Idiot Son and GOP polls down, down, down. Dem polls? Not so good, either

[Stinky The Clown]

For weeks, now stretching into months, polling for idiot son and, indeed, for the GOP has been trending downward. Down to record low territory. Down to Nixonian levels. We know the reasons. Its just that the rest of a numbed and dumbed citizenry is also starting to see the light.

If you hold that last sentence to be true - let me say it again: 'Its just that the rest of a numbed and dumbed citizenry is also starting to see the light.' - then maybe you're as worried as I am.

As the GOP numbers fall, ours should be going up. Indeed, if we eliminate the undecideds (whoever the hell they are) our numbers should be the rough inverse of the GOP numbers. But they're not, and they're not.

Of late, we've been buoyed at the prospect of a more honest media. Clearly Katrina was a watershed event (no pun intended). Reporters on the ground saw it all first hand. Not just New Orleans, but the entire Gulf Coast. Red America. They saw the inaction and ineptitude of idiot son's 'first responders'. FEMA was out for a horse ride. Everyone was caught flat footed. Whites and Blacks were affected, but the pictures of Black America were so powerful as to urge (shame?) a nation to rise up in outrage. Our president, famous for not being able to identify even one mistake, had to eat a teaspoon or two of crow. True enough, that crow was sauteed and had a nice Marsala sauce, but it was, in fact, crow.

Yet, as his numbers plummet, as he is revealed to be a small, insecure, naked man rather than an Emperor With No Clothes, our numbers stay flat.

It is long past time to blame anyone but ourselves for this. Blaming Rove is a cop-out. He ain't that good. Evil and without conscience to be sure. But just another political hack, really. Okay. Super Hack. But still a hack.

I'd like to propose the following:

A sort of Shadow Government. Not to make policy. But to explain it. I challenge our doing-a-great-job-so-far DNC Chair, the good Doctor Dean, to establish this group. Perhaps an informal organization is all that's needed. But organization nonetheless.

The Heritage Foundation, among other RW think tanks, has for years had a speakers bureau that will supply talking heads on short notice to anyone anywhere. Getting the message out is everything. They script 'em, they school 'em (largely a class in shouting over debate opponents), and send 'em out. And they kick our asses all over the lot.

Wouldn't a more managed cadre of messengers be a better strategy for us? Imagine a cadre where there was a shadow Secretary of State to speak to foreign policy issues. A shadow Secretary of Defense to speak to military issues. A shadow Secretary of HUD when that's the topic. You get the idea.

Note that this is NOT in any way, shape, or form, a call to use talking points or some other scripted message. Rather, it is a call to choose the best of our best to be our messengers on given topics. And have more than one single person in each area of policy.

By way of **example** only:

State: Holbrook and Clark
Defense: Clark and Kerry
Treasury: Bob Rubin and (maybe) Larry Summers (or better yet, Paul Krugman)
Homeland Security: Hart and Kerrey
.... and so on. It can be these examples or others. The names, for now, are unimportant and not a part of my thinking. It is about the strategy.

And for specific hot issues, we do the same sort of thing:
DSM - Conyers
BBV - Stubbs-Jones
9/11 - McKinney
Katrina - Landreau

Whenever any media outlet calls for a quote, they get our go-to guys. If they call a particular politico's office, they get referred to the go-to guy. If the politico balks, he gets a smack from the DNC and called out for it. No room for traitors or Judas goats.

And remember - no need to manage the message. If we pick our best and most articulate, a more-than-acceptable message will get out. It may not be your perfect message or my perfect message or any given candidate's message, but it will be a good message for the collective party. Candidates are free to modify as they wish ***in their campaigns**. Not on our dime.

I see this as a way to cut through the media fog where the RW gets to speak about whatever they want and our people are foils, at best, or wack-a-moles at worst. No more of that. Now's the time to send in the heavy hitters. No matter the media question, we speak our *own* message. If the media doesn't like it, tough. That's who we send. Take it or leave it. Take it and we win. Leave it and the media look more than biased. They look partisan.

The only thing stopping a plan like this are our own media face-time whores among us. Keep them in check.

Ya listenin' Joe and Joe? Diane? Hillary?

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

1. Oh ye of little faith

I see it a little brighter based on this:

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 8-9, 2005. N=901 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.

"To begin, suppose the elections for U.S. CONGRESS were being held TODAY. Would you vote for the Republican Party's candidate or the Democratic Party's candidate for Congress in your district?" If other/unsure: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward the Republican or the Democrat?" Options rotated

.

Republican 38%
Democrat 50%
Other (vol.)/Unsure 12%

But, I agree that the Dems need to strike out now and connect.

[rniel]

23. The DLC answer

The reason the republicans numbers have been going down is their not right wing enough for the general populations tastes. We must move further to the right...

[Zynx]

2. We need a clearly statable vision for the country.

[niceypoo]

22. I've said that before and got flamed

I asked what the democrats position on Iraq was and was attacked as asking a "republican" question.

[melody]

3. It seems to me the vision is simple and can be drilled down to one phrase

People first, corporations second.

That's the clearly Democratic stance in a general sense.

[Vox_Reason]

4. "People first, corporations second"--Love it.

Now go get a job where you can put your obviously on-target instinct into action.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. That's fine for an ubermessage

But I'm talking about day to day messaging. Teevee messaging. 6.00 newz messaging.

For that we need credible shadow governors/policy spokespeople.

on edit .... this thread is more about strategy than the actual message, per se.

[melody]

12. I think what's needed is a collective but shifting strategy

The Democrats have, too often, appealed to those voters with an intellect. I think if they went, unabashedly, for compassion and sentiment, the return fire from the Reptilicans would be sneering, which would make *them* look bad to all but their base constituents.

But I've never done this before, so it's entirely possible this is a really stupid idea. lol

[Stinky The Clown]

16. That's surely a part of it. We do 'nuance' ....... they do 'vision'

Nuance and arcane facts get nothing but sleepy listeners, yet we do it over and over and over. And some of us even cheer as if stating some arcane fact in a debate were somehow a meaningful gotcha.

It ain't.

Passion and toughness (not meanness) will get us further.

Stand for ***something***.

That's who need as our spokespeople ... our go-to guys. People who stand for something and can articulate it clearly, simply, and in short sound bites.

[blondeatlast]

29. That's a part of what the "shadow government" will do. The Rs

have done this for years and have managed to hide a hideous agenda behind two word memes.

We don't need to do that. We just need to be READY and armed with the best material.

[rateyes]

20. In other words you are boiling it down to one word...

LEADERSHIP...and, I agree with you. The reason the numbers are flat is that only a few Dems are stepping into the void of leadership and filling it. We need real leadership.

[dalaigh lllama]

18. People first, corporations second

short and succinct.. words not too big for the freeper crowd. An EXCELLENT slogan.:thumbsup:

[Upfront]

5. I Like It.

If that would get Lieberman, Bidden, and Donna Brazil off the talk shows it would be great. You have a very good idea.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. Explanation: GOPers - lovers scorned; Dems - realists

we see some of our current reps as being spineless, craven, scared of their own shadow, mice.
the GOP sees the admin and realizes what we knew before. These guys are crazy.

[Vox_Reason]

7. This is a very fine idea.

"I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

The dems should have policy czars in all the key areas and a large stable of super-articulate sharpshooters available at the drop of a hat to mobilize and defeat the reich wing noise machine on a moment's notice. The left is years behind in this kind of organization and message effectiveness/discipline, and that deficit needs to be significantly narrowed YESTERDAY.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. "....... that deficit needs to be significantly narrowed YESTERDAY."

Or the day before!

You are sooooo right. We're years behind.

I think I know at least part of the reason. We had eightbyears of perhaps the greatest natural politician of the last century. With him speaking there was little need for anyone else. Love him or hate him, that guy could talk. And connect. And get his message through in a way that people understood.

And for that, we became complacent.

And in that complacency, we forgot how to talk. We failed to build up a farm team. Or an All Star team.

And now, here we are, out in the cold with only whispers and ineffectual simpering.

We have no passion either. Sure, the grass roots does. But where are our passionate leaders?

Silent all.

[DemocracyInaction]

8. I'm so glad you brought this whole issue up

I keep banging head on brick wall and begging people to stop with the "let them hang themselves" rhetoric. Hating Bush does not translate into loving Dems or even hating the rest of the Repubs. The people aren't going to vote for us just because we are NOT Repub. We have to viciously attack these people and make sure that Bush's sins become the sins of the whole party. AND, we have to lay out a few ideas that juice up people.

[Gloria]

9. Before the Dems can show spine, they have to have a pulse...

eom

[Stinky The Clown]

10. I'm not even sure we need to 'attack' specifically .....

.... but what we MUST do is project our own message in our own terms.

One thing the RW sheriek monkeys do well (it isn't their invention, they just do it well) is to avoid answering any question that doesn't form a platform for their message, and simply segue (and not always skillfully) to what they **want** to talk about.

Our side gets bogged down in answering questions and blathering (droning, really) on with facts that no one gives a fat shit about.

We need better messengers ... not a better message.

As for attacking, there's a time and place for that, to be sure. But we also need to be seen as reasonable. Tough. But reasonable.

Think Mario Cuomo

Think Gary Hart

Think Al Gore (more now than in years past)

Think Howard Dean

Hell, even Al Sharpton (although he's become a bit of a cartoon lately).

[Doctor_J]

13. Why should the Dems polls be up?

What have they done over the lsat month to gain support? Not a fucking thing.

[renie408]

14. I hate to be retarded...

but I keep seeing people referring to the 'DSM' and I cannot figure out what it is. I tried Googling it, but am getting stuff about diagnostic science manuals.

Even I can figure out that's not right.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Downing Street Minutes (Memo)

It was in the news and al over DU for a while. Do a DU search here and you'll get a ton of hits.

[hadrons]

19. "People first, corporations second" ... GOP reply would be ...

"Corporations are people too"

Not surprising that dems aren't going up; they aren't an opposition party anymore, just enablers ... the GOP being far worse is what's keeping most people with them

[rateyes]

21. We need LEADERSHIP...

in the OPPOSITION party...with the right ideas and the courage to implement those ideas. I'm with you.

[smoogatz]

24. The strategy is competence. The strategy is pragmatism.

The message is a return to the old American dream of peace and prosperity for everyone. Forget Reaganism's discredited "I, me, mine" selfishness. We need to start acting more like a community and less like a corporation.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Newt Gingrich handed us a softball in this vein ..... if only we're smart

... enough to use it. He wrote recently about 'effective government'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2081686

Its a good frame and we can use it to convey a message muich as you've defined one.

[blondeatlast]

30. DINGDINGDING! "More like a community" So very true! nt

[Francine Frensky]

26. Remember, GOP was polling at 30% AFTER Clinton was impeached

sometimes doing the heavy lifting gets you nowhere with the public. By that I mean when Hillary and the black congresspeople critized * for the slow federal response to Katrina, there immeadiately this backlash against them. But it's the only way to get the message out there; they said things that had to be said. Other than the republicans doing a poor job, nobody has been recognized as doing a good job. Honestly, the governor and mayor could have stepped up more publically, done a better job of working with the press during the disaster, and I think they could have scored some points for our side, but they didn't, so that opportunity was blown. Really, what guilliani did for NYC during 9-11 was that he gave great press conferences that day and in the subsequent few days. And nobody put that public face on this tragedy this time around.

[OzarkDem]

27. Except that very few Dems

are doing any heavy lifting. And those who are aren't getting any recognition or support. The work of people like Conyers, Boxer, et al is largely invisible to the public.

[blondeatlast]

31. We send out our "stars" to the media, but they can't talk their way

out of a paper bag.

Again it's the appeal to the intellectual crowd; Joe and Jane Worker have no idea what is really being said. That's why the Right is so effective with 2 word phrases hiding an incredibly destructive agenda.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. We're sending the wrong 'stars' ..... and in the context of this thread

that is exactly the point. We have the wrong messengers. They're nuanced navel gazers who are guaranteed to turn an audience ... to sleep or off.

I'd love to see who **everyone** here thinks are our best speakers (not best for president or senate or dogcatcher ... just damned good messengers.

Let me start by setting a very high bar:

Mario Cuomo.

Please add to the list.

[blondeatlast]

37. I'd like to see us look beyond the obvious. Rep. Raul Grijalva (AZ-not

my district, sadly) is an exceptionally good speaker and excellent with complex social issues.

Social Security and labor are subjects he can talk rings around the HF cabal about. He's also very connected with his constituency.

http://www.house.gov/grijalva/

[Stinky The Clown]

41. I'm sure there are mnay lesser known people who could - and probably

***should*** - be out there as our spokespeople.

I, for one, am damned tired of the ones we see all the time.

[blondeatlast]

42. Me, too. nt

[SparklyJr]

28. my first post..

DU certainly is quite extensive.. I don't even know where to start! (michael, mom, help me out with this?)

I think your idea is a great one- I think it will also help to present the Democratic party as a more united party in agreement with each other on the issues at hand, which I think is greatly needed..

I like the idea of Democratic icon "messengers"-- both to help communication between the media and the people, the people and the media, the republicans and the democrats, and even, hopefully, the politically uneducated public who needs a clean-cut, well articulated, Democratic point of view on issues in the news.

<3 SparklyJr

[blondeatlast]

32. Your M&D are very smart cookies--some of my favorite DUers! Welcome,

welcome, welcome!

[OzarkDem]

34. Welcome Sparkly Jr

You come from a good family!

[Stinky The Clown]

36. Where does this fine person get her ideas??????

Hi SparklyJr! smooches! :loveya: :loveya: :hug: :hug: :loveya: :loveya:

Pay attention here, everyone. This kid's got some real smarts!

(Of course, I admit to being hugely prejudiced. :) )

[blondeatlast]

38. Mine's a bit young for DU but is showing all the right signs!

Don't it make ya feel good to know you brought 'em up right (er, Left)?

[Stinky The Clown]

39. Some day when she's not l-i-s-t-e-n-i-n-g I'll tell ya how she beat up her

freeper math teacher in HS. :)

Yup, she's a lefty and a sweetie.

[Sparkly]

44. I think it was a photography teacher.

But yeah, she stood up to him and gave him an education. :D

[Sparkly]

43. Yay!! SparklyJr!!

:loveya: :woohoo: :loveya:

[blondeatlast]

33. How many of us have mentioned some piece of the misagenda

at the water cooler and seen the baffled--sometimes shocked--expressions of our co-workers? Something they had no way of knowing about (Downing Street Minutes/Cindy Sheehan/etc.) and were flummoxed as to why they had no idea?

I was discussing the dangers of Roberts on the SCOTUS today and non-political types were flabbergasted. These aren't partisan people for the most part.

We don't need the message when we have smart, savvy, well-spoken messengers, it's as simple as that.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. An example of good messaging

This from Wesley Clark as posted by FrenchieCat

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2092725

Here's a guy who's likely to run again for president. So what's he do? he speaks up for all Dems an he speaks up in a way that the message is clear and unambiguous.

No doubt his words will get parsed by both the left and the right, but please look at the message. The framing. The terms used. The tone. The unambiguousness. To be sure these words may not be (the collective) your or my message, but surely it is good enough that we can all get behind it.

Lots of our people are capable of this. Lots of our folks are not.

We need to get the ones who can to go out and speak for all of us.

(This was posted simply as an example, not to debate the pros and cons of Clark.)