THIS is how we win.

[Pepperbelly]

Nothing, I repreat, NOTHING matters politically until we come to grips with our basic problems. As a party, we have not learned how to deal with the playing field as it now stands.

We have opponents who have not yet plumbed the depths to which they are capable of sinking. They do it quickly, they are more than willing to lie to do it, and they are absolutely shameless. They will pour money into this effort at every level, their pundits all carrying the same message while our people flounder, not even knowing what the fuck to say. And when we do try to counter, we never take it on directly, focusing instead on process inconsequentials. It sickened me when I heard them do this.

The media overwhelmingly enables whatever kind of low-life shit these bastards want to do. Swiftboat Vets, anyone?

And then there is the whole question of election mechanics --registration problems (and the Protect the Vote Act or whatever that piece-of-shit Diebold/suppress the vote atrocity was called), election day logistics, and what about the way the votes are counted.

These are the factors that we have to address successfully to win. Until then, everything else is window dressing.

[Ardee]

1. The journey begins with a single step

That step , for me, is a decision as to whether the current leadership of the Democratic Party is in tune with my vision for America, is steering the party in a direction i wish to go.......well is it?

[Pepperbelly]

2. What current leadership?

I mean ... who is the leadership? I guess it is those who are actually elected.

[Ardee]

7. Uh no it is not

It is the membership of the DLC and ,to a lesser extent the DNC....Now if you think about the leadership of the House and Senate then you are correct. My statement concerns the direction of the Party itself, not how those elected support or oppose legislation....

[bullimiami]

3. I think it boils down to fair election. period.

The majority have proven that we are not so stupid to fall for media manipulation, and we are able to distinguish lies from truth.

All we need is a fair election.

Real fair elections. No tricks, no purges, no long lines, no challenges, no rigged voting systems and no voting on a working tuesday.

we should have weekend voting or a holiday on voting day, fair access to all and a tamperproof verified and audited system.

[Pepperbelly]

4. You may be right about that.

At the same time, the other two problems put us at distinct disadvantage as well but it does start with knowing that the votes cast are cast legally and fully and accurately counted. Without that, all else is irrelevant.

[floridaguy]

8. Absolutely

No. 1 priority!

[Doncha_know]

22. Good point but

If everyone is not able to vote with weeks of early voting and absentee voting then I don't see how it would help having a day off from work to do it.

[lwesty]

5. You are absolutely right

Why don't our guys say BULLSHIT when one of theirs stand on their moral high horse. Everyone is focused on all the little smokescreen issues and allowing it to obscure the real issue which is good old fashioned cheating. The only thing the Democratic party has to do is gain some street smarts. We don't need to sink to their level, just be one step ahead in order to counter whatever they may pull. I'm still holding out hope that they are intentionally staying under the radar in order to investigate more effectively and I'll wake up one morning to a glorious headline!!!

[sariku]

6. I agree that...

We have to come to terms with our basic problems. However, if that only includes examining the outside influences, then we've lost again. We need to take a management approach. Examine every influence, external and internal. Our democratic "leadership" has failed us in many ways. We need to get rid of the pride and really examine those failures. What ways do we fail, why do we fail, why do we make those choices, which are the better choices.

I think that too many dem leaders have gotten scared. Now, I can't blame them, but as I tell my kids, being scared is perfectly okay, but making your decisions based on fear is NOT okay. Those dem leaders who are only interested in maintaing the status quo, not rocking the boat, etc - buh-bye. Those dem leaders who think that going along with the repubs is the way to do it (to which I say Hah! like that's ever worked) need a serious talking to. Knock that right the fuck off, or get out.

One of the things we really need is a reassessment of what we are all about. The results of that reassessment needs to be communicated to our leaders.

[BeFree]

9. reassessment of what we are all about

Is there any question what we are about? If there is, then it's because of the constant navel examinations.....

Anyway, the two sides are quite evident. The opposition leans to supporting the elite big guys. They support big business, big military, and a whole host of laws designed to chip away at an individual's rights.

We support having the government leaving individuals alone, riding herd on the screw-ups big business is prone to indebt society with, and limiting the most wasteful and bloated government operation - the military.

Really it is quite simple: We are for humans, they are for corporations.

So, what is the most cloudy issue we face? How our votes are counted. The evidence recently presented should attract the complete attention of the people, and our leaders. Without a thorough and open examination of how our votes are counted, nothing else we say or do means diddly-squat.

Dems ran a remarkable candidate this election. One who thoroughly understood our principles and had great promise of putting those principles into action. However, due to the way our votes were counted, he, as well as we, have been stripped and laid fallow.

Nothing else means anything until our votes are counted as cast.

[annabanana]

12. We DIDN'T fail, that's the point..........

And that's why unsnarling the creaky, unreliable voting substructure should be the #1 priority. It should certaintly be ahead of watering down our convictions. The "swing-voter" vote is abysmally tiny compared to the non-voter.

[sariku]

15. But that's the thing

We shouldn't even consider watering down our convictions. I agree that we must examine what is going on with the voting system in this country, and assess the true amount of disenfranchisement that is going on. But at the same time, we need to take a good, long look at what we are doing, how we are doing it, and what we hope to accomplish.

[Pepperbelly]

21. any assessment of positions would be irrelevent anyway unless ...

we come up with a way to handle the CRAP the gops use and to tailor coverage to our specs rather than the gops.

[sariku]

26. I think they are two different issues

And probably need to be handled that way, for the most effectiveness. It gives me the creeps to even try to comprehend how long it would take for the dem party to take a thorough assessment of where they are, where they're going, and how they're going to get there, from inside and out. Hell of a long time, but if they make changes along the way, it might not seem so long.

[KC21304]

10. I think the Dem Strategist had it right.

The media is the problem. We need to attack, shame, join, supplant, whatever. Did we ever find out who he/she was, by the way ?


I agree with all the other suggestions, but if we don't get more of the media willing to investigate and report fairly we won't make any headway.

[VioletLake]

11. Perhaps we need to launch a "shame campaign"

against the Bush admin. and its accomplices.

[Redleg]

13. I agree. The mainstream media, however, doesn't care about their lies.

As far as they are concerned, the election is over and anyone who complains of Rethuglican dirty tricks is a whiney pussy loser. That's why I resolve to do what I can, on my local level, to harass Republican liars every chance I get, even if I end up offending people I know.

[Nordic]

14. which is why I am abandoning the Democratic Party

they are an utter failure and deserve to quietly pass into the night.

I want a new party, one that's competent.

[sariku]

16. New party vs. rebuilding

I think that it would be easier to simply rebuild the dem party. Why? Because third parties in this country are a joke. Our country, quite simply, is not open to a third party, which is a shame. We'll have to overhaul our current system before a third (or more) party will be allowed to have a reasonable impact.

[m berst]

17. maybe

You are just speculating here. We say that third parties never win for the simple reason that when they do win they are no longer thought of as third parties.

Third parties, historically, have on occasion had tremendous impact. Some have succeeded - witness the Republican party in the 1850's and the Jacksonian Democrats a generation earlier. More recently Teddy's Bull Moose party, while failing to win, had a strong influence on the other two parties. Then we have George Wallace's run in 1968 which initiated the exodus of the Dixiecrats from the Democratic party and the re-alignment of the two parties.

The question then becomes, is this one of those rare times when a third party could have a major impact, or could become one of the two major parties.

[sariku]

19. But really...

When was the last time that a third party won so resoundingly that they were no longer thought of as a third party?

And with your examples, one thing that jumps out at me is - what happens to these parties afterward? The Bull Moose party - where is it now? The point I'm trying to make is that what we should aim for is not something that is a 'flash in the pan' - but something that has staying power.

[m berst]

20. staying power

"...what happens to these parties afterward"

Political parties are not corporate brands in the marketplace, nor are they football teams. I fear that 30 years of the media presenting the parties with these metaphors has corrupted our understanding of how politics works.

"Where are they now" is a meaningless question, since they weren't anywhere ever to begin with. They are just associations of people organized to put forth ideas and candidates. They are popular expressions of political sentiment, and the ways in which these sentiments become translated into parties and labels is dynamic and interactive. The Jacksonian Democratic party formed more or less equally from supporters of the two existing parties, and was strong and vibrant until the Civil War. Since then the party called "Democratic party" has undergone many changes. Is it the same party as it was in the 1850's? Hardly, but the name lives on. Since it is always made up of the people who happen to be controlling it, there is no hard and fast or consistent identity or position built into the party.

The Republican party started as a third party in the 1850's and became dominant for decades. The name still exists, but the Republican party of today, like the Democratic party, doesn't much resemble what it was in the 1850's. Where is it? What is it? Hard to say since it is so changeable.

There is no basis for the statement that "third parties never work." Third parties almost always work in their moist important function - as rallying points for groups and for ideas that are not being addressed by the two major parties. Sometimes this results in a new party attaining power, and sometimes not. Always, though, the political process is affected by them.

[sariku]

25. I'm not assuming

Where are they now is NOT a meaningless question, unless you're content with having an effect on the system in the short-term - or having a long-term affect in a smaller way. It is one thing to have a movement touch politics in a meaningful way at one point in time. It is another thing for them to become part of the political process and change the process by the fact that we've now opened the system up to more choices than a or b.

Stop and really think about this before you start assuming again that I'm equating the political process with brand names. The best example you are coming up with is ... 150 years ago? This exemplifies what I am trying to say - political change in this country with parties is slow to non-existent. That has got to change. Third parties don't have a hell of a lot of hope right now because our system is not open to third parties. Furthermore, I worry that we have changed so dramatically from the 1850's - hell, even from the 1950's - that the things that were accomplished then will be much more difficult to accomplish now.

[m berst]

27. agreed

It seems much harder recently (last 100 + years) for a third party to become a major party, but that may be because the conditions have not been there until now. I see a lot of parallels between today and the 1850's and the 1820's and the 19-aughts.

I think that it is possible that many people are trapped in the wrong party. Many working class Republican voters are only being held to the Republican party by a thin thread, and many centrist Dems are more similar to moderate and liberal Republicans from the old days (pre-Nixon).

The third party efforts by the Jacksonian Democrats and the Republican party were realignments of voting blocks under a central set of ideas and a new banner.

So the "where" that a successful party may exist is in the hearts and the minds of the voters, not under an existing banner - my remark about brand names.

So a successful political movement, which may for a brief time be a "third party" or may be one of the existing parties juxtaposed to another third party movement, does not necessarily follow a particular name or organization.

I think that the poor, the working people, the rural and the minority people have much in common, and should a populist progressive movement be started, as a third party or within one of the existing parties, it would cause a major realignment of voting blocks. I can see a moderate to liberal party of the "haves" and many professionals and business and finance people on the one hand, and a progressive populist party on the other hand of the have-nots. How these would form, and what name they would each have, and whether or not a third party movement would be one of them or would be the catalyst for this realignment is all hard to say. This change would mean many DLC people departing from the union and minority voting blocks, and many rural blue collar people who are now voting Republican, moving out of the Republican party.

That is what I see, and of course this is all speculation and opinion. Both parties are unstable and are cobbled together with people who don't have much in common politically. I predict that they will come unglued soon, and a third party may well be part of that.

[sariku]

29. On coming unglued

I think we're seeing some obvious indications that it is happening with the republican party.

I guess that with the democratic party, my worry is what can we accomplish as quickly as possible. I'm seriously worried about what is going on with our country. And I think that we need serious effort to stop this push to the right. So what I focus on is what can we accomplish, and how fast, with the two choices: New party or revamp old party.

[m berst]

30. yes, I see it that way too

"New party or revamp old party..."

Either could happen. At least one will with certainty, I believe, and maybe both. For us and what we do, the two aren't really mutually exclusive, maybe, and it is hard to predict which will happen and we sure can't control it. I would say work with whomever wherever for progressive causes and public education and at some point things will clear up and it will be obvious which way they are going. In th3 meantime I think it is a mistake for any of us to let this be a divisive issue.

[Cleita]

18. I see in the Ukraine, if they can't resolve their election, they can

hold another one. What a concept? It seems to me we should insist on a new election in all those precincts with electronic voting machines, that were at odds with the exit polls, but this time that it be done on paper ballots and hand counted by each party to verify the totals. Do you think we can insist on this? I think we should get our pitchforks and torches out and march on Washington and demand this.

[Doncha_know]

23. We need to....

We need to make sure that Micheal Moore, Barbara Streisand, Whoopee Goldberg, Rosie ODonald, and Puff Diddy ("vote or die")and others like them do not present themselves as the face of the Democratic Party. Thats what cost us this election. They have nothing in common with the typical voting American. The screaming hateful insults and calling the other side morons and stupid did nothing but motivate them. The freak show that marched through New York City, thats a whole other subject. Eight second sound bites by the candidates on the evening news... Please. I am still not sure what Kerry's "Plan" was and I'm not sure if he is either. Telling us to go on his web site and read about it is not good enough. The Party leaders let this happen. If they let these people do it again we will end up with the same results. JMHO

[Pepperbelly]

24. The hands-off-bush convention strategy was a dead-bang loser.

And they were just getting started in mistakes at that point.

[Pobeka]

28. I thought we couldn't win without the media.

But I'm convinced now, that even with the right-wing corporate owned media, we won this one. I think that without vote fraud and vote suppression it would have come out 55% for Kerry.

If we had an unbiased media, I think it would have been 70% to 80% for Kerry. That's a statement I make understanding that it indicates how far from reality our media is, and is also complicit in the undermining of this great democracy by cozying up to one and only one party.

The short term targets are to fix the voting mechanics, and somehow get a functioning media again. That's probably as much as we have resources to tackle with any hope of success.

But we also have to keep in mind our education system. If citizens are not given the skills and experience to independently think and be criticial based on facts and solid research (and yes a media that presents unbiased information), this society will fail because of the greed and corruption we witness today growing at an ever-increasing rate which thrives in the short-term on the ignorance of the populace, literally stealing from those it claims to support. (It is theft when the debt grows so large our children will have to pay huge portions of their earnings to keep the govt from collapsing)

We had also better start figuring out how to stand our ground without alienating swing voters, i.e. not all Christians are "end-times", nearly 1/2 of each state is not "redneck" by the definition of number voting blue etc. The GOP does this on a regular basis by using "framing" and it's basic strategy is built on a lie. Can you imagine how much better we could do with the same basic strategy based on the truth?