do you?

I fully admit this is my own paranoid conspiracy theory - but its not the yelp and ensuing media frenzy, it was the way Gephardt fell on his sword in Iowa, running extremely negative ads and basically savaging Dean at every opportunity, simultaneously shooting his own campaign in the foot by looking like an asshole. But it def. damaged Dean's credibility and upped the stakes of the primaries - and Gephardt is too much of a party loyalist for me to not to suspect the hand of the Dem leadership (ie "ohmigod who can we get to stop this brushfire - lets throw Dick Gephardt at it, he's not gonna win anyway). The yelp and the media hoohah was more a case of Dems standing idly by and pointing and laughing - note that no one came to Dean's defense. The Dem leadership at large was happy to see him fail, and more than willing to fan the flames by calling his outburst "unpresidential", etc.

But yes, this is pretty much just a crank theory of mine.

Oh yes, political genius - hostility to the person who brings you your audience.

I pay for the Times to be thumped against my apartment door.

you also have to recognize that 80-85% of voters are 30 or older

tracer mostly OTM (re the part about the dems being "left"). OTH, it wasn't as if truman, lbj, or fdr pulled punches when punches needed to be thrown.

xpost

because I've often thought of him when reading your posts.

Echo chamber? Aside from Krugman, they're all bad, but in pretty different ways don't you think, don?

very few of them ever challenge the Editorial page's dogma--although admittedly the only time I acknowledge by glancing at it read the OpEd is on Sundays anymore (that's the only time I ever actually buy the paper.)

but this is what i'm saying only if you adopt this binary view that says being on the offense requires getting all het up about it. this is what i was trying to illustrate above - Bush/Rove don't go around and say "John Kerry/Democrats would surrender in the war on terrorism," they say "I/we believe that fighting the war on terror takes [X]; some have a different view". The candidate should let flunkies and supporters connect the dots, but should attack only indirectly as an antecedent to making the positive case for what the candidate is going to do. Taking someone on directly just lowers yourself to their level. That kind of attack more often will wound the attacker, as an acknowledgment of their own weakness, than their opponent.

Of course, this is more about 2004, when Dems were actually out of power, than 2000, when Gore barely held on to it (running away from Clinton might have made sense on some grounds but it destroyed the biggest thing he had going for him - incumbency).

cf Imus in the Morning and all his inside the Beltway buddies.

#1 reason why my father & his country club cronies are just about permanently disgusted with the Democratic Party. a few of 'em (lawyers) grudgingly voted for Kerry because they hate Bush but otherwise they think national Dems = wussy, don't stand for anything, out there in far left looneyville. I hear this over and over and over. Not "they're wrong," but "they're so clueless that the idea of voting these guys into power is 100% inconceivable."

I can't even tell you how many times I overheard my ex roommate telling some poor friend of hers or another about how GWB mighta fucked up, but at least he "stuck to his guns, had a plan and is following it thru" as if being the most pigheaded person in the world is such a great accomplishment but that's what the people like. Changing your mind or waffling = confused and disoriented, not trustworthy.

I should say that I mean as a matter of power/alpha-ness, not morally.

to fight for the center, which is where the votes are, you have to start by credibly asserting your place in it, and rhetorically holding your opponent outside the circle. attacking the opponent directly brings them inside.

attacking an incumbent for his official acts is even worse, because you are acknowledging not only that the incumbent is inside the circle, but that you're outside, trying to get in. the only way to successfully unseat the incumbent is to try to move the circle to where you stand, such that the opponent is now outside it. that was pretty hard to do in 2004, and I'm not sure Kerry would have been able to do so even if he understood the need to do so. Clinton did it successfully in 92 (putting people first), but he had a much easier opponent. Bush arguably succeeded in 2000 with Clinton/Monica's help, and Gore came close to turning things around by trying to turn himself into Clinton 92 (the people vs the powerful).

and what do they think of Gore and Dean? the Dems absolutely have to make addressing the wussy factor one of their top priorities, but they also have to get that attacking Bush/GOP in the wrong way makes them look even wussier.

yeah, I definitely agree with this. The whole "steadfastness/stubborness" was one of the constant storylines trumpeted. Jon Stewart summed it up with, "He may have driven us into a brick wall, but at least he didn't blink." Of course, there was plenty of evidence disproving this, but etc etc etc.

However, I do think Dems need to start adopting more of the Americana side of heartland isolationism, even if it means wrapping themselves in the flag and smearing themselves with apple pie. Mmm, pie.

Well, yeah, to a lot of people.. er, it does if they can't understand why. If there's no underlying sense of core values it just looks like everything is done for short-term political gain and according to focus groups.

Whereas with W lotsa folks still think, OK, he has his core strong beliefs so therefore all the stupid shit he does (& including plenty they don't even agree with) is comprehensible in the context of his larger, uh, vision or whatever.

So yeah, reluctance to vote for the Dems because the devil you know is still less scary than the devil you don't. And ya know if the other current in the race is Dick Cheney et al going PH34R DISASTER ARMAGEDDON OMG WMD HOLY SHIT than, yeah, it's likely you're even more afraid to risk going with the devil you don't know.

Well, at least there won't be an incumbent in the 2008 Presidential race, so everyone will be more or less on an even footing as far as that goes.

that oughta help win over the "git-r-done" demographic

I'm not even kidding.

I disagree, at least to your terms. People already think the administration isn't doing the job well enough, but still trust them to do better than the Dems. If Dems said 'you can't do the job', it doesn't address the fact that the public doesn't think Dems can do it either. Instead, Dems have to say 'we're here to get the job done right', and they have a huge credibility barrier to hurdle by means of personality, rhetoric and actual practical steps to point to, as well as ceaseless assertions that they want to protect America, while "others have different priorities," namely... etc.

a huge credibility barrier to hurdle by means of personality

this means not only finding a sufficiently alpha personality, but also finding a personality that knows the limitations of its alpha-ness. you don't see Bush on a horse.

My prediction = if it gets them anywhere it's through no fault of their own. No, they'll have the Bush admin to thank a thousand times.

STRAPPED: Why America's 20- and 30- Something's Can't Get Ahead

no, you don't get it. (I have no idea what Dem "consultants" say, but I'll stipulate to your kossack/Sirotan belief that they are a monolithic group counseling meekness.) I'm not arguing for Dems to look and act as centrist as possible, I'm counseling that they assert their ownership of the center, aggressively but mild-manneredly (yes you can do those things at the same time) where necessary. Where a Dem position is really way outside the center, which would be rare but conceivable, they should consider whether it may be wrong.

or they just move the center to where they are.

centrism-of-spirit has served Dems very well since Carter thanks very much. the two cultural centrists - Clinton and Carter - won. those who lost were Northern/urban/insider professorial types who did little to argue that they better stood for American values than their opponents.

Appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture by President Clinton, McGovern lobbied for a universal school-lunch program funded partly by a $1.2 billion annual U.S. contribution. As an isolationist skeptical of foreign aid, I am able to restrain my huzzahs, but I’d sure as hell rather spend a billion buying lunch for kids in Bangladesh than $300 billion occupying Iraq.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/images/magcover.jpg

Clinton - 49.2%
Dole - 40.7%
Perot - 8.4&

do the math.

did you have some other math in mind?

xxpost - In the same issue they run a pro-Gene McCarthy piece, a piece about Mencken, and a piece critical of Greenspan. Like I said, I don't think it's an easy magazine to pigeonhole and although I don't have a sub I always check in.

But back to gabbneb and his "obstructionist binaries" and focus group claptrap...

uh, actually it's not. Clinton 96 got 49.23. Gore 2000 got 48.38. Kerry got 48.27.

"do the math"

In other words, whose "centrism" are you talking about?

sorry, I'm still including Perot's numbers. I know how you hate that. Total votes for other candidates vs. total votes for Clinton = Clinton won by a tenth of a percentage point.

and? these corporations give millions to both parties (3 of the 4 are among the top 100 soft money contributors 89-02). they favor Repubs because Repubs are more on their side.

Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of 'centrism'

this is the sleight of hand Sirota specializes in. he doesn't say that the DLC is doing the corps' bidding, but he tries to make it sound that way. I see no reason to ascribe nefarious motives to the DLC any more than the party itself.

This is what is kind of confusing me.

Rahmneb, are you saying that Democrats need to claim ownership of the center and then define later what the center is? Or do Democrats claim ownership of centrist concepts and by default claim the center?

And do they claim the center by crying BUSHCO IS THE MOST EXTREME ADMINSITRATION EVAH by default or does the party just claim the center and then let the electorate figger out how EXTREMIST Bushco is?

xpost

I think it's fair to say that a lot of potential Clinton votes went to Perot and at the same time safely conclude that Perot cost Bush (and maybe Dole) the election.

really? in 96? you want to explain with the numbers?

Back to square one...

And yeah, far-leftist-candidates always do fantastic!

Wtf are you seriously talking about?

xpost that's the thing, it'd be nice if SOMEONE on this thread would define their definitions of far this or far that or blah blah blah cos I'm not really sure how quite a few of the republicans being bandied around as democrat nemesises don't qualify as "centrist" in some way.

But I wouldn't count to heavily on bringing non-voters on board. It's a nice bonus, and something to work hard on for the long term, but in any given election it seems to be a relatively minor factor unless you're running Arnold Schwarzenegger.

At any rate, he could've given up Colorado, Nevada, Louisiana, Georgia, AND Ohio to Bush and still would've won the election.

no, you're the one with the 'what if' scenarios that involve something other than Clinton winning 96 by 8.5% of the vote.

and o. nate raises an interesting point. are Dem popular vote percentages directly proportional to moderation?

Truman - 50%
Stevenson '52 - 44%
Stevenson '56 - 42%
Kennedy - 50%
Johnson - 61%
Humphrey - 43%
McGovern - 38%
Carter '76 - 51%
Carter '80 - 41%
Mondale - 41%
Dukakis - 46%
Clinton 92 - 43%
Clinton 96 - 49%
Gore - 48%
Kerry - 48%

I'd say no. But they do seem pretty proportional to how comparatively Southern the Dem ticket was.

so your point is that Clinton would have lost if Perot hadn't run because more people voted for Dole + Perot + Nader + Harry Browne + write-ins than voted for Clinton, never mind that Dole + Perot were not > Clinton (and somehow imagining that the popular vote winner is automatically the EC winner)?

what they need to do is just start ignoring that shit. define themselves, and say "i don't care what blowhard bullies like bill o'reilly or dick cheney says, those guys are full of shit." right now, they seem so scared of what people say about them, which is a bad position to be in when the opposition controls talk radio and owns its own cable news network.

again you're counting votes for Perot as votes for Clinton?! why do you keep doing this? Clinton - 49.2%. Dole - 40.7%. Perot - 8.4%. % for Clinton = 49.2. % against Clinton = 49.1%. That is not an 8.5% margin of victory.

*bangs head against wall*

Stevenson - 44%
Stevenson - 42%
Kennedy - 50%
Johnson - 61%
Humphrey - 47%
McGovern - 38%
Carter - 51%
Carter - 43%
Mondale - 41%
Dukakis - 46%
Clinton - 49%
Clinton - 52%

no, % against Clinton, following your logic, was 50.77%. but you know that if you argue that Clinton actually would have lost, rather than that Clinton actually won by a tiny percentage, your argument would fall apart under its own weight.

Dewey - 47%
Ike - 55%
Ike - 57%
Nixon - 50%
Goldwater - 38%
Nixon - 48%
Nixon - 61%
Ford - 48%
Reagan - 55%
Reagan - 59%
Bush I - 53%
Bush I - 50%
Dole - 46%
Bush II - 48%
Bush II - 51%

seem pretty proportional to non-wussiness + perceived centrism to me

oh, and look at these numbers and tell me we're losing because we aren't far left enough

I think Bush has taken more trouble to burnish his centrist credentials than y'all are giving him credit for: boosting federal education spending, giving prescription drug benefits to seniors, nominating minorities to prominent administration positions - none of these are actions that would align him with the stereotypical image of the reactionary right.

On the face of it that would seem to be disgusting partisanship during a time of war. But I'm only going by what I've read on certain blogs. Is there some fundamental difference between the use of executive privilege by Clinton and Bush that I'm not aware of?

which is exactly the same thing as centrism + non-wussiness. totally otm.

it's important to be centrist-appearing in policy as well, but it's the personal style and attitudes that stand in for ideology with middle of the road voters that come first.

xpost- ok, well, good luck on election day. May Dem lack of gutsiness or inspiration serve them well.

Back to Perot for a second - he did prove that, yeah, sometimes people want to hear something outside the limited framework of what's deemed acceptable. The Dems would do well to at least take a lesson from his willingness to say things nobody else was at the time. People respond to that.

Back to Perot for a second - he did prove that, yeah, sometimes people want to hear something outside the limited framework of what's deemed acceptable. The Dems would do well to at least take a lesson from his willingness to say things nobody else was at the time. People respond to that.

OTM.

If Democrats just went out and told the truth, they'd have a lot easier time getting those who don't typically vote and are disillusioned with the system (about half the country) to make up for the conservative base. Hell, they'd probably pull a few republicans while they're at it. But as long as they choose "safe" candidates over good candidates, fuck it, its tough for me to get behind them (no matter how bad the republican party is).

you still don't get it

It must be difficult being the bearer of truth when nobody wants to listen. Don't give up though.

this is because Feingold is very good at doing exactly what I argue for on this thread - arguing his position to voters in the middle or on the other side in respectful but firm language that reflects conviction that his ideas are right and in the center, but not attacking or being histrionically angry. he would conceivably be my top prez or veep choice (other than the fact that he isn't in an executive position and can't point to many accomplishments) if he weren't twice-divorced and Jewish, which I'm afraid are sufficient for enough voters to say he isn't for the things I'm for.

but the idea that he wins because he's the down-the-line leftist and Kerry isn't is ridiculous. which one of these guys voted for Roberts?

Well, the only way I can see them wooing any of the half of America who can't care to vote is by admitting that they've made their fair share of mistakes along with being honest and straightforward. This is a country in which 20% of the voting populace (in an election that saw fairly impressive turnout too) voted for Ross Perot; the people are there to cast the votes. They just need to make a half decent attempt at moving towards them. It may take someone from outside the traditional political machine to do this for the Democrats, really.

the Republicans are totally foaming at the mouth hoping Hillary will run. (and no I wasn't necessarily referring to you gabnebb - tho I don't particularly find Warner or Obama all that great, as I've said. I don't know anything about Schweitzer. I do know I'm not voting for anyone who was stupid enough to be pro-war. I held my nose and did it for Kerry and I won't do it again.)

That wasn't my point in using that example - just the opposite, that he wins by a landslide despite being perceived as being the most leftist senator. The example is meant to poke a hole in your idea that one must be this, or one must be that; that's just marketing research nonsense, people don't think that way. People don't care about "centrist" or "far left," which is obv when it can only be the case that people who voted Bush ALSO voted Feingold. There's no point in trying to cling to an ever-shifting and vague idea of what is centrist. Take a stand on the issues, period. Dems who do this do well. Who really misses Daschle? Despite nobody wanting Bush as prez, is anybody really crushed that Kerry isn't?

Re Hillary, her early numbers are embarrassing. Romney v Clinton? Hahahah, I'll stay home.

this is why she has no serious opponent. but part of me thinks she's playing a double game - she's building up the presidential prospect in order to get a bye into another 6 years in the Senate.

People don't care about "centrist" or "far left,"

I agree, as a matter of ideology. But I'm using 'center' and 'left' as stand-ins for deviations from the cultural/attitudinal middle. I'm not arguing for clinging to an ideological center, I'm arguing for giving an attitudinally-centrist frame to your positions and programs (which need not change very much, though they might change at the margins).

That's the kind of myopc attitude that lets the Karl Roves of this world eat you up. There are fringes to the party, sure, but the more obvious they are the more they are used against you.

But I'm using 'center' and 'left' as stand-ins for deviations from the cultural/attitudinal middle. I'm not arguing for clinging to an ideological center, I'm arguing for giving an attitudinally-centrist frame to your positions and programs (which need not change very much, though they might change at the margins)

Is this triangulation with a new haircut?

What it seems you're saying is that if a reguarl tough guy candidate avoids polarizing moments of ego and clings to Senate life raft of compromise politics, then that is the winning formula.

this is so wrong! the democrats don't get hammered for being fringey or lefty, they get hammered for being Pussies Who Can't Keep You Safe From the Boogeyman!

The only thing that's stopping the Democrats gaining power is that they seem weak on national security during a time of war. And, in that context, whining on about wire-tapping terrorists is, in terms of their chance of ever gaining power again, the worst thing they could possibly do.

In addition, i) unlike those two 'great' presidents, Bush hasn't jailed his critics, suspended habeous corpus, or interned those of the same race as the enemy, so by precedent, has not behaved in the exteme fashion which was tolerated by former presidents the Democrats profess to revere.

and ii) It's not even clear that he even broke the law at all.

And (to repeat what I said above) even if he did, how can Democrats not seem to be disgustingly partisan during a time of national crisis when they condemn Bush's okay-ing the warrantless wire-tapping of people's phone conversations with members of a group that have explicitly declared war against America, but did not say a word that Clinton's okaying of warrantless wire-tapping of US citizens who merely had connections with members of organised crime?

On the face of it that would seem to be disgusting partisanship during a time of war. But I'm only going by what I've read on certain blogs. Is there some fundamental difference between the use of executive privilege by Clinton and Bush that I'm not aware of?

By whom? A majority of Americans are open to impeachment proceedings if he broke the law, and it seems clear he did. I'd call this another missed opportunity -- Dems sit on their asses afraid of being called any number of things and the moment passes. And no, there's no difference between Clinton and Bush in regards to abuse of executive privilege -- in fact Bush deserves some credit for being more candid -- but that doesn't change the grim reality or let Bush off the hook. That seems like a no brainer.

race, religion - ahhh whodafuckcares?!

But, leaving that aside, I think if the Dems want to persue this line of attack, their only chance of having it pay off would be to simultaneously bring legal proceedings against Clinton for the same crime. Anything less is going to get called treasonous opportunistic partisanship, whether it is or not. They're not going to do that, obviously. So they should just drop this and start playing to their strengths.

You haven't got a leg to stand on.

Democrats are really on a mission to nowhere if they think anything positive is going to come from this line of attack.

Does that mean you think I'm wrong?

How confident are you? How about this -

I'll give you 2 to 1 that Bush won't be successfully impeached. Nevermind whether a Democratic presidency will follow. I.e. you lay down any amount of money with a third party and I'll lay down double. If Bush is successfully impeached you win the lot, if he isn't I win the lot.

I can afford up to £1000 for this bet. (to be held by a third party)

well yes, but what it really means is i think you can go have your bogus white house talking points debunked on about 75,000 liberal blogs, and it would be pointless to regurgitate the argument here. or, conversely, you can go have them applauded on about 75,000 rightwing blogs.

1) "After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants. Do you approve or disapprove of this?"

2) "After 9/11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants, saying this was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism. Do you approve or disapprove of this?"

To question #1, 46% approve and 50% disapprove. To question #2, 53% approve and 46% disapprove. So it sounds like as long as Bush continues to harp on the terrorism angle, public opinion is likely to remain on his side - which makes impeachment seem rather unlikely.

Yes, Democrats should make an issue, but they MUST MUST MUST harp on the potential for ABUSE and not just the illegality.

Dems have to make an issue out of it in order to be a credible opposition party (and besides, it's the right thing to do), but also should not expect it to be an election-winning issue and should in no way make it the focus of any campaign.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134929/

Liberals are not nearly so rare and so culturally isolated as the official map would suggest. This is little comfort to Democrats when it comes to the math of winning elections. But it does suggest that endless self-flagellation about their values and beliefs may not be the best strategy for turning things around.

This is not an argument for complacency. Obviously the party that has lost the White House, both houses of Congress, and now the courts needs some new ideas and new energy. But it seems undeniably true to me — though many deny it — that the Republicans simply play the game better. You're not supposed to say that. At Pundit School they teach you: Always go for the deeper explanation, not the shallower one. Never suggest that people (let alone "the" people) can be duped.

First, it failed the party. People are more reluctant to identify themselves as liberals or propgressives than they wre in 1988 and one of the reasons is that people like Al From and his boys helped the Republicans degrade the label to such an extent that people don't want to be associated with it. It is one thing to criticize your brothers; it's another to sully the family name. They continue to do this by talking about purging Michael Moore and Move-On and generally showing such a lack of respect for the grassroots that you wonder why they don't just call us all filthy rabble and tell us to eat cake. The lesson here is to never employ GOP rhetoric about the Democratic Party, ever. This is one thing that simply has got to stop.

I agree with don't-distance-yourself-from-the-party. But look at his examples - neither Moore nor MoveOn is actually part of the party. I'm ok with distancing yourself from allies who you think don't understand the playbook and insist on running the wrong plays. That's exactly what the left blogosphere does to Lieberman, et al all the time, and it's hypocritical to suggest otherwise. And maybe we even benefit from this division, the way the GOP does from its Wall Street and fundy division at the lower levels. But at some point, to come up with a national message, one side is probably going to have to give on which playbook is right, because unity on the wrong strategy may be preferable to division - Kerry and Gore were arguably easy to paint as wafflers because they spent a lot of time trying to avoid picking sides, Hillary will probably be easy to paint in the same light because she appears to be trying to pick both sides simultaneously, and Warner or some similarly fresh equivalent is arguably the best choice in 08 because they can be another Clintonian rorschach test. But what I've been trying to do on this thread, and I think a lot of people in the party are trying to do, is to come up with a third way that unites the two playbooks.

As to the DLC boogeyman, I'm perfectly willing to believe that Al From is some evil dude, but all I really see in support of that contention is the certainty of the speaker, not much substantive evidence.

But most of the people they engage are. Exactly what were the fruits of Clinton's "fourth way" (first I've heard of it)?

Facts alone, note Aubrun and Grady, aren’t enough to educate people; instead, facts must be carefully packaged (or “framed”) in the context of narratives or explanations if they’re to enhance knowledge. Consider the technically complex issue of climate change, where attacks on science have been rampant and the public has been deeply confused. Grady and Aubrun have found that as an explanation, the “greenhouse effect” simply confuses people. Few Americans have any firsthand experience of greenhouses, and they don’t grasp the proposed analogy between carbon dioxide (a gas) and glass walls. So instead, Grady and Aubrun suggest talking about a “carbon dioxide blanket” encircling the earth—an explanation that instantly helps people understand why a heating effect is taking place. Sure, it’s a metaphor and shouldn’t be taken literally. But then, so was the concept of an ozone “hole”—a phrasing that instantly allowed the public to understand the issue of ozone depletion and that helped to galvanize political action.

The problem not only with fundamentalist Christians but with Republicans in general is not that they act on blind faith, without thinking. The problem is that they are incorrigible doubters with an insatiable appetite for Evidence. What they get off on is not Believing, but in having their beliefs tested. That's why their conversations and their media are so completely dominated by implacable bogeymen: marrying gays, liberals, the ACLU, Sean Penn, Europeans and so on. Their faith both in God and in their political convictions is too weak to survive without an unceasing string of real and imaginary confrontations with those people -- and for those confrontations, they are constantly assembling evidence and facts to make their case.

But here's the twist. They are not looking for facts with which to defeat opponents. They are looking for facts that ensure them an ever-expanding roster of opponents. They can be correct facts, incorrect facts, irrelevant facts, it doesn't matter. The point is not to win the argument, the point is to make sure the argument never stops. Permanent war isn't a policy imposed from above; it's an emotional imperative that rises from the bottom. In a way, it actually helps if the fact is dubious or untrue (like the Swift-boat business), because that guarantees an argument. You're arguing the particulars, where you're right, while they're arguing the underlying generalities, where they are.

Once you grasp this fact, you're a long way to understanding what the Hannitys and Limbaughs figured out long ago: These people will swallow anything you feed them, so long as it leaves them with a demon to wrestle with in their dreams.

Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities

I haven't read the article yet, but I think it could be a Frankie Goes to Hollywood 12" cover for the naughties.

A slamdunk example of cronyism and mismanagement, and what does the Democratic spokesman do? He criticizes the Republicans for "standing by their man" - apparently totally oblivious to the fact that phrasing it that way makes the Republicans look solid and upstanding and reliable, as "standing by your man" is something most Americans would consider a virtue. Totally inept handling of the media...

Paul Hackett just quit the Senate race in Ohio due to reported pressure from Harry Reid & Chuck Schumer to switch to the House race against Jean Schmidt. Somebody needs to dump the bullshit consultants that the DNC listens to:

Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said that part of what made Democratic leaders nervous about Mr. Hackett was what had also made him so popular with voters.

"Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker, and he became an icon to the liberal bloggers because he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician," Ms. Duffy said. "On the other hand, the Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown."

Mr. Hackett was widely criticized last year for using indecent language to describe President Bush. Last month, state Republicans attacked Mr. Hackett for saying their party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said "aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden."

Though Republicans called for an apology, Mr. Hackett repeated the mantra of his early campaign: "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it."

who are these consultants?

only if it gives in to the desires of some that it become the party of alienation

Won any elections lately? Had any legislative successes lately?

no it isn't. they're both running against an incumbent with 40% approval ratings, the lowest in the Senate. while theoretically a grapefruit could win, the guy who's more "electable" is the guy with built-in name recognition who doesn't get on the news only because he uses profanity or physically threatens someone who disrupts one of his events. i don't want to let the GOP parlay stuff like that into a victory (wouldn't be extraordinarily hard - go for the McCain "he's nuts" route, or the family values one) when the election is a gimme for our side as a referendum on the incumbent.

hahahahahaha o rly?

oh, this guy. there's been plenty about him floating around online lately. It didn't help that he had the Dubya embrace at the latest SOTU.

Do you think U.S. troops should have to serve under United Nations' commanders? (yes, no, undecided)

Do you support President Bush's initiative to allow private religious and charitable groups to do more to help those in need? (yes, no, undecided)

xpost

I figured I'd just
wait for Eth4n to tell us
it was OTM

multixpostBlount
I got a survey from the Republican Party ....

"My donor base and host base on both coasts was contacted by elected officials and asked to stop giving,” Hackett said. “The original promise to me from Schumer was that I would have no financial concerns. It went from that to Senator Schumer actually working against my ability to raise money.”

Saying he felt betrayed by his own party, the 43-year-old Indian Hill attorney dropped out of the Senate race and declared his short political career over.

“I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests from party leaders, as well as behind-the-scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign,” Hackett said in a statement.

How embarassing would it be to have this quote included in a national news story?
“Chuck Schumer should buy a conical hat and follow the wall until he finds a corner,” said Bob Brigham of San Francisco, one of three bloggers who runs the liberal political site SwingStateProject.com.
Bob Brigham, wit for hire.

“The original promise to me from Schumer was that I would have no financial concerns. It went from that to Senator Schumer actually working against my ability to raise money.”

yeah, he's leaving out the intermediate steps of Hackett failing to make up his mind whether to run, Brown entering the race, and then Hackett entering the race after Brown was declared

....Personality in a media age precedes policy.

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=838

I don't even like state-sanctioned marriage for anybody, but everytime I hear a pandering Dem say "marriage is between a man and a woman" I yell "Fuck you" very loud.

ANSWER: Converting to the metric system

Republicans: F
Democrats: F
Greens: F

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFOOOOPPP!!! Disdain time!

I haven't felt this way about the U.S. before.

As does Osama.

As does Osama.

As do the pancakes.

ihttp://www.petsinuniform.com/images/pancakes.jpg

http://seattlecentral.org/faculty/jhubert/mallard.jpgwidth="500" height="250">

Of course, all the guys I like aren't in control of things.

Howard Dean the talker is iffy; Howard Dean the planner is better.

He's famous, sort of smart, well spoken and hot. All Reagan had was famous.

"More or less money will do nothing to make Defense Department programs and mangers accountable through rudimentary financial management. Managers in the private sector who fail on this measure are fired; some go to jail. In the Defense Department, none are held accountable; many are promoted. When that changes, competent program and financial management can begin...

The Democrats want us to ignore how they helped to create the mess and their current intention to do nothing about it. In fact, they are not even thinking about solutions--and the Republicans appreciate that."

http://www.forward.com/articles/7819