To what extent are we as an entire party to blame if we face an '04 loss?

[vi5]

I don't mean just blaming the DLC, or the Centrists, or the far left or whatever other scapegoats are de rigeur on any given day.

The fact is that during the entire Clinton era, Republicans watched and learned from their mistakes. They learned what to emphasize and what to not. They learned what their base would not tolerate but also what the base would understand to be "coded" language that was needed to appeal to moderates. They recognized what republican issues were winners and what ones were losers. This learning process allowed them to get enough votes in '00 (despite the undisputed successes of 8 years of Democratic presidential leadership) to get the race called in their favor.

They hadn't learned this lesson enough by '96 so they faced a loss by nominating Dole.

So if after 4 years of knowing what the republicans will throw at us...after 4 years of knowing what the media will and will not emphasize....after 4 years of knowing which issues consistently do and do not play well with the american public (specifically the voters who end up deciding elections)....after having 4 years to prepare for this and to come up with a strategy, on top of knowing after 8 years of Clinton, what a winning democratic strategy looks like........

If we don't have the wherewithal, the unity, the understanding that there are things we need to emphasize and things that we should not abandon but at the same time need to de-emphasize or not make such a hard stance on......if we don't have these things aren't we at least in some part to blame? We can say it's "the media" all we want. But the fact is we have known the media has been this particular way for at least 10-12 years. If we know the way the game is played, we do share some culpability to adapt ourselves to it, however insiduous it may seem. If we know what republicans will do to win, we share some culpability if we let them get away with it. And if, as much as we dismiss polls (sometimes justifiably so when they are outliers), don't we share some culpability if we ignore the issues that consistently play well or play poorly across most of these polls consistently over time?

All of this goes for the "centrists" and moderates as well as the "liberals" in our party. There are enough potential mistakes as well as enough lessons to be learned all around.

[brainshrub]

1. Depends on the type of loss...

If Bu$h steals this election again, it will energize the population and possibly cause a revolution. (A peaceful, nonviolent revolution hopefully.)

If Lieberman wins the nomination and loses to Bu$h, then the DLC is 100% dead.

If another candidate wins, and the race is a blow-out for Bush, the Democratic party is dead.

If another candidate comes close, we will be in the same boat as before, but the 2008 Dem candidate will probably make Lieberman look like a Democrat.

[jpgray]

2. The problem is, there IS no central control of the Democratic Party

I myself see that as one of our strengths, but when it comes to a unified message and a smooth power shift from one ideological group to another, we suck. However, we have potentially the largest political base in the system, because the views of our leaders are so broad. From Kucinich to Lieberman, even our presidential candidates are a study in variety. Right now the energy in our party is sadly on moderate, conservative Democrats. I think if anything causes our loss in 2004, it will be an unwillingness to really stick it to George over all his failures, because a few of them are attractive to corporate interests. Bush has failed on so many levels in this presidency, even if the economy were turned around and Bin Laden captured, it should be inconceivable that he would be elected. Easing off on his corporation pleasing failures is a sure way to deflate energy in this campaign, and every major candidate does this on a semi-regular basis. If Kucinich looked like Johnny Depp, maybe something else could be arranged. :)

[bryant69]

3. Party Unity

This is another thing the Republicans have down to a science, that we don't seem to have. It comes, I think, from their feeling like underdogs (and there are signs that they are not going to be this way forever. Already many Religious Conservatives are angry with President Bush for not shutting down the department of Education or building a "Frienship Wall" between us and Mexico (with, presumably, "Frienship Landmines," "Frienship Machine Guns," and "Freindship Rotweillers"). But they feel that they must all hang together.

Our various fractions oftent feel no empathy or understanding towards one another. The centrist feels that the leftist is unrealistic. The leftist feels that the centrist is a sell out. Environmentalist and Labor have radically different goals. And so on. That's, in a way, why we have 9 candidates; looked at that way it's a surprise we don't have more.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Iverson]

4. with or without electoral fraud?

It has been demonstrated that one can win, yet be deprived of that victory through fraud.

With fraud, the blame lies primarily with the perpetrators, although those non-perpetrating enablers have a secondary level of blame.

Without fraud, the party generally should accept responsibility (I don't say blame here) and analyze what should be done differently.

[mhr]

5. 100% - Democratic Party = Disorganization And Chaos

You want to win, emulate republican organization.

Until then, further losses will continue.

At the grass roots level, there is almost a total disconnect between the party and the activists.

This leads to many people working independently and counter productively.

The results: lack of focus, wasted resources, and disillusionment.

[xchrom]

6. the game plan repukes

are playing out of was started during the reagan era.
they have refined and tightened their message since then.
corporations have been playing an increasingly major role in politics since the 70's and the reagan admin did more than any other admin to throw open the doors to their influence.
what dems haven't done and still aren't doing consistently is making a ''team'' out of the masses that counterbalances all that -- and that's because to a certain extent they too are controlled by corporations.
it's about getting a leadership that recognizes ''free marketers'' for what they are and who they are in the dem party. and from there having whatever discussions about the party and vision for the country dems stand for. the party doesn't have to lose in 04 to still be a party with some very serious wounds -- the party had those wounds in the clinton admin -- dems let repukes play them like a drum over health care and contract on america and taxes. all three attacks have strong economic messages in them, well laced with hate-speak for liberals.
clarity and strong dose of realizing just who the enemy is will be what saves the democratic party. so i guess the short answer is -- the leadership -- who ever they are.

[NicRic]

7. The idea that we can lose......

to such a terrible President will only prove the hold big corperations have on our goverment and their ability to manipulate the public opinion to the point they could get a pig elected ! I also blame the ill informed voters that vote for party affiliation , over common sense ! The repugs love to raise the level of hate and devision between Americans based on which party they belong to , this gets the voters emotionally charged and instead of voting with their heads they vote off emotion ,or loyalty to a party that does not have their best interest in mind at all. I also never could understand certain groups or persons that are loyal to the repugs ,when the record shows the repugs have done nothing good and have in fact hurt the groups goals !

[YNGW]

8. 0% or 100%

The whole party can't be blamed what what a minutely, small percentage of very vocal members are doing unless we continue to stand by and let them destroy the party.

It's too late to do anything about it at this late of a date, but depending on the outcome of election 2004, a loss will mean it's time to clean house and either give the boot to a bunch of individuals and groups, or let them know they can stay and continue to vote for the party but they need to tone their rhetoric down to being hardly noticable if they're even allowed to be heard at all.

[Iverson]

9. "allowed to be heard"

That's just amazing.

[YNGW]

10. It's called politics.

Nobody said it was pretty.

[Iverson]

11. Oh, that makes it all right then.

Now tell me the story about the Great Big Tent.

[YNGW]

14. It's strategy.

Politics is strategy. Our party used to tell the special interests, etc.. how things would be. Now, the special interests tell the party. By doing that, we've lost our edge, therefore we are losing elections because a vocal minority are being allowed to define the whole party.

We either have people and/or groups who are willing to play the game the way it takes to win, or they need to find somewhere else voice their concerns.

[jpgray]

12. Yeah, you speak for me on that one

The diversity of viewpoints in our party is a strength, and not a weakness. Having Kucinich and Sharpton in the primary, for example, makes the debates much more interesting and representative of the party members than they would be otherwise.

[lcordero]

13. I don't buy it and I never will

If the Democratic Party is willing to keep on supporting policies that I despise then I will vote with my feet. This goes for everything in between the occupation of Iraq to hemorrhaging jobs to passing on the tax burden to the working poor(there is no middle class).

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. NONE...it will be because of BBV period...