Democrats: When will we ever learn?

[incontrovertible]

So the Democrats must abandon the “laundry lists” of issues, and instead repeatedly pound on the “hot button issues.” Bush is a liar. He is an international outlaw. He and his gang are robbing you of your wealth, your future, and the future of your children. He has brought our beloved country into disrepute the world over. And he is sending our kids abroad to fight and die for Cheney's Halliburton and his Daddy's Carlisle Group.

Wow, what a spectacularly idiotic strategy coming from a supposed politically astute professor.

Does the word "Lewinskygate" mean anything to you? The American people bitterly resent the implication that they're a bunch of Wal-mart shopping unwashed morons for not hating the caricature of a human being that you hate. When will the Democrats, particularly the rank-and-file, ever learn that? Clinton's impeachment survival and never-lagging approval rating wasn't lesson enough?

Get the hell out of fantasyland, people. The huge majority of noncommitteds, who always decide all elections, see Bush not as a Hitleresque imbecile, but as a soft-spoken, plain-speaking, quietly tough gentleman who loves the country. The Hitler-mustache posters and unhinged histrionics from the arch-left offends the living piss out of them, and they don't see ANWR as the equivalent of the Holocaust. Sorry, but take your damn medicine. You're not winning them over by lecturing them about how stupid they are.

2004 will hinge on two issues, and two issues alone:

1) We will do a better job of defending the country
2) We will do a better job managing the economy.

We're supposed to try to be "defining" Bush as a part of this? TOTAL waste of time. The American people have already defined Bush, whether you like their definition or not. The Republicans lost this understanding in 1998, and it led to the destruction of Newt Gingrich and all his cronies, and the setback of their agenda for twenty years. I'd wager that'll be a lesson not soon forgotten.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. Agreed! We must forcus on a few core issues!

The people in general have been turned off by our party's "many complex issues" line. We need to have a simple, straight forward message!

[liberalmuse]

2. That was an excellent, albeit frustrating article.

(Check it out on the DU home page). Will we once again shoot ourselves in the foot? The author has outlined an excellent strategy, and I can only hope that Dems wake up and decide to follow it. We need to start a mailing campaign to emphasize to Dem leadership how important it is that we unite, but if we can't even do that here on DU, how can we expect it to be done throughout the Democratic Party?

I am guilty of getting angry with Kerry supporters and threatening mimimal support if he is nominated. Lately, I have seen that there are a number of DUers who have already committed themselves to wholeheartedly supporting whomever will be our Democratic candidate. I greatly respect these people. Instead of participating in the bashing or defense of a candidate, they continually reiterate the need for us to decide to unite NOW in order to minimize hard feelings. After getting testy last night trying to defend my candidate, one of these posters woke me up to the fact that we need to concentrate on beating Bush, and it doesn't matter who is nominated--the important thing is that we unite behind him/her in order to defeat Bush, and it can be done. It would be unfortunate if petty disputes and hard feelings among those in our own party were the only thing keeping a Democrat out of the White House.

[klyon]

18. Good article

Good article, we should implement immediately.
KL

[JailBush]

3. Frankly, I suspect most people respect intelligence and dedication.

I'd rather vote for a candidate who can carry on an intelligent discussion about two dozen issues than someone who just chants "Jobs and Defense!"

It's fine to focus on some hot-button issues and tailor your sound bytes around them. But I really think every candidate and supporter should do the following:

1. Make detailed information about a variety of issues available for anyone who is interested. (After all, there ARE people who care about prescription ddrugs, the environment and many other issues that don't fall under Jobs and Defense.)

2. Mention these other issues from time to time. If you aren't making an effort to educate the public, then you're just treading water. How can anyone who treads water call themself a progressive?

3. Continue studying the issues so you'll be on the ball if you get into a discussion about any of them.

4. Point out that the Repugs are only running on two or three hot-button issues.

Our last (Seattle) Mayor got elected on nothing more than his stupid slogan, "The Seattle Way." But the other choices were also corrupt or weren't publicized by the media. If the voters KNEW there was a candidate who had something to say about at least ten issues, he'd probably be Mayor.

[He loved Big Brother]

19. I agree JailBush

Fellow Seattleite here, and I myself would appreciate candidates who can quickly discuss any issue put before them. Unfortunately, most (D) candidates running at the moment do nothing but respond to what a certain fellow candidate says or does. That is NOT the way to win MY vote.

[vi5]

4. Thank you......I agree.....

And I don't think this makes me one iota less liberal than I ever was. I am far left on many, many issues but the most important thing I can think of is winning in '04 to get somewhat back in that direction. I"m willing to accept it in small incriments and I'm willing to stem my anger if it means constructive ways to stop the bleeding that is being done in this country.

[Jim Sagle]

5. The article is right, you're wrong, and that's the end of it.

[vi5]

6. Excellent rebutal....

Very well thought out and lucid.

You've convinced everyone I'm sure.

[incontrovertible]

7. No, it isn't, no, I am not, and no, it is not.

Sorry, but I would rather not flush 2004 down the toilet. I'd prefer it if my government would stop rewarding corporations for shipping IT jobs to India, so I might retain a living wage throughout the balance of my working life. If it's more important to you to convince the noncommitteds that Bush is Hitler, and they are idiots for believing otherwise, then be my guest. Let "Bush is Hitler" be the rallying cry for the whole Democratic campaign, and let us see where it takes us. Because I will be posting, the day after the election, one line: "I told you so."

The average American noncommitted voter does not give a shit whether Europeans think Bush is an "international outlaw," and if you doubt that, take a look at the support percentages at the outset of the Iraq war.

To further illustrate: Read the last paragraph of this article. It's an opinion shared by every other credible political scientist who has commented on the strategy dubbed "Payback Tuesday" by Michael Moore.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-democrats-florida,1,6279267.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

The biggest political liability the Democrats have going into this election is not infighting amongst the top-tier candidacies, it's the provable delusions of a huge percentage of the base.

[Martin Eden]

8. Agree / Disagree

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with your posts and the article from the DU Homepage.

I thought some of the strategies in the article made a lot of sense, but I also thought the biggest error was in the message it advised us to pound:

Bush is a liar. He is an international outlaw. He and his gang are robbing you of your wealth, your future, and the future of your children. He has brought our beloved country into disrepute the world over. And he is sending our kids abroad to fight and die for Cheney's Halliburton and his Daddy's Carlisle Group.

Without a doubt, there is a middle ground in the American electorate that has the potential to be persuaded to vote against Bush -- and they will likely decide this election. And since many of them have had a favorable view of the president, they will react negatively to shrill accusations (however true they may be).

The key, IMO, is to honestly and persuasively present the facts and let the voters conclude for themselves that Bush is a liar who has made America less safe. You say we have to make the case that we will be better defenders of the country than Bush -- how can we do this without comparing ourselves to Bush -- and how can we do that without exposing the lies and the folly and the danger of his foreign policy?

Certainly, we should avoid histrionics and hyperbole, but I'm not sure what you mean by "provable delusions". The facts are that the Bush administration has undermined our national security by compromising the integrity of our intelligence agencies, overburdening our military with the unwise and unnecessary invasion & occupation of Iraq, and provoking anti-Americanism that breeds terrorism.

Unless we dispell the lies that much of the public has come to believe, they will continue to view Bush as their champion in the war against terror.

I believe this can be done without insulting or offending the citizens whose votes we need. It must be done, or we stand little chance.

And let's not forget that we must also energize the base to get a large turnout on election day. Also, we need to make the public in general aware of how this election will have a real impact on their lives -- and the crucial differences between our candidate and Bush. Around half of all eligible voters don't even bother to vote -- we need these people as much as we need swing voters.

GW Bush is most definitely not an honest and compassionate conservative who will lead our nation to security and prosperity. The man has to be brought down, or all is lost.

[incontrovertible]

10. nice response

I'm not sure what you mean by "provable delusions".

The delusion that the American people can be persuaded to hate the same person/thing that oneself does by insulting their intellect and engaging in unhinged histrionics.

Without a doubt, there is a middle ground in the American electorate that has the potential to be persuaded to vote against Bush -- and they will likely decide this election. And since many of them have had a favorable view of the president, they will react negatively to shrill accusations (however true they may be).

My point exactly. Belittling the uncommitteds provable respect and admiration for Bush - which is quite high despite what the DU collective delusionally believes to the contrary - by evoking Europe's hatred of the man, and throwing the terms "international outlaw" and "his Daddy" about, will backfire and doom the Democratic candidacy in 2004. We might as well open every Democratic rally by having someone exploding, Wellstone-funeral style, with "OPEN YOUR EYES, YOU STUPID SHEEPLE!!! BAAAAH!!! BAAAAH!!!!" Great plan.

You say we have to make the case that we will be better defenders of the country than Bush -- how can we do this without comparing ourselves to Bush -- and how can we do that without exposing the lies and the folly and the danger of his foreign policy?

We cannot. We do exactly as you describe, with respect for the intelligence and collective wisdom of the electorate, without taking on the public relations strategies of International ANSWER. We do not assume the role of Savior Of The People From Their Own Stupid Selves, or we spend the next four years STILL wandering in the wilderness.

I believe this can be done without insulting or offending the citizens whose votes we need. It must be done, or we stand little chance.

Yep. No argument here.

And let's not forget that we must also energize the base to get a large turnout on election day.

The base is more energized than it has ever been, almost a year out. That won't be a problem. At this point the sermons that are preached to the choir need to become carefully considered, as they will begin to become noticed by the noncommitted.

Around half of all eligible voters don't even bother to vote -- we need these people as much as we need swing voters.

To the extent that we can convince nonvoters to support our position without alienating more to the other side than we attract to our own, sure. Bluntly, I think Ralph Reed had the best realpolitik strategy regarding the nonvoter class - they're a distant consideration and a drain on resources; the prize is the noncommitted middle, and will be so long as there's a two-party system.

GW Bush is most definitely not an honest and compassionate conservative who will lead our nation to security and prosperity. The man has to be brought down, or all is lost.

No argument there, either.

[TygrBright]

25. WHY is "the provable delusions of a huge percentage of the base"...

...such a big political liability?

Seems to me the GOPpies have travelled far and fast by playing to exactly that audience.

Mind you, I don't necessarily share the opinions expressed in any of these articles or posts about what the "average voter believes" or whether or not it is true/false, silly/logical, etc.

The point I'm making here is that successful electoral politics are rarely built upon an appeal to incotrovertable logic and demonstrable truth.

helpfully,
Bright

[many a good man]

9. Credibility is his biggest vulnerability

Since when has a Democratic candidate ever run a general election campaign based on "histrionics" and "far-left" anything?

I agree to a point on the futility of redefining your opponent. However, questioning your rival's credibility is as old as democratic politics. In our present circumstances it promises to be quite effective.

Bush lied to us and the world to start the war in Iraq. Plain and simple:

He stated as fact things that he knew were questionable. The intelligence was presented to him with caveats and uncertainties but he presented it to the world as known fact.

He implied Saddam was connected to 911. He "knew" where the WMDs were. He said they were reconstituting the nuke program. He said it was a total surprise that terrorists might fly a hijacked jet into an office building. It goes on and on.

He campaigned on a moderate platform. "Clear Skies" permits more pollutants in the air. "Healthy Forests" allows corporations to gut protected forests. Agree or disagree with these policies, they are cloaked with deception. People don't like to be deceived.

One component of the campaign strategy must question his credibility. The other components must articulate better visions for domestic and foreign policy.

[incontrovertible]

11. um

Since when has a Democratic candidate ever run a general election campaign based on "histrionics" and "far-left" anything?

A Democratic campaign that routinely used the terms "international outlaw" and "his Daddy" to describe a sitting President who held approval ratings in the 90s for several months, despite a terrorist attack, a war, and a brutal recession, would be the textbook definition of "histrionics," not to mention suicidal.

I'm not quite so devoid of hope for the socially conscious worldview to suppose that it's time we become political suicide bombers.

So, no, I don't foresee any of the electable candidates engaging in histrionics. The base, however, is another story, and whomever the nominee ultimately is, had better have a disciplined campaign machine oiled and ready to run. The Republicans keep their walking caricatures under wraps with remarkable precision. Ours get in the front of rallies with Hitler-mustache posters and placards reading "FUCK your WAR!" Goes over great out there in the suburbs - trust me.

All that aside, I offer no arguments to any of your points. Solid, succinct and all totally valid.

[donhakman]

12. People will believe the lies anyway

Even the biggest lies fade in time.
Ths issue of the consequences live forever.

[many a good man]

14. Keeping the "Walking caricatures under wraps"

LOL! You do make a good point there. Liberals do tend to allow a lot more freedom in that area. I agree it can be a big liability if they get too much air time. My point is I doubt any campaign after they get the nomination will tolerate such a thing.

It is indeed too risky. With the country split 50-50, you don't want to turn off the fence-sitters with stereotypes based on fringe elements(despite the fact they may be right!) We can win with reason and vision; we don't need theater.

What frightens me are the protests planned at the GOP convention in September. I think this might turn into exactly what you fear. National television for a week. Chicago '68 all over again.

I'd be interested in hearing from people old enough to remember what the coverage was like in '68 and what impact it may have had on the election that year...

[incontrovertible]

16. exactly right

What frightens me are the protests planned at the GOP convention in September. I think this might turn into exactly what you fear. National television for a week. Chicago '68 all over again.

I think Rove and his pit of vipers are salivating at the prospect. We go first, they go second - days after the third anniversary of 9/11, and blocks from ground zero. If it turns into Seattle WTO on the streets of new york, dreadlocked anarchists smashing windows and Hitler-mustache signs as far as the eye can see, the uncommitteds forget every word spoken in Boston, Bush's approval rating spikes, general approval of the opposition plummets, and the Democratic candidate appears on television, daily, for weeks, repudiating the behavior of the lunatic fringe of the base, spawning a crack in the leftist coalition, which leads to a Green party challenge, which breaks the Democratic back, which leads to a Bush landslide.

I would frankly recommend the pre-emptive disavowal by the Democratic Party of any action in New York. "We will settle our differences in the voting booth, not on the streets." If for NO other reason than to neuter the prospect of provocateurs, if one wants to be conspiratorial about it. But that's just me.

[littlejoe]

20. We have to ask ourselves,

just what would James Carville do?

[He loved Big Brother]

22. You yourself are helping perpetuate stereotypes

"Dreadlocks" and "anarchism" don't always go together, nor do they automatically go hand in hand with smashing windows.

In a melting pot like NYC, I expect to see a lot of different (maybe colorful) expressions of protest outside the GOP convention, from people who aren't interested in repressing themselves or their viewpoints in order to please this or that faction of the population. Especially in the supposed "land of the free".

[Snellius]

13. Who is this "average American" you seem so conversant with?

I'm sorry but I'm always suspicious of any argument that rests on someone's megalomania that they know what "Americans" really think or what the "average person" really wants. And as for this "huge majority of noncommitteds". How do you know what they see or what they feel. It's like those phony preachers who claim to have some private email address for God. "God says this" or "God wants that." It don't know if it's true or not. I do know that they don't.

[incontrovertible]

15. the ones that decide elections.

If you believe my assessment to be incorrect, produce evidence to the contrary. For my own reference, I would point simply to Florida 2002, and more broadly, election 2002. Michael Moore declared, before the fact, that this would be forever remembered as "Payback Tuesday." Instead, it was an abject humiliation for the Democratic party, as the once-loyal so-called "soccer mom" vote turned on them in droves.

Beyond that, do your own research and by all means, prove me wrong about the general political leanings of the uncommitted middle, if you can. I doubt you'll succeed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. In Oregon, at least

it wasn't that the "soccer moms" turned on the Democrats. It was more that the Republicans were really excited about their candidates and the Democrats were not.

As a result, the Senate candidate lost, and the gubernatorial candidate barely squeaked in.

[littlejoe]

21. Response to reply 16.

You sound like a Harvard man. You can always tell a Harvard man. But you can't tell him anything.

[Enjolras]

23. The "uncommtted middle" seeks leadership, of any kind

This is why the GOP has made strides with them. In a crisis, it's better to be strong and wrong than weak and right. You can hate Bush and the Republicans for their predatory, self-serving ideology, but you cannot say they lack confidence. I don't see them running to the middle of the spectrum to avoid being seen as extremist. It's also clear that they are unified in their belief, however misguided.

Ironically, this should be our model. Be strong, confident, and damn the consequences. And it's my belief that the 2002 congressional elections, with the Democrats trying to resurrect Clintonian triangulation (read: appeasement) and getting spanked for their weakness stand as proof of that.

[Martin Eden]

24. 2002 mid-terms and Democratic leadership

The Dem's 2002 strategy seemed to be retreat to victory. They (most, anyway) looked at Bush's high numbers and meekly refrained from challenging the president.

This was the time when we most needed leadership, when we hadn't yet crossed the rubicon in Iraq, and when our party desperately needed to solidify control of the Senate. Instead, they ceded their Constitutionally mandated responsibility in matters of war to an administration whose foreign policy was run by neocons whose agenda was no secret.

They offered no coherent or unified platform to offer the voters as a discernable choice, either foreign or domestic. And as you say, they got spanked.

I know the Democratic Party is a diverse lot, but we should be able to agree on some core issues in which we substantially differ with the current Repiblican regime. IMO, we have to send a clear and strong message that we stand for:

International Cooperation
We cannot win the peace in Iraq or the war against terrorism without good relations with the international community. In three short years the Bush administration has damaged our credibility and standing in the world, and has deeply offended long-standing allies whose cooperation and help we need. Our platform should be to repair this damage, because it is our national interests.

Fiscal Responsibility and Fair Taxation
The cascading deficit threatens our economic future. Huge tax breaks for the rich are a very inefficient and costly stimulus, and unfair in an era in which the gap between rich and poor is enormous and growing. Democrats should stand for progressive taxation and a balanced budget.

Restoring integrity to government agencies by eliminating conflict of interest
The practice of the Bush administration has been to install industry lobbyists as watchdogs of those industries. The function of government agencies should be to provide oversight to protect the savings of hardworking Americans (re: Enron & mutual fund cheating) and to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink. Bush is putting the foxes in charge of the chicken coup -- he is enriching his corporate cronies endangering everyone else. This should be a huge scandal and a major issue.

Sustainable Energy Policy
Rather than wean us of our costly addiction to fossil fuels, Bush's solution is to subsidize and expand consumption of finite resources that pollute our environment and make us dependent on the volatile Middle East. Democrats must advocate reversing this disastrous course by promoting fuel efficiency, conservation, and the development of renewable energy sources that are not only feasable but economically imperative in the long run.

I know there are more vital issues that should be major planks in our platform, but these are a few that I think all the Democartic candidates should be able to agree on, and that provide a distinct and better choice than what Bush stands for.

We need to hammer a few key principles that will imbed themselves in the public mind so that next November the voters know what the Democratic Party stands for and why we will provide leadership that is much better for their interests and for our nation.