Can politics be won by stealth?

[wuushew]

Despite the brilliant debate performance of John Kerry against President Bush it seems that American electorate is not in any way swayed by factual evidence in making voting decisions. Given that why do Democrats even attempt to make public announcements go on political talk shows etc?

It seems to me this simply inflames the passion of conservatives who have a visual and auditory target to focus their anger. Republicans would continue to slander and defame Democratic politicians even given this voluntary boycott. However how angry can a person get at dozens of faceless names read off based on voting positions?

Republicans are motivated by the very public personas of Bill and Hillary Clinton among others. A typical conservative will never in conversation break down the technical merits and minutia of relevant legislation in debate. Why don't we simply withdraw into ourselves and silently run our own primaries, gather the union and activists votes and mount silent door to door canvasing of our base? Does winning require use of expensive media blitzes?

[InvisibleBallots]

1. Kerry tried to get "swing voters"

That was the problem. He should have concentrated more on getting new voters and people who have never voted.

"it seems that American electorate is not in any way swayed by factual evidence in making voting decisions"

You can complain about the low quality of American voters if you wish. I'd prefer a Democrat that made them want to vote for them. Kerry was not that Democrat.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. That is what Karl Rove did. He said in 2000 that there were about...

4 million born-again ding dongs that did not vote. If they could get them out and solidfy the base, the they would win.

Democrats needed to do the same. Get the base out to vote and you win.

[wuushew]

5. Well who else could have emerged from the Primaries?

(1)Sharpton=NO
(2)Braun = NO
(3)Kucinich=too principled
(4)Dean=maybe
(5)Gephardt=No, too tired, warhawk
(6)Grahm=maybe..though with other weaknesses
(7)Lieberman=hell no
(8)Edwards=trial lawyer/inexperienced
(9)Clark=inexperienced..good Southern ticket choice.

[InvisibleBallots]

9. probably any of them would have been better than Kerry, honestly

Gephardt? The same as Kerry on most everything, boring too, but is someone that the white middle class generally trusts on economic issues, and he has the solid support of the base, AFLCIO, NAACP, HRC, NARAL - everyone in the party.

Clark? They could have never smeared him the way they did Kerry, and the media would have been plastered with pictures of Clark in his uniform, not Kerry on a windsurfer in spandex pants.

Dean? The media would have trashed him, but at least he wouldn't have slept-walked throught the primary, and yawned when the GOP attacked his character.

Edwards? They sure would not have wanted to go toe-to-toe with Edwards on values.

Pretty much the only candidate that we had that could have made Bush seem like an ordinary guy was Kerry.

[wuushew]

10. If that was so self-evident why did voters choose Kerry?

Certainly the motivated base of the Democratic party is more informed then those who only vote in the general election. Since Kerry was supposedly chosen on electabilty I doubt the candidates attributes were overlooked in any way.

[InvisibleBallots]

11. which voters were those?

We all know how primaries and caucuses work, and I at least remember how the media was working in those days. Kerry won Iowa, NH and it was pretty much over after that wasn't it?

Whatever the case, the Republicans still have the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures and governors. That means we're doing something wrong. That means Kerry did something wrong.

[sangh0]

12. That deosn't make sense to me

I find all the talk about how the media manipulated the primaries in Iowa and NH to be somewhat ahistorical given those two states well-earned reputation for bucking the media's conventional wisdom. In fact, before the Iowa caucus, the media was predicting that it would be either Dean of Gephardt. It wasn't until about just a week before the caucus that the media started to realize that Kerry was picking up steam, and even then they didn't exactly promote the idea.

[Warpy]

7. Kerry was a great candidate who got the same rotten DLC advice

that made Gore look bland and boring and in the pocket of the corporations and not one bit interested in what was going on with the people out here who work for a living.

It's a miracle they both won.

Perhaps if we can shed the DLC and get the party back on track as the best hope forp working people, we can start winning elections against the religiously insane.

Letting those conservative old hacks drag the party to the right in order to chase a few conservative suburban yuppies hasn't worked. It's overdue to consider trying something else.

[Wabbajack]

2. "Does winning require use of expensive media blitzes?"

No.

Money spent on mass media had no effect on the Presidential results. What a total waste of money.

[politicaholic]

6. I suggest you read the article on the DU front page.

Mass media is a necessary evil. Not everyone can be a rational and informed voter...only 49% of us. lol

[davidinalameda]

4. the religious right took over Republican Party by using stealth tactics

and they won a lot of local elections

maybe the technique could be adapted

[ooglymoogly]

13. if you believe paperless voting machines stealth

then stealth can win elections every time....every time....think about that.

[Up2Late]

8. Urgent ! Talk of the Nation NOW Election Lies!

Any Black or Latinos out there?

NPR is looking for Black and Latino Callers for Election 1 month later Show. :puke:

Lot's of BS going on NOW :mad: