Sandnsea, did you see the DNC meeting today?

[TayTay]

I saw your posts in DU -P and you seemed to be talking apples and everyone else was talking oranges. What was your impression on the meeting. I think you wrote that someone submitted a report saying that Kerry killed last year on traditional Dem issues like jobs, health care and so forth. The room to grow had to be in exurban and rural areas and in the nature of giving families a sense of control over what influences shape their children and so forth.

Everyone else was on a 'isn't Howard great' kick without listening to what the reports (that presumably Gov Dean wanted drawn up) said. What the hell? Do I have this wrong? Can you summarize what you heard he, cuz I thought it was really interesing.

[sandnsea]

1. It was good

Howard was good. He was very concise, our values say you don't let kids go to bed hungry, our values say you honor veterans when you bring them home not just when you send them to war, a whole list like that. I imagine there will be a transcript. And the building of a national infrastructure, etc. No red meat, nothing radical I heard. The one little joke about jumping up and down being his job, that was just cute.

The pollster. I'd seen the poll previously, or am familiar with the numbers because there's been so many already. Anyway, I forget the details of how he drew his conclusions. But I of course remember when he said "Kerry rocked". I'll say that again, "Kerry rocked" on the economy, Iraq, health care, (all the stuff we already know Kerry rocked on). But he added that it was his company's assessment that a peak had been reached on those numbers. We simply can't increase our vote there, substantially. He had 4 little circles, two red circles which were low low income and country club. Then two blue circles, median-low income and wealthy liberal idealogues. It went red, blue, red, blue, up the scale. If I understood, he simply didn't believe that low income red group was going to shift on an economic platform, or at least not economics alone. However, Nick has 5 blogs of analysis and said that "Kerry rocked" with that low income vote in the blue states. So that's interesting too.

On faith and values, he said that both red and blue voters who identify themselves as 'faith playing a large role in their vote', had the same opinions. That's good I think. It's kind of like what RFK, Jr. said; red state and blue state people respond the same when he talks with them. It's just red state people didn't know the issues before he told them. It's an information gap. Anyway, he said it wasn't abortion and gay marriage. It was an overall anxiety and feeling like everything is spiraling out of control. These "values voters" are just trying to retain some sense of control over their families and communities. So the trick is to talk about values in a way that addresses those concerns. There was more, but that's all I remember of that.

I remember 3 questions. One woman said maybe violence on tv could reach red voters, and the pollster kind of blathered to a soft maybe, I thought. Then the 'where's our moral values spokespeople/preachers question', which he seemed to think was a good idea. And the guy who was just bamboozled over the idea somebody could vote values over money. Gee, not so complicated if nobody in your 300 year family history have ever had a pot to piss in and never expect to. What else do you have except family traditons?

That's pretty much what I remember. It was very early here when I was watching, first cup and all of that. I do hope they put it up on CSpan or a report on the poll comes out. Should probably watch it a few times, different people hear things differently and all of that.

[whometense]

2. I saw most of it,

But when he said, "Kerry rocked," I thought I'd misheard him!

Goes to show what my expectations are.

[Pirate Smile]

3. Acckk. I missed the first part and C-span doesn't have it up and

neither do Crooks and Liars or Dembloggers. The C-span schedule doesn't show it being replayed tonight.

[TayTay]

4. So Thomas Frank was essentially right

The Rethugs have managed to spin a web around low income voters that is preventing them from seeing who their natural allies are. Hmmm.

Thomas Frank was wrong. John Kerry did connect with voters and his essentially Democratic message was heard by lower-middle income voters who responded by voting for him in huge numbers.

Right again: The Rethugs have built a powerful block around lower-income voters and have mananged to convince enough people that the Dems are making fun of them and their 'moral values' and that the Dems are evil for messing with the essential natural order of the world. (Frank's point that lower-income voters are being persuaded that the free market is a nearly biblical thing and that it is pointless to oppose it. It is okay, however, to oppose the people who benefit from tht system. That whole up and down the social structure ladder that Frank had where the higer you get if you are a business man, the more favor of the Lord you have. But if you are a high status academic or intellectual, then you are an elitist and stand against 'family values' which are never really defined.

Wrong again: If Dems can build a better message machine, we have a message that rocks. We don't need to only nominate Southerners or make sure that no Northeasterner ever tries to run for Pres again, but that isn't what held back the vote. Hmmmmmm.

[sandnsea]

5. I'd say so

A better message machine, yes.

That third paragraph accurately describes low income Republican voters I know. (Nothing like having someone in low income housing tell you they're voting for Bush) And it is not okay to oppose the peole who benefit from the free market, not in rural America. That's these people's bosses and neighbors, plus the favor of the Lord thing. I will never forget my mother calling me, laughing hysterically, because when my sister's freezer broke she said it was because she hadn't been tithing lately. And that's a southern country club Republican who believes that. ;)

It IS okay to oppose people who bend free market rules and EXPLOIT people and the environment.

We do need to work on our economic message, for the simple reason Republicans are SO DAMNED WRONG. I tell Republicans here that if I wanted to live in Alabama, I'd move there. "Why do you want to turn Oregon into Alabama", I say. That shuts 'em up.

But, yeah, I do think a better structure for getting out our message is priority one. Making absolutely sure we don't sound like all we're doing is peddling government programs is priority two. The "our moral values" message might be enough to shame fundies into recognizing Democrats do have values, they might be ready to realize they've been getting a bit arrogant of late, which isn't a Christian value either. Pride goeth before a fall.

Still, the smear machine is powerful and we haven't gotten over the propensity to handwring over every little thing either.

[TayTay]

6. I think of Frank and his book every time I see this ad on TV

I think it's national. It shows a plain vanilla world filled with people who look alike. A black car, obviously meant to be iconoclastic and new roars through the street. The announcer, in a monotone, says, "A memo went out, individuality is to be discouraged." The ad then shows plain vanilla people, depressed, in their plain vanilla world, while the people in the rebellious car have broken out of this enforced conformity and entered material heaven. That about sums up Frank's point.

That's the ad biz promoting rebelliousness as anti-middle America. Frank's point is also that big business promotes the divide between Red and Blue America so as to exploit each side's view of the other. The Red Staters are small-minded conformists who exist to enforce social mores that inhibit individuality and alternative views of life. Blue Staters exist to impose new and non-traditional (untested) mores on the public that they then exempt themselves from. The Blue Meanies are also portrayed as suppressing free speech in order to bring about a liberal conformity. The jokes about being 'left' are jokes about being clueless as to what effect your views have on others.

How do the Dems break through both stereotypes. We often lament the 'lefty freeper' types in here who enforce conformity of thought on positions and candidates. We chafe in this group because deviation from the perceived view (in this generally lefty Dem board) is frowned on. (It is also permitted. The Mods don't enforce this and like the free exchange of ideas. It's the individual posters who enforce conformity.)

I suppose my biggest question to lefties is to imagine that we are the ruling majority party again. What do we bring to the lower income Repub voters that tells them that we are for them? What are the first programs enacted in a Dem Congress? Can the religious and 'moral values' voters be shown that Dems are their natural allies? Will the libs blow it again by turning narcissistic and focusing on programs that are not of interest to these fine folks.