Anger With Bush Is Not Enough To Win In '06 And '08.

[RBInMaine]

Bush's numbers are in the tank, but that hasn't translated into a groundswell for the Democrats. Why? It is because we Dems haven't put out a bold, uniting, national affirmative agenda of our own for the country. Folks don't know what we stand for, nor what we want to do, only that we are angry with Bush. Last year as I worked hard here in Maine for the Dems too many people would say, "I don't really like Bush, but I really don't know that Kerry would be any better. At least Bush seems like a strong leader." Kerry did not communicate his message well, and too many of his votes were not
PRO-Kerry votes but rather ANTI-Bush votes. Bush is now foundering because he is not measuring up as the leader people thought he was. Right now Dems must understand that if we are going to win in the next cycles then we must offer STRONG, BOLD, CLEAR LEADERSHIP on a compelling affirmative agenda for the country. People want leadership, and people want government to work for average Americans again. I am glad to hear the Howard Dean is preparing a nationalized campaign for next year. It can't come too soon, and Democrats need to get moving on a united national agenda message now or people are likely to continue voting the status quo in '06. WE NEED TO BE HAVING THIS PARTY DISCUSSION AND MAKING THE PLANS RIGHT NOW!

[Mend]

1. I agree....it has to be anger with the republican party

with bush as a typical racist, warmongering greedy repuke, not an aberration.

[I_am_Spartacus]

14. I think you miss the point. It can't just be anger at something.

It has to be anger converted into being FOR something.

The Democrats need to make it very clear what they stand for. They don't stand for being angry at Republicans. They stand for being angry that the Republicans are dismantling the things we believe in. What has to come first is that we believe in some solid set of principles, and those principles have to be the prime motivating factor for action.

[Mend]

16. I meant the people who voted for him....it will not be

easy to undo over thirty years of the right-wing scream machine. They need to understand that this is what republicans really are: against everyone except rich white men. And I agree it would be great that we show them something to be "for".

[formernaderite]

31. Bullshit....who cares if repubs vote for repubs...how about

almost half of the voting age public that DOESN'T VOTE!!! If we could energize the non-voters, we'd be far ahead of the repubs. Why waste time trying to convert voters? I've never understood this. If you look at independants that have made it to offices across the country...they did so by attracting the non-voters. Obviously it means you have to connect with people, but this is how you build a majority.

[win_in_06]

19. I agree. That's why I think we need a candidate who can excite

the masses.

Think about it, as long as the candidate supports the movement, he/she is less important as an individual and should have the power to make folks vote for them.

Someone spectacular. Someone well known.

Imagine if Warren Beatty was a sitting Governor of Cali or Redford of NM?

[MrTriumph]

2. We need disgust with R's, Dem.s must be more vocal anti-Republican

Just as Rs did in '94, Dem.s must proclaim the current R gov't (at every level) beyond redemption. We have to let swing voters and disenchanted R voters know voting for any Republican anywhere simply perpetuates the corrupt regime in power.

Yes, we need a positive message about what Dem.s would do in power. But to win elections we need to spend most our time emphasizing how totally out-of-the-mainstream, anti-working man, anti-American R policies are. We must make the case that our democracy is at stake.

[RBInMaine]

7. We need to do both.

Yes, we must make the nect elections a true referendum on Bush and the entire R/Right Wing agenda, but we also have a void to fill with our own compelling affirmative agenda. You don't win merely on an
anti-vote. You MUST have a pro-vote too, and they are of co-equal importance.

[I_am_Spartacus]

15. Just like Rs did in '94?!?! Hello. Contract for America wasn't a list

of the ways Republicans hated Democrats. It was a set of principles.

That's what Democrats need. They need a clear set of principles so that voters know that we stand for something more than just being angry at Republicans or at Bush.

[Telly Savalas]

27. I remember hearing on NPR shortly after that election

that a really small percentage of people who stepped in the voting booth in Nov. '94 were familiar with the provisions of the Contract with America. (Like less than half.)

One could make a pretty good case that it was petty mudslinging, and not conservative "principles", that led to GOP success.

However I feel that in order to fix the political system, we have to rise above that bullshit. So I agree that laying out a positive agenda is critical. We propose an optimistic yet commonsense vision of what America should be like. Of course to follow through with this, we gotta point out in detail how the GOP have been dismal failures at attaining this vision.

[I_am_Spartacus]

28. I just googled

and found this:

http://slerp.rutgers.edu/retrieve.php?id=102-2

In NJ about half of voters were familiar with it, less than half said it was reason for their vote, and 6 out of 7 of the provisions were favored by voters.

Although that's only one state, and it's not 100%, I would say that that's a pretty successful campaign. I think the 6 out of 7 number suggests that people might have been influenced by the campaign even if they weren't very conscious of it.

[Telly Savalas]

30. But was the fact that 6 out of 7 provisions supported...

a function of the campaign by GOP candidates that autumn, or a decade and a half of conservative propaganda?

That study also says that for 55% of GOP voters, the Contract on America wasn't a factor in their voting decision, and it was only a major influence for about 1 in 5.

The effectiveness of the Contract on America is greatly exagerrated. According to that study, a third of the Jersey voters hadn't even heard of it. In all likelihood, Rush Limbaugh's TV show had more sway on the outcome of the midterm elections than did the Contract.

I completely agree that the Democrats need to offer a positive alternative to the GOP. It's just that emulating a decade old bit of cheesy politcal theater might not be the way of going about it. If anything, selling the party's divesity might be more productive than having everyone sign onto a list of vague platitudes. Our problem isn't so much the lack of unity as it is the absence of strong voices to speak for the party.

[I_am_Spartacus]

32. For 45% the contract was a factor in their vote.

That's a remarkable number.

That voters approved of 6 out of 7 proposals shows that it had resonance.

I don't think the Contract was the primary reason the Republicans won. But I do think that organizing a campaign around beliefs was very effective. They didn't just run against Clinton or on anger. They ran upon principles. I disagree with those principles. However, they did help a lot of people organize what Republicans were about in a way that certainly helped them in that election.

Selling diversity is great in principle. But as an organizing principle, I think it's weak.

I also think that Democratic core principles exist and not as platitiudes but as pithy, concrete, meaning statements of principle. Nobody -- no good argument, no good book or movie and no meaningful philosophy cannot be reduced to a pithy, clear, brief statement of purpose. The same is true for political campaigns.

People need to know what something is about before they embrace it. If they don't know what it's about, they're much less likely to embrace even if they might check off your issues if you were just comparing laundry lists of positions. I think most voters go into the booth with a paragraph or a couple of sentences in their mind about what each party stands for, and the party with the more forceful presentation wins. People don't go into the booth with laundry lists.

[kentuck]

3. Yes...actually Bush is irrelevant...

We have to get rid of the Bush "suppporters"...all of them.

[confludemocrat]

4. Yep, leadership vacuum in alternative to Bush esp. on War, thats #1

and so the Dems better thinka sumpin, because unless things are totally better in Iraq by 2006 (they won't be, they'll be worse), things won't change.

[AlGore-08.com]

13. Gotta toot Gore's horn again here - - he opposed the war from 9/02

Before Congress voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. He's consistently opposed it ever since. And he is a Dem who has a "strong" on national defense issues otherwise - - his anti-war stance will not look like a "knee-jerk-liberal" "soft-on-terrorism" sort of action among the moderate Dems, moderate GOPers and independents we will need in 2008.

[OzarkDem]

5. Agree, the sooner the better

It needs to get started before 2006.

Yet its meaningless if our party leaders aren't on board and getting the message out there.

[meow2u3]

6. Bush is just a frontman for the GOP crime wave

The entire Republican party is the problem. We have to be anti-GOP, especially anti-conservatism. Americans need to know that modern conservatism is the direct cause of their suffering, and we the people have suffered enough at the hands of those criminals acting above the law.

Democrats should play the fear card, only they won't have to lie to scare us into action. If the GOP tries to accuse Dems of "scaring Americans", Dems should counter with this: "The American people should be scared--of the way Republicans are systematically destroying this nation and turning this once-great democracy into a totalitarian, terrorist dictatorship!"

[RBInMaine]

8. Again, I agree but...

Yes, we need a compelling anti-message and I mostly agree with your sentiments. But we MUST also have a strong pro-message or we're only seen as a bunch of angry ranters with no alternative agenda of our own for the country. People want LEADERSHIP and sound practical ideas for solving problems, not just condemnation of the opposition.

[serryjw]

9. Agreed....I was not a HUGE Kerry supporter BUT

Hands down he was better than *. Unfortunately, when elections are close they will steal them. We need to win by big margins. Remember HAVA will be the law of the land in 2006. We can have an 'OHIO" in every state if we don't get a candidate that can frame an issue that most of the country likes.

[woldnewton]

10. Dems need to unveil a "Contract with America"

But they should do it in late September or even early October 2006.

Give them any more time and the re-PUKE controlled media will rip it (and them) to shreds and they'll fold like a cheap suit. Democrats must be frank and don't give any ground in defending it. They must be clear that it will take time to recover from the, and they will need time. They should say things like "by 2018 this will happen" and "by 2025 this system will be in place" and say they will need time to implement their plans. Bush was able to gain votes by saying many of his initatives couldn't be accomplished unless not only he was in power for another 4 years, but those who would continue his plans would for decades. Dems must make the same kind of long-term deal with voters.

[bluedawg12]

21. The repugs had think tanks with highly paid experts

working on their policy position for decades.

Grover Nordquist
Milton Friedman
The University of Chicago neocon school of foreign affairs.
Hell, the neo cons have been working on this since Nixon years.

In order for us to have a broad, coherent vision for what America should look like, and what the world should look like for the next, say, 50 years, we need to be hiring thinkers, having summits, and creating a philosophy of 21st century progressive thought.

[woldnewton]

23. We will have our own think tanks...

working hard behind the scenes, developing policy. We will just let them be quiet about it until soon before the election.

[bluedawg12]

26. If it's one thing we learned from shrub

getting into office is one thing- governing is another.

[bvar22]

11. There was plenty of anger in 2004, but no CLEAR ....

Unifying message from the Democratic Party.
Did you read the ambiguous, confusing document that the Party produced in 2004 and called a Platform?

The lack of a unifying message is the direct result of the DLC and Corporate Money corrupting Democratic Party leadership!




The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[AlGore-08.com]

12. I agree. One thing that will help is Gore's global warming documentary

It may sound a little flaky at first, but hear me out. I was at one of the tapings and the documentary and his presentation isn't just about the science of global warming. Among other things, it's about improving the economy, planning ahead (especially for natural disasters), accepting the moral responsibility to be honest about the state of the world, and saving the freaking planet. The finish couldn't be any more patriotic if he'd had the Marine Corps marching band playing "God Bless America", supported by a flag corps assembled from all the George Washington High Schools across the country.

The discussion that will ensue based on the documentary's content can be a natural springboard for what being a Democrat a means, and what kind of policies and governance we provide.

[DuaneBidoux]

17. Anger with Bush? No. Anger with his policies? You'd better believe it!

Letting the oil companies run over the American people? Running a budget deficit to the sky while cutting taxes on the wealthy? Lying to get us into a war that probably can't be won? Continued outsourcing of good jobs while Walmart jobs explode? Trashing the environment? No Child Left Behind...the biggest disaster in the history of public education? Gutting FEMA and other agencies by allowing Crony appointments? Making virtually everyone in the world hate the U.S. by virtue of arrogance and unilateralism....


The policies will do the trick IF we communicate them and if we communicate alternatves.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Yes, the Dems need to have a clear, unified, easily understood agenda

that is created without reference to what the Republicans are doing. They should think about their ideal society as if the Republicans didn't exist. Of course, they shouldn't ignore Republicanite attacks and should fight back against smears like the Swift Boat Liars, but they should be most vigorous in pushing their own agenda AND in urging people to vote for a Dem Congress if they don't want to see that agenda blocked.

We were running mostly on anti-Bushism in 2004, and while it motivated the base, it did absolutely nothing for the highly touted "swing voters."

[bluedawg12]

20. A voice and a message.

It has to start with the message.

Anger is fun here on this forum, venting is cathartic. Lord knows, we have lot's to vent, rant, and hash out.

But in the public forum we have to have a different posture.

Think about it this way, the cons have their attack dogs, fringites, wing nuts.

The KKKultures, Insannitys, and Limpbags do the dirty work- but the people vote for smooth, polished, up beat candidates. Even when their message cloaks a darker vision, even up to the point of voting against their own interests.

Anger will not get us one of the votes that have peeled off from the repug party.

Tone: Has to be optimistic.
Presentation: has to be strong and confident and photogenic.

We all know what's wrong by now. We need to go from that to a message that will give Americans confidence that they are voting for a party that will represent and deliver what they expect from this great nation.

[bluedawg12]

22. Another thought: we have to play politics on a national and global

level and not as if we are running a campaign for local or state governement.

We cannot be reactive to their policies and the mess they made- we need a whole new framework to address national hopes and needs.

[bearfan454]

24. How about anger with Diebold ?

Start speaking up Senators.

[cquik18]

25. Agreed!

However, getting this neocon cabal out of Washington won't work until we also get rid of the enabling knee-pad queens who pose as Democrats both in Congress and the Senate. From Patrick Leahy to Joe Lieberman to John Kerry-and YES, Hillary Clinton-we have to cull out the Republican-lite mentality that has infested the Beltway-Rove and Cheney with their minions haven't been able to do all the damage they've done WITHOUT it!

To my fellow DU'ers in Tennessee...don't fall for Congressman Harold Ford Jr's spiel when he comes calling looking for votes to get Bill Frist's seat-he is as Republican-lite as they come!

[Clarkie1]

29. Absolutely. We need to offer a higher standard of leadership. n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

33. Last fall I kept posting that Kerry should complelely ignore Bush

Other than the debates, obviously. It was foolish to attack Bush on the campaign trail and in commercials. Kerry should have championed himself and his views, throughout the fall not merely the final futile days. Posters here yearned for blood and to attack when that was, and is, pointless. The premise of this thread is exactly correct. It was my experience also, after quizzing literally hundreds of people while driving cross country in summer 2004. Opinions of Bush were locked in place and hardly positive. But no one was enthused about Kerry or knew enough about what he or the Democratic Party stood for. All they heard was ridicule of Bush from our direction.

Democrats are never going to win national elections via cynical negative attacks. I don't know why we ignorantly pretend the GOP method of operation is best for us. Especially when we have such a huge chunk of white males who will never vote in our direction to begin with. That block is most susceptible to anger and piling on. That's how you get a semi-avalanche like '94, when angry white males who normally support us either don't show up or turn against us. In contrast, the type of voter we're trying to woo is more likely to be a thoughtful independent or family oriented white female who is suddenly torn, post 9/11, between economic issues and national security concerns. You're never going to decisively or permanently sway that type of voter with relentless negativity.

[napi21]

34. Anger with the Pubs won't make it. The Dems need plans!

I heard someone last week say the candidates who will win in 06/08 will present a plan for a Gov't that will work! Most people in all parties are tired hearing promises that never happen, guarantees to provide safety that are unrealistic, etc. We certainly have to point out the failures of the Pubs, but we HAVE TO present plans that all people can hear and say, "that can work!"

Think about it. We all want Shrub and the rest gone, but don't we even want to hear ideas that will really change the status quo?

[Lexingtonian]

35. uh, disagree on the timing.

Yes, these people do want strong bold clear leadership. They also want piles of spending on what they like and tax cuts for themselves, winning in Iraq and withdrawal at the same time, abortion banned and yet available to their kids, and they're all rugged individualists while begging for some leader to save them from imaginary marauding hordes.

In short, the beating with the Clue Stick hasn't gone far enough just yet. Doing anything of the sort you propose in an expectation of winning majority appeal isn't worth it now or in the next few months, right or wrong as their demand may be.

As for the specifics, I think Democrats really need to stand on an extremely simple point: citizenship has to mean something real (again), after a long period in which it hasn't. and government has to act in conformity with and respectful of that notion of citizenship. Ask not what your country can do for you, etc.

[flaminbats]

36. yes it is...

voters only need a real outlet for the growing rage against this godless, ammoral, drug-addicted snot!!