On the Bright Side: We Saved The Future of the Party In This Election:

[mdguss]

John Kerry ran a great campaign that in time will be remembered as the campaign that brought the Democratic Party back. Our party is once again credible on issues of national security—something that hurt us from the 1970’s until Tuesday. However, many in our party (including myself) made a gigantic mistake in terms of thinking about how terrorism affects politics. Simply put, it doesn’t. The Democratic Party needs to find moderate ground on social issues if it every hopes to win nationally again.

Terrorism is a grand and giant issue. It is the issue of our time, and it will probably define the work that we in politics do for a generation. But it is an issue that has a limited impact on someone living in Parma, Ohio or Shepherdstown, West Virginia. It is removed from their daily lives, and they really cannot do much about it.

It is telling that “moral issues” were the number one issue on Tuesday. I think many voters in areas outside of big population centers have decided that they can’t do anything about terrorism. But they can do things about abortion and gay marriage—they can vote for measures that restrict or ban them. It gives them some measure of control and empowerment. To capture the vote of poor, working class people (where the party does far worse than it should), we need to reform our rhetoric.

“A Stronger America,” was a good slogan, but it missed the mark. It hit on what is the most challenging issue of our time (terrorism), but it didn’t address the feeling of powerlessness that so many people have. Recycling old 1960’s rhetoric won’t work—as these voters have already rejected the liberalism of that era.

“Building a Stronger (or Better) America,” would be an improvement. People have to feel like they are a part of improving our country. George W. Bush has not—and probably will not—ask them to do much as president. The Democratic Party has to figure out a way to empower these socially conservative voters. I don’t have all the answers—and this discussion should last the better part of six months—but I do have some suggestions.

First the party’s liberal activist groups need to stop holding a gun to our leaders head. Picking fights on gay marriage and partial birth abortion was disastrous politics. It would’ve been better for us to pick fights on deathbed visitation rights and the funding of family planning centers abroad. These issues have the ability to put people like Senator-elect Tom Coburn (for the non-Oklahomans a loony guy with a history of saying outrageous things) in front of the camera for the Republicans. If we pick the right fights, we can make the social conservatives look mean spirited, extreme and out of touch with the mainstream of America.

Democrats should not take this defeat as a sign that all is lost. With a little more work and a little better organization, we could’ve won Ohio and the election (I was there, and that is a different post). John Kerry was an eloquent spokesperson for our party. 55 million people voted for a liberal northeasterner. Some states like Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and Ohio appear to be inching towards the Democratic column. George W. Bush received a narrow majority and almost certainly will once again over-reach his mandate and pursue his radical agenda.

If we stay active, if we help elect good people to local offices, if we stand up for what is right, and if we nominate the right person in four years, we’ll win. I think John Kerry is an incredible leader who overcame giant obstacles and got close to winning. I hope he runs again in four years. If he does, I’ll vote for him again. If he doesn’t, I respectfully suggest two names as good potential candidates: Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana and Governor Mark Warner of Virginia. Both are great leaders and would make fine presidents. Do not give up hope. On the bright side, we’re halfway through the Bush presidency.

Sincerely,

Michael Guss
PS--This forum has many great Kerry supporters on it. Thank you for all of the work that you did, money that you donated, and belief that you poured into the campaign. The long lines in the poor precincts of Cleveland were inspiring to see on election day. Be proud of your efforts for our party, our country, and our democracy. They made a difference.

[LTRS]

1. Yeah, we accomplished a lot - like actually winning

Flordia ballots show huge (and I mean HUGE) numbers of DEMS supposedly voting for Bush in very Dem counties. That is indicative of wholesale theft of this election! My partner spent hours crunching numbers last night and there is no doubt - they stole FL and they probably stole Ohio as well. Trust me, we are NOT the conspiracy theorist types, and even on Wed I posting here saying "take off the tin foil hat" to people who automatically assumed it was stolen.

But it was. It really was. Check here.

http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm

It's just not possible that 40 and 50% of registered dems voted for Bush, but ONLY in optical scan counties.

I don't know how to post a spreadsheet here, but here is a summary of how they did Florida:

Summary

-- In 13 of 15 touchscreen voting counties in Florida, Dems gained over what would be expected looking at just registration percentages –more than just Dems voted for Kerry in these counties

-- But in only 7 of 52 optical scanner voting counties (15%), Dems gained over what would be expected looking at registration percentages - this seems a little odd

-- In the touchscreen counties, the average gain was 8% over what you would expect based on Dem registration, including all 15 counties

--In the optical scanner counties, the average loss was 16.6% under what you would expect based on dem registration, including all 52 counties

-- If you apply the 8% average plus the expectations based on registration that was seen in the touchscreen counties to the optical scanner counties where we saw losses in the Dem column, it's a total of 281,143.

If you add this number to Kerry’s total, and subtract this number from Bush’s…

Method
Bush Votes
Kerry Votes

Subtotal
Touchscreen
1,845,876
1,982,210

Subtotal
Op-Scan-Precinct
1,950,213
1,445,675

Adjustment

-281,143
+281,143

Corrected Subtotal
Op-Scan-Precinct
1,668,730
1,727,158

Corrected Total
All Methods
3,514,606 - Bush
3,709,368 - Kerry

And guess what, when you correct, it matches the exit polls!

If we could get the paper ballots rescanned in Florida with machines that had been actually checked to make sure they was no fraud going on, you would see that Kerry very likely won this election.

[mdguss]

2. Sadly it's what happend:

There were a lot of Jewish Democrats who voted for Bush in Florida. Whether they continue to vote for the Republican Party or not is an open question. The country is on the cusp of a realignment. Party affiliations are going to change...we'll add some Republicans to our tent but we'll lose some Democrats to theirs. I don't think that the impending realignment will reaffirm the narrow majority that the Republicans have had on the national level since 1980.

We need to accept the fact that we lost--which really, really hurts. And we need to figure out a way to win by (at the latest) a year from now.

[LTRS]

3. No, you haven't looked at the data

I didn't believe it at first either, and I am the last person to hang my hate on conspiracy theories, but I just don't believe that in 45 counties, huge numbers of dems crossed over to vote for Bush.

[trogdor]

4. OK, fine.

Florida was rigged. That is a given, and it was known to be such even before 11/2. It will continue to be a given as long as we have no real means of stopping it.

What we need to do is solve the greater problem, which is, how to win. Unless we win, we can't do squat, and the problem will become harder and harder until we do win.

Part of my solution: There are still enough states that can be effectively dealt with to give us a victory. Concentrate on those. The Virginias should have been winnable. NV and CO might be as well. This will require work, but I believe it can be done.

Ohio might even still be winnable, but the amount of work required may be daunting, given the prevailing political climate. We first must find someone to run for governor, secretary of state, and other statewide offices, as well as down-ticket. Having an enemy of democracy in charge of making sure your votes get counted is a serious handicap, and it needs to be addressed.

Now, once we manage to win, the first thing we need to do is standardize elections nationwide, based on an open-source model with the least complexity possible while maintaining sufficient security. Running an election with computers isn't rocket science, it's an eighth-grade programming problem.

[lcooksey]

5. We didn't pick those fights, the GOP did

And if we don't bring the subject up, they will. What then? Are you going to abandon gays and the right to choose?

The leadership of the Democratic party has been giving the voters a choice between Republicans and Republicans-light for years now. It doesn't work. 49% of the people voted for a man the GOP labeled (inaccurately) as the number 1 liberal in the Senate. Clearly, being a liberal is not a death-sentence.

[mdguss]

6. The point is:

We should find the ground where they look extreme and out of touch. We'd be in a better posiiton to fight, and to win. Gay marriage was a dumb thing to fight about. The endless comparisons by supporters of gay marriage to the issue slavery were uncalled for and offensive. Death-bed visitation rights are a compelling issue, and one that we could've won on.

Gay marriage--especially because of the way it was framed by the gay rights movement--was an uncompelling issue and an issue that cost us the election. Liberals, and I'm a moderate, need to realize that the world doesn't always think their way. They need to realize that they may be wrong or out in front of the public. We need to focus on compelling issues, and not on the uncompelling issues of gay marriage and partial birth abortion. That's what I mean when I say liberal interest groups need to stop holding a gun to our leaders head. They need to allow our leaders to seek out more favorable ground for a fight--even when that means giving up on part of what they want.