How We Will Elect A Democratic President in '08

[ruggerson]

Americans are going to be very tired of one party Republican rule in Washington by 2008.

The Democrats will have the best chance since 92 to recapture the WH.

Here are some positions, imho, our candidate should stake out. (With a tip of the hat to both Lakoff and "What's The Matter With Kansas".)

1) Populist principles. That means no edging towards the Republican party. If Americans sense that the Democrats don't stand for anything, and are moving rightward to capture more votes, they will vote Republican. Why vote for a Republican-lite party with no principles, when you can just vote Republican?

2) Populist economics. The Republicans have demonized "Big Government" for a generation. It is time that the Democrats demonize "Big Corporations" in the same manner. Big corporations steal money from the working man's pocket. They ship jobs overseas. They are representing the interests of the few instead of the many. The "average Joe" gets screwed by Big Corporate policies. You end up paying through the nose for Big Corporations, even moreso than you do with Big Government. Tar every single Republican with the "Big Corporation" tagline.

3) Stick with our core principles on social issues. Don't be apologetic. In the 2008 debates when the Republican inevitably tries to slime the Democratic candidate as a "liberal", instead of dodging, the Democrat should quote from that great piece from JFK, and stand his/her ground, and say that if being liberal means that you stand in the tradition of Jefferson, Jackson, Cleveland, Truman and Kennedy, and most of the Founding Fathers, then, yes, you're very proud to be a liberal.

4) Immigration, immigration, immigration. Drive a wedge right through the Republican party by taking a no nonsense, tough stand on illegal immigration. Accuse the Republicans of wanting open borders solely to help Big Corporations.

5) We have a once in a generation chance to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. We can make liberalism MEAN fiscal responsiblity and conservatism MEAN fiscal recklessness. The candidate should point out, over and over again, how the last two term Republican Presidents left us with horrendous trillion dollar deficits, while the last two term Democrat actually balanced the budget and left us with a surplus. This should be hammered home, over and over, with commercials repeating it endlessly. The Democrats are the party of the average family, sitting at home, paying the bills and trying not to spend more than you take in. Balancing the budget equals understanding how you balance the checkbook.

6) The environment. Again, tied in with the populist Big Corporation theme. The Republicans have given the country over to Big Corporations, thus endangering the planet we all share. Many middle of the road voters will respond to this big time. Tar the Republicans as the party of dirty air, global warming and environmental death. It's easy to do, because their policies have actually turned back the environmental clock.

Other thoughts?

[tuvor]

1. Didn't you already elect Democrats in the past four elections?

Remember: It's not who votes, it's who COUNTS the votes.

[zann725]

2. Exactly my thoughts, indeed!

n/t

[Eloriel]

23. Yeah, and I'm fucking SICK of these types of discussions when

there'll never be another Dem president, House or Senate until the voting machines issues AND vote suppression, etc. are fixed.

Get a clue, people and stop the mental masturbation, 'cause that's all it is. The Democrats (despite a piss poor candidate) did NOTHING wrong, need to CHANGE nothing -- they did NOT LOSE. It was taken from us. Period, end of disucssion. Everyone needs to be spending their time and energy thinking, talking about and WORKING towards changing things, nothing else.

[DaedelusNemo]

39. No need to be single-tracked

Yes, electoral reform is vital. But that effort need not exclude the development of a better message. Yes, most people agreed with the democrat positions on the issues. But they didn't know that, and the democrats did not do a good job of communication. If the solid majority that agrees with the democrats voted for them, it would be impossible to carry a fraud that large.

Concentrate your attention on what you want to concentrate it on, and let others do what they feel the urges for. Both efforts are useful.

[IronLionZion]

41. be a 50 state party

Dems are not just the coastal elitist party, we should be a national party.

Define ourselves before the Republicans do.

Don't flip flop.

welcome diversity of opinion - If a candidate disagrees with you on one issue, it's not the end of the world.

Don't just be AGAINST the Republicans, be FOR something.

Democratic policies are sensible, ethical, and popular. We can win landslide victories if we put our minds to it.

[WI_DEM]

3. I thought they were tired of one-party rule in '04

We also need to make sure we nominate someone in '08 who can talk straight to the American people and who they can identify with.

[Florida_Geek]

5. IMHO Kerry would have done better if

he did not have the DLC talking to him to tell him what to say to win.

Just IMHO

[ruggerson]

40. Agreed n/t

[StephanieMarie]

4. Back to Clinton's "Living Wage" promise

It takes a person working at minimum wage over 80 hours a week to earn enough to afford the average 2-bedroom apartment in the U.S. That's just WRONG.

However, another Democrat will never be elected until we eliminate the repug election fraud machine.

[Florida_Geek]

7. I think the 2006 election is more important than the 2008

I think we will be able to retake the Senate and House if * keeps fucking up with SS and Iraq.

[janx]

51. It's hugely important.

Governors' races take place then too.

[aquart]

6. I think you don't get that our policies don't matter.

We don't count the votes.

[zulchzulu]

8. Without true and complete electronic voting reform. we're screwed

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."
- Josef Stalin

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I'll ignore the "election fraud" issue and say to add "choice" to the list

of winning issues.

A big majority of Americans are pro choice. Depending on the poll or pundit you listen to or read, something between 60% and 80% of the electorate are pro choice.

Our guy simply needs to be unwaveringly and unambiguously clear where he stands.

In a debate or in a campaign speech he needs to say: "I will defend a woman's right to choose and my opponent will not."

[ginnyinWI]

10. We were saying this in 04 already--

As long as Republican corporatists count the vote we will NEVER win.

[ruggerson]

14. I don't think Kerry was hammering these themes

Some of them, sure, but not as a consistent populist, throw the bums out, message. He certainly missed a couple of huge opportunities to have a "enough is enough" moment when Shrub called him "more liberal than Teddy Kennedy."

He also, much as I admire the guy, doesn't have the personality/charisma factor needed to connect with a capital C.

[ginnyinWI]

35. I will agree that

They should have refuted every charge starting in March, rather than try to just ignore them. At the end they were refuting every charge day by day, but by then the stereotype was set.

The other thing is that they should have criticized smirkboy more directly, as to his inadequacies, and his character. They didn't want to go negative, but someone had to deflate the inflated image of "Bush the Savior of the World". They should have focused more on character than policies. But that is just me. Still think Kerry won.

I DO think he has the personality and charisma--especially in person! But the media was always looking for ways to tear him apart, and unless you were watching Cspan you hardly ever saw more than a minute or two of him or Edwards. That's why he didn't get more than 51% of the vote!

[Fed Up]

11. Democratic governors keep winning in the red states.

I don't know why we have so much trouble on the national level.

For over 20 years the Repukes have convinced the red states that all the national Democrats want to do is take things away from them.

We need to start giving them a reason to want to vote for a Democrat, give them something tangible.

In 1998, Don Siegelman, a Democrat, won the Alabama governor's race because of one issue - gambling. His opponent was against it, and the people wanted it. If we can transform that into a national race, we have it made.

[ticapnews]

13. And Republicans keep winning in Blue States...

California, New York, Massachusetts. In solid Blue New England Maine has been the only state with a Democratic governor (that changed November 2 thankfully).

And I agree wholeheartedly on how Republicans have turned people against Dems in national races. People ignore the hypocrisy of standing in line to collect a federally funded farm subsidy while at the same time bitching about the federal government! They have convinced people that the liberals in New York and San Francisco are spending their tax dollars on gay pornographic art and banning the Bible. In reality, the tax dollars are flowing from liberal areas into the Red States. The people who complain about the federal government and pork barrel spending are the same people feeding at the trough.

Part of me wants to eliminate federal spending so these people learn just how much they rely on our tax dollars. When the roads crumble, bridges collapse and the lights go out, I think they'd start to understand.

[janx]

48. We have trouble on the national level because the national

Dems--the beltway Dems--keep sticking their noses into what should be local democracy.

If the states had more influence, things would be a lot easier and better.

From the bottom up...!

[Moderate Dem]

12. We can honor our core values...

without sucking up to the most radical leftists and making ourselves look like idiots.

Abortion: Abortion will never be illegal, despite the delusions of the "Jerry Falwell is going to put us in labor camps!" hysteria crowd. Look, almost all of the early contenders for the Republicans in 2008 are pro-choice. America at this point mainly wants a few restrictions on abortion, and the smart thing to do is to go along with the reasonable ones. And yes, there are a few reasonable compromises we could make and still look out for women's rights.

Foriegn Policy: In the 50s, liberals were the hawks on foreign policy, while conservatives were more isolationaists, until Vietnam turned that around. We can be tough on terror, while being intelligent and allying ourselves with other countries. Kerry actually had a good position on this, until he let himself be painted as a liar and traitor by a bunch of people who were really effective at that sort of thing.

Welfare: Welfare reform under Clinton actually worked. The welfare rolls are getting smaller, or at least they were until Bush gave rich people all the money.

Ecology: Again, be sensible without kissing the radical environmentalists' ass on every wacko issue. America wants clean air and water, but they don't want to elect the friends of those who set SUVs on fire.

Campaigns: For God's sake, stay away from the whackjobs! I agreed with a lot of what Michael Moore said, but HE FREAKING KILLED US! Anyone who says in public that America is the biggest terrorist state should be immediately kicked out of the party in disgrace. You REALLY think that we're gonna win like that?

[Cheswick2.0]

42. I love it when men decide I should give up rights to help them win

There are no more compromises to be made on abortion. It's not going to happen. So find some other group to sacrifice their rights or women will be leaving the party in droves.

PS...... MM had nothing to do with any democratci party loss. The voting machines and supression of the vote did. Until you are ready to face that all the moderation in the world isn't going to change a damn thing.

[Raiden]

55. I agree with most of what you say...

except on abortion and welfare. On abortion, we have compromised enough already. Every effort we have made, the Rethugs have made it crystal clear that they have no intention to compromise. They want nothing more than to condemn the female of the species to breeder status. If we concede anymore on abortion, pretty soon birth control will be the right wingers new wedge issue. We're already heading in that direction. It's not a very pragmatic position anyway to try and "compromise" on abortion, considering that the majority in America support abortion rights. Also, by watering down our position on abortion, we'll turn off many women and open-minded males such as myself. People who oppose abortion will just vote Republican anyway, we'll only upset our base by becoming Repulican-lite on the abortion issue.


Living in a very poor county in a rural state, I can assure you that welfare reform did absolutely no good at all. All it did was transfer welfare recipiants into the SSI column, so SSI is the new welfare. It just hurt the people who really needed it. As far as I'm concerned, welfare reform was one of the worst things that Clinton ever did. The people who abused welfare then just abuse SSI and food stamps now. A social safety net is actually not as controversial as you'd think... In my high school global issues class, only about 3 out of 20 students are liberal, the rest, including my freeper teacher are hardcore conservative Republicans. However, when we started duscussing welfare, we ALL, and I mean every last one, agreed that even though there were people who abused the system, for the sake of the children and families who really need welfare, SSI, and food stamps, it's absolutely necessary. And this is in the Bible-belt of Eastern Kentucky. We decided that what was needed was to actually punish people who abused the system and charge them with fraud.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Hire the right strategists

Kerry would've won if he'd hired Carville and Begala instead of Bob Shrum. It's that simple.

[shraby]

32. Don't you people understand English?

WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE GROUND AS LONG AS REPUBLICANS OWN THE VOTING MACHINES. IT'S A LOSING GAME FOR DEMOCRATS.

[moggie12]

43. Nope, Hippo person is right

Kerry, Shrum and company blew this election, not Diebold. It was agonizing watching them mess up again and again. For gosh sakes, one of the first things Kerry did was say "foreign leaders prefer me to Bush" (and them he was too embarrassed to say who!). My vote was an anti-Bush vote, not a pro-Kerry vote, and I've voted Democratic for 20+ years. We would've won Ohio by 3 million votes if we'd had a good candidate/campaign. Look at NY vote: Gore won NY with nearly 70% of the vote in '00, Kerry took it by just 58% this time (Was there fraud in NY? No -- Sen. Chuck Schumer won re-election with 71%).

Our candidate stunk. I know, because I watched the campaign. Didn't you???

[Hippo_Tron]

52. It's not the candidate that stunk, it was his marketing team

Shrum and Cahill failed to use Kerry's strengths to help him win. Instead of hearing, John Kerry has spent 20 long years in the senate fighting for (insert something noble here), they allowed Rove to turn his long senate career into meaning that he was a corrupt Washington insider who knew nothing about the problems of ordinary Americans. Instead of using his Vietnam service appropriately they allowed to have the right spin it as thought that is what he was running on and then allowed the Swift Boat Liars to ruin that. Our candidate was fine, his campaign was horrible. The point is that even if there was fraud this time, had Kerry run a good campaign, the election wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

[Tia Juanita]

56. Carville and Begala

Yeah, I agree. It's not just the message, it IS the messenger. Kerry had to spend too much time on defense, and because we are supposedly "nice guys" we didn't do battle like we should have. We need a democratic Karl Rove!!

[KnowerOfLogic]

16. Short answer: hack the vote machines nationwide. nt

[mikehiggins]

17. Nominate Clark

I know its like beating a drum over and over again but I've got the time and the inclination to keep doing it.

We'll see how things shape up in 2007 and if Clark is canny enough to follow Ronald Reagan's model over the next 36 months.

Time will tell.

[AntiCoup2K4]

21. If Clark was following Reagan's model, he would run for governor

Isn't Arkansas open in 2006?

I believe Clark's chances would be greatly improved if he had some political experience, and since Senators don't get elected, the Arkansas Governor's mansion is probably his best bet.

Meanwhile Howard Dean is already poised to take the "Reagan model". Just as Jellybean head was rejected by his party in 76, but unstoppable 4 years later. Dean is the one in the best position to do exactly that in 2008.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. How about a new one? The "Clark" model

Which, in actuality, is more like the Eisenhower model (if there is such a thing!)

I don't think Clark needs any political experience at all. He has a lifetime of accomplishment to run on. After being in the public eye he has name recognition. He just needs to figure out how to get his message out there.

[janx]

49. Yes, it is like beating a drum over and over again.

Sheesh Mike, we just lost the election. Is it time to start some primary contention this soon?

[JNelson6563]

18. One of the best selling points

for our next candidate will HAVE to be "outsider".

No Senator, Congressman, nobody from Washington. Someone who can not be pointed at as "part of the problem".

If we do not do this we will lose. Simple.

Julie

[Bombtrack]

20. "someone who cannot be pointed to as part of the problem"

anyone can be "pointed to" as part of the problem. Stop believing every jackass thing Howard Dean says. He would have lost by 10 times more than Kerry.

[AntiCoup2K4]

22. If that's true, Clark would have lost by 20 times more.

There's no way an inexperienced candidate could be elected President in this fake terra bullshit climate. I kinda like the General, but he needs to start somewhere else first and then move up to the top job. My suggestion would be Little Rock in 2006.

[CJCRANE]

24. Supreme Allied Commander

of NATO is pretty far up the ladder if you ask me. That's 19 countries, with Head of State status.

[Cheswick2.0]

45. Head of State? Nope

that is a ridiculous contention.

[robbedvoter]

54. I see you left the Clenis unguarded again. It may sin ya know?

[Clarkie1]

25. Clark is overqualified to be either governor or VP

This is an individual who has led all of Europe and the U.S. as the leader of NATO.

He's ready to be president, if that is what the future brings.

[JNelson6563]

27. Kind of imperialist view I'd say

In a democratic republic, where the leader is supposedly chosen by the people, there is no such thing as over-qualified. Especially if the potential leader has never held elected office before.

I don't have problems with Clark but this "his shit don't stink" stuff is a real turn off. Not all of us see him as a god.

Julie

[Clarkie1]

28. There is such a thing as over-qualified, and it's not an imperialist view

to say so.

"In a democratic republic, where the leader is supposedly chosen by the people, there is no such thing as over-qualified."

Wrong. Washing dishes would not be the best position for a Harvard graduate. That does't mean the person couldn't do the job, but obviously they would be overqualified.

The opinion as to whether this person or that is overqualified or not for whatever job has nothing to do with our democratic process. Obviously we are free, thank God, to elect overqualified, underqualified, or whatever. It's a matter of opinion, and that's why we vote.

I don't see Clark as a God, and therefore I don't see him as perfect either.

I'm not into idolotry, but once a long while someone comes along who inspires though decency, integrity, intelligence, and shared values.. That's what Clark's best at. Inspiring others.

I find it curious that some individuals call for an "outsider" candidate, yet criticize Clark because he's never held elective office. Governor, senator, or whatever are NOT prerequisites for the presidency.

[JNelson6563]

29. Yes, I can see your point

Having a former Large Cog of the IMC claim to be an outsider in these times of illegal war and unprecedented was profiteering is brilliant Not!

As to "outsider" I meant someone with governing experience but not from Washington. Someone who at least has a track record of running/winning at least one election. Also, for 08, we not only need someone who can make the outsider claim, we will need someone who has stood up in a big way for the Dem cause between now and then (a.k.a. shown some spine).

If Clark, on top of his never ever having been elected to anything, spends this four years feathering his nest, you can not only expect he won't be widely supported, you will find he is actively campaigned against by countless Dems. Just an FYI for you. Expect it.

Julie

[CTLawGuy]

30. What policy has clark ever pushed through a legislature?

how many budgets has he balanced?

Clark is a good man, but he needs to get some actual governing experience before becoming president.

[Clarkie1]

36. That's not important

Clark has an advanced degree in Economics and has worked for the office of management and budget.

Working with NATO was plenty of experience for working with a legislature.

More than enough.

[Cheswick2.0]

46. He didn't lead all of Europe and the US

He was the commander of NATO troops. That is hardly the same thing.
I have to say that, yours must qualify for the greatest "delusions of grandeur" on behalf of a candidate I have ever seen.

[janx]

50. This is probably true.

If he didn't do this, the Repubs would just run the video of his praise for Chimp & Co. over and over and over. They'd do it anyway, but it would make less of a dent if Clark were to have held elected office as a Dem previously.

But all of this is pure speculation; we just came off of one election, and we have a lot of important elections in between now and "primaries 2008."

We should work on those first.

[JNelson6563]

26. You're way off base....again

this is something I learned starting way back you poor, presumptuous soul. Why do you think Governors generally do so well in Presidential races? Not just because of their executive experience, they can also make the "outsider" claim.

Love to see the attack from you on Dean, your over-sensitivity speaks volumes. It's always very revealing when people see attacks that are not there.

Julie

[Cheswick2.0]

44. well then Clark would have lost by 20 times what Kerry did

Besides he was only the Clinton stalking horse. He won't be needed in 2008.

[Bombtrack]

19. The right frigging candidate first of all. And so far, only one person

gives me hope. Wesley K. Clark.

[Kilkenny5]

37. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE

Enough with the "Clark is God" nonsense.

He's not that impressive and I seriously doubt he'll beat any Republican in 2008.

Find another candidate.

[Clarkie1]

58. What does impress you? Just curious...

[newportdadde]

31. Good points.

I'm reading Frank's book now and I think you brought in some of his ideas nicely. However at this point many are convinced that Bush's popular vote win of over 3 million is due to voter fraud and that makes it harder to have a discussion about these points.

Was there voter fraud, I'm sure of it, was it 3 million worth I don't know.

[IndianaGreen]

33. Stop trying to out-Republican the Republicans!

Nominate someone that stands for our core issues, and that can articulate them without leaving the voters scratching their heads trying to figure out what the hell the candidate said.

[amjucsc]

38. In a nutshell...

The Democrats need to make themselves really competitive in more states.

Look at it this way:
In this election we won 19 states while the Republicans won 31. Since every state gets two senators--and two free electoral votes for those senators-- we got only 38 of the 100 electoral votes the Senate adds to the Electoral College. Basically that means that Bush got 24 electoral votes for free, simply because he has an appeal across a broader number of states than the Dems currently do.
If the Dems continue to only be dominant or competitive in about 20-25 states--if we settle down into being the party of the coasts and the great lakes-- then every Democratic presidential candidate will have to dig himself out of an Ohio sized electoral hole just to play even with the Rep candidate, and the Dem presence in the Senate will stabilize at around 40 votes.
In order to avoid this we're going to have to figure out how to appeal to enough voters in the Southwest and 'shallow' South (AZ, CO, MO, VA, WV etc) to make those areas truly competitive (I fear that the Deep South and Midwest are lost to Dems, unfortunately...)
This is probably going to require a shift to the right. While I agree that apeing the Reps isn't going to get us very far, we're going to have to come up with a platform that appeals to relatively conservative voters, and that means emphasizing things that appeal to conservatives--like fiscal responsibility--that won't also cause our liberal base to head for the exits.
Actually I'm somewhat optimistic: at this point the Republicans have nowhere to hide if something goes wrong. For example, when W's runaway borrowing causes a recession we can go to the American people and basically say, "look, you elected these guys to protect you and look after your wellfare. They obviously haven't done this--they've spent like drunken sailors, etc, etc. We've been opposed to their reckless policies all along, and we were the last people to balance the budget. Consider voting for us." Same basic idea with a terrorist attack.
That should break the Rep stranglehold on DC.

[librechik]

47. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

unless we get our own Fox. And Clearchannel.

Till then, we're losers. Period.

[robbedvoter]

53. Uh, have real election? refuse to swallow fraudulent results?

That's just me. :shrug:

[janx]

57. The Democratic party is going through some evolution and

upheaval right now. The next few months should be interesting.