What ails the Democratic Party?

[Zynx]

Let me start by saying that I firmly believe we can win in 2004 and that this isn't a pessimistic thread.

However, I want to hear opinions of people as to why we have had rather shoddy performances in 2002 and 2003.

First, do you believe there is a problem with the party as it is or are we on the right track and we have just had rotten luck in the last couple years?

Second, what is our problem? Is it a person, a group, or part of our ideology?

Third, what can we do to fix it to make a better party?

I am setting up this thread because I find it to be odd and saddening that we have minorities in every category of elected official, with the possible exception of mayors, for the first time in over 48 years and even farther back before that. This is a problem as any objective minded person can see and I'm sure we all want to reverse it.

With that said, fire away.

[NNadir]

1. Ideological rather than practical thinking.

I am disappointed in the campaign where trivialities are being magnified, not by the Republicans, but by the Democrats themselves.

We cannot win by being Naderist: Flailing out negatives while advancing no practical positivist solutions. We need to tout and emphasize our strengths; fairness, investment in the future, fiscal responsibility, the willingness to go the last mile for peace...

We completed the most sucessful presidency in modern times. We need to remind people of our skill. Most Americans know that things are going badly. We need to enunciate in clear, objective terms what we will build as well as what we will destroy.

[Isome]

3. "trivialities are being magnified...by the Democrats themselves"

That's one thing... the other is that major issues are ignored by Democrats because the rethuglicans have branded those issues as trivial.

[BeFree]

28. It's the BBV, stupid. (not u Nadir)

The votes have been stolen. There aren't that many Pug's out there. We out number them! We'll never know just how many Dem votes have been stolen over the years. We know they'll stop at nothing to further their greedy goals, what makes you think they wouldn't steal our votes as well??

Well, are ya telling me they wouldn't, or couldn't, or can't? Ya best not. Not here. We know better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I will add a media that is truly controlled by the RW

Yep bury the SCLM, becuae we have no free press no more

No access no way to spread the message

[Zynx]

4. I'm not sure we can do much about that right now.

What changes to the party in general would you like to see?

[PissedOffPollyana]

19. Talking positive change

instead of pointing at the problems is the first change. It disturbs me to see what are considered to be upper tier candidates spending more time in the debates criticizing what GW and his handlers have done, rather than focusing on what could be done instead and what facts back the position up. So long as Dems campaign against instead of for, there will be fewer people that are inspired to get involved. We can and have always done well when there is a clear plan to get behind.

The second is staying true to progressive ideals. This includes not running away from the successes of New Deal style programs and making real commitments to election finance reform and a less corporate-based ecomony. People are truly hungry for real change, which is why so many folks run headlong into virtually any movement that markets "grass roots". They have been sold bills of goods before and get more and more cynical, less and less likely to even vote.

The last is selecting candidates based on issues and platforms, not media buzz. There is a widely held opinion that the news media is heavily biased to the right. Would that same media be credible in their coverage of the future opponent? Looking at it in a sort of theoretical way:

We know that... 1- GOP uses right wing owned media outlets as propaganda tool
thus... 2- The media reports slanted to favor GOP agenda
If we can asssume that ...3- GOP wants GW to win in 2004
then we know that... 4- GOP wants least viable contender in 2004

Would it be fair to suggest that an ergo for this chain of statements would be:
The media will throw red herrings and promote weaker candidates to make them seem more "electable" and draw attention away from candidates who have more dangerous ideas that could catch on with the public.

Just a thought...
I theorize. You decide. **hee hee**

[redqueen]

24. I'll second that.

"instead of pointing at the problems is the first change. It disturbs me to see what are considered to be upper tier candidates spending more time in the debates criticizing what GW and his handlers have done, rather than focusing on what could be done instead and what facts back the position up. So long as Dems campaign against instead of for, there will be fewer people that are inspired to get involved."

I think this is a big problem. We're constantly attacked for complaining but offering no solutions. Address this and you take away one of the few criticisms that actually has merit. :)

[MissMarple]

5. In a nutshell, basic fight for survival, special interests, out of touch.

I think the first two are blinding them to the last. That is why Clark and Dean are catching on so well. They are doing an end around the stultified "conventional wisdom" that the pary hacks pander to.

Instead of leading, the party casts about desperately looking for supporters. Now, it's true the issues are shifting and new ones are appearing, but things cannot be done in the same old way rerunning the same old issues. The democratic leadership needs to reaffirm basic principles and attach them to the issues that must be addressed.

A huge problem with that is a lot of people are still thinking in early 20th century mode. That world is fast disappearing.

Don't get me wrong, I wish them well, but, they need to get a grip on reality and look a little farther down the road. Democratic principles will carry them through if they can successfully apply them to today's and tomorrow's looming problems and issues.

That's why I like Dean, Kucinich, and Clark. Sharpton, Braun, and Edwards also make good points. I wish them well. And I hope who ever is the nominee the others take active supportive positions. We're going to need it.

[Bombtrack]

6. we should start by not nominating a middle-class tax raser

People on this board seem to believe in far to great numbers that most republican votes come from racist, sexist, fundementalists.

The votes may have been 50/50 in the 2000 election, but they still control congress by wide margin for one reason more than any other

The GOP is seen as the tax-cutting party, the dems are seen as the tax-raising party.

We will win power back when we are seen as the party that stops big bussiness AND big government from making peoples lives more difficult

also, we should nominate someone who isn't staunchly apposed to the foriegn policy views of the large majority of voters

If they apposed disarming Iraq, they shouldn't be venemous and arrogant about candidates, or more importantly the public, which disagrees with them. Like Graham WAS and like Clark IS

Edwards, Kerry, or Clark

[Zynx]

7. What exactly does that last statement mean?

"also, we shouldn't nominate someone who is staunchly apposed to the foriegn policy views of the large majority of voters"

Can you clarify?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. I must agree with you!

Clark or Edwards would be the top choice for our nomminee!

Clark/Edwards 04' :dem:

Edwards/Clark 04' :dem:

[eissa]

9. Simple...

the DLC/DNC, and senior democrats like Daschle. They have failed us ALMOST as much as shrub. They have yet to capitalize on any of shrubs many weaknesses, they have failed to challenge him more forcefully and have become virtual doormats to the right-wing media whores. They lack cohesiveness and have failed to deliver a clear message to "John and Jane Doe" of why it is in their economic/social interests to vote democrat. The blame lays entirely with them.

[bridge]

10. I think some of the coventional wisdom applies...

The erosion of support in the South and elsewhere is no accident. To a certain extent I believe that the party (at least the one I grew up with) has been hijacked by the more extreme elements of our "big tent." Dean recognized this when he clumsily tried to both meliorate southern dems (at least his idea of southern dems) and reach out to those who feel left out of the "new" dem party. Zell Miller realized this, and was soundly pilloried for it. We have to do more to win the battle of ideas, not be caricatured as the doom and gloom party. And above all, we have to be smart enough to recognize that HATE is not a political platform. We damned the repubs when they were frothing at the mouth, and now we go and do the same thing.

[anakie]

11. a year out from the election

and you don't have a leader to focus on and unite behind. If all the bitchiness towards the Democratic rivals by Democrats could be harnessed and directed towards Bush and his cronies maybe America might wake up and see what is really happening.

[LiberalTradition]

12. The popular vote in 2000 indicates that there is nothing

fundamentally wrong with the Democratic parties message or ability to attract voters.

At least the message from 1992 to 2000.

[Yupster]

13. No obvious positive agenda

Bush will make it clear to everyone that if you reelect him, you know what you'll get. Bush cuts taxes and goes after terrorists anywhere in the world even if they're not there.

Elect the Democratic candidate and what will you get? To me that's the problem. There's no obvious answer. The main one that comes out is "Bush Sucks." Lots of times when other proposals get fleshed out they come down to raising taxes. If the argument is who Democrats are going to raise taxes on, then Democrats have lost the argument.

[radwriter0555]

15. So what's the OBVIOUS GOP AGENDA?

Who is the gop running?

How many candidates in their field?

Far as I can see, they got a one horse race. You think that's a GOOD thing?

Nuh uh.

[Yupster]

20. Cutting taxes

is the obvious GOP agenda. It unites all factions of the party.

[MissMarple]

23. and Creating Wealth and saving the U.S. for Jesus.

:evilgrin:

[radwriter0555]

14. You FELL FOR IT, dude! There is NOTHING wrong with our party....

That is GOP Rovian spin BULLCRAP.

OUR party is fine. WE have been lied to, deceived, cheated, robbed and beaten up by the GOP thugs. ALL Americans have.

So now the gloves are off, and if you aren't with us, then you are against us.

I suggest if you aren't "with us," that you get 'out the way.

;)

[redqueen]

16. Exactly 4 Democratic Senators voted against sanctions on Syria today

Seven didn't bother to vote at all (this includes Lieberman & Graham).

Boxer & Feinstein voted for them.

Also, see: USAPATRIOT Act, IWR, Welfare Reform, Telecommunications Act, Defense of Marriage Act, $87 Billion fund for the continued occupation of Iraq (as well as $20 million for a bounty on Charles Taylor's head and $100 Million -?- for a TV network in Iraq), etc. etc. etc.

In other words -- the reason is the MASSIVELY HUGE shift to the right over the past 30 years. Populist Democrats have almost no representation.

[xultar]

17. Crab in the bucket and post #1

When anyone starts to pull ahead we pull them down instead of letting the wingnuts pull them down.

Second, we don't live in the real world. In a perfect world Democrats would run everything and wingnuts would be nonexistant.

In a perfect world no one would burn the flag so an amendment would be a non issue. No one would need healthcare because it would be free. We'd pay no taxes but the poor would be fed. We wouldn't need NRA cuz everyone would be happy and wouldn't want to shoot anyone.

I'd like that 2. It ain't gonna happen. So we gotta give a little to get alot!

[redqueen]

18. Bump.

There seems to be a bit of divergence as far as what people think... bumping for more opinions.

[camero]

21. Too many corporate benefactors

This has shifted the party too far to the right and they have basically let Bush do whatever they please. This has disgusted the progressive wing of the party.

Plus, there is too much emphasis on social issues. I applaud Dean for his gutsy remark, even though it came out in the wrong way. We must band together to take power away from the corporatists and robber barons that have too much power today.

[info being]

22. The Media

If the media took people like Kucinich seriously, the Democratic Party would be allowed to "be itself" and still win. Similarly, the need to raise money from the rich ails the party.

What is needed is a massive shift in public conscienceness where:

"Popular" doesn't equal "on TV a lot"
"Powerful" doesn't equal $ but ideas

The problem is systematic...not necessarily the system of the Democratic Party but the larger social, political, and economic landscape.

[CWebster]

25. the DLC

Easy. Everybody knows that.

[Forkboy]

26. people who think nothing ails the Democratic Party

[SEAburb]

27. too much negativity in the message coming out of Dems // nt

ooooooooooooooo

[Liberator_Rev]

29. It needs to CLAIM the Moral High Ground !

The Democratic Party doesn't KNOW that it can and should claim the moral high ground and that it has earned the right to urge all pious Christians and Jews to recognize the merits of that claim.
See how and why at
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Democrats


See why we say followers of Christ (as opposed to 'Christians')
belong in the Liberal ranks of the Democratic Party.

[adriennel]

30. my ideas

--dispel perpetuated myths such as Dems=big government (government has grown 27% since Bush has been in office, so I don't know why Dems still get slammed on this issue)
--illustrate that Bush is an elitist, not a man of the people, putting money and special interests before such trivialities as jobs and health care for the majority of his constituants.
--don't alienate Independents like the Nader controversy in 2000. I think a fair amount of Independents vote Dem even if they're not a party member, maybe more than in 2000.
--stop trying to make friends with Republicans. They don't want to be friends with us. I can't get the Iraq war vote out of my head...it seemd like congressional peer pressure and the Dems fell for the "if you're not with us you're against us" adage.