What "Flips" A State - Candidates, Or Grass Roots Efforts?

[demwing]

Should the Dems look for a magic bullet presidential candidate who can flip the right number of red states, or concetrate our efforts on Dean's 50 state plan?

Do we fight on all fronts, or count on our base, fight for the flips, and ignore the rest?

[napi21]

1. It's really a combination of both.

I hate to keep going back to BC, but he's really a likeable guy!! That's FIRST! Voters have to like you! THEN, you have to have some good ideas. Not a lot, just a few, but those ideas have to resonate with a lot of voters and make then believe what you will do will benefit them!

I know that's a Rovian tactic, but it works. That's why he got Shrub to act like just a regular old Texas guy, drawl and all.

[demwing]

2. But acting regular is different than being regular

and none of that matters when your state organization sucks.

[napi21]

4. Of course it's different!

That's one of the things that endeared BC to the voters. He really WAS just a regular guy. Remember when he's get the campaign caravan to stop at McDonalds for lunch? That wasn't just an act!

I listened to several shows on cspan recently, where the panels were talking about why we can't get GREAT CANDIDATES anymore. The general belief is that it costs SOOO much $$ to get elected President ($300 Million+) that it eliminates all the really GREAT candidates and narrows the field down to only the super rich and well politically connected! I agree! All the panelists were pushing for Fed. funded campaigns. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll ever see that in MY lifetime!

[Stinky The Clown]

3. There really is a lot to 'likeable' ........

I know many of us saw it as stupid when Il Dunce was cast as the guy you'd like to have beer with, but that's kinda right, actually. Forget the issues and 'electability' for just a moment. The best candidates are likeable people. I'm not saying its enough to carry anyone to a win, but its pretty much a good place to start once all the good guys who *might* run are clear on who and what they are and what they stand for. Assuming relative equality on the issues and the resumes, likeability does matter.

The following are NOT my personal opinions - just memes that have been out there in wide circulation for a while:

Kerry is wooden and stiff and a flip flopper - that had NOTHING to do with his stance on anything. But it did play into the number of votes he got.

Gore - same sorta meme. Same sorta outcome.

(In the two above - this discussion has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with election cheating.)

Kucinich - little boy lefty. Again, not anything to do with issues.

Edwards - never got the bad rap apart from some on *our* side calling him the Breck Girl or a one note johnny. The only thing that really stuck was 'inexperience', but that can be overcome as it has nothing to do with likeability. He was and is 'likeable' out on Main Street.

Bill Clinton overcame *every* shortcoming based solely on his huge likeability factor. Again, that's not a comment on the man's stance on anything, just his personality.

I'm sure anyone can up with other examples.

[blm]

8. Poo - Clinton won in 92 because Dems PUMMELED Bush1 for his entire term

and kept the bad headlines constant on IranContra, BCCI, and Iraqgate.

Clinton got 43% of the vote.


Kerry went up against Bush2 with Clinton spending 4yrs supporting Bush's policies in very public ways, and with most corpmedia protecting Bush2 at every turn.

Kerry won 60-65 million votes, the most in American history.

Too bad Clinton's DNC had collapsed the party infrastructure since 1997 and never secured the election process in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

[hijinx87]

10. clinton won in 92 because the economy tanked

with probably a bit of help from ross perot.

[blm]

12. Voters will still stick with a president they can trust when the economy

falters.

The people lost that trust THANKS to the CONSTANT BAD HEADLINES Bush was getting beat up with for 4 YEARS over IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate.

Clinton kindly repaid those anti-corruption Democrats by protecting Bush1, and then spent most of 2001-2004 SUPPORTING Bush2 and his policies.

What a guy.........all that and waited till 2006 to counter the "Clinton did nothing" meme. What a great guy.

Now he jumps in front of the parade of those opposed to Bush's policies.

[hijinx87]

16. um, since roosevelt?

presidents get turned out of office during poor
economic times.

[blm]

19. The last quarter of Bush1's presidency the economy was ticking up.

Remember the tax pushed thru by the Dem congress that they got Poppy to sign? It started paying off towards the end of his presidency.

The economy wouldn't have mattered as much if the public still trusted Bush1 - especially after Gulf War.

You want to posit that if IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate were never investigated and exposed that Clinton would have beaten Bush1... Go ahead. I wouldn't.

[hijinx87]

21. a number of things

I don't recall that the economy was truly considered to be recovering
until after he had been defeated (and why wouldn't the economy
improve after he was dumped?), but I do recollect that it all
happened very nearly concurrently.

poppy's base abandoned him in a huge juvenile temper tantrum
because of that tax increase. I would agree that was a major
factor. ross perot was probably another one.

the gulf war was insanely popular with the sheeple. his approval
ratings were in the 90s for months after the first gulf war, even
if he did get caught with his pants down to begin with.

and let's not forget that bill clinton was a hell of a great candidate.

and I would indeed say that those relatively minor scandals had very little
to do with his defeat. if they were factors at all, they were minor.

[blm]

23. MINOR SCANDALS? And you want to be considered as a sage?

.

[hijinx87]

24. I don't recall applying for the post of DU sage.

in fact, I didn't even know the position was open.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. That missed the entire point of my comment

I'm not arguing with anything you said.

My point was a very simple, face-value one: Clinton's a likeable guy. Which has absolutely nothing to do with your comment or any of the ones that follow.

[blm]

18. Clinton is a likeable guy - a real loveguy. But he wouldn't have won in 92

with his likeability. There were other huge factors involved.

Heck - Bush was never likeable and neither was Nixon. Reagan was, but that was affability at work.

[blm]

6. Clinton turned some D states R because party INFRASTRUCTURE was collapsing

then and, even though Gore won in 2000, the infrastructure never secured the election process that would have prevented the widespread election fraud.

Clinton's handpicked guy McAuliffe oversaw the FURTHER COLLAPSE of party infrastructure in 2002 and 2004 where AGAIN, the election process became even LESS SECURE.

[hijinx87]

9. this just doesn't make sense

the "collapsing infrastructure" delivered the majority of
the popular vote in 2000, and a record setting vote for the
democrats in 2004.

and it just isn't the DNCs job to "secure the election process",
whatever that means.

[blm]

13. The DNC had an office of Voter Integrity that promised to secure the

election process. It was supposed to go to work right after the hearings on election fraud in 2000. How did the vote stealing efforts manage to worsen in 2002 and 2004?


Kerry brought in 60-65 million votes and the Dem infrastructure overseen by the DNC that was charged with securing the Dem votes did little during their FOUR YEARS to counter the rampant vote suppression, purged voter rolls and electronic vote stealing of the RNC and its operatives.

[blm]

14. and the party infrastructure in every red state WAS collapsed - try asking

them. And try asking how LONG the infrastructure had been like that.

[hijinx87]

15. terry mcauliffe probably wasn't the greatest

chairman in the history of the DNC, but to blame 2000
and 2004 on the DNC seems to me to be pretty pointless.

and beyond exposing voter suppression efforts and the various
other rethug dirty tricks, there isn't much the DNC could
(or can) do about "securing the election process". they simply
don't have any authority.

[blm]

20. the votes are lost at the infrastructure level.

.

[hijinx87]

22. I have no idea what that means.

sorry.

[Bucky]

5. What's more important to making a pancake, the fluor or the egg?

It's a recipe. Flipping a red state, like flipping a pancake, require both a solid vote-winner and a good ground game. Oh crap, I think my analogy is falling apart.

[demwing]

11. I make pancakes without eggs.

Not that that has anything to do with the discussion. :)

[AtomicKitten]

7. Both.

There is much criticism of strategy and directing resources. I agree with Dean's 50-state plan, however, Emanuel's plan to pour more money into "doable" states makes sense too. It is the combination of boots on the ground and wicked smart strategy that will prevail.