NYT: Democrats See Dream of '06 Victory Taking Form

[highplainsdem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/politics/13dems.html

Democrats See Dream of '06 Victory Taking Form
By ROBIN TONER

Published: October 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 - Suddenly, Democrats see a possibility in 2006 they have long dreamed of - a sweeping midterm election framed around what they describe as the simple choice of change with the Democrats, or more of an unpopular status quo with the Republican majority.

That sense of political opportunity has Democratic operatives scrambling to recruit more candidates in Congressional districts that look newly favorable for Democratic pickups, to overcome internal divisions and produce an agenda they can carry into 2006, and to raise the money to compete across a broader playing field. In short, the Democrats are trying to be ready if, in fact, an anti-incumbent, 1994-style political wave hits.

Already, the response to Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq and soaring gas prices have taken a toll on the popularity of President Bush and Congressional Republicans; new polling by the Pew Research Center shows the approval rating for Congressional Republican leaders stands at 32 percent, with 52 percent disapproving, a sharp deterioration since March. (The ratings of Democratic leaders stood at 32 percent approval, 48 percent disapproval.)

<snip>

But for Democrats to step into the void, many strategists and elected officials say, they must offer more than a blistering critique of the Republicans in power, the regular attacks on what Democrats now describe as a "culture of cronyism and corruption." What they need, many Democrats acknowledge, is their own version of the "Contract With America," the Republican agenda (calling for tax cuts, a balanced budget, a stronger military and an array of internal reforms) that the party campaigned on in the 1994 landslide election, when it took control of the House and the Senate.

<snip>

[deadparrot]

1. Well, the Dems are planning to roll out their most "positive" platform

in years for 2006. And they're starting NOW, to curtail any GOP whining that Democrats don't have any ideas.

[Zynx]

2. I hope we don't manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again.

I think we have learned a lot of our lessons from the past, but I would like to see a harder line on Iraq(in opposition I mean).

[deadparrot]

3. Me, too.

And I belive that that was part of the platform. At least, the setting up of a timeline for pullout. It's probably not ideal for most on DU (including me), but I'll take what I can get. I'm just happy to have a coherent strategy in place.

[mazzarro]

18. Defeat via DLC?

That will definitely happen if DLC is allowed to lead the 'charge'! A robust campaign by democrats need to be led by true believers in the core principles of the party and not the faux-democrats that are shilling for the 'big' corporations and neocon initiatives.

[Fluffdaddy]

22. Oh Please. It's not core principles, It's win at any cost..... baby.

If we have to move "a little" to the center to pull two or three Red States..So be it. Or we will have 4 years of Jeb to look forward too.

The DLC is playin this just right.

[loudsue]

37. The DLC NEVER plays ANYTHING ...except "Right"

Right wing. Corporatist whores is all they are. They've taken over the Democratic party...infiltrators. Just like good ole DLCer Zell Miller!!

You sure don't see any of them standing up for our VOTING RIGHTS, do you? All they want is more Diebold & ES&S -- the same people that are keeping them in their positions.

:kick:

[wryter2000]

34. With Dean in charge

With Dean in charge, I'm sure we can come up with a very positive agenda.

[roseBudd]

4. how about a platform of wonkish competence?

[htuttle]

6. I think boring, wonkish competence would go over rather well right now

...Like people able to do math in their head, and form complete sentences.

Would be quite a novelty in today's political climate!

[liberalpragmatist]

14. Unfortunately that didn't work so well in '04

If I recall it seemed like the last 6 weeks of '04 were basically Kerry arguing that Bush was thoroughly incompetent.

Then again, in '04 his approval ratings weren't 39%

[woo me with science]

20. It didn't work for Dukakis, either....

Remember the ridicule he took for his debate comments about competence, and his lack of passion and vision?

I think there is a tremendous opening for Democrats with BIG ideas in 2006 and 2008. People are visibly angry about what has happened to this country since 2000. Bush talked sweepingly about freedom and prosperity, and look what has happened. Democrats can reap big results if they can resist the habit of holding back and focusing on the negative and details. If they can make these elections about reclaiming the real American dream, which includes prosperity for real Americans, integrity in government, actual religious tolerance, and respect for freedom and individual rights, there is potential for a real connection with voters.

[Born Free]

17. America First !

Democrats need to focus on America, helping each and every American attain their goals.

[PSPS]

5. This just pisses me off

The very first line in the article just pisses me off.

"Suddenly, Democrats see a possibility in 2006 they have long dreamed of..."

It paints the democrats in congress (accurately) as just "dreaming" that "it will happen some day." I mean, come on. Given the set of circumstances that have been literally killing us for five years, how could anyone even imagine it would be any other way? Well, I'll tell you how. These democrats in congress are the most milquetoast, compromised, corrupted and cowardly people I can even imagine. I sometimes wonder if anything would be any better even if their "dream" somehow magically came to pass.

[nvliberal]

7. Yep, let's trash the Democrats, and let

the Republicans off the hook when once again another election is rigged.

You know that without election reform the Republicans are going to gain seats next year.

[loudsue]

38. Diebold may as well just tell us who they're going to pick, so we

can all save our money, trouble and heartache! I agree with you, nvliberal; if we don't fight like tigers to get fair elections in this country, all we're going to get on the dem side is Hillary Clintons and Joe Bidens and Joe LIEbermans.... the most corporate friendly who will "play nice" with the republicans while the citizens of this country get raped, pillaged and plundered.

It's time to take our country back, starting with fair elections.

:kick:

[Le Taz Hot]

29. You are correct, PSPS

We MUST clean house and throw out these corporate whores who bear no difference from their Republican counterparts. This DLC/MOR crap doesn't work. We haven't won an election in 10 years. All the whining about how the media doesn't give us enough attention (whaaaah!), how we must move to the right to appease the squishy middle (hasn't worked in 10 years why the HELL would it work now?) and (goddess forbid), "let's not say anything bad about our fellow Democrats" (Reagan's 10th commandment anyone?) is a LOSER. People are WAITING and HOPING for the Democrats to be an opposition party. Shall we say the word slowly? O-P-P-0-S-I-T-I-O-N. How many of these mo fos' voted FOR the war? What the HELL was that???? How many of them voted for the Bankruptcy Bill? How many of them voted to confirm Roberts?

We've got the 2006 and 2008 election in the bag IF we return to what Democrats are SUPPOSED to be about -- defending the middle class/working class, pro-union, pro-choice, anti-poverty, making the rich pay their FAIR share and no more corporate (or political) welfare, just for starters.

Ignore the "we must goose step to the party line" crap you'll often hear from the DLC-faithful here on DU. Viva la independent frickin' thought!

[Daftly]

8. The Dems need their own version of the Contract on America.

That little thing by Gingrich was a political stroke of genius. Before the election, they need to spell out and lay out a set of things they want to change if they are given control of the house. It needs to be broken down into chunks the public can digest bit by bit. A simple check list if you will.

That is what the repugs did. They laid out what they thought the public wanted to hear. Never mind that they did not follow up on any of their promises.

[Gregorian]

9. Great idea! Here it is.

I would love to see them do this.

[electropop]

11. The Constitution is actually rather pithy.

If it were required reading in our schools, we wouldn't be in this mess now. There would be no 39% approving of this regime.

[Daphne08]

15. I agree!

Most Americans have probably never read the document and have no idea that the government is there to serve us, we the people, not to serve the corporations and the powerful elite!

[oregonindy]

10. hopefully some more independents too!

[cyr330]

12. Yeah, right

Sorry for being pessimistic, but I think the Dems will just fuck up a great opportunity again. . . . They always do. . .

[Goldensilence]

13. hmm nope

not a chance without any sort of election reform.

Even then...then dems silence over the past 5 years has been volumes enough for me.

[sandnsea]

16. Can't even win New York City

Apparently the terrorist alert gave an even bigger boost to Bloomberg, among the most liberal voters in the country. I'm afraid too many just aren't seeing the writing on the wall, we've got to have a national security policy that people have confidence in. That's going to mean sounding agressive on occasion and I don't think it includes a Dept of Peace right now.

[Zynx]

21. Bloomberg is a popular mayor with a 60%+ approval rating.

National security hasn't got anything to do with it.

[sandnsea]

23. "Reputation on security grows"

"Two polls show that the mayor's response to the latest terror threat - an alleged plot to bomb subways that authorities said was alarming in its specificity - nearly doubled his lead over Fernando Ferrer. And an overwhelming majority of voters believe Bloomberg is stronger on security than his opponent."

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/355021p-302601c.html

[Zynx]

24. Yes, but every analyst believed Bloomberg was going to win anyway.

No one gave Ferrer a chance.

[sandnsea]

25. So just ignore the security issue

Is that it? It's right there in black and white, Democrats can't win unless we're strong on security. If liberals in NYC don't even believe it, then how are we going to convince anybody else. And if liberals in NYC prefer a Republican, why should the rest of the country want a Democrat. I don't live in NYC, I'm just a hick from rural America. But it seems to me there's answers in that election, if we just open our eyes and look for them.

[Zynx]

26. The 2006 election will have very little to do with national security.

New York is a special case because Bloomberg is so liberal that he's barely a Republican, the Democrats still can't field a strong candidate in NYC, and of course they were directly impacted by terrorism. Terrorism is not an issue most people care about right now. Any look at the polls will tell you that. I think the less Democrats talk about national security the better. Our strength is domestic issues where we currently own the Republicans down the line by huge margins.

Btw, what is your definition of being strong on national security? Supporting the Iraq War? Supporting pre-emptive attacks? Supporting a further increase in defense spending? None of those things are supported by anything close to a majority of Americans right now. Americans have such a negative view of the Iraq War that we have nearly become isolationist again. This is a fundamental shift in Americans' attitudes and it is important to note that. Quite frankly, I will pay you $10 if voters say their primary issue in voting is national security/terrorism next year.

[sandnsea]

31. Unbelievable

National security is ALWAYS an issue. The reason Katrina was so upsetting to most people is because it exposed the reality that we are not prepared against a terrorist attack. Just because a handful of people on the left believe terrorism is made up, it doesn't mean the vast vast majority of the country believes that. The numbers in NYC prove that people take terrorism very seriously and will continue to. Whether it's the PRIMARY issue isn't the point, the point is that the Democrat in NYC can't even get off the ground and terrorism is a big reason why.

It also doesn't help when Iraq is mixed into terrorism and it isn't only Republicans who do that, just as it isn't only Republicans who insist on painting the issue as warmongers against peace activists. Most people aren't that black and white on Iraq either, which is why only about 35% call for immediate complete withdrawal. National security and foreign policy encompasses so much more than Iraq, which most people are aware of as well.

In any event, people are sadly mistaken if they don't think NYC voting for a Republican reflects badly on our chances next year. That or New Yorkers are as dumb as they accuse red state republicans of being. Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Why should the rest of the country vote against Republicans when NYC liberals don't even do it.

We've got a ways to go before we can count on a Democratic sweep next year, and NYC is proof of that fact to me.

[Zynx]

32. It's always AN issue, but it is not what it was in the past two elections.

Terrorism is real and I accept that, but it is certainly not the main issue on the minds of most Americans right now. People are much more concerned about gas prices, the budget, the economy, and rebuilding the Gulf coast than whether Al-Qaeda is going to attack us again. While the Democrats should appear strong on terrorism, they should recognize that this is the Republican strong point and is a waste of time to go after.

Republicans are weak on Iraq and those that list Iraq as a priority right now are overwhelmingly those that want our asses out of there. Indeed, I believe you are behind the times on public opinion on Iraq. The situation has shifted to be overwhelmingly favorable to Democrats if we are more aggressive. A minority now says "stay as long as it takes". Among national those Americans predominantly concerned with national security, Iraq is THE issue. Terrorism barely registers at 10% as the top concern anymore. It is dwarfed by the economy/jobs/gasoline/health care, which combined show that domestic issues are front and center for most Americans. Things are different after Katrina. People are shocked at the poor state of conditions at home and no longer have any support for Bush's handling of Iraq.

I believe we make a huge mistake in thinking that the case of NYC shows any problem. It seems to be an isolated incident in an election where Bloomberg was going to win by a huge margin anyway. Other national polling from the same time shows ratings for Bush and Republicans in general continuing to drop even with that BS going on in New York. Furthermore, if one looks back at even the 2002 election, our biggest problem was that voters chose Bush and the Republicans over us on the economy, the biggest issue to voters in the exit polls. With the economy slowing, Iraq a mess and no longer seen as linked to terrorism by a majority of Americans(that's a fact), and all the issues of Republican failure in government, the "Terra!Terra!Terra!" stuff doesn't work anymore. You have seen no effect on national Republicans and to say that because we can't win in NYC we can't win nationwide is like if I said because the Republicans looked likely to lose the governorships of Wyoming and Kansas that they were in rough shape in 2002. Don't take a local race and extrapolate it when there are clear national trends that say otherwise.

[sandnsea]

33. You're skipping a whole poll number

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

You're ignoring the fact that the "remove all" number is at 30-35% and that over 50% of Americans have disapproved of how Bush was handling the war since May of 2004. And that, as you yourself said, Democrats own the economy and domestic issues and have for quite some time. We lost on terrorism last year and if we don't turn that around, we're still going to have a tough time in 2006. You can have all the laughing at terra terra terra you want, it's an issue that gets into people's guts and simmers there. It comes out in elections, not issues polls, just like last year.

The problems the Democratic Party has are obvious when NYC liberals consistently vote in a Republican. There are reasons for that and people ought to be paying attention. In the short term it's terror, in the long term I would bet it's law and order and clean cities and upstanding citizenry, boring Republican stuff.

[Zynx]

36. The Democrats don't say "cut and run".

They are calling for a gradual withdrawl and a timetable and that's what most Americans want. I don't see an issue here.

And my point was that we actually did not own domestic issues in the past two elections. If one looks back to 2002, people chose Republicans over Democrats on the economy, we had almost no edge on education, and so on. In 2004, more people trusted Bush to handle the economy than Kerry. I would submit there is no way in hell we can win when we don't have a positive economic agenda. Economics is the bread and butter of the Democratic Party and has always been our path to victory and majorities. However, we have lost our edge on this issue completely. We have it back again this we since Bush's numbers on everything have slipped beyond repair, but only for that reason.

[sandnsea]

40. Wow

You don't even recognize 9/11 and Iraq as the major issues in the 2002 election. I just don't even know what to do with that kind of thinking. And to pretend you weren't attacking with your pro-war Dem rhetoric, just wow. And more people trusted Bush with the economy in 2004??? What polls were you reading? We won on everything except terrorism in 2004, Bloomberg's margin doubled on terrorism, and we still have Democratic grassroots who deny it even exists. Now I really am pessimistic.

[Zynx]

41. Okay. Look at the 2002 polling.

I remember distinctly that the primary issue for voters was the economy, though Iraq and 9/11 combined were larger. However, the issue was that we lost on the economy too when we should have dominated. As close as the 2002 midterm election was, can you imagine if we had won on economic issues as well? When it was asked in 2002 towards the end who was trusted on the economy, people named Republicans. As to your call for the party to be strong on national security, it just so happens that our Senate leadership voted for the Iraq war and supported Bush's bullshit to the letter and did we get anywhere? So what exactly do we gain by making the battle about national security? We should focus with a positive agenda elsewhere.

Now, I will give you some facts that you may find interesting since you seem to be ingnoring facts. In 2004, exit polls showed that Bush had 49% say they trusted him on the economy and Kerry had only 45% saying they trusted him. Did we win on the economy? Sure, we had those who said they voted based on economics vote for Kerry overwhelmingly, but you have to look at cause and effect here. Voters who were pre-disposed to vote against Bush would likely say that they disapproved of his economic performance as their primary reason. However, voters as a whole did not believe Kerry would do a better job on the economy than Bush. Also, voters who said they were "worried" about terrorism voted for Bush by only a slightly larger margin than those who weren't "worried", but both groups voted for him.

I firmly believe part of the reason Kerry lost is that by saying that we didn't make the wrong decision to go to war, he helped cause the increase in support we saw during the campaign for the Iraq war. This was what was "being strong" on national security brought us. Look at the data. Support for the war increased throughout the campaign even as Kerry took Bush head on regarding national defense because we were not in opposition. What should Kerry have done? Move closer to Bush? Endorse his positions further? I'm sorry, I just don't see how this formula adds up to victory. National defense is their playing field and it is a waste of time to attempt to convert people during an election. It simply raises the issue profile in peoples' minds and makes it more difficult to bring the election towards our natural fields of advantage.

[sandnsea]

42. *sigh*

This just makes no sense. You pretend terrorism isn't an issue and then try to back up your argument by saying it didn't matter because the vote was close for both candidates. Then you use the same margins argument on the economy in order to say it did matter. You must have found the only poll to have Bush ahead on the economy, because Kerry led on the economy throughout the entire year in almost every poll.

He led on everything, consistently, except for terrorism and, to a lesser extent, Iraq. The only thing that has held up Bush's numbers for a very long time has been terrorism. Katrina eroded those numbers and that's why we're seeing the freefall now.

Support for Iraq did not increase throughout the campaign, I just don't even know where you come up with that, support for invading Iraq dropped 10 points over the course of last year, in almost every poll. But that didn't translate to support for immediate withdrawal, and still doesn't, and that's where the left misses and hurt the campaign last year. THAT is what people didn't trust, that Kerry would be pressured into leaving by the left, even if it leaves Iraq in a civil war, allows some to be slaughtered, or turns the entire region upside down which is the real fear. Until Democrats can convince the majority of Americans that they will defy the left on military matters, if it's necessary, Democrats will have a hard time taking back anything. And, a bunch of spending programs masquerading as an economic policy is not going to do the trick either, just like it didn't do the trick in 2002.

Finally, ALL of this is why Bloomberg is winning. And, it's why Democrats had better wake up to that election if we're ever going to win nationally again. People like to point to Schweitzer and Colorado as blueprints. Well those people didn't win on anti-war and a haha to terrorism campaigns either.

[pelagius]

19. The Dems have got to write off the Rapture Right and...

...not let them control the agenda. If we spend the whole cycle arguing about abortion and gay marriage, we've lost. Not that these aren't important issues, but they're distracting wedge.

We need a bread-and-butter "If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic" campaign. And come up with a simple five-to-ten point platform that addresses the real needs of the frightened middle class.

[roseBudd]

35. Dems will never get the RR, if we could turn out the poor the way the GOP

turns out churchgoers, the GOP would be toast.

I can think of two types of motivation taht could produce increased turnout in low income communities, anger or pride.

Pride from being a fan of the winning team.

We should made the analogy that the dems are like the Boston Red Sox vs. the Yankees. The team needs the fans and with loyal fans a scrappy team can pull off the seemingly impossible, the big win.

Anger would be stoking the rage of Katrina. With Bush polling at 2% with African Americans you can believe it is there and ripe to be pushed with inflammatory (all true) rhetoric.

If poor people voted at the same rates as the rich, there would be no GOP.

[peter from vermont]

27. Still Needed: Unifying Theme/Label: Here's One: "The Partnership Society."

Still Needed: Unifying Theme/Label: Here's One: "The Partnership Society."

Some elements of this idea: We believe in the importance of personal responsibility and the duty of every citizen to do the best they can to work hard and meet their obligations to society, as best they are able. At the same time, we belive that society, and government owe its citizens the duty to help people when they can't help themselves, and do the big things (protect the environment, support health care systems that work) that people can't do alone.

This is the way partnerships work - partners with unique and different abilities devoted to a common goal of mutual success, support, prosperity and achievement, for individuals and society.

This is very different from the Ownership Society, where each person is permitted their individual block grant of tax breaks (health savings accounts, ira's, set state budgets for medicaid) and allowed to sink or swim on their own. If you fail, too bad, the government has met its very limited obligations to you, and you can't ask for anything more in times of need. This vision of a radically diminished role for government is based on 19th Century concepts of private property. Though it is marketed with appeals to freedom and autonomy (you can invest your retirement dolars more wisely than the federal government) it is really a disguise for a dismantaling of government and the social saftey net.

Partners work together toward a common enterprise, owners trust no one and manage and selfishly manage and protect their assets.

Example:

Partnership model in health care: federal underwriting for catastrophic medical costs that lowers the cost of health insurance and makes it available to everyone.

Ownership model in health care: health savings accounts that the poor amd middle class won't be able pay into.

Anyone think this has legs as a unifying principle?

[Zynx]

28. This is basically the old Democratic social contract with the country.

It did work quite well for a time and then the Republicans used race to splinter the Democratic coalition apart. I think it could work again in the modern political environment.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

30. "Democrats See Dream of '06 Victory Taking Form"

And as long as Diebold, ES&S, Triad, and Sequoia are the ones doing the vote collection and tabulation, it shall remain but a dream.

[Tom Joad]

39. I hope the platform does not include a "better managed war in Iraq"

[buddysmellgood]

43. Why do they perpetuate the myth that we don't have a platform?

We are the party of true national defense, of fiscal responsibility, of energy independence, of health care and education. WE ARE THE PARTY THAT CARES ABOUT PEOPLE.
Is that so hard for the press to report?

[DaveColorado]

44. The timing is rife for a dem pickup,

however they need a coherent strategy and message.

I won't hold my breath, but with Dean in charge, I'm hopeful.