WhereWe Went Wrong

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I came across a good article in Washington Monthly... They assembled a panel of political analysts to do a postmortem on election 2004...If you think the election was stolen there's nothing I or anyone else can do to disabuse you of that notion but if you think there are things we can do better in 2006 and beyond I suggest you read it...


I find James Pinkerton's comments particularly interesting... Some times your enemies are the only ones who will tell you the unvarnished truth... It's like asking your husband or wife if he or she likes your new hairstyle...


"The Democrats had won seven of the nine presidential elections from 1932 to 1964 because in the view of the voter they had a better model—the New Deal, unions, redistribution. But the Republicans came up with a counter model, and it worked well in the eyes of most voters. I think seven of the last 10 presidential elections have been won by the Republicans. That is a strong model, and I think it is stronger than consultants, it is stronger than spin, it is just a basic thing."


I also like Paul Glastris' prescription of how American can build a safety net that confrorms to American values of individual repsonsibility and initiative

"What the Democrats would never say, but I think the smarter ones believe is: We want to move the country somewhat closer to the social safety net you have in Canada and Europe, but to do it in American fashion. Which means being more focused and more market-oriented, but where these extra added programs and benefits don't suppress innovation, don't suppress the urge to take risks, don't suppress the work ethic."


Here's the link to the whole article

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.roundtable.html

[whistle]

1. This is an interesting statement...

..."The Democrats had won seven of the nine presidential elections from 1932 to 1964 because in the view of the voter they had a better model—the New Deal, unions, redistribution. But the Republicans came up with a counter model, and it worked well in the eyes of most voters. I think seven of the last 10 presidential elections have been won by the Republicans. That is a strong model, and I think it is stronger than consultants, it is stronger than spin, it is just a basic thing."

The strong model being deception, lies, code words, labels, shouting down opponents and just outright stealing elections. And, democrats should be expected to emulate that evil farce? I think we ought to be able to come up with something much better than that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Then Isn't It Our Job To Call Bullshit And Effectively Counter It...

nt

[whistle]

3. Have had it, but I was thinking more along the lines of . . .

. . . impeaching Bush and putting all of the BushCo collaborators on trial and have them serve long prison terms without parole. That is where democratic representatives and private groups need to apply and wield their resources now before it is too late.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. We Don't Have Majorities In The House Or Senate...

We can't even open a committee to start an investigation...

[whistle]

6. Then democracy, justice and representative gov is already lost. . .

. . . So what would be the recourse?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. Elect More Democrats To Start An Impeachment Committee...

As much as I would like to even the score for the unjust impeachment of Bill Clinton I would be content to banish Team Bush from the public square....

[kentuck]

17. Bingo !

We need someone to tell the truth about the Repubs.

[mtnsnake]

5. Another interesting opinion from the article on what we're doing wrong:

"TOMASKY: I think in general, Republican political professionals are much smarter about how to frame their campaigns. Democrats think in terms of issues while Republicans think in terms of narrative. When a Democrat sets out to run for president, his pollster tells him, “Senator, the people agree with you on health care; they agree with you on this issue and on that issue” because most polls show that majorities of people tend to support the progressive position on a series of issues. So Democratic political professionals assume all you have to do is talk about those issues. Meanwhile, on the Republican side strategists think more in terms of narrative. They tell a story about their candidate, and about where their candidate is going to take the country; conversely, they tell a story about the Democratic candidate—it's not always a true story, but it is a narrative that drives the conversation. A Democrat's position on health care can't compete with that. This is a big problem for the Democratic political professional class as a whole."

Interesting how he points out how something like talking about the true problem of health care can't begin to compete with repuke's false campaign narratives, even if those repuke narratives aren't true.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Maybe That's Why Carter Was Successful In His First Campaign

and Clinton was successful twice...

Both had simple narratives...


Carter- I will never lie to you and give you a governement as good as it's people


Clinton- I will make sure government works for those who work hard and play by the rules...


Here's another great bit of advice and our failure to come to terms with it has killed us...

KILGORE: We do need a new generation of consultants and pollsters; there hasn't been a lot of turnover in a long, long time. Also, as some have already said, we have got to get away from these strategies based on changing the issue terrain instead of speaking directly about what the American people think. Because not only does it not work, but it also expresses contempt for what the American people believe is important. And that reinforces a lot of our party's problems.

Democratic pollsters and political consultants are forever trying to change the subject from things that voters don't agree with them, to things that voters agree with them. In 2004, the Kerry campaign got an enormous amount of advice to concede national security, that's Bush's issue, and bring it back to the economy, that's our issue. The argument was that we need to campaign on our own turf. Basically, telling the American people, “You stupid crackers, stop thinking about the moral order of the universe and chow down on this prescription drug benefit.” That is the attitude the Democratic Party projects, and I think it turns off voters.

[MrBenchley]

9. One point that they danced around...

Look at the list of Republican strategists they termed "great": Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, James Baker, Ralph Reed, Michael Deaver and Karl Rove.

What they left out is that each of those guys is a meanspirited thug who attacked, attacked, attacked. Even the few "positive" ads they ran contained a backhanded slap at a Democrat.

I'll admit I was wrong...we should have run a lot more attack ads...and used Chimpy's own incoherence and dishonesty against him. We should have mentioned Halliburton, Saudi Arabia, and Osama in every ad. We should have mentioned Enron, "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring 'em on" in every ad. We should have called him a deserter and brought up the pretzel.

I saw a study that broke down campaign spending (including 527s). The Democrats ran 85% positive ads about issues and 15% negative ads attacking the Republicans; the GOP ran 90% attack ads and just 10% positive. And if you include the 527s, they outspent us.

Clearly the electorate has shifted. A significant number of voters relish mean-spirited attacks.

[charlie]

10. That was true 25 years ago

during Poppy's campaign and it's still true today. Oh, there's always pollsters who can show that a majority don't like negative campaigning, but the undeniable fact is, it IT WORKS. Republicans have profited mightily from our resistance to responding in kind.

[MrBenchley]

15. Well, I agree with that now.

In retrospect, when the slimeboatters popped up, we should have run ads saying, John O'Neill was a Nixon dirty trickster and the GOP is slandering a decorated war hero to hide the fact that their candidate deserted during Viet Nam. And now the guy who didn't report to Alabama is afraid to even say the name Osama Bin Laden out loud.

[mtnsnake]

11. Actually it was mentioned

"conversely, they (the Republicans) tell a story about the Democratic candidate—it's not always a true story, but it is a narrative that drives the conversation."

[charlie]

12. I think this guy

gets it:

SHAPIRO: Since Ronald Reagan in 1980, Republicans have been confident in what they believe, while Democrats have been in a fetal crouch. And every gambit of the Democrats is designed to say, “Don't kick me there.” You nominate a war hero in John Kerry so you won't get kicked on national security. You nominate a Southerner so that you won't get kicked on values. You run on competence when you're Michael Dukakis in 1988 as a “don't kick me there” because you are almost sure to lose on ideology.

[MrBenchley]

14. Except...

that I disagree that we don't win on ideology if we express it confidently.

But he's 100% right about "Don't kick me there."

[MrBenchley]

13. Yeah, but that's a pretty weak-ass way of saying it...

We need people like Harry Truman who would say plainly "They lie their asses off about us."

And the answer isn't to publicly question the veracity of the narrative...

I doubt pResident Shrimp could even pronounce "narrative"--although we know he's intimately familiar with lies....

[mtnsnake]

16. I agree about that. Everyone was afraid of using the L word.

It drove me nuts how Kerry and most of the others would never come right out and call Bush just what he was....a flat-out liar. "This simply isn't the truth" was about as close as he got.

[charlie]

18. The ground should have shook

with the thunder of Democrats running for TV cameras on the day that the dolt said he wasn't much concerned about Osama.

And it should've happened again when Osama popped up before election day. Instead of the oh-so-measured statement from the Kerry camp, we should've heard something like What the Fuck is that murderer doing fat and happy on our airwaves, he should've been dead long ago!

It's what Republicans would so. Really, there's no shortage of stuff that we could eat their lunch with, if only we'd get over our timorousness.

[LisaL]

19. Where and when we went long-when we let republicans count

our votes without much accountability. Also, I don't see any of our leaders being able to stand up to Bush.
Otherwise, we would never allow them to do what they are doing, starting with those crappy e-voting machines.