Advice from a Political Operative

[garthranzz]

This evening I had a conversation with a friend whose business is running campaigns. He's very successful, and usually works with Republicans. He's spent time in Washington, and views the us vs. them more as Washington vs. the home folk (Washington including the elected ones, the lobbyists, etc) than dem vs. rep. He thinks moveon.org is radical, part of the 20-30% blind followers that each fringe gets. Whether what he said is accurate or not, I'll let others determine. But he is knowledgeable, has not personal or ideological ax to grind, and I respect his understanding of how politics works - because he's in the been there, done that club. In no particular order, his observations:

1. The Republicans will maintain control of both houses. The polls (rasmussen, realclearpolitics) tracking trends show a shift toward the Republicans. Had the election been held in July, the Democrats would have won. Republicans are strong closers, because Democrats talk about ideals which play well before decisions are made. But as we get closer to elections the 50% in the middle come back to 'reality' and vote for Rep. because they will lower taxes and are stronger on defense.

2. The Democrats have no real message, other than hate bush. Most people aren't motivated by hate and don't go to the poll to vote against someone they hate, but for someone. Hating clouds the thinking. Most people (the 50% in the middle) won't respond to that message. They won't vote for someone just because he will be part of an impeach bush coalition.

3. The Democrats have no strategy. They should follow Gingrich's plan fro '94: come up with a 10 point plan (or however many points) and stay on message, spreading that to the media. Gingrich's 10 points were in TV guide - simple, easily understood in 5 minutes or less (whether it was done or not is irrelevant) - tear out, look at it briefly, carry it into the booth. Clinton was successful because he had lots of plan (whether he carried them out or not is irrelevant) and connected with the "simple folk" by his manner of presenting them.

4. The Democrats are controlled by the kooky fringe (he named moveon.org and dailykos as examples of the kind of kookiness) that won't appeal to the mainstream. Dean's condescending dismissal of the relgious beliefs of "republicans" (many Americans) is an example. That wing, which controls the money and therefore the direction, is vehemently anti-religious. It makes noises about being inclusive, religious, etc., but is really secular and can't understand or communicate with someone who is truly religious - much as the Republcans can't "talk the talk or walk the walk" with Blacks. He pointed out how Lieberman was ripped - don't vote for him just because he's Jewish. (I'm Jewish, and orthodox, but I disagree with Liebermann's positions on bush and iraq.) (At this point I said that while I favor dialogue, compromise and reaching across the aisle, that cannot be done in the atmosphere bush has created.) The Democrats will never win while the part is controlled by a vehemently anti-religious, aggressively secular minority - much as the Republicans couldn't win when Pat Robertson and his fringe controlled the party.

There was much more.

What I'd like to hear from DUers is an analysis of this. I'm not interested in people flaming him - he's a friend (we worked on a campaign together - a Democratic one) and his points are not his alone. Whether he is echoing conventional but erroneous wisdom, whether his observations have merit, if the leaders should rethink their strategies, etc., that's what I'd like to learn from DUers. For instance, is there a Democratic plan - for Iraq, education, health care, etc. - not many, but one (even if there are variations) - and is that plan bulleted - x number of points - and has that become the "talking point" and are the messengers getting enough exposure? Those are the questions I'd like addressed. (He also said the Republicans don't have a digestible (digest form, consumable) plan, but being in power, they don't need one.

(I'm probably going to get him a copy of Armed Madhouse next month.)

If this country is to regain its balance, if people are to see bush as KO describes him, this generations McCarthy or Nixon, we need to reach people like this - within the middle, slightly to the right, involved in the politics of the day, but reachable and willing to listen. We can't reach him through invective, screaming or flames. We can reach him through logic, evidence, etc. And of course winning in November.

[AX10]

1. We have plans. It's that we are being ignored by the media.

[garthranzz]

3. OK. What are they? Briefly?

A TV-Guide summation or X-point bullets.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. Here:

Honest Government

Real Security

Energy Independence

Economic Prosperity and Educational Excellence

A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone

Retirement Security

www.dnc.org


I've seen Dean and other prominent Dems trying to get this message out on TV and they get cut off by the commentator who spouts "but you don't have a plaaaaaan" as though nothing was said.

[treestar]

2. He is biased

He simply recites his own preferences and then projects them onto the parties he likes/hates.

The Democrats have no message but hate Bush? That is a right wing talking point, not the Democrats "message." He hasn't even listened to the Democrats' "message" and has boiled it down to the RW talking point that most rethugs use.

[garthranzz]

6. He has his biases, but so do we...

I think there's more to his comments than RW talking points. He makes his living knowing politicians and how politics works. And even if he's biased, if his points have validity, they must be addressed.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. Sorry, but if he actually believes those things

By that I mean, really believes them, and is not just promoting a strawman image of Democrats to help his GOP clients win, then I wouldn't take any advice from him.

Democrats controlled by moveon.org? Hardly. And what Dean said was deliberately taken out of context by the SCLM, as usual. He doesn't know that? C'mon! Maybe he doesn't have an axe to grind but he's sure drunk some koolaid.

Pithy 5 or 10 point plans do us no good when the media ignores them and instead parrots the Democrats Have No Ideas talking point ad nauseum.

[Malikshah]

5. It's like being in a time machine...going back to 2002, 2004....

Political Operatives....MoreOfTheSame....Conventional Wisdom....boogah boogah.

The inside scoop usually looks like the following:

[ariellyn]

Hey you stole my pooper scooper! I've been looking for that

thing. :silly:

[bbgrunt]

47. exactly. a part of the echo chamber and pretty

dismissive of voters (not that I haven't felt inclined to dismiss some of them myself) He perceives what the right wing media reflect back to him from his own talking points==--like an infinite reflections series of mirrors. At some point, the trend must change. Using past trends to predict the future is fine but it never is able to predict the turning points.

[MrModerate]

7. I don't have the expertise of your friend, but I see lots of flaws . . .

in his analysis. In my simpleminded way, I'll attempt to respond.

1. The trend back to Republicans is a blip, caused by the full-court press by the Administration. They can't sustain such an effort -- it'll quickly become tired and tiring. Whether Republicans are better closers or not is arguable, but it's not because they embrace reality while Dems embrace ideals. It's because they have trained themselves to simplify their messages, maintain discipline to a frightening degree, and exploit the media's laziness and cowardice.

2. The Democrats have plenty of message -- mixed with rocket fuel, which is hatred of Bush. Most people (even those who don't agree with him) don't hate Bush -- but many, many, many realize he's not fit to be president. And many, many, many hate his stinking guts. This will be a volatile combo. Stump for stump, Dems can trump Republican messages, and passionately besides. Republicans are going to come up short on passion this year.

3. Dems need focus and clarity to their plans. We're going to suffer from what appears to be a scattered effort, when the content of the various messages is actually very compelling. I blame Pelosi and Reid, and regardless of how November plays out, I think some realignment of the leadership is required.

4. MoveOn is not even nearly kooky. They are mainstream, grassroots, yuppie-liberals. It's lazy MSM-speak to consider them far-left. Anyone who actually reads their stuff would put them right at the center of the liberal tradition. Kos is a loudmouth, and more power to him -- but he's not a kook. Again, lazy thinking, and the electorate barely knows of his existence. They are not hard-core antireligious types either. I know a lot of religious people and they have no perception of the left of center orgs as antireligious. That's a canard tossed out by fundies and their ilk. Also, while America seems to be highly religious, when you dig into it, the vast numbers of left-leaning religious types are firmly in the live-and-let-live camp.

Which is to say, America isn't nearly a religious as it appears to be.

Will dems win in November? I don't know. Republicans are really good campaigners (too bad they can't govern for beans), but they're definitely swimming upstream this year. My prediction (expressed ex cathedra from my asshole). They lose the House by five or 10 seats and the Senate by one or two.

This is not my most carefully thought out piece, so pick away at will -- but (given roughness of expression) it's the way I see it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. Bravo. Well said.

When I was reading the OP I was reminded of an excellent piece of advice I once got.

Which was: Never take advice from someone who wants you to lose.

[AX10]

11. Sounds good to me!

:hi:

[garthranzz]

15. I like this. Thanks.

I think America is religious, but also live and let live. Of course, "religion" too often means "service" or "ritual" separated from inner spirituality. I agree that MO and Kos are not kooky - and your other points are well taken.

[madmunchie]

53. Much of what you said is correct

The biggest worry is Diebold.

I feel that the Dems will take back power in one if not both Houses. The time has come for the country to MAKE some money.

Now that Bush has bled it pretty dry, we will need to infuse some money. We will need to stop the hemorrhaging, so Bush will be stopped. Fighting in Washington will take place over the next couple of years....it will be ugly, and then the Dems will take the White House.

I feel that this will happen because Bush is inept and he has bled the economy dry. If he weren't inept, he might have been able to hold on to power for a couple of more years, but his time has come and gone and a change up is coming.

People that I know HATE Bush and they are Middle America - People that I know that voted for Bush and HATE Democrats (there are a couple of them) do not like what Bush is doing and are sorry that they voted for him.

Unless Diebold screws all of us, the votes will get rid of the Republican hold of the 3 Branches of Government.

Side note: If both Houses go Dem, we MIGHT see a 4 year, 1 term Republican President - McCain - in 08'.

Yeah, I know you think I'm nuts, but remember, it's not what I want, it's what I think may happen.

[question everything]

56. One problem is that there is no national ticket this year

Most voters do like their own representatives, even if they dislike the party and/or the leaders.

And I agree with you that the message needs clarifications, needs to be more specific.

For example, Bush wants to privatize social security. This is lousy, but the plans are very specific. I think that this was true for Gingrich Contract with America.

The whole campaign mode of Republicans has been of very simple, too simple, banners. Of course we know that the issues are more complicated and we loath the idea of taking a complex issue and simplify it, knowing that it will lose in the translation. This was the problem of Gore and of Kerry. But I think that we must.

[bobbolink]

10. "aggressive secular minority" wow.. like "lefty fringe" eh?

I would laugh, but it's just too idiotic.

Someday, I'd like all you "centrists" to tell me what's so kooky (uh, that's really a very old and discarded word--buy a clue) about:

1. Universal health care.

2. Providing for old folk, children and those who can't provide for themselves. Yanno, like other countries do.

3. Protecting the environment.

4. Making the rich pay their fair share, like they used to.

I could go on, but just to learn how those are kooky would certainly help me sleep better tonight.

[Telly Savalas]

34. You just listed the basic moderate agenda.

Any stance in opposition to those points is right-of-center, and anybody who calls those stances kooky is an extreme right-winger.

[bobbolink]

60. That's my thought--so, what constitutes a radical or kooky leftie?

IN this society, I'm a far-out leftie.

In Europe, I'd be considered a moderate, or centrist.

:shrug:

What gives in this crazy country? Why do these DLC types label me as so far out, and call me names?

They don't want me in their precious party?

Thanks for your reply.

[me b zola]

12. Gee, I could have turned on fox news to hear the gop talking points

Thanks for posting :eyes:

[garthranzz]

17. How bout dem Saints? Who dat!

NExt week - Atlanta at the dome!

[me b zola]

28. In case you missed the thread...

Here's a link to the move-on petition to tell Congress to reject the Cheny-Spector bill that would pardon bush* for his past illegal wiretapping of American citizens, and would allow him to continue to illegally wiretap. It seems like this petition is something all people to the right of center would agree with. :hi:

http://pol.moveon.org/dontpardon/?id=8810-6830337-gaMtO77VdBo5xkrjNnWwgA&t=2

[minnesota_liberal]

13. My 2 cents

1. If the (general) election had been in July, The Repubs would have started their multi-million-dollar "Smear & Fear" campaign in May instead of September. Anyone with a household income of under $300,000 who thinks the Repubs will cut their taxes is a moron. The "reality" is that those in power have run up a horrendous amount of debt, which eventually will have to be payed off (with tax revenue) and be financed (with tax revenue) until that happens.

2. The Dems have plenty to run on besides "hate Bush." The question is whether they'll be vocal enough about it to make up for the fact that that the corporate media barely covers them, the Repubs' smear machine is well financed and Bush2 has a bully pulpit that he's not afraid to use.

3. If the Dems have a strategy, I haven't heard anything about it.

4. I didn't know the Dems were controlled by anyone. That's part of the problem. Too many cooks in the kitchen and nobody in charge. It's worse than usual now because we don't have the White House or a majority leader in either house.

[aaronbees]

14. So many flaws I don't know where to begin

Especially with the idea that Moveon.org and DailyKos are the masterminds w/ money controlling the Democratic agenda. That's laughable and just not true and is specifically heisted from right wing memes. Sure, they are informative and motivating to many Dems and progressives but the idea they're essentially the Dem-sanctioned thinktank is ludicrous. Am I somehow missing the deep campaign warchest these organizations have? Perhaps I'll go revisit their financial statements. Also, the misperception that Lieberman was rejected "because he's Jewish," to quote your OP, is equally misguided. Lieberman was largely rejected because he fell out of sep with many traditional Democratic values; to pretend otherwise is to basically lie.

There's some truth to the need to hone a message, make it simple and stay on it, but again the Democratics have clearly fashioned a message about what they will do, as noted above, just as they did in 2004. A large part of the problem there is the continued distractions presented by the most powerful TV media conglomerates and the fact they ignore Democratic plans.

[garthranzz]

18. About Lieberman

I thought the point was, in heavily Jewish Connecticut, even though he's Jewish and Democratic, don't vote for him because he's betrayed the tradition of liberal Jewish Democratic politics. That's my position. Maybe I misheard him.

[bobbieinok]

62. it was INSANE that Hannity et al is so supportive of Lieberman

and constantly tells the democrats we have to change.

AS IF they would ever VOTE for Lieberman.

The only democratic presidential candidate in the 2004 primaries my religious right, republican colleagues found even moderately acceptable was Lieberman.

As one said, 'Well, I sort of like Lieberman; he seems pretty OK, for a democrat.'

[ariellyn]

16. Your "friend"...does he frequent FweeWepubLiK?

I was just wondering because your "friend" is very good at spewing right wing talking points.


"The democrats have no message..."

"The democrats have no strategy..." :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. My thoughts exactly

[CatWoman]

19. you're friends with Sean Hannity?

:shrug:

[garthranzz]

20. G-d Forbid!

[CatWoman]

43. that's exactly who your friend sounds like

especially that favorite straw man and talking point about "all the Dems have is hate towards Bush".

Are the Dems solely the 65 percent who thinks he's a shitty president, that our country is headed in the wrong direction, that the economy sucks, that the war is a terrible fucking mistake and that America is a laughing stock in the world's view?

[roseBudd]

21. We need to use the only subject they care about, they are selfish &

spending without taxing is the one thing that will drive them crazy

Unless...

They have no children

They are don't tax but spend republicans

[The Wielding Truth]

22. They will do anything to win. We want to make everything better .

It's difficult for those two minds to see logic in the other. Republicans have swayed to the batons of their reverends, priests, loud mouth rifle totters,and know-everything businessmen. They don't see past their momentary fears and fierce indignations. They are being courted and they are easily controlled. We are not easy to move because we measure words, actions and their effects. That's why we love Gore, Feingold, respect diversity, and the wisdom of tradition. We know war is always the last action after everything else has failed, and all the worlds people and creatures are our family.

That's why maybe we need someone who can help us win with the least fractures of ethical and criminal campaign trysts. We see the game but refuse to play. Even Mother Teresa would make deals to help the poor. I believe the time has come to control them too. The truth will work, but it must have fire and style. Get in the dogs, but hook them to the sled. Now let's start getting control of these spineless bigots. They will follow us, too.

[Sapphocrat]

23. As nicely as I can put this...

Your "friend" is full of shit.

For starters, if the Democratic Party were controlled by the "kooky fringe," my Australian lover would be living in the U.S., and we'd be making plans to be married. Legally.

As for the rest of his wrong-wing talking points, they're a big, stinking pantload. Your "friend" is a Kool-Aid drinker, and I sincerely hope he hasn't polluted your mind with his garbage.

Ask him if he's ever heard the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativism."

And then ask yourself if you couldn't do a better job of picking your "friends."

[mmonk]

24. The only thing I get from that is he is a republican follower

no matter what he said. I think each race should run on its own merits without over analyzing in order to pretend to be smart. Just hit your opponents weak spots and remember each race is between the candidates and what they say, not democrats that just hate bush vs. a good 'ol tax lowerer family man (or woman) republican.

[DireStrike]

25. Ridiculous.

1. The Republicans will maintain control of both houses. The polls (rasmussen, realclearpolitics) tracking trends show a shift toward the Republicans. Had the election been held in July, the Democrats would have won. Republicans are strong closers, because Democrats talk about ideals which play well before decisions are made. But as we get closer to elections the 50% in the middle come back to 'reality' and vote for Rep. because they will lower taxes and are stronger on defense.

Maybe, I defer on this.

2. The Democrats have no real message, other than hate bush. Most people aren't motivated by hate and don't go to the poll to vote against someone they hate, but for someone. Hating clouds the thinking. Most people (the 50% in the middle) won't respond to that message. They won't vote for someone just because he will be part of an impeach bush coalition.

I certainly would. Is he saying that nobody will be voted out of office because the people don't like him or his policies? History shows him to be wrong. Why does he use the word hate? It's his word.

3. The Democrats have no strategy. They should follow Gingrich's plan fro '94: come up with a 10 point plan (or however many points) and stay on message, spreading that to the media. Gingrich's 10 points were in TV guide - simple, easily understood in 5 minutes or less (whether it was done or not is irrelevant) - tear out, look at it briefly, carry it into the booth. Clinton was successful because he had lots of plan (whether he carried them out or not is irrelevant) and connected with the "simple folk" by his manner of presenting them.

I agree with this, the majority of voters are incredibly stupid. Edit: Other posters have made good points, occasionally people like dean try this and are completely ignored by the media.

4. The Democrats are controlled by the kooky fringe (he named moveon.org and dailykos as examples of the kind of kookiness) that won't appeal to the mainstream. Dean's condescending dismissal of the relgious beliefs of "republicans" (many Americans) is an example. That wing, which controls the money and therefore the direction, is vehemently anti-religious. It makes noises about being inclusive, religious, etc., but is really secular and can't understand or communicate with someone who is truly religious - much as the Republcans can't "talk the talk or walk the walk" with Blacks. He pointed out how Lieberman was ripped - don't vote for him just because he's Jewish. (I'm Jewish, and orthodox, but I disagree with Liebermann's positions on bush and iraq.) (At this point I said that while I favor dialogue, compromise and reaching across the aisle, that cannot be done in the atmosphere bush has created.) The Democrats will never win while the part is controlled by a vehemently anti-religious, aggressively secular minority - much as the Republicans couldn't win when Pat Robertson and his fringe controlled the party.

Bullshit. The difference between pat robertson and george bush is...? He has no idea what he's talking about. He's been hanging around too many republicans, and if this is what passes for common knowledge in the industry it's no wonder the democrats are floundering so badly. He's helping to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. The consultants and ad/pr people and that whole section of the election "industry" are coloring elections, and it seems they've drunk the taxpayer funded koolaid.

[mb7588a]

26. I'm in a similar business, and in DC...

Number 2 absolutely dead on. We Democrats lack a coherent message that binds us. Unfortunately that's not the biggest problem. Democrats have no punches to throw - there is no forum for reaching mass audiences that welcome Democrats.
Cable News? ...run by corporations and lacking true investigative journalists.
Newspapers? ...well, some, if you choose wisely.
Internet? ...you get what you reqest.
Talk radio? ...You fucking nuts?

Number 3 is false, but it seems as if they don't have a strategy. The average Democrat cannot tell me what the strategy is. If he can, he can't explain the merits and virtues of said plan to my satisfaction. There is A LOT to be said for targetting - smart campaigns win elections. Dumping money where the Democratic sun (40% support or less) doesn't shine is hopelessly pathetic.

Another problem in strategy that a lot of Democratic operatives ran into in 2004 WAS moveon.org and America Coming Together. They muddied the message, and stole volunteers from tried and true, well planned GOTV operations. They do good work, but the drain the resources available to ACTUAL campaigns with the expertise and plan to win.

Number 4 is correct. That is not a bad thing. A fired up base wins primaries (see Leiberman, Joe - circa 2006), and can deliver victories in important midterm elections.

Your friend was not spouting conventional wisdom among political operatives. The best operatives are the ones who can actually get the task done that needs to be done. That's what we have really laked in the party. Everyone should stop by their local campaign office and grill the organizer there:
"How many doors did you knock on last weekend?"
"Who writes your check?"
"How many hours do you work per day? When was your last day off?"
"How many volunteer recuitment calls did you make today?
......the answers to these questions may shock you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Everyone should stop by their local campaign office

and VOLUNTEER!! Forget those questions. Roll up your sleeves and get to work.

[IChing]

27. His reasoning is torture and against the Geneva Conventions

His reasoning is what the republican congress and their president did to the people of Louisiana and New Orleans
That is where you are from right? Louisiana?

"The center of right" is a crime against humanity.

[EFerrari]

29. MoveOn can't even control their own forum, let alone the Party. n/t

[ulysses]

30. this is funny.

He pointed out how Lieberman was ripped - don't vote for him just because he's Jewish.

Right. How many opposed to Lieberman support Feingold?

Bet there are more than a few.

[rockymountaindem]

32. Or Boxer?

Or Lautenberg, the guy who showed up on the Senate floor in 2004 with a cartoon drawing of a "chickenhawk"?

[ulysses]

33. political "operatives" and "strategists" are quite good

for laughs, but not much else.

[rockymountaindem]

39. I don't know

I think some of them are competant, and I wouldn't judge the whole profession by the RW talking points posted in the OP.

[ulysses]

40. eh, maybe.

I don't give a whole lot of credence to the "consultant" trip as a whole. I've seen how they can screw up a school, too.

[garthranzz]

41. He was quoting someone else -on a blog, not saying that himself.

[ulysses]

42. can we assume he agrees with the statement? n/t

[garthranzz]

48. No!

[ulysses]

49. then why would he quote it uncritically?

[CatWoman]

44. funny

is Zell Miller Jewish, too?

Dems can't stand him. Does that automatically make that fucking loon Jewish?

[ulysses]

46. I'm not sure if any of the tribes of Israel

got quite *that* lost. :hi:

[rockymountaindem]

31. This sounds like a Republican blast-fax

sent to their talking heads, media pundits, and "opinion" columnists. Poll data is poll data, but as the Republicans have told us after 2000, 2002 and 2004, polls just seem to be completely wrong a lot of the time :sarcasm:

As for the rest of it, nothing but the tired invective the Republicans are praying the voters will believe. We shall see in November.

[Sydnie]

35. I disagree with parts of number 2

People OFTEN go to the polls to vote against someone they hate. I see it on a statewide level all the time. If that wasn't the case, negative ads would NOT work as well as they do. The ads make you HATE the person that they attack, thus you go to the polls and vote against him, rather than FOR someone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Biased crap

The Dems have lots of plans. Too bad your friend is too partisan to open his mind and learn about them.

[Spazito]

45. Wow, is your friend Ken Mehlman by any chance?

If not he sure could stand in for him, those are pure right-wing talking points.

[bbgrunt]

50. the only reason he forgot to list

but is the real reason dems might lose is because they don't have access to the code in the voting machines.

[berni_mccoy]

51. Never take "advice" from a political operative

[sofa king]

52. I think your friend left out three things.

Or more likely, he probably mentioned these things, but probably not like this:

5. With the (possibly illegal) collusion of the oil companies, gasoline prices have dropped and the miniscule attention span of Americans will encourage them to forget how badly they've been fleeced the past six years.

6. Fear has worked its magic thanks to the usual Rovian tactics of false terror warnings and another Osama tape. Again, Americans aren't smart enough to remember the last round of bullshit terror warnings, which concluded with the near-indictment of Karl Rove.

7. Diebold.

There are still three devastatingly powerful tools left in the box which I fully expect to see should Republican fortunes wane in the coming weeks: yet another false-flag terror operation on American soil, an invasion of Iran, and martial law if they lose.

Seriously. You don't steal two trillion dollars and then allow your potential prosecutors to secure a majority in Congress. They're going to win; the question is how many Americans are going to die in order for them to win it.

[Lexingtonian]

54. He's bizarrely wrong

No intelligent Republican I know goes that far. He (if he really exists) has spent far too much time in the trenches and imagines that the political landscape of 1980 or so until now will exist forever.

1. The "Bush bounce" around 9/11 and the plane plot is over and it didn't last a week to fade. No, the numbers are not actually moving toward Republicans. Indeed, the breakdown of moderate and leaner Republican and conservative Democratic support for hardline Republicans is progessing in an amusing northeast-to-southwest arc across the country. All hardline incumbent Republicans and candidates are going into a support crash of (on average) ~10% as this wave hits them- and those voters are adamantly not going to go back to them.

2. In the 2004 elections everyone agreed on what the two Parties stood for, no matter where they stood on the spectrum and no matter what the ads and such claimed. There has been no change since. No one is truly confused about what the Parties intend to do. Yes, the middlemost 10% won't vote- but they never do in midterms anyway. Everyone agrees that Democrats in control of Congress will ethics investigate a pile of Republican politicians and appointees and projects, will curb or kill many of the tax cuts for Bush cronies and such and shoot for a budget rebalancing, will probably defund Iraq to a large degree, and will prevent hardline Right sorts from become federal judges. Iraq will evolve- collapse into civil war- of its own accord. If the Bush Administration collapses as a result of all this, only hardline Republicans still care. (And no one else will care what they think.)

3. There was no true Gingrich plan or strategy or whatever in 1994 other than exploiting their money and their voters' bigotry. The claim that the 'Contract' thingamajig created the 1994 Republican victory is bullshit that has long been debunked. No one really knew about it outside the GOP operators and politicos. Average people were simply and brutally tired of the conservative Democrats and there was consensus that the con D's had nothing left to offer. (And they didn't.) Moderate Democrats, who knew nothing of this Contract, stayed home, Republicans turned out in average numbers in 1994. Right now the national consensus is that hardline Republicans have nothing useful left to offer and lots of downside, so the numbers and behaviors are a lot like those seen in 1994. The outcome will be similar.

4. This is the mythology that the country is center Right on average for ever. Well, if he hasn't noticed, the country has moved left to abject neutrality during the past two years, to passivity. It's a matter of the two remaining credible political blocs, one on each side, fighting it out. And as in a civil war, it's not the occasional victories of one over the other that matters, it's the disintegration of one side to inability to resist conquest and destruction by the other that does matter.

Hardline Republicans have been bleeding, in part sacrificing, their allied blocs over the past two years. Liberals, i.e. hardline Democrats, are resurgent and have a united partisan alliance and the sympathy of the Center now. The Republican coalition is fraying but can't get out of the game it's in, and should lose its moderate bloc in the next year or two. That means that the political center of gravity is going to shift left, and the society will bias center-left in 2008 and 2010 and perhaps a good bit longer.

Bush and his crew took the Party Nixon created- moderates, Rightists, and hardcore conservatives (i.e. 'Christian Right')- in 2000 and chose to use it up for a vainglorious war, a large scale theft from taxpayers, and an ugly authoritarian joyride at home. They knew that the glue holding the Nixon coalition together was a desire to carry on a society of castes and colonial economic order and military preeminence in the world. They also knew that the ideological bigotry that kept this coalition together was going to fall below the level needed for domination, die out with the pre-Boomer generation that grew up in an colonial apartheid society prior to and just after WW2. They decided to use it for all it was worth.

[Rowdyboy]

55. He's memorized his talking points and uses them well....Nothing new there

[SoCalDemGrrl]

57. They're preparing us for the DIEBOLDING of America. His ilk parrots those

talking points about the Dems so that when Diebold

shaves a couple of points here and there to keep

the GOP in power, there isn't a REVOLUTION in the

streets. They can always point to how if the election were

held in July/August the Dems would have run away with it.

Same thing happened in '04 with Kerry, that along with another

video appearance by Osama (Bush's favorite boogieman). :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. Take the stridently secular/culture war stuff out of the "kooky" message

And enough working-class Americans would agree with it, that it could
not be considered "kooky" anymore. Just like before Lenin came along.

Or at least, that's what Thomas Frank says.

We're pissing on potential supporters by identifying religion with conservatism.

Much less secularism with social justice (like this "strategist" apparently does.)

Most of the stridently secular professional types I've met in real life have the same attitude towards "traditional concerns of the left" as this guy does. I'd bet dollars to donuts he's part of the same affluent, secular, professional milieu as most Dem strategists. All the Republican strategists are.

They all talk endlessly about how important cultural issues are to the average American -- cultural issues they don't personally identify with. Best to stop talking down to people about their cultural beliefs and trying to convince them to support an economic platform created by and for upper class professionals.

The "secular vs. religious" fight is just code words to keep people distracted from the fact that wealthy professionals have taken over both parties.

[Skidmore]

59. "Washington vs. the home folk"

This is the problem. The politicos and elected officials see themselves as a separate class and not of the people. We need a new populism and someone with enough presence of mind to convey a sense of himself/herself as equal to and not above his/her fellow citizens. Someone who can make it seem possible for just another regular person to become president or senator or representative, not another person who got there because they were willing to pony up to buy an office. We need to restore integrity to the system and honor to civil service.

[izzybeans]

61. If he were an expert at running campaigns, either repub. or dem.,

he already knows that 2, 3, and 4 are horseshit talking points. Why? Because, as a repub. strategist he would spend much of his time spinning democrats in this manner in attempt to hide that democrats and leftists are mainstream and traditional americans, and that the specific plans that dems have are widely published and discussed in their publications or speeches. If he were a dem. strategist, instead of bashing democrats with talking points he would have a strategy to combat those talking points. He would be on the phone with all major networks and radio outlets publicizing his candidate's stances.

Given his reasoning I have no doubt he's a strategist but he certainly is partisan and the proof is the pudding you provided. If he were non partisan he would have provided dems. a strategy instead of the same bullet points I recieve from the GOP.com listserve. Either that or I feel really sorry for any democratic clients of his. They are getting piss poor advice.

[AspenRose]

63. People aren't motivated by hate?

What does he think stirs up the republicans to get out and vote, every time?