I think it would be a good idea to come up with some concrete tactical and strategic errors we made in 2004 and look at how we can avoid repeating them in 2008.
First of all, here’s my take on the election: despite the close numbers, it was a disaster for the Democrats. The economy has been tanking, Bush embroiled us in an unpopular war, he clearly was the lesser man in the debates. The Dems had unprecedented success with their get out the vote drives, and unprecedented success in fundraising thanks to the Internet and George Soros. And we STILL couldn’t put Bush’s sorry ass out on the street where it belongs.
We should not only have beaten Bush, we should have beaten him SOUNDLY, and taken back some House and Senate seats while we were at it. Instead, Bush remained in office, winning in the electoral college (the only place where it matters) by a narrow margin, and they made gains in the House and the Senate.
So what can we do to win in 2008? I’m thinking strictly of tactical and strategic changes we can make, concrete changes we can make more than changing policy. Some policy will have to be changed, strictly as a tactical matter, but I don’t want this to become a policy debate, more of a nuts and bolts kinda thing. That should probably be dealt with in a separate thread.
So, what worked, and what didn’t? Here’s my take on it:
WORKED:
Internet fundraising. Definitely want to keep working at that. It makes sense to fight the overwhelming advantage Pubbies have with their corporate sugar daddies by going direct to the people. Very Democratic, very effective.
Partisanship. High emotions meant great voter turnout. Keep the faithful interested and voting, yes indeedy.
Fighting Republican vote rigging prior to the election, sending out lawyers. Kept the bastids honest. Frankly, it was easier for me emotionally to lose this election honestly than to lose the 2000 election via Republican theft and fraud. A lot of votes got cast that might not otherwise have been cast.
DIDN’T WORK:
Gay marriage. As the overwhelming success of the constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, this one is a non-starter for the Dems. Bigoted it might be, hateful it might be, put it’s also overwhelming popular with mainstream voters. From the numbers you have to figure that about the only people who voted for it were the gay voters. The Dems need to discard this issue, and let the gay folks do some grassroots work to get minds changed. An official plank opposing gay marriage but supporting civil unions should do the trick.
Values, generally. The churches really got their people out and voting. The Dems’ best counter-strategy would be to develop an official set of values not founded on any particular religiious faith, and promote them as mainstream American values. Sanctity of marriage, opposition to corporate greed, respect for the environment and most of all, fiscal responsibility would be good starters.
Current leadership. I heard Nancy Pelosi being interviewed about the loss and she just blurted out the same old political glurge and blah-blah-blah. Clearly she has never experienced anal sex via giant Flesh Gordon-style rape robots while bent over a barrel, or she’d probably have expressed a clearer understanding of what had just happened to her as a Congressional leader of the Democratic Party. I don’t think the current party leadership Gets It … they’re presiding over one disastrous election after another. We need some fresh blood in there.
So, what do you folks think?
I think it’s a clear case of the old adage “No organized force is ever really defeated by a disorganized force”
When the Republicans wanted to deliver a message they had Fox News, Swift Boat Veterans, the Sinclair group, etc.
When the democrats wanted to deliver their message (actually…I can’t remember them trying to deliver a message beyond “He’s not Bush! He’ll make things better!” and other vague promises) they had um…internet bloggers?
When the Republicans had a message it was a MESASSAGE. No ambiguity no doubt of what was being said.
When the Democrats had a message it was mostly rebuttals to Republican attacks and didn’t really create any impression.
A person at work when telling me why she voted for Bush even though she disagreed with his policies it was “Well Kerry hasn’t answered the accusations of the Vietnam war issues, Well Kerry is a Flip flopper, well Kerry isn’t a leader” For a minute I honestly thought she was totally out of the loop but then I realized it was the Democrats fault for not having their own Bill O’Reilly and Fox to stump for them or at least counter what was being said about them. The people won’t educate themselves it’s easier for them to be told what to think then to research the answer…at least if you want your party to win elections.
The party needs to recongnize the value of candidates who are not overtly intellectual and verbose. I don’t mean to say that they should put a ticket of morons up for election. What they need to recognize is that Americans want someone who is direct and decisive. Even if that means they make occasional wrong decisions, or they mispeak. It is no accident that Giuliani and Bush are popular. Their policies are clear and they are clearly communicated.
Both Gore and Kerry engaged in nuanced discussions of the issues. I value that approach, and wish every candidate was free to present a balanced view of the issues. Kerry lost, in part, because he never differentiated himself from Bush in Iraq and the issue of terrorism. He would basically do the same thing, just better. Dean had his problems, put his bluntness was his great strength. No one had any problem deciding what he believed in. Dems need to stop being afraid of taking positions and communicating them simply.
I know I may not be communicating this well, but there is a type of candidate that the Dems are not running. Furthermore, I have trouble envisioning anyone prominent within the party that fits the mold of McCain, Giuliani and Bush regarding not their policies, but their mannerisms and personalities.
“First of all, here’s my take on the election: despite the close numbers, it was a disaster for the Democrats. The economy has been tanking, Bush embroiled us in an unpopular war, he clearly was the lesser man in the debates. The Dems had unprecedented success with their get out the vote drives, and unprecedented success in fundraising thanks to the Internet and George Soros. And we STILL couldn’t put Bush’s sorry ass out on the street where it belongs.”
More importantly, this is a disaster for America. I could care less about the Democratic Party. They let us down by never putting together a coherent vision.
The question now, is, what can I do (or you do) to make things any better. For one thing, I intend to “stay on message” with the fact that war and debt do not make a stronger America. I’ll also continue to promote literacy and education by giving time and money.
I agree that the Dems need to do a much better job of getting their message out. Frankly, they did a better job than I thought they would, and they did a LOUSY job. I have been fearing that the Pubs would just plain buy out all the broadcast media in one way and another and the Dems would be lef with no way to get their story out. But the Internet and Soros got in there and generated plenty of money for Dems to buy ads with.
That said, your point that the Dems need to develop a consistent message and spread it relentlessly, like the Pubs do, is well taken. They clearly didn’t have anything like that in their arsenal in this election, and they need it.
I’m not sure this would work. I think that anything less than a plank in the platform, backed by vocal action, to overturn any gay unions anywhere passed by any means would be inadequate to defuse this issue. I feel that even had the Massachusetts gay marriage legalization been passed by legislation rather than via the judiciary it would still be proof positive about how those people think.
The other route to take is to humanize it as much as possible. Give it a wholesome face - show the clean cut young man or woman who could not visit her dying loved one in the hospital, etc. Make it clear what rights are being acknowledged and why we feel it is not a religious matter.
The only trick is to avoid the abortion issue. Other than that, values wise, there is no reason the Dem’s shouldn’t be able to run the table on values. The problem is that most prominent blue staters don’t speak fluent church. Black political leaders often can speak with the rhythms and cadences and vocabulary of their constituents’ churches. Same thing with many prominent republican leaders (George W is an example). Most prominent Democratic leaders do not have this. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did it. Barack Obama has it in spades, but most do not demonstrate it in any event. So, even if content wise a democratic candidate were to propose a platform or outline beliefs that were highly consonant with Christianity the words might not resonate the same, and the candidate might come across as insincere.
The leadership issue is a tricky one, as the dems are caught between having an “out of touch with the mainstream” blue stater or a red state democrat always running to the right, fighting for reelection.
I agreee that Kerry is a bit of a rambler when he speaks, but I don’t think it was a critical issue. I think the points made earlier about the Dems as a whole needing to be on message were more important.
For sure, the Dems could stand to be more direct and, for lack of a better word, macho in the way they comport themselves. You can do that without starting unneccesary wars and such.
The Repubs got a lot of milage out of the fiscal conservative message back in the 90’s. Given that Bush is now spending money at a rate that would disgust Ted Kenney, the deficit is almost certain to grow. Also, rightly or wrongly, people associate the suplus of the late 90’s with the Dems, so this should help add to their creditbility on the issue. The Dems should steal this issue and run with it. This will also allow them to find allies amongst the Repub fiscal conservatives.
Emphisize our impotence. The fact is that we lost big, are out of power and there is no way to hide it, so lets reville in it. Everything that happens from here on out is the Repubs fault. “They control the Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and most of the governorships” should be a common refrain. We’re now the underdogs, they are “The Man”, if and when people become ready for a change, we’ll be the ones to go to.
This has been suggested in a number of thread already, but the Dems should take a libertarian slant. We are already the party of civil liberties, and by campaigning for state rights we’ll be able to minimize the damage the Repub federal gov’t can do in the blue states. Fighting strict constructionalists from getting appointed to the supreme court should be couched in terms of fighting for the right to privacy, as constructionalists will not awknowledge any right that isn’t specifically declared in the constitution.
[QUOTE=cricetus]
More importantly, this is a disaster for America. I could care less about the Democratic Party. They let us down by never putting together a coherent vision.
[QUOTE]
Couldn’t agree with you more. I was toying with starting a thread called "Bush wins – America loses. Because that’s what happened. And that’s the sort of pithy message we need to get out.
I think part of the answer about what happen is Populism…
Its pretty common below the equator and seems to have taken root in America now for good too. I have plenty of experience suffering this type of political style. Like I’ve said many times… our dumb governor here beat a very well thought of university professor that ended up as a Secretary of Education later on.
One thing the democrats have to stick into their minds... there are more poor and dumb people voting than smart and informed. You cannot change their condition since they either don't care about politics or can't understand it. So don't explain stuff...
Real issues are not important, easy to grasp stances on easy to grasp issues are important. Also people want to have a leader. ( or in the case of the US apprently they want a High Priest) Your candidate has to convince as a protector - fatherly figure. Sheep need/like to be herded... and they have to like the sheepherder.
No one like Elites or people from a higher social caste. It makes them feel dumber and inferior. So yes its a media circus and theatre all together. We later found out that our governor's supposedly redneck accent was partly fake... that he didn't misprounounce things as badly when he was with his aides.
Promise a lot... and then fulfill only part of those promises. Be vague about promises... and few will care for accountability anyway. You can always blame the economy or politics for making it impossible to fulfill your promises.
Its very hard to fight against populist positions without seeming negative... you have to resort to similar strategies... and that means becoming something else...
[QUOTE=cricetus]
More importantly, this is a disaster for America. I could care less about the Democratic Party. They let us down by never putting together a coherent vision.
I disagree - unless you only want to preach to the choir. But why bother? They already voted for a Dem candidate and the Dems lost. You want to reach the moderates - particularly the middle-of-the-road republicans who are discouraged with the far right. And you do NOT want to put them on the defensive.
This kind of statement always always always makes me stop hearing the rest of the message - whether it is the right or the left that trumpets it. I am tired of the hate speaches. Good god, it seems like we have hundreds of them
Why didn’t people get tired of the smearing ? Tired of continuous “liberal” labeling and stereotyping ? Or of accusation of being weak ? Hate speech takes many forms… but there is some kind of filter about what goes in or not…
Good luck with that… the problem with such a message is that every time there is any success in America- if the economy gets better, unemployment goes down, etc.- you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Consider that for all the hype about the number of jobs lost since Bush became president, by the time of his re-election the unemployment rate was back down to 1996 levels. And that most of the people who voted for him did believe they were better off, economically, than they were four years ago.
It also makes it look like you’re rooting for America’s failure; every time something goes wrong, you’ll grin widely and state, “See! Bush’s fault!” This is not a good image for people to have. Optimists do much, much better than pessimists in American politics.
Yeah, that’s what really pisses me off about this election, the realization that Bush won not by superior merits or by more convincing arguments, but simply by scaring people into his camp with bogeymen like “married gays will destroy your marriage” and “the terrorists are under your bed”.
I mean, how the frag do you devise a counterargument to that? Make your platform as filled with ignorance as the other guy’s? Strap people into *Clockwork Orange-*style chairs and force them to get educated?
In an ideal world, Michael Moore would not have to make Fahrenheit 9/11, because the information in that movie would have gotten extensive coverage in the media already, making the film unnecessary.
Gosh I heard so many time in other boards “You have to be optimistic”… but in the sense that being optimistic would mean things would go right !!! That because we only see half empty that things get worse in Iraq !
I can’t speak for all people - but for myself - I DID! I spoke out on this very board, more than once. If you have a filter, turn it off. I don’t have one, I’m tired of the hate.
But the OP asked how to win, he wasn’t asking about the past, but about the future. I can’t make it any more clear, if a party wants my vote, and people like me, they have to do a much better job of courting it, they aren’t going to win it with hate.
I think this is a common miscomprehension. The fact is that some of the largest Dem voting blocks are people with no high school degree and people making under 30k a year. We have the dumb poor people. We’re loosing the middle class.