We should not think of Dem Party as "liberals" vs. "moderates"

[CTLawGuy]

What truly divides the Democratic Party are two philosophies of party conduct:

1. Cautious Party Strategy:

These people believe the party should have as wide an appeal as possible, at the expense of having clear, differentiated positons on issues. The party should espouse vauge general principles and agree with the other party when its likely independents will as well. The goal is to win support of both the base and independents by not offending them. The risk of this is that independents may think you are pandering to them, or that you don't really stand for anything. Also, the base may become disillusioned and be tempted by strong-party type third parties.

2. Strong Party Strategy:
These people believe the party should take clear positions on the issues that are different than the Republican party. The goal is to motivate and shore up the base, while speaking to independents to try to convince them of the merits of our ideas. The risk of this strategy is you alienate people who, either at the outset or eventually, don't agree with you.

------------
both liberals and moderates can be of either strategy. Kerry is a liberal who belived in the cautious party strategy. Lieberman is a moderate who believes in that strategy. Dean is a moderate who believe in the strong party strategy, and kucinich is a liberal who shares that philosophy.


So I think this will help to define the divide in our party. It's not about liberal vs. moderate, but what kind of message our party sends to the electorate.

[hyperium]

1. I like the way you've put it

It explains a lot of things. I think a lot of people here prefer 2, as I do, and think it is imperative for the party to use that strategy. The cautious strategy, at this point, seems only to be making it easier for the republicans to control the perceptions of the electorate regarding the Democratic Party's positions (why 'flip-flopper' is so effective).

[laheina]

23. It also explains how we've lost our clear message.

Once upon a time we had a message, but all of the vagary and pandering has killed it. We need to restate our *beliefs*, and everything else will follow.

P.S. Look for the repugs to have the message problems eventually. They can't keep everyone snowed with their bull* forever!

[madfloridian]

2. This TNR article rather agrees with you...

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040809&s=cohn080904

Speaking of the unity around Kerry:
SNIP.." But the shift is more fundamental than that: Liberals have put aside their ambivalence toward the party and decided to work for their causes from within. In fact, they're borrowing a strategy from one of their arch-ideological enemies: the Christian Right, which succeeded in changing the direction of the GOP by inserting its members into the party structure. During his speech at Take Back America, Dean explicitly invokes Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition, as he talks about the work of Democracy for America, the political action committee he created out of the remnants of Dean for America, and the need to run candidates in elections across the country, no matter how seemingly insignificant the office or how politically hostile the territory. "The way Republicans succeeded is that somebody ran for the school board, somebody ran for the city council, all the way up--and we didn't do that," Dean says. "We cannot be a national party until we take our campaign to Utah, Mississippi, and Texas." Already, Democracy for America has endorsed about 60 candidates for elected office around the country, from Eddgra Fallin, running for a place on the Huntsville, Alabama, school board, to William O'Neill, running for a seat on the Ohio state Supreme Court.

SNIP..."What would it mean to have liberals stage a takeover of the Democratic Party in this way? To be sure, the party would be forced to rehash familiar ideological battles, as liberals and New Democrats fought, for example, over balancing the budget versus financing new programs. But the consequences of greater liberal influence in the party might not be as dramatic as is commonly assumed. ...."

SNIP.."To some extent, Stern, Dean, and other liberal leaders actually seem less concerned with stretching the Democratic Party to the left than they are with simply strengthening its resolve. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the liberal movement itself follows these cues--whether, in the absence of a figure like George W. Bush to unite them, they lose patience with the Democrats and revert to their prior ambivalence. But one can hope. Liberals will always be pulling the Democratic Party to the left, but, as we saw in the 2000 election, both the liberals and the party itself are better off when those fights stay within the family...."END SNIP

This may be a fairly good summary....strengthening resolve rather than going to the left so much.

[shuffnew]

70. Yes, Texas! TEXANS PLEASE READ... TAKE ACTION!

You've passed on some good points. Yes, "strengthen our resolve"! Diversity to the left, right, and in between is to be understood. You can't function completely in a bubble such as the one Bush is building without complete failure (which he will face in the history pages putting himself in the bubble - we all will suffer immensely from the Bush leadership strategy and should not attempt to copy it!)

In fact, I do think that Texas (my state of residence) was in play this year and hope that we can do something about it before 2006 and 2008. Even after the DeLay mob tore our democratic districts into shreads in a big effort to get an illegal/unrepresentive advantage in voting results (and the electronic voting frauds), we still came out almost 60-40 (which, I feel is really more like 50/50 or better for the democratics).

FOCUS needs to be placed in areas such as Texas where Gov. Bush started the demise of our state in a big way (and with his buddy Perry carrying on the Bush torch)... we lost big time in health care with the poor and children while Bush was governor. He was an arrogant hate-filled man of destruction. The DeLay mob helped him tremendously as Governor, and moreso as US President.

If we take Texas back, there's 35 electorals in 2008 and many Republicans to boot out in 2006.

As a supporter of the DNC and the Texas Democratic Women's efforts... I still think that Texas is in play and we need to put heavy focus on such states as Texas (as you suggest in your post).

SHUFFNEW http://www.tdw.org (Women... signup and build a webpage for your local democratic area)

[DrGonzoLives]

3. See, this makes sense

And thus will be promptly ignored. Good try though, I salute you for your efforts, and agree with you completely.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. I like it

I LIKE it. :thumbsup:

[ulysses]

13. I do too.

Thanks, darboy. :thumbsup:

[Crunchy Frog]

5. I think your analysis is right on the mark.

It gets very frustrating to see people continue to try to boil it all down to a simplistic left/right division, and accuse you of wanting to drive the party way to the left when you argue for acting on the 2nd strategy. I think it's a really fundamental misunderstanding and you summed it up well.

I would add that I see Wes Clark as representing that strategy as well. I'm not trying to be partisan here, its just that I strongly believe in the 2nd strategy you talk about, and don't think that Clark would have resonated so strongly with me if I didn't see it in him.

[eridani]

6. Dean, Kucinich and Clark--

--were the candidates with highly motivated, self-organized volunteer bases. The strong, assertive party model fits all three, though Kucinich is the one with the real progressive platform.

An excellent analysis--do you mind if I pass it around?

[greenohio]

38. I new this thread would get to Dean sometime.

Take a clear position on the issues? Dean is a self described "econmic conservative" from the Democrat wing of the Democratic pary (a quote he stole from P. Wellstone BTW). Thats about as clear as mud. He is pro gun and PRO NAFTA. He CUT taxes in Vermont. The Dean folks need to drop that he takes clear positions on the issues, because it is a bunch of BS. Hes a NE carbon copy of Kerry when he's mad.

That said, the man is busting his tail for the party (unless this DFA thing is just to give him more leverage for power.) Its ok to like the guy, he just isn't as pure as he is touted.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. sorry you don't it

but your really should get over it. The poster mentioned three candidates and you went off on one. You seem a bit overly focused on Dean.

PS... everything you just said about his is wrong except that he once discribed himself as an fiscal conservative. Being pissed off at Dean for no good reason is not going to change the outcome of this election.

[greenohio]

56. I don't know what "don't it" means but

"Overly focused on Dean", talk about the pot and kettle.

Maybe you should listen to your guy Ches:

NAFTA:
"I learned an enormous amount coming from a small Northeastern state, who benefited from NAFTA and free trade, both of which I supported - I supported NAFTA and I supported China’s entry into the WTO. And we benefited from that -- our trade with Canada went up 400% as a result of the free trade agreement which was the predecessor of NAFTA. "


Taxes and Fiscal Conservative:
"As Doug pointed out, I’m a fiscal conservative. In my state, we did cut the income tax."

So which one is not true?

[Cheswick2.0]

75. sorry kiddo, sorry you don't get it

I know all about Howard Dean and no matter how many unlinked our of context quotes you post, you are making no headway.

Unless you are paying I am not interested in tutoring you.

Like I said you are way too focused on Dean. It really isn't his fault. You are doing what psychologists call sublimation. But beleive me, your anger is misdirected.

[greenohio]

84. Just as I expected.

So when you can't answer question, you just claim your vast knowledge and refuse to tutor.

Heres your link:
http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Gridiron_Speech_6March_2004.htm

I think MrsGrumpy posted this. If she's spreading lies, you better tell her, she supports dean.

What is really funny, Ches, is that I don't hate dean. His groupies hate the DLC. They crossed the line, for me, when they started blaming Clinton and every other DLC member.

Clinton and the DLC are NOT the source of all our all ills.

Believe me, your anger is misplaced. And trust me, you have anger.

[madfloridian]

89. No, I posted it. Where is your anger coming from? We know all this.

From what media did you get the impression we were groupie liberal types? Good grief...

Why did you ever think he was liberal in the first place?

[greenohio]

90. Thanks I couldn't remember who posted it.

Oh, I dunno maybe, the whole "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party." You know, what Paul Wellstone, a real liberal said. Your absolute hatered of the DLC which is essentially a group who believe in moderation on economic issues, like err, dean.

[greenohio]

91. Ches doesn't, he thinks its all LIES.

You two better talk.

[madfloridian]

99. Ches is a she.

Quite a bright person, too. She knows perfectly well what Dean is about. Getting a little upset here, green in ohio?

Oh, I am a she as well. Also quite bright.

[greenohio]

101. Ches said nothing in my post was true.

Why did ches say that nothing in my post is true and then you say that we know all this?

[DebJ]

105. balancing budgets year in and year out=economic conservative

cut taxes AND balance the budget? yippee.. no mud here that I see.
I LOVE IT

[markus]

122. On Dean

Well, he was pretty clearly against the war. And Kerry, was, well, I think we all know the answer to that.


As far as I'm concerned: pro-gun is good. Pro-NAFTA is debateable, mostly bad.

Cutting spending, and even taxes, isn't bad, unless your willing to criticize Clinton for the same thing.

Dean was a Democrat who was not afraid to be a Democrat. His less than progressive positions were not much different from Kerry's not so progressive positions, at the end of the day.

But, stylistically, he understood exactly what was stated above, what Paul Wellstone understood, what we all need to understand.

We are losing the values war because we don't appear to have any.

[CTLawGuy]

44. no problem

"An excellent analysis--do you mind if I pass it around?"

be my guest.

[Julien Sorel]

7. LOL

"Cautious" strategy against "Strong" strategy. Gee, let me think about which one I will choose.

How about this one: "Smart" strategy against "Hot headed" strategy.

[Crunchy Frog]

9. Well, Tom Daschle lost his seat anyway.

Despite the brilliant campaign strategy of running ads showing him hugging Bush. Maybe there could have been a smarter strategy there, I just don't know.:shrug:

[Julien Sorel]

11. And maye he would have lost even bigger without his

"brilliant" ads. And maybe had Daschle not had an F rating from the NRA, they wouldn't have spent so much money in trying to beat him.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Maybe it would have worked

if he had been fellating Bush in the ads, rather than just hugging him, or at least maybe he would have lost by a smaller margin.:eyes:

[Julien Sorel]

16. Perhaps you should take a look at the margin by which

Kerry lost to Bush in South Dakota, then get back to me on how terrible Daschle's campaign strategy was...

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Hey, I wasn't saying it was a bad strategy,

just maybe could have been better if the ads had included actual fellatio. Also simply pointing out that, as good as the strategy may have been, it didn't get him reelected. I really don't care if he lost by a smaller margin than Kerry. He was an incumbent and Kerry wasn't, that may have had something to do with it.

At any rate, I think this discussion is getting kind of pointless.

[Julien Sorel]

22. Aha. So the incumbency factor explains Kerry's 60 - 39 defeat.

Now that's what I call smart.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. So, sounds like Kerry's "cautious" strategy

was even more catastrophic for him in South Dakota than Daschle's was. Sounds like the "cautious" strategy was a big loser all around.:shrug:

[Julien Sorel]

31. LOL

What "cautious" strategy was that? :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

130. The cautious strategy

that darboy talked about in his original post.:shrug:

[ExclamationPoint]

102. Do you know how idiotic it sounds when we argue?

We should be trying to unite and build a stronger force instead of arguinig about Howard Dean and Cautious strategies. You know what, i bet the repubs want us to argue and split up so it is easier for them to over power us. I have said it many times on this sight, but i will say it again, democrats are better at arguinig amongst themselves then against the other party. We need to change that. Oh and I am a strong democratic if the passage sounded harsh. :P :)

[Crunchy Frog]

109. I disagree. That doesn't mean that I'm

trying to split up the party. What it does mean is that the past few elections have shown that our party has some real problems. Discussion and healthy, constructive debate are some of the ways that we figure out what we're doing wrong, and try to make corrections.

We saw in this election cycle, that we can all be united and yet still lose. We have to look into the deeper sysemic reasons of why we are losing, and that process is painful and involves some discord.

Arguing doesn't mean that we're splitting up. It means that we're trying to figure out how we can be more effective. It should ultimately help to strengthen us.

Arguing amongst ourselves certainly does not preclude arguing against the other party either. And don't think for a minute that the other side doesn't have their own internal debates. They wouldn't be where they are today without it.

As my candidate, Wes Clark, is fond of pointing out, debate, dissent, and disagreement are the essence of Democracy.

[LittleClarkie]

114. True, our strength is

as Big Dawg said at the DNC is that, while the Republicans need division (nowhere more evident than this election) we do not.

Discussion, dissent, and debate is fine. But some of the posts this past two weeks have sounded like the progressives wanted to kick the moderates out of the party. To hear your own party describing Dem moderates in the same terms that Repubs do ("squishy") is disheartening.

I just don't want to see our party do what the Repubs are doing. The Moderate Republicans vote with us more often than not, and yet their fellow Repubs call them RINO's and are systematically getting rid of them. We just lost one during the re-election here in Milwaukee because she voted with Dems often, and the Conservative radio guy campaigned vigorously against her on his show.

So, as I say, dissent is fine, as long as we are still all together when the smoke clears. Otherwise, somewhere, Rove is laughing his ass off at our splintered, self-shredded little party.

Another point: our candidates do such a good job in the primaries of hacking each other apart, all the Repubs have to do is steal a few primary talking points and they're golden. Are the Republicans this brutal when they're the ones with the large field of candidates. I never thought to take notice before now. Are they?

[dorktv]

115. Good point. We should reduce the hating.

[Crunchy Frog]

116. Don't you remember what the Bushies

did to McCain in the 2000 primaries? Far more brutal than anything that happened in our primaries.

And I'm more worried about so called "moderates" wanting to kick progressives out of the party.

[LittleClarkie]

117. Why would you be worrying about that?

I haven't seen posts like that around here. I've seen several announcements from those I would presume were progessives saying that they were leaving, or will leave if Kerry doesn't fight, or Dean doesn't get DNC Chair, or if the Democrats move any more right, or any number of dramatic exit posts.

I haven't seen any "We need to get rid of the Progressive Democrats" posts. "Stop Dean" maybe, but no "those damn Progressives cost us the election!" posts.

So, what posts have you seen that give you the feeling that "moderates" want to kick progressives out of the party?

[Crunchy Frog]

119. It's not what I'm seeing on here,

it's the vibe that I'm getting from the party functionaries. That the party has to move farther to the right, and progressives aren't welcome.

We certainly got that from party functionaries in my state, where they were absolute assholes to one of our Senate primary candidates, just because he was a progressive. The things that they were saying strongly suggested that those of us who supported him in the caucuses and the assemblies were not welcome as participants in the political process, and were not regarded as valid and legitimate Democrats.

It's the party functionaries that make the policies and set the direction for the party, not posters on a progressive message board.

[LittleClarkie]

120. Ick.

Damn, that sucks, Crunchy. I agree that's a mistake.

Perhaps I'm not feeling that lean here in Wisconsin, but I haven't checked lately. All I know is when I went down to one of the HQ's, almost everything was gone, but there was an encouraging Ted Kennedy quote on the door about prevailing and remaining strong (wish I could remember it.) It didn't look like surrender to me.

Perhaps the Dems in power here are more of a progressive bend. They fought for us in Milwaukee to make sure our vote wasn't suppressed (though I'm quite sure something is probably fishy in the suburbs).

Our capitol is a progressive wonderland (at least that is my impression.) And we have the likes of Feingold around. So I don't see us leaning right anytime soon.

I suppose that's one more thing I like about Kerry; he reminds me of Feingold. Both are social liberals but budget hawks. Even the Repubs around here appreciate a good maverick -- several of them voted for Feingold.

Back to the subject at hand, it will be a mistake for the Democrats to try to mold themselves into something they are not. It should be more about expressing what we are in more understandable terms that folks can relate to. And by no means should we be excluding anyone.

(btw, I suppose I didn't think of this as a progressive board, per se. We appear to be democrat wapatuli to me here. That's what I like about it.)

[Crunchy Frog]

121. It must be nice living in a progressive friendly state.

Colorado used to be alot more progressive than it is now. We used to be able to send some really good, strong Democrats to both the House and the Senate; people like Gary Hart and Pat Schroeder. We used to have Democratic governers.

I live in a little liberal oasis, but the state has been overrun by fundies. We're the headquarters for Focus on the Family.

We did manage to elect a Democrat to the Senate this year, but I really don't know how much he's going to actually stand up for Democratic values. The last Democrat that we elected to that seat pulled a switcheroo and became a Republican.:(

[Boosterman]

133. good post sir n/t

[Cheswick2.0]

26. he lost after years of being Democratic party leader

it was a bad strategy. That's politics 101.

[CTLawGuy]

45. lets take into consideration

that :

1. Daschle was running for SENATE, not president.
2. Daschle is FROM that state.
3. Daschle was an INCUMBENT.
4. Daschle held a powerful positon in the Senate

To compare him to Kerry straight up is misleading.

[shuffnew]

77. And the Repukes made Dashcle's home a "highlight" in the final moments.

Don't forget the final desparate moments of the Repukes and the media taking Dashcles's residency issue into the lime light! They use "abuse" and slander tactics to coverup their own incompendency always!

http://www.aberdeennews.com/mld/aberdeennews/news/10055688.htm

[Fovea]

125. You're right

That makes Daschle's failure seem so much more profound.

[laheina]

24. Those grades are so arbitrary

and besides Daschle was targeted by the Bush camp, the NRA being accomplices was only a bonus. :*

[Julien Sorel]

32. Whatever those grades are,

the NRA spent a bundle on beating Daschle. I rather suspect the money, and not the grade, is what's important.

[laheina]

35. That was my point. nt

[ulysses]

14. ah yes, the "smart" strategy

that has served us so well in keeping the Congress since 1994...

[Julien Sorel]

17. I'd just love to see you explain exactly what

"smart" or any other strategy had to do with losing since 1994. Lay it out. Show specific races and campaigns as examples. Of course, you won't do it. Much easier to make vague and unprovable claims that bolster your own preconceived notions than to present a coherent argument grounded in facts.

[ulysses]

18. I feel absolutely no need

to provide anything like that just on your say-so. I know what I see and what I've read. I know who advocates the safe strategy and when it became ascendant in the party. You want to do the reading again, go on and do it. Bullshit demands for detailed proof disprove nothing.

[Julien Sorel]

19. In other words,

you are going to keep spewing your bilge, even though you can't back it up.

Enjoy.

[ulysses]

20. nope. I posted what I meant.

Or perhaps you'd like to show how calling the "strong" strategy "hot-headed" is the result of your careful objectivity...:shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

27. I'd like to see you do the same from the other point of view

it would be nutso, but I'd like to see it.
Nothing says sucess like another loss in the congress and senate huh Juls?

[geek tragedy]

29. Gee, the Republicans have been running the hot-headed strategy

and we've been running the smart strategy on a national basis.

Advantage: Hot-headed strategy.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Very good point. n/t

[Julien Sorel]

36. Have they?

I suggest you re-read the OP's definitions. Bush just ran a campaign that was about broad themes, not sharp differences. Kerry ran a campaign focused on policy differences -- in other words, according to the OP's definitions, it was Bush, not Kerry, who was the "cautious" candidate. In 2000, Bush ran from the center. Yet it now seems Bush was an ideologue in 2000-- because that's what fits into DU's "The Democrats suck" theory du jour.


One of the big problems I have with some of you people is your chronic refusal to think critically. You start out with a preconceived idea of the way things are, and then take any and all events and jam them into the spaces you've created, even when they don't fit.

Take the 1994 congressional elections, for example. Reading through this thread, you'd think that the Democrats, after enjoying 60 years of congressional success, suddenly decided to become "cautious," and as a result, lost. Some of these same people claim the Democrats moved to the right, and that's why they lost. Yet, I've been reading extensively on the subject, and have found no one outside of the people here who think that's what happened.

In fact, every single analysis I've seen of the 1994 elections, with no exceptions, blames the electoral defeat on the Democrats being too far to the left. I've seen Bob Matsui blamed for holding up Clinton's healthcare plan because it wasn't liberal enough for him; as a result, the voters decided the Democrats couldn't deliver. I've seen Clinton blamed for trying to institute a national healthcare plan (the linchpin of the liberal agenda) and being too liberal generally. Clinton's approval ratings were poor his first two years in office; when he moved to the center after 1994, they went up. Part of the blame is aimed at veteran Democrats, who had held their seats due to incumbency and personal popularity, retiring in conservative districts. The people the Democrats ran in their place weren't conservative enough for the voters.

Yet at DU, it's gospel that Democrats lost congress because they were "too far to the right," and now, "too cautious." It's all the DLC's fault, those stupid bastards. No evidence or analysis is put forward to support this notion, but it's been repeated so much, and so many people are eager to point fingers at the party for being inept (instead of at themselves for being out of step with the rest of the country), that nobody bothers to ask for such evidence. Of course, if anyone actually did look for evidence they wouldn't like what they saw, so I can understand the lack of motivation.

[CTLawGuy]

46. you're wrong about about who was cautious

Bush ran on fighting terrorism, tax cuts, and social issues. Those positions appealed right to the heart of the republican base.

Kerry ran on "I served in Vietnam." He hoped that people would hate Bush enough to vote for him by default. He ran away from his senate record (which had inexplicably turned FAR to the right starting in 2002) and he took wishy-washy positions on the tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

[Julien Sorel]

49. Bush almost never talked about policies in a meaningful way.

His campaign was about fear, and, "Kerry, bad!" There were no detailed policy positions put forth. Not a single one.

I suggest you look at Kerry's campaign ads. After August, I'm not aware of a single one that highlighted his Vietnam service, except when he was refuting the Swift smears.

And while I'm at it, what "wishy-washy" positions did he take on tax cuts? He had the same position on tax cuts in the election he had in the primary, and that's "wishy-washy???" His position on Iraq was the same in the elections as it was in the primary, and that's "wishy-washy???"

The campaign isn't even over three weeks, and now we're seeing it twisted around to meet an agenda. Brazen...

[CTLawGuy]

61. Repealing

PART of a tax cut is pretty wishy washy to me. It's like hes trying to throw a bone to the liberal base and fiscal conservatives by repealing the cuts on the rich, but trying to avoid the tax-raiser label by keeping the rest of them.

Either tax cuts are good for the economy and EVERYONE should have one, or they are not effective and ALL the money should be put to other things.

As for Iraq, Kerry voted to allow Bush to go to war, and then told him not to go to war, and tried to act like he was against it.

In the election, Kerry's tack was not to question the morality of the war he had voted for, but to say he could have done a better job running it. His message was, "let's get allies; we should have gotten alliies." Because he voted for the war, he lacked credibility when he tried to criticize Bush on it.

[Julien Sorel]

67. You're doing exactly what I said you were:

taking everything and jamming it into your own little formula. Kerry didn't want to repeal all the tax cuts? That's "wishy-washy." Kerry didn't condemn the war as immoral? Why, it's wishy-washy again. Any position Kerry took could be called "wishy-washy." Why? Because "wishy-washy" really means whatever you want it to mean at the time. That Kerry had a consistent position on the war and taxes throughout, that Kerry has stood for middle class tax cuts since Clinton, doesn't matter. Somehow, those positions are "wishy-washy."

By the way, the idea that Lieberman was "wishy-washy" about anything is absurd. Lieberman has stood for pretty much the exact same things his entire life. If you have a little intellectual integrity and some capacity for self-criticism, you would do well to think about why it is that you consider Lieberman "cautious." I suspect you will find that your own analysis is driven by ideology a lot more than you pretend it is.

[dorktv]

113. I thought Kerry was wishywashy because he never stood up and

yelled back. Being nice has it's place but it is NOT when dealing with a bunch of sleazeballs like Rove and his cronies. You stand up and say "You screwed up the economy President Screw Up and now it is time for a REAL grown up to take care of things. I am going to leave the middle class tax cut there, because OF YOUR INCOMPENTENCE, they need the extra money to pay for their families needs." That is not wishywashy but the way Kerry did it was. You have a position? Well say it loud and proud. We need to stop being so apologetic.

[CTLawGuy]

127. I guess I meant

that by "wishy washy" Kerry was trying to appeal to two polar opposite sides of the issue at once. The problem is it looks weak.

If you're a middle class taxpayer:

Kerry will keep your tax cut, and
Bush will keep your tax cut.

If you cared about that sort of thing, if you LIKE tax cuts, you'd tend to agree with ALL the tax cuts and vote for Bush (especially since Kerry voted AGAINST your tax cuts, which is both true and in my mind the right thing to do). If you wanted tax cuts, you probably think its good for the economy, and why should others not get tax cuts because they make more money?

If you are a middle class taxpayer and you believe that tax cuts hurt the economy, why would you want to keep any of them? Wouldnt you rather have a job and good schools than an extra 300 bucks? How does Kerry impress you then?

[chriscol]

62. Yabbut....

Nearly all of those analyses have been filtered through the MSM, which has a definite, though sometimes hidden right-wing bias. If the repubs can convince us we are too far left, or too outspoken--they win without a fight.

Someone else has suggested that the above attitude (we aren't moderate enough) sounds like the words coming out of the mouth of a battered spouse or child.

Let's stand up for ourselves now--before we need to pull out the shotgun to stop the beatings!

[Julien Sorel]

68. Aha.

So it's a plot by the media. Plots are wonderful things in discussions like these. Don't have any evidence to counter what the other guy says? No matter. The other guy is a dupe of the "MSM," a victim of a plot. And you're off the hook: no evidence needed. So again, you get to believe what you want to believe, without needing to inconvenience yourself by squaring your beliefs against reality.

[Crunchy Frog]

81. Actually, most discussions that I've seen

of the 1994 Congressional elections focus quite a bit of attention on the very cautious strategy of that shrinking violet, little lace doiley of a man, Newt Gingrich.

You know, by George, I've decided that your opinions are absolutely right. We should be precisely emulating Newt Gingrich and his ultra cautious, middle of the road, wishy washy, move to the center, strategy. Then we might finally begin winning again.

Poor Tom Daschle. If only he hadn't been such a radically hotheaded bomb thrower, and had been more like that quiet, compromising Newt Gingrich, he probably would have kept his Senate seat.

[Julien Sorel]

83. Awww.

Condescension, how cute. It's even cuter-wuter when it's backed with that E word -- evidence, and a dash of logical reasoning that will stand up to scrutiny.

You focused on Gingrich instead of the Democrats. So Gingrich puts together a conservative manifesto (which actually wasn't that conservative), after the Democrats had angered and disappointed the electorate by being too liberal and failing to deliver a workable healthcare plan, and this means the Democrats were "cautious?" Allow me to suggest some reading.


And poor Daschle indeed. He should have run as some kind of tough guy instead of however he ran his campaign. Maybe if he'd have been as liberal as Thune was conservative, the South Dakota voters would have been so impressed by his "strength," that they'd have voted for him. Look at all the politicians it's worked for, after all. Hey, one of your compatriots thinks it worked for Cynthia McKinney. Well, it didn't actually work for her, but it worked for her anyway. Or something like that.

I suppose the ability to hold two conflicting ideas about the same event is a sign of "strength."

[Crunchy Frog]

94. Well, I find your condescention pretty cutey wutey too.

Anyway, I'm finished. You win. I guess it's not the tactics of Newt Gingrich that we should follow, but rather, his reasonable and centrist policies.

Whatever, but you've definitely won and I bow to your superior understanding. I won't be challenging you on this thread again. You can even have the last word, and I won't dispute what you say, since I've now been won over by your powerful arguments. :hi:

I think Cheswick would be interested to learn that she's "one of my compatriots", but I will bow to your superior understanding on that one as well. :)

[Julien Sorel]

96. Since you've been so kind,

I'll take the "last word."

Why do you think it is that whenever the "Democrats are wimps" crowd casts about looking for examples of how being "tough" wins elections, they always come up with a Republican, never a Democrat? A Republican running in a conservative state or district, I might add. Or when they do come up with a Democratic example, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, like Katherine -- er, Cynthia -- McKinney? And where are the Republican "strong" candidates who run in liberal areas? Why is it that all the Democratic "wimps" -- I mean, "cautious candidates" -- are in conservative strongholds, while the Republican "wimps" -- I mean, "cautious candidates -- are in Democratic strongholds?

Never mind. If you haven't considered these questions already, you probably think it's random chance.

[BootinUp]

129. Seems there are two separate issues

getting confused. One is party strategy, the other local races. The national strategy should stand on its own. Don't you think? If we have a weak member of the Senate leading our strategy, then our strategy is most likely flawed as a result.

[geek tragedy]

103. The Republicans won in 1994 because they went on the attack.

They used sharp language and were openly confrontational in exploiting and even creating dissatisfaction.

The Dems had some big missteps--they should have done welfare reform during the first term and health care the second term.

And the biggest blunder was that goddamn assault weapons ban.

[dorktv]

112. I felt that the Republicans gained Congress because they

had clear goals, good strategies and they took the long view of getting the ground work (of making being liberal seem bad) done FIRST then going after the seats. We did not have clear goals, strategies or even a clear message.

Since that time we have been too cautious in our national and local messages and we have let our party leaders be too wishywashy. Being left is NOT a problem if we are willing to both explain our positions, goals and then stand by it. Just because THEY (the republicans) say it is bad to be liberal DOES NOT MEAN IT IS.

Being strong helps. Roosevelt (our Party's saint) was never wishywashy. He took a position and then stuck with it. We need to do the same as a party. Are we left? THEN LET US ACT LIKE IT! Strong and right will always win over Strong and WRONG. They look strong so let us start showing our own strength.

[BootinUp]

128. This last election was NOT about policy.

It was about personality and perceived moral courage, strength of decision making. The independants and swing voters that didn't vote for Kerry went that way becuase they didn't trust Kerry. No personal connection. Beyond that its one of this parties biggest problems. And we are losing the ideological debates in the eyes of the country because if this image problem.

Most ideological debates are framed by the opposition. Thats hurting us big time.

JMHO.

[Cadence]

72. Are they really hot headed?

or just united under ONE strategy? Exactly what darboy pointed out is happening in this thread. We are divided among ourselves. You don't see that with the Bush supporters. Even when they aren't agreeing with his policy they are still one hundred percent behind the offensive strategy. While we sit here and quibble about what kind of voice to have mild or strong, they are overhauling democracy as we know it.

[geek tragedy]

104. I don't buy the description of "hot-headed"--just pointing out that

sharp language and ideas usually defeat the timid and defensive.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. yeah that cautious strategy has been a "real winner"

not.

Kerry lost
Daeshal lost


McKinney won <---- remember her?

I would say the cautious strategy is the dumb one.

[Julien Sorel]

33. McKinney

ran in a congressional district that is 55% black. I've seen you laughably parade McKinney (whose first name you amusingly got wrong) around before, comparing her to people who had to run in statewide elections. All it did was confirm what I already knew about your "understanding" of electoral politics.

[Cheswick2.0]

54. yeahokaysureright

McKinney lost in 2002, in that same district, because she was targeted by her own party for being too extremist.
This year because they had other things to do they failed to target her for defeat. McKinney will be back in congress. Her moderate opponent from 2002 goes home in defeat.
But she could only win in a Black district? That's your argument? That's a little racist for a Clarkie isn't it?

I have forgotten more about electoral politics than you will ever know. But keep defending the same losing strategy.

[Julien Sorel]

59. Let me see...

McKinney lost in 2002 for being too extremist, but now she's being held up as an example of how sticking up for your beliefs wins elections. OK. You must have forgotten quite a bit. Maybe a refresher course or two is in order?

[Cheswick2.0]

71. keep trying

weak response Jules. You can do a better side lateral arabesque than that.

[Julien Sorel]

74. Out of "arguments" so soon?

Buh bye.

[sangh0]

87. Weak response?

He just pointed out that McKinney LOST, and she LOST because she was viewed as an EXTREMIST.

And saying that she had Dem opponents is meaningless. Kerry had Dem opponents. He beat them. Kerry had competition to his left, Nader. Nader also lost.

[CTLawGuy]

43. How "smart" is it Julien?

it's lost us the last 3 elections...

[Placebo]

8. I like how you think.

We could use some more 'outside the box' style thinking here on polarized binary DU.

[DireStrike]

10. Thank you! This is useful!

[Prospero_n]

12. Well put

I think this is a very important point - and if the 04 elections have proven anything, it's that no. 1 doesn't work.

It is also not just the strategy of one candidate - it's to some extent the image of the party.

Particularly it is just not enough to be right about the issues (on most of which there is little divide, and on most of which individually a majority would prefer a democrat solution over a republican one - see the Kerry-Bush debates).

What is lacking is a thought-through, agreed-on, and aggressively communicated vision and core values. Again I think this is not problems of any particular candidate, but of the whole party. When people see republicans, they see a vision - when they see democrats they see stances on individual issues. It seems that they prefer a vision (even if they disagree with it) over no vision - to an extent that a detailed evaluation of issues hardly comes into play.

I think democrats would do well to not have on top of mind 2008, but go to more basic work (which I consider likely to take longer than 4 years). What is needed imo is a counter-revolution to the Reagan revolution (which was meticulously prepared over years by conservatives before considering the messenger).

[bklyncowgirl]

34. I like the way you think

I've come to the conclusion that we can move to the right all we want and the Republicans will still smear our candidate as an out of touch leftist.

Bill Clinton was a moderate. Did that stop the right from calling him a liberal?

Reality does not matter. It's the perception of reality that matters.

I'm a big proponent of the strong party strategy. How the hell are we going to tell the average voter that we will make their lives better and protect them if we are unwilling to speak clearly about and defend our own ideas.

[Macperdilia]

95. Right on!

It doesn't matter how right or left or middle-of-the road Democrats are, they are all LIBERALS, and that, by Republican definition, is bad.

I'm asking you: why do Democrats accept that? Why do they let the other side define them? Why is there no response to that sort of crap? Why don't we attack the right-wing gun-totin bigots and label them in the same way? Why can Republicans call Democrats "latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, camember-eating liberals" and get away with it???

[Skinner]

37. This is a good post.

I think you make an excellent point, and I like the way you framed the argument. I have heard a similar argument made using the terms "idealist v. pragmatist" but I think your formulation is better.

[greenohio]

39. I am not sure I agree with this perspective.

I look at it more as :

1)We have core principles that we will fight tooth and nail to make sure are not crossed. We pick our battles so that it is clear what we stand FOR.

2)We will fight every battle against everything that crosses any of our principles that our activists may have. This way, we get viewed as obstructionists, and people just think we are AGAINST everything.

[CTLawGuy]

47. so, an illegal preemptive war in a country that didnt attack us

does NOT violate any of our party's core principles?

:eyes:

[Macperdilia]

51. Exactly, and also...

is it only me who finds it painfully cynical for Americans to say that they rather want to fight the war on terrorism abroad (even in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11) than in the US? Does it seem okay to Americans to kill tens of thousands of innocent people just to make sure no Americans are killed on US soil? Why does no Democrat ever talk about this cynicym???

[greenohio]

52. Hey I'm against the war

I had a real problem with Kerry's lack of consistency here. I am against war period. But the 'holier than thou' people support invasions of Bosnia, Serbia, and Yugoslavia (including Dean). These were no threat to us and had no UN approval.

[Macperdilia]

55. Well, good...

Actually, I did see Kerry's point. He voted for the war IF it was supported by the UN and had strong international support. And by that he didn't mean Poland... LOL

[greenohio]

57. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Macperdilia]

60. Thank you

:hi:

[CTLawGuy]

63. really

which of the nations of Bosnia, Serbia, and Yugoslavia do we run as an imperial province? We were working to stop ethnic cleansing and violence.

Iraq was an invasion for the purpose of overthrowing the government, which is blatantly illegal.

[HuskiesHowls]

66. Not to mention which

We were in Yugoslavia trying to clean up a mess started by the French and Germans, in a NATO operation. The UN didn't have anything to do with it.

One problem I see is that people are starting to believe the freeper revisions of history blaming ANY and ALL wars on Democratic presidents!! Do your research people, and learn REAL history!!!!

[greenohio]

85. So do you want us to clean up all of the world's messes?

Some of us are against war unless there is a real threat to US.

Hey I posted here many times that I didn't think Kerry stood up to the war enough.

I'm at least consistently anti-war. War only for self defense. You have some formula...about cleaning up after the French and Germans.

Yes the UN didn't have anything to do with Yugoslavia. Apparently you have no problem with that.

[HuskiesHowls]

92. I think you misread the intent

I don't believe that I said it was right, or wrong. I've seen a lot of freeper postings elsewhere that claim Clinton atarted the whole mess there, which of course is not the truth. I just wanted to make it clear that there were no UN sanctions, because the UN was not involved in it.

I don't believe that the US military should be the police force of the world. I agree with you, war for self-defense only.

[greenohio]

100. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[HuskiesHowls]

110. Thank you!!

[Cheswick2.0]

79. again focused on Dean

ROFL

[greenohio]

86. Its good to see you laugh.

I didn't know you all did that.

[robcon]

40. I think the cautious vs. strong argument is not useful.

I think issues matter very little in national elections. I believe personalities and trust matter a lot more than ideology or positions on issues.

We have to have a great candidate (very different from Kerry) who inspires trust, since most things a president faces are not anticipated. Obama, Clinton, maybe Edwards, and a few others, IMO, could pass the test for '08.

[robcon]

41. An article in "The Nation" illustrates the unimportance of issues.

Why Bush Scored in Nevada
by Sasha Abramsky


Nevada went for Bush, but it shouldn't have.

No, I don't mean that its voting machines were rigged, or that Republicans engaged in widespread voter intimidation. What I mean is that on most big-ticket issues--on the sorts of issues that, historically, elections turn on--most Nevadans disagreed more with the national Republican Party than they did with the Democrats. On what is arguably the single biggest issue facing the state, the opening of a vast nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, a statewide survey conducted by the Office of the Governor's Agency for Nuclear Projects in the run-up to the election showed that 77 percent were opposed to the project, which is supported by Bush but opposed by Kerry. Knocking on doors, canvassers also found strong unease about the direction of the war in Iraq, the state of the economy and job security--the critical "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" litmus test posited by no less a conservative icon than Ronald Reagan. They also expressed concern about Bush's water distribution policies in the arid West, about recent judicial rulings encroaching on Native American tribal sovereignty--a big issue in Nevada--about Bush's proposals on Social Security, the lack of affordable healthcare, the price of gasoline and so on.

Yet on election day, George W. Bush won Nevada by 21,567 votes--mirroring the nation, the split was 51 percent to 48 percent. This was just slightly slimmer than the 21,597 edge Bush enjoyed four years earlier.

"The worst part is not comprehending the other side," says Sheila Leslie, a liberal State Assemblywoman from the northern city of Reno. "I've talked to many, many people who voted for that man, and I still don't understand it. They agree he's wrong on Iraq, tax cuts, the environment, and they still voted for him. The tipping point, they can't seem to articulate. They didn't line up the policies of the President with their own personal views, because if they'd done so they would have voted for John Kerry. It was a gut vote, not an intellectual one. It makes no sense. It wasn't a rational vote."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041206&s=abramsky

[CTLawGuy]

58. stands on issues I believe

affect the perception of one's personality or character.

A cautious candidate runs the risk of being percieved as weak, a flip flopper. He or she hopes to be seen as someone who is stable and moderate.


A strong candidate runs the risk of being seen as crazy or divisive. He or she hopes to be seen as someone who is honest, straightforward, a strong leader, who stands up for what he or she believes in.

[HuskiesHowls]

69. I never knew where Kerry stood on issues

He never made a _strong_ statement showing where he stood on issues. I felt that he was just trying to basically say hey, I'm different and I'll do things better.

Yes, I supported him, but I was always wondering what he really stood for. In watching TV ads, I never heard strong statements. There was never a "guiding force" to his campaign, not like Clinton's "Building a bridge to the 21st century", or George H W Bush's "Kinder, Gentler Nation".

Cautious doesn't cut it.

[Macperdilia]

80. I guess I know

I listened to Kerry and understood his position. Maybe it's because I'm from Europe?

[alaintex]

124. I agree...

I agree with you that personalities make a big impact.

Obama – I don’t know enough about, Clinton – speaks for itself, but I worry about Edwards. He may have that sad southern “I feel your pain” charm that Bill Clinton used to advantage, but the Repubs have had plenty of practice in this last election painting him as a cute little lightweight who couldn’t even deliver his home state.

Proceed with caution.

[Macperdilia]

42. I liked your distinction between strategies

It certainly is one topic the Democrats should look into.

For me, there were several reasons why the Democrats lost the election:

1) The vast majority of the party silently followed Bush's lead after 9/11 instead of finding their own, unified voice and so it was difficult before the election to convince the voters that the Democrats would be different or better than the Republicans.
2) After 9/11, nobody said anything when people were denied their right to practice the 1st Amendment or when they were punished for practicing it.
3) Democrats seem to be unable to effectively fight back when ridiculous claims are being made. E.g.: Swift-boat controversial, flip-flopper issue, the whole talk about the Democratic candidates' voting records.
4) In general, it is always difficult to win an election against an incumbent in times of war, especially if the incumbent gives people the one thing they want the most: a SENSE of security. And putting out a strong message and not wavering seems to give this sense of security, more than the truth.

As to strategies: I think strategies are important, however many people hate it if they have the feeling that they are being manipulated. As weird as it may sound, but I think that people rather want somebody to lie in their faces than having the feeling that they are being manipulated...

Did anybody read the articles in Newsweek about why Kerry lost the election? I thought they provided a pretty good analysis.

[dryan]

48. Still too soon....

I always wait at least a month before I get into post mortem mode.

[Macperdilia]

53. And what

do you do during that month? Go into hibernation?

[gorbal]

65. Great post!

I would say one of the reasons Bush won, (or almost won) is because he took on the "Strong Party" strategy. I think the reason Kerry was so cautious, is because he knew how much was at stake and how many people were depending on him. Bush had no such issues, and the frightening hatred of the Christian right to fuel his candidacy.

One of the things that gets to me, is that it almost seems like hatred won over love in this election.

[dryan]

73. Right now....

everything is still too painful from the results of November 2nd to be objective.

[shuffnew]

64. Some Demos must start by stopping the "blame, blame, blame"...

Darboy... great post!

My Oklahoma cousin sent me the below article today which gives "parrallels between domestic violence and many democrats reaction to the 2004 election"... Don't know if it has already been posted on DU (if so, excuse the dupe), but it truly hits home with much truth and we must put a stop to this and get back to work to save our country, understanding our platform and our leaders. Many of us of are confused and are blaming, blaming, blaming... (but in our confusion and deep anger, we are sometimes blaming the wrong people - even those who are our best friends and leaders). It makes me angry to see some on this DU board even blaming and bashing Kerry or Edwards (two of the most dedicated leaders we have come across in many many years with the guts and determination to "Help ALL Americans" (not the FEW the republicans are helping) regardless of the self sacrifice that they have and must continue to make). Hate and blaming will get us no where (right where the Republicans want us!). The blame should be put solely on the "abusers" and we must stand strong together to take our country back... quit blaming those that are dear to our cause and necessary to our efforts, please! Put our confusion and anger and blame aside... get back to work in a united effort to bring down the beastly, arrogant abusers. For any democratic leaders we notice putting blame or doing the wrong thing to appease the detrimental side, we should contact them quickly with our disappointment in their chosen direction. Remember they work for US and must fulfill their duties or find another job.

We are the majority and let's keep it that way -- stand united and strong! Put that blame, anger, and hurt to work in a constructive way... by uniting together and standing strong against the arrogant Republican "Abusers". We did it during the election, don't stop now!

Parrallels between Domestic Violence & Many Demos Reaction to the Election... Mathew Gross "Deride & Conquer"

The Politics of Victimization

(Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross)
Mel Gilles at 07:31 PM on November 07, 2004
http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

Excerpt...
"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

They will tell you, every single day.
The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. ...."

... Read the full text at: http://mathewgross.com/blog/archives/001041.html

.... and then read one of the democratic platform discussion boards where above theory and more is also discussed... http://platform.smartcampaigns.com/index.php?q=aggregator/feed/14

[Macperdilia]

78. Blame, blame, blame?

I would agree with you that blaming is hardly ever a good strategy. But don't we HAVE to analyze why the Republicans won the election and aks some hard questions?

And as far as the examples from the excerpt: there is a lot that's definitely wrong. Dan Rather's reaction was way too strong, IMO. And Democrats do have the tendency to beat themselves up, which they shouldn't. While I think it's okay to ask "what did I do wrong?" you have to be extremely careful when you ask "what did they do right?" It cannot be a good idea to see why the others won and try and emulate them.

[shuffnew]

106. True... but we have done a lot right and much is caused...

by the Republicans using smears and lies to avoid having to defend their incompetence and misguided decisions over the past 4 years (not to mention the rampant voter/election fraud).

Evaluating what each side did is helpful, no doubt, but I just think we need to realize that our candidates (Kerry-Edwards) have done a great job fighting the abusive beasts (and will continue to do so) and so have many of us.

Evaluating what each side did is helpful, no doubt, but I just think we need to realize that our candidates (Kerry-Edwards) have done a great job fighting the abusive beasts (and will continue to do so) and so have many of us.

Keep on kickin' and don't beat up on ourselves too much and blame ourselves or those that are still going strong for us -- rather, spend most of that energy to keep on kicking!

:kick:

[Macperdilia]

108. What next, then?

I'm ready to move on to discussing the future. I have some points that should be discussed:

- Formation of a new party. There was discussion about Schwarzenegger and McCain maybe being interested in it. Sounds interesting to me
- Europe's role in the world and its impact on the Euro-American relationship
- What's going on in the red states?
- What's the fuss about family values and what social problems are behind it?
- What's going on with churches?
- The role of the internet in the society of the future and its possible role in politics
- Role of the electoral college

That should be enough for now...

[wiggs]

76. Too narrow.

The fight is not liberals vs moderates, progressives vs conservatives, normal people vs freepers, red vs blue, straight vs gay, US vs the world, etc...

I believe the real fight is this administrations entrenched power vs the rest of us. Teamed with a handful of huge global corporations, this administration has managed to convince half the US that it is them vs the progressives. It is not.

The freepers and evangelists don't realize it yet, but they are in the same boat as we are. This group in power, and the next, are in it for themselves and they use the idea of "us vs them" to divide the nation into various pieces in order to win elections.

It isn't difficult to use fear and distortion to fool a bunch of people if you have the media. Regardless of cautious party or strong party approaches, we won't stop them from doing this unless we change media behavior. Our message doesn't matter unless the media plays is fairly.

If the media is there for us, the message will appeal to a many more people than the base because we have the issues and they have dishonesty, distortion, secrecy, cronyism, blunders, death, and corporitism on their side.

With the worst administration ever, it should have been easy to have broad appeal AND clear, differentiation positions. The media did not allow it.

[welshTerrier2]

82. Useful but overly simplistic

I think it's critically important to build party unity ... the 2004 election brought as together as we have never been before ... it's a valuable exercise to try to understand the various constituencies within the party if the goal is to build unity rather than to bash those who don't agree with you ...

the shortcoming of the model, which does have an element of truth to it, is that it focusses almost exclusively, as you stated in your opening sentence on the "two philosophies of party conduct" ... i've used the term "combativeness" to describe this issue ... but I think that is just one element of the winning strategy we need ... the other elements include a "master theme" and the key elements of electoral politics which include: the campaign, the message, the grassroots organization and the candidate.

[gibbsale]

88. The Movement We Need

There are some things that we will definitely need to do whether or not we adopt a moderate or a strong party image:

1. A Grassroots Strategy comparable to the evangelical movement. Their church members are bombarded with a conservative Christian message on a weekly basis. We have grown too accustomed to relying on unions and black churches as a base that gets the vote out. Are there alternatives? Can we create an alternative?

2. Framing. This seems to be the real trick with respect to how Democrats are losing on issues. For example, a strong percentage of the electorate (including 51% of Bush voters, if the Wall Street Journal is to be believed) favor civil unions for gay couples as a compromise position. We should pursue that and attempt to reframe the debate. A similar problem exists with respect to the deficit and the war. Now, no one is going to believe a Democrat who claims to be fiscally responsible but treats the budget as if it provides a free lunch with respect to social spending. The issue needs to be reframed as one of balanced budgets and balanced priorities, emphasizing that the conservatives have priorities that are skewed and morally bankrupt. A populist message works when it is a balanced one; that's how Governor Granholm has maintained her popularity in my state.

3. Local Elections. I agree with Dean and others; we need to start at the grassroots and prepare candidates who will run for school boards, county seats, city councils, etc. We need to groom the progressive Democratic candidates of the future.

4. Exploit fractures in the Republican coalition. The GOP is not a monolith. They attempted to wedge us on gay marriage while galvanizing their base, but we can and should take similar action. In Flint, for example, there is a faith-based rehabilitation program that operates as an alternative for nonviolent drug offenders. The group running it is Pentecostal and prevented a Catholic convict from using his rosary, claiming it was an object of witchcraft! Similarly, it is clear that there is a gap between GOP efforts to reach out to Hispanics and their positions on immigration and, on some issues, Cuban policy. I am certain that there are additional examples.

I don't think the picture is clear right now. I plan on remaining involved in progressive groups (ACLU, MoveOn, etc.) and working in the local party apparatus; actually, with respect to the latter I hope to essentially take over the apparatus, along with a bunch of other progressives. But I think, regardless of what the overall strategy will be with respect to moderate/strong party, the above areas need to be addressed.

[mrgorth]

93. AGree 100%.

[Beauchard]

97. I Totally Agree!

So lets fight for a strong party, one that fights for US!

http://liberaltarianagenda.blogspot.com/2004/11/get-out-your-knives.html

-Beauchard

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. I find a lot to like about your analysis

The only thing I take issue with is;
These people believe the party should take clear positions on the issues that are different than the Republican party.
The implication is that the only positions the party should take are positions that the opposition isn't taking. In other words, we leave policy to the Republicans and define ourselves as being against the elements of their platform that we don't like.

We need to speak equally forcefully on the issues with which we agree. We should not, through silence, concede issues like defense.

Personally, I feel that the party would be well served by using your strong party model, but picking two or three issues as defining ones. My suggestions would be economic justice and competent defense planning.

[Par]

107. The Electoral System Is Broken...

... and it doesn't matter which candidates the Democrats choose, nor which issues they highlight, nor what positions they take on those issues, nor how they frame their messages...

NO Democratic presidential candidate is electable, and no Democratic candidate will EVER be electable, until the electoral system is taken away from the people who now control it, and placed in neutral hands.

Until that is done, electoral politics in the USA is a MYTH, and the people who still believe in it are DREAMING.

This has been a message from the reality-based community.

[Clarkie1]

111. We need a strong liberal voice

Go here to hear it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1375075&mesg_id=1375075

[Ken Burch]

118. We need to tear this party apart and rebuild it from the ground up

1)No more corporate donations. They don't do any good if they don't get us elected.

2)No more "party professionals". If you can't get your guy elected
president, YOU ARE NOT A PROFESSIONAL AND YOU ARE NO USE TO US. Please go away.

3)Populist, class-based political organizing AND NOW!!! Fight the power and defend the powerless. That's what we need.

4)Electoral reform to end the spoiler problem, create the new parties that give Democrats the new ideas they need(as in the 1930's)and renew democracy. Instant Runoff Voting, move election day to a Saturday or make it a paid federal holiday, and repeal the Electoral College. Also, lift the size limit on the U.S. House of Representatives(which has been capped at 435 members since 1920 even though our population has more than doubled since then)and make it once again representative by popution. Also, consider proportional representation.

[robbedvoter]

132. How astounding! Both a liberal, and using a strong strategy....

and somehow, appealing to GOP-ers too (the general thingy)
Now, if only the Mayflower democrats will lower their noses and dispense with the purity tests.

[SEpatriot]

123. You are right on the mark!

Getting in here on the end, but I couldn't agree more with darboy's analysis of the general problem. We need a party, a leadership and candidate who are not afraid to be strong and fight for our ideas. Far too often the leadership has been "cautious" in message- trying to be careful not to offend people who are probably not going to vote with us anyway. This strategy, by the way has led to progressive loss after loss since 1994 - with only a few bright spots here and there.

Americans are attracted to strong ideas and convictions (btw, shrub has neither). Dems have allowed themselves to look either weak and vacillating or "Republican-lite." Give the public a choice between a real Republican and a fake and they'll choose the real one every time.

We must distinguish ourselves and have the guts to fight for our values!!!

[CAcyclist]

126. Brilliant!

:toast:

Genius is in recognizing the obvious. Thank you so much!

[Ken Burch]

131. Having recognized it, we now need to deal with it.

The answer isn't simply moving left, or moving to "the center."

The answer is also in finding a compelling message, having the confidence to deliver that message over and over, and the unity to bring the vision into reality once we've gotten elected.

Anybody know how we can manage all that?

[talk hard]

134. Dems still have a sense of humor.

Letter from Nesweek.

&tnef=&YY=9756&order=down&sort=date&pos=0


I'm posting this all over the place here at DU cuz I'm a newbie and can't start a thread. A good friend sent me this today and I laughed for about a half-hour.