When will Dems finally get it ? It's not just about Dem candidates.

[John_H]

There are multiple threads here at DU in which people are acting like the sole key to victory in 08 is choosing the right candidate. It'd be nice if our problem was simply finding the right candidate, but, sadly, that's less than half the battle.

Just as any of our nominees could and should have beaten Chimp in November, any of the 08 hopefuls being discusses on DU could easily beat whoever the rethugs nominate. Any of them.

But in a 50-50 country candidates don't win elections. The media strategy wins election. The surrogate operation wins election. The ground game wins elections. The willingness to do everything to win wins elections. Obviously, candidates have significant input into every are of their campaigns but since they're busy being presidential candidates, they hire people to put those pieces in place. The unassailable on-the-record fact is that rethug operatives, strategists, and spokespeople have been kicking the same dem operatives, strategists', and spokespeople's asses over and over again for almost five years. Even worse, the system in place is so nepotic and so corrupt, frankly, that there are apparently no plans to make changes.

Don't take my word for it. Read the following Washington monthly article: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.sullivan.html

Even better, do a search on your favorite Dem message boards and blogs for some of the topics from July and August of last year and see the way the campaign staffers' and consultants' minions or, in some cases, the campaign staffers and consultants themselves suddenly appeared to put out the fire started by rank and file dems--as well as respected and well known dem operatives-- who dared question a strategy that ultimately cost us yet another huge pile of marbles. It was truly amazing watching people fight over money so openly.

So what can we do about it? The rethugs chose their operatives by merit selecting from a pool all over the country. We hire the same DC based people no matter how badly they lose. And lose they do.Our constituent groups complain bitterly about the immaturity, insularity and arrogance of our campaign staffers and consultants(you'd be arrogant too if you knew you can fuck up repeatedly and still get hired) to no avail.

There's only one thing we can do--cut off the cash. When, and only when, enough dems refuse to send money to be wasted by the architects of defeat, changes will be made. It's that simple.

[Pithy Cherub]

1. Not only cut off the cash,

but state what WILL motivate you to send it.

Also, ask for an itemized accounting quarterly that shows the cash is being proportionately spent on the core issues not 'special' consultants.

[shraby]

2. Lets not forget that

cheating wins elections too.

[Warpy]

5. ...and ignoring the warning signs over four years

fully enables the cheaters to do their worst.

[Tigress DEM]

23. There used to be a way to designate your tax dollars...

It was back when some people thought that paying down the deficit was a more cost effective use of their tax dollars and I think some people who conscientiously object to taxation in general, but want to obey the law pulled together the compromise.

I'll have to look for that. If we force them to earmark our tax dollars for things that matter to us, it will have to go through legislation to move it. I think.

[Dr Fate]

3. The GOP/media will try to Swiftboat anyone we put out there.

Its not about "Moving to the center" or to the left or right.

The GOP/media will Swiftboat ANY candidate we have that has STRENGTHS- be it Dean, Kerry or Max Cleland.

We can pick a "conservative", liberal or moderate DEM, but the GOP/media will trash him just the same.

We need to stop worrying about this "move to the center" business and continue to work on ways to fight the media Swiftboat type assaults (AKA, lies/smears about our candidates) & do even better ground work.

I personally think we need to go on the offensive a HELL of a lot more. We need to "Swiftboat" some Republicans- but do it with facts & truthfulness.

I agree w/ you...

[OnionPatch]

17. Agree but how do you "swiftboat"

them when they own the media? You have to have a compliant media to swiftboat someone.

[Tigress DEM]

22. In MN we put banners on the over passes

BUSH LIES _ Soldiers DIE is seen by thousands daily on 35 W North just before St Anthony Main area.

I'm thinking of putting one up that says, "What integrity, Condi?"

[Dr Fate]

34. Great job- BE the media instead of using it as an excuse!!!

Thanks!

[Dr Fate]

33. Tell me which media outlet refuses Kerry/Hillary/Reid interviews...

...and then forces them to say nice things about Republicans when interviewed, instead of blunt charges & truthful accusations...

First answer that b/f we use our percieved lack of media access as a catch-all excuse for everything.

[John_H]

38. Bingo. If we have lack of media access it's because

our press people aren't getting the jobs done. I could go on and on, but long time DUers can just harken back to the posts by dnc and kerry press people during the election--i know i wasn't the only one who was alrmed by both their defeatism and excusemaking about the media.

[marcologico]

4. Conclusion does not support thesis, sorry. Cut off cash = lose bigger n/t

[Dr Ron]

7. Agreed on criticism

At first I thought that the post would be something I would agree with. The overall premise that victory depends more on the individual candidate is a good point, but cutting off money won't help matters.

Thanks to all the money he pulled in, Kerry almost won despite all the advantages the Republicans had, including incumbency, wartime mentality, help from the media with a vicious smear campaign (not only limited to the Swift Boat Liars for the AWOL Flier), and years of GOP propaganda falsely positioning themselves as a party of smaller government and stronger on defense.

There are a lot of things which need to be done to counter the Republican noise machine, but cutting off the money won't help matters.

[John_H]

11. Here's the logic:

My "thesis" assumes the following:

1)A loss is a loss is a loss.

2)Under the current system any money we send in will be wasted, bad money after hundreds of millions of good, mostly on lining the pockets of consultants and providing job security to staff who have proven beyond doubt that do not have what it takes to win.

3)The only way to bring about change is to employ the language that the people who do the hiring understand--money.

Thusly, the way I see it if we force them to change there is a chance we can win in the future. If we don't, that chance drops to zippo, since the party is apparently unwilling to unilaterally change the way it does business.

Anyone who wants to keep sending their hard earned money to the DNC to pay for some consultant's kid to go to Sidwell Friends go right ahead. And if you can think of another way to end the cycle of endless defeat, i'm all ears.

[John_H]

12. Sorry. Dupe. n/t

[dsc]

6. This is a huge problem

We had a very successful consultant in Ohio. He had managed several statewide campaigns very successfully. Then he helped out Wellstone in Minnesota. But he never caught on nationally and decided to work for Ventura. Imagine if the national party had figured out the wisdom of hiring him. We might have won Ohio.

[Tigress DEM]

26. You had me at Wellstone..

Then you lost me at Ventura. I lived under that bozo. His working strategy mirrors Bush in so many ways.
*Tax breaks from an imaginary surplas stolen from the schools.
*Do as I say, not as I do. Cuts, cuts, cuts for everyone else, but increases for his private security force because people threw "pies" at him. Oh, the poor baby seal needs to be protected .. I mean navy seal. Bah.
*Conflicts of interests up the wazoo - always off on some other money making deal instead of doing his elected job.

Anyone who is "successful" we sigh... but not if it turns us toward someone who markets a wrestling ape with action figures.

[Osamasux]

8. I agree with everything except the recommendation.

The Repubs also a lot of professionals to focus on things full time, while Dems had part time volunteers covering it. A big example was the rapid response centers (RR). Bush's was up six or eight months before any Dem had one. It was staffed 24x7, two on the day shift and one overnight. Those three were supplemented by other staffers. They tracked everything. If there was a small rally the news was not covering, they sent someone to observe and report back immediately to the RR. They looked for inconsistencies in positions (they had a search-able database of every vote Kerry ever made), things they needed to respond to, weaknesses they could exploit, blunders.

They immediately sent responses directly to key media contacts and fed the information to their speech-writers, so Bush and Cheney were addressing attacks the same day with made for TV news sound bites. These two steps greatly blunted any points Dems made. (We all saw the Republican response at the end of every article that had a pro-Democrat or anti-Bush subject.)

Every Republican voice received daily talking points so they were sure to get out the message they intended to. Key staffers for every key Rep received updates during the day.

The Democratic RR paled by comparison.

Our campaigns got their asses handed to them, and yet it still came down to only one swing state. We need to: Hire better people. Borrow what they did that worked well. Build on what we did that worked well. (The grass roots movement, the 527s, using the Internet.) Whoever gets the DNC job is going to have a huge effect on whether or not we get over the hump.

[John_H]

25. this is absolutely right. And add:

1) Our surrogate operation, for both events and electronic media, was badly outclassed. The rethugs had surrogates booked in key states, both for live appearences and to provide interviews for local media, three deep. Our effort was chaos. Also, their surrogates repeat the daily TP relentlessly, no matter what they are asked, because they know if they don't three other people who will are in line to take their place. A rethug u.s. senator goes off the reservatyion on hardball? He gets no booking help form bush/cheney or the rnc ever again. Our surrogates seem concerned with mainly sounding clever--they give their talking points, either because they know there is no cost for wandering off message.

2)An example: people were shaking their heads in disbelief after the CBC meeting in Mississppi after 25 year old DNC consultants and kids from the kerry campaign issued marching orders to senior members of congress about African American GOTV efforts without seeking a bit of input. These people, who apparently have no clue how African American GOTV works, firmly rebuffed efforts to hire local people in members' districts to help with the effort: "Why should some local yahoo, however effective he might be, get some of my money or authority. After all, if they were as smart as me they would have gone to princeton and have a cubicle on 16th st., too?"

And on and on and on and on.

[Tigress DEM]

29. What to expect from a "working party"

DEMS aren't rich folks getting obscene tax breaks. If we want to vote or support our party we have to do it in addition to full time jobs and such.

I don't know about y'all but I'm fried just trying to keep up with all the information I know I should be paying attention to and dragging myself to work and such.

It is energizing though to talk with people who at least listen to one another occassionally and yet aren't the zombified group that has to have a talking point to have something to say.

Long live DU!

[Tigress DEM]

28. Good ideas. One thought to add..

We can see from the number of hits on blog sites that people - average Joe's around the country - do care and we the people voted in record numbers (only to have our votes inaccurately measured).

So when we talk grass roots we need to find a way to get around apathy. It's so hard to care right now. We won and yet THAT Loser is in the White House.

Anger only goes so far. We have to get INSPIRED, FIRED UP about the things that built this country.

Freedom, Duty, Faith in the American Way which leaves no one behind who has the courage to live and die Red/White & Blue.

And new things that have come along. Diversity is our reality, how we deal with it is our legacy. The PEOPLE must be brought together, not divided. We have to find the things we agree upon and then those can become our message that doesn't change.

Talking points (if only lies) may be effective against a disorganized party, but a party united with a REAL Message of HOPE and hard work that is the honest truth CAN sell if we all are willing to pay the price.

We have to set aside MYOPIC agendas and concentrate on LIFE and DEATH issues and revealing the truth about BUSH's agenda with a tone to the world that is sane and rational so they don't dismiss the truth as a conspiracy theory.

What he's done is so far fetched it does sound like someone screwing the pooch. So hard to believe that a person wants to believe it's some sort of joke. Only Bush is playing the joke on US and "metaphorically" screwing the pooch. (I haven't heard anything about the White House pup, but knowing the rest, I wouldn't put it past him. It just isn't newsworthy if it isn't provable.)

[Cheswick2.0]

9. That's right cut off the cash to those who lose but line thier pockets

give it to those who understand the need for reform. Give it too grassroots organizations in the states and communites and give them more power.
The DC democrats have done nothing but blow it badly for years.

[forgethell]

10. It's the issues

that win elections. We should decide where we lost the American people, and where we were strong, if we want to return to power.

Or, we could decide to lead an educational crusade to bring the American people closer to our positions, and then return to power. Which is my preferred option.

Or, we could continue to kid ourselves that Kerry actually won.

[Tigress DEM]

30. So you don't think Election Fraud is an issue?

Kerry did win.

Or I should say, if all the votes had been counted and all the voters standing for up to 4 hours outside in the rain in Ohio had been allowed to vote, he would have.

The thing is, if there is cheating involved ie: Vote Fraud then the person who tried to rig the election is supposed to lose even if he had the most votes.

Have you ever been to http://blackboxvoting.org? Have you seen the video of predominantly black voters lined up to vote and heard their testimony about how they were disenfranchised? Do you know about how they switched voting precincts on people two weeks before the election and then told people they couldn't vote AFTER they waited hours in the rain. How about all the provisional ballots created by the bait and switch tactics?

Loser in the White House. HE AIN'T MY PRESIDENT.

[forgethell]

44. No, I don't really think

Kerry won, although I could be wrong. And I think we should make elections totally transparent. But I think we lost because, for some reason, we did not connect to the American voter. Flame if you must, but this is my honest opinion about the matter, and I have seen nothing, and I have read it all, that would convince me otherwise.

[Tigress DEM]

13. One of our candidates DID beat the Chimp....

We just weren't able to stop the wide spread voter fraud that gave incorrect election results.

[welshTerrier2]

14. arrrgggghhhhh ... this is just awful ...

you were off to such a good start, too ... way too many here seem to have been raised on People Magazine ... everything is about this candidate or that candidate ... i'm for Dean ... i'm for Clark ... i'm for Kerry ... can Hillary win ... who's your choice in '08 ... it's idiotic ...

and i agree with you about the critical importance of media strategy and how the campaign is run ... gotta have our act together in order to win ...

but the words values, issues and policies appear nowhere in your post ... and without them, that's exactly where your ideas will get us, nowhere ...

you start with a candidate who believes in your platform and is committed to fighting for it, and THEN you figure out how to market that candidate ... otherwise, you're doing nothing but coming up with slick ways to sell Edsels ...

[John_H]

15. You're right, of course, but while our candidate is talking about

values and policy, our operatives should be doing what it takes give her the opportunity to put that talk into action.

[welshTerrier2]

18. now you've got it !!

we have been deficient BOTH in our message and our campaign strategy ... both are necessary ingredients ...

[sandnsea]

16. Agree, except

We ought to have a marketing and PR structure in place. It doesn't matter if it's the Presidency or SS, if you don't know how to get a cohesive message out, you're not going to get anywhere. Democrats have sucked at that for a long time now. In addition, some people confuse disagreeing with the Democratic platform as Democrats not having a platform. Some people really would be happier in the Green Party.

[marcologico]

19. Good point about SS. That's an issue we'll ALWAYS win on. n/t

[sandnsea]

27. I'm not so sure

There's alot of young people who buy into the whole "keep our money" stuff. And we still aren't doing a good enough job reminding these young people that it's also a disability and widows/orphans insurance. We could lose on this, very easily I think.

[marcologico]

36. Even if the GOP rams it through Congress, it would be an issue to win on

in '06, but I really don't think they'll risk their bacon by doing anything so stupid. Sure there's a sucker born every minute but even suckers would figure it out as soon as the market tanks.

[sandnsea]

42. I thought that last year too

I really underestimated the pscyhological hold of "Republicanism", "anti-liberalism", whatever the hell it is. Makes sane people do insane things. If 4 years of Bush didn't convince these suckers, I'm not sure what will. I also worry we'll get sidelined by SS while a whole lot of other shit slips by. They really are like a wildfire and we still haven't even got everybody at the fire, let alone put in position to fight it.

[Tigress DEM]

20. However, if we COULD Agree on ONE Candidate....

The things that would have to happen prior to that would probably make the DEMS unstoppable.

We'd have to get really serious on the TOP issues and find ways to back them with our greatest asset - millions of discontent people of every stripe.

If DEMS want to lead US back to sanity, we can't run around like a lot of chickens with our heads cut off. We MUST FOCUS on reasons that ANY Sane Rational American can be given to REMOVE the shrub and present a platform that all Americans can see is the only Sane and Rational Solution to the mess Bush is making.

Bush MUST be removed because:
1)He wasn't legally elected. (Where is that fight at? Put $ there.)
2)US not condoning torture means we DON'T do it. Bush talks vs walk.
3)Killing Iraq citizens is wrong. Bush admin. full of war criminals.
4)Dismantling the checks and balances and the Constitution is wrong - Bush's backdoor dealings need to be exposed and addressed/redressed.
5)Appointments of people who are unfit to do the job is dereliction of duty, making a joke of his Presidental responsibility, a fraudulant use of his power.
6)Dismantling regulations/underfunding organizations that save lives is tantmount to murder by proxie. Raw sewage in your water folks?
7)Tax breaks for the filthy rich that break the backs of the poor and middle class are wrong, especially when the conflicts of interest are too numerous to list.
8)Social Security is NOT Bush's piggy bank - he needs to be removed from office so he will stay out of it.

[TheDonkey]

21. Jesus/Big Bird (D) ticket would be defeated

Democrats have more problems than the candidates thank you for brining some sense to DU.

We lost with many "good" candidates these past election cycles, from red states, blue states, conservative, and liberal. Democrats need to try harder to correct their image and defend against this religious right movement.

[w4rma]

24. No. Redirect the cash. Not donating at all lets them assume you're lazy.

Donate to the DFA and Moveon.org and/or some other non-DNC group(s) that help Dems win.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

31. The party must define itself as REAL DEMOCRATS!

They must be a true alternative to the right wing corporatists!

[flamin lib]

32. The Republicans are good at

a number of things, some organizational, some political.

They always promise something for nothing to the base. Private accounts for retirement, but don't think about the cost.

They simplify the message to lapel pin rhetoric. Just cut taxes, it's your money, ownership society, axis of evil.

They stay on message even if the message is unpopular. It looks like strength.

They change the language of the debate. We talk about late term abortion to save the life of the mother, they say "partial birth abortion". We talk about funding government with taxes on very wealthy people inheriting money they didn't earn, they say "death tax".

They have a well developed digital grass roots organization. We've all gotten the emails--Hillary refused to see Gold Star mothers, Kerry's wife gave $$ to terrorists, Dems moved SS to the general fund and taxed it and so on. I'd bet dollars to donuts that these came straight from RNC sources.

We need to learn from them. We need James Carville running the campaign again. "It's the economy, stupid" put Bill in the White House.

[ChiciB1]

35. The Media Has Definitely Fallen

to a new low in my opinion.... so WE HAVE TO BE THE MEDIA!

I still have signs in my yard and lots of bumper sticker on my car! And I never miss a chance to challenge ANYONE who makes any comment about it. I actually WANT people to confront me so I can say my famous line which is... "You think there's only a War in Iraq, but I'm YOUR WAR right HERE in America!" Living in Florida, the old Geezers really get kind of AFRAID!

[robbedvoter]

37. We are NOT a 50-50 country - you're buying their propaganda.

We are the vast majority - and won election after election - but IT WASN"T
COUNTED.


That - and the media - are the issues.
The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we're in an argument with the RNC about how we should actually word this.

[John_H]

39. If that's true it makes our political people that much more patrheteic.nt

[John_H]

40. If that's true it makes our political people that much more patrheteic.nt

[kpratt1]

41. new guy - questions

Hi, all -

Per internet etiquette, I've been "lurking" here for a while. Fascinating threads that I've really enjoyed reading.

I've just joined, but I have to tell you, I'm not a Dem ... just a very curious conservative. If I should unsubscribe, tell me, and I will.

But what I am hoping is that I can ask an occasional question. Respectful, non-confrontive, etc. ... just trying to better understand "the other side". If anyone thinks I'm out of line with anything, again, let me know, and I'll drop out of this forum.

Example question I've had since 9/11 ... I know Bush gets a lot of criticism about his actions, but what do Dems thing should have been done as a response? Gore and/or Kerry, if either of them were elected.

Thanks much in advance.
-K

[Barad Simith]

43. I hope Gore would have fought the war on terror, instead of...

...using it as an excuse to further his own agenda in a country that had nothing to do with 911.

I could list a hundred things I would hope Gore would have done differently, but I the more pertinent point is:

If Gore had taken office in 2000 and then messed things up at home and abroad as badly as Bush, I sure as hell wouldn't have voted for his reelection.

In the words of GW, "Fool me twice, mumble stutter, can't get fooled again." It floors me that Republicans pulled the lever again for that man, after what he's done to this country.

[marcologico]

45. Gore would NOT start a "war on terror" and there wouldn't have been a 9/11

to excuse such a stupid thing. 9/11 was pure GOP monomaniacally shortsighted stupidity.

In other words, Gore would have paid attention to the warnings and either intercepted the planning or failing that, increased airport security to the infinitesimal degree it would have required to keep those Saudi clowns off the planes.