Hackett and the current Democratic divide

[Writer]

So Hackett ran... so Hackett bore the style that many purists want to see in a candidate. Tough. Stands by his own convictions. A "takes no prisoners" kind of Democrat.

And Hackett didn't do too badly. 48% is a terrific showing given his lack of poltical background.

But yet again - a loss. And there's no DLC'ers around to blame.

I'm interested in hearing the logic woven together - is IDEOLOGY really our problem here? Our could reading the CURRENT CLIMATE OF THE COUNTRY be the greater issue?

Thoughts?

[evlbstrd]

1. Do you mean Paul Hacket?

[Writer]

3. Yeah, sorry about that.

It's late.

[evlbstrd]

4. Gotcha.

[Writer]

11. Thank you for your understanding.

:hi: :)

[evlbstrd]

12. I'm there, too.

edit for spelling dammit

[kentuck]

2. Hackett ?

But we have fond memories of Hackworth also..

[wli]

5. big red election fraud flags

I'm holding out for the recounts.

[Writer]

7. Look, I must ask:

Is every loss going to be followed with cries of election fraud? EVERY loss?

[wli]

8. No. There were extremely suspicious circumstances.

So until the Clermont etc. results are recounted/etc., it's fraud.

And frankly, the numbers don't add up anyway.

[eridani]

22. Absolutely, positively FUCKING HELL YES!!!!

At least until vote tabulation is taken out of private hands and properly audited by all interested parties.

[expatriot]

10. are you being sarcastic? if not, tell me about those red flags. nt

[wli]

13. sure thing

1. last-minute shutdown of Clermont for questionable reasons (humidity)
2. numbers not adding up
3. the Clermont count (already in question) bails out Schmidt
4. Schmidt win just barely above recount margins (matching reports of officials giving instructions on how to doctor results to prevent recounts)

These are signs, a.k.a. "red flags," that say one needs to check for election fraud. They're not conclusive proof.

As I'm not a court of law, I take these things as circumstantial evidence that fraud was committed and make it my tentative assumption that election fraud occurred until such time as evidence of the validity of the election is presented.

[madfloridian]

6. Way to go.

First his name is Hackett.

Next this has nothing to do with the DLC. The DLC would never have touched such a battle as this one. They are probably going to lecture him on calling Bush an SOB, but they don't consider him threat enough yet.

And lastly, this still has nothing to do with the DLC. This is about going into a district that is 70% Republican and getting 48% of the vote in a short time with just a lot of passion and people.

[Writer]

9. A new model was attempted in Hackett's election

And it didn't work. It DIDN'T work.

[bvar22]

14. Yes.You're right.

We should go back to the old model. The DLC appeasement model worked so much better!

[Writer]

15. Yes I am absolutely correct. It seems like no particular model "works"

I think we're simply misreading the country. Different shades of ideology play little part in how people vote in this highly fragmented political environment.

[expatriot]

16. I am not picking sides here....

you can see from my many posts on the subject as of late that I am a progressive who opposes the anti-DLC insurgency... but you really can't make sweeping conclusions RE:the Hackett election about what model worked and which one didn't. We were dealing with a completely different animal. the makeup of the OH-2 is overwhelmingly red - different political demographics - different model.

[madfloridian]

19. It was about showing up and giving it a try.

It was about no more than that. It vindicated Dean for his 50 state strategy, showing that it can generate enthusiasm and be effective.

[expatriot]

20. I concur. all the silver lining stuff in defeats is usually garbage to

make you feel good. But we made this solid red congressional district a battle ground. that is something that will resonate with the locals for years. Many in a southern Ohioan voted Democrat for the first time yesterday and many who probably swore they'd never vote Democrat again voted Democrat again. That is just not a made-up silver lining to make us feel good, that is real honest to god victory.

[merwin]

17. Are you smoking cheap crack? He did 20% to 25% better than ANY democrat

who ran in that district in the last 20 years.

The sheer fact that he did this well, fraud or not, is an indication that this is the direction we need to be going. Run HONEST people with little political background but a lot of character and experience in things that the country-folk go for... like the military.

People elected Bush not for his views, but because he convinced the backwoods hicks that he was an honest straight-shooter who wasn't going to lie to you. That was actually the platform he ran on in 2000.

[madfloridian]

18. In a 70% Republican district, it worked.

No more appeasement. Hillary just decided on that course, and that really worries me.

[CTLawGuy]

25. the Repug has gotten

60-70% in the last 10 elections at least. and now a repug vote of 52% DOESN'T impress you?

Do you know how many republican voters must have switched? Do you know how many of your beloved "swing voters" must have swung over to the Dem side, to a guy who called Bush an SOB?

It's irrelevant that he didn't actually win. That's one seat. What's relevant is that we destroyed history and expectations. We found something that works.

If Paul Hackett can get 48% in this major repug district, imagine what Paul Hackett clones can get in more moderate districts!

[sendero]

26. It didn't work...

... and if we'd had a candidate doing it the DLC way it would have been 70/30. You really cannot be serious.

[mtnester]

30. Here is some perspective for you

Jesus, Ghandi, the Pope, the Holy Trinity, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush, if they were all registered Dems, would have lost.

Imagine trying to get Pillboy or O'Reilly or Hannity to vote for Hillary...this was the obstacle Hackett had in this district. And it appears by the double digit swing since the last election, he actually was able to get one of them to do just that.

[Massacure]

35. What the hell are you talking about?

No Democrat has gotten more than 35% of the vote since 1980. Hackett got 48%. IT WORKED!!!

[ProudDad]

21. I think that some areas are so repuke

that they can't be won no matter how decent the candidate is. I'm pleased he did as well as he did in a district that went 70% for the repuke last time. This might bode well for '06 if it can be duplicated in enough districts that ARE takeable...

It's organization, organization, organization.

If you want to help, go here

https://political.moveon.org/donate/organizers.html?id=5874-653264-lXd.WJAMdPZbG0baZhFUiw&t=3

[ulysses]

23. yes, a loss

a very narrow one by a political neophyte in a hardcore GOP district. I think you're trying to pick a fight with the left where none exists. I have no problem with Hackett - we need more campaigns like that.

[bklyncowgirl]

24. CURRENT CLIMATE OF THE COUNTRY?

Could it be that a near win by a first time candidate running in a 70% GOP district tells us something about the current climate of the country?

Hackett ran as a populist, was harshly critical of the Bush administration and came within a few thousand votes of upsetting decades of Republican control in this district.

What this shows is that a strong candidate with a strong message that appeals to the lives of ordinary voters can reach voters in the reddest of places. Maybe it's not ideology as a willingness to fight for the interests of the people who vote.

[union_maid]

27. You have to be realistic

If he'd lost in an area that was really up for grabs, that would be a good question.

I think that it's Hackett's kind of rhetoric, backed by a solid populist agenda that can change the climate of this country. Of course we won't know until it's tried.

Republican lite doesn't work because you can just vote for the real thing so why vote for the imitation?

Nuance doesn't work because you have to get the message out in ten words or less.

Those two are proven losers. Let's try something else. If a Democratic candidates could get the same percentage of Republican voters across the country as Hackett did, the map would be a lot bluer than it is now.

[CWebster]

28. Purity? As opposed to what?

What the hell is a purist, writer?

Someone who may not hold your views? Wouldn't that define you as demanding purity?

A ridiculous charge and actually I think Hacket's views were muddled because he still, by action and attitude, supported a false cause and only helped to reinforce militarism with patriotism.

[Q]

29. Let's cut through the crap...

...What you're saying is that Hackett 'could have won' if he ran the DLC way: Republican lite. We'll never know if that is true. But we DO know that if he HAD ran as DLC/Republican lite that it would have further eroded Democratic principles and values and disappointed even more Democrats looking for true representation.

Americans are looking for leadership...not triangulation and more Bushie Republican boot licking and ass kissing. And that's all the DLC has to offer.

Pretending to be a Republican in order to win votes is not only dishonest and misleading...it's the kind of cheap, dirty politics that we have come to expect from the shallow DLC.

[lynne]

31. I think your Climate question is a valid one -

- and should not be ignored as a possibility. Everyone seems to paint Hackett as the total underdog in this contest and - while he was the underdog based on party - he held the gender advantage as no woman had ever been elected in that district. Being a vet should have boosted that advantage, IMO.

I don't think we do ourselves any favors by ignoring the total picture. Something else is going on here and maybe climate is the answer. It should at least be considered.

[ClassWarrior]

32. What divide? I've NEVER before seen us so united....

...but for those whose agenda benefits from pushing the meme that we're divided.

NGU.

[Q]

33. By the way...this is the same kind of attitude we saw from the DLC...

...after Gore ran a POPULIST campaign in 2000 and WON the POPULAR VOTE and the ELECTION. Instead of conceding that Gore's win was stolen from him and admitting that Americans responded to his populist themes...the DLC still insists that he LOST because he was too populist and 'anti-corporation'.

When will the DLC give credit where credit is due? Never. Because admitting that the People want Democrats to run as Democrats would show that the DLC is nothing but an albatross around the Democratic party's neck.

[Armstead]

34. Average People are pissed off and scared and feel abandoned

That's the issue. It's not about "ideology" or "leftist demands for purity."

Corporate interests have run amok, and created an oppressive economic and political climate.

The ultimate problem of the DLC is that they are trying to make the Democratic Party an extension of the elite institutions and corporate interests that people are pissed off at and feel threatened by.

Because of that, DLC "centrism" has succeeded in making the Democratic Party seem irrelevant to average people.

Bill Clinton originally won on a very different basis than the DLC represents now. His message back in 92? "I'll fight for you until the last dog dies." He also ran on such liberal positions as providing universal healthcare....But once in office, he became a corporate guy, and that original populist message was lost in triangulation.

The only way the Democrats are going to return to relevance is if its political establishment stops trying to make itself acceptable to the corporate elite, and starts standing up and aggressively championing for the real interests of average and disadvantaged people again.

Hackett understood and conveyed that instinctivly. That was the key to his success.

[blondeatlast]

36. Isn't BOTH the most appropriate answer?

Politics nowadays is gloves off. The country is hungry for change.

If we can manage both in '06 and '08, we can win.

[bonzotex]

37. the problem is still deeper....systemic and cultural

Bear in mind that most voters in the OH 2 district didn't vote at all. Of those that did, 52% chose a clearly inferior candidate probably just based on party affiliation.

We will consistently win only by restoring people's belief that their vote matters, it will be counted fairly, and they have distinct choices of candidates. There is a lot of work to do.

OH 2 is just a start. Dean is on the right track.

[melissinha]

38. Another tactic

Would be to get Democrats as governors... particularly in Ohio. We know for a fact that Blackwell played a role in the theft of the '04 vote. Its plain simple... he put in place many obstacles that stood in the way of his voters....

He became Secretary of State through appointment by Taft, we've got Taft in a tight spot now.... Blackwell is going to run for governor and undoubtedly will appoint an equally partisan and loyal SOS if elected. I think we should also concentrate on taking over Governor spots to ENSURE the vote for President and Congress is legal. Now I'm sure Blackwell will try his damnest to ensure his own victory, but I think bringing him in particular down is key. And while we are at it..... what about Jeb..... geez.... how complicit can you be....