Lessons Learned [by the Democrats from the 2004 elections]

Nicholas Johnson, former FCC Commissioner, part time teacher at the Iowa Law School and general Democrat gad-fly published this editorial in the Cedar Rapids Gazette this morning. It is worth reading since it is Mr. Johnson’s usual rant about the Democratic Party abandoning its principles to go chasing after money and the approval of the powerful. There is a line that is worth quoting in full:

"As Thomas Frank explains in What’s the Matter with Kansas, they have successfully run a shell-and-pea game with the old Democratic base. They (the GOP)offer them promises regarding abortion, God, guns and gays – promises never kept. In exchange, they have been able to, as Frank puts it, persuade farmers to vote themselves off the land, union members to vote against union wages, workers to vote their jobs overseas, and parents to load their children with national debt while insuring they will never get a college education.

"Meanwhile, the gap between their income and that of America’s richest, which President Bush referred to as “my base,” continues to grow. Corporate profits and CEOs’ pay accelerates.

"You may disagree with the Republicans’ programs, you may even find them despicable. But you have to admire their pure political genius in continually winning at this con game. " Parenthetical added for clarification.

Note also, Mr. Johnson’s comment about Ralph Nader and the 2000 election.

On the other hand, refer to LBJ’s comment that the Civil Right Act of 1965 gave the South to the Republican Party for two generations.

Damn that liberal media!

I feel the Democrat message was plenty well explained. Both sides engaged in fear and smear (because you have to), and there exists blue, light blue, light red, and red media sources… like the NY Times, CBS, CNN, Fox, talk radio, internet.
If the message changed, the Democrats would win. If Democrats went to fiscal responsibility, accountability, and government that makes the economy strong, I’d vote for them. That is… economic conservatism. Do Democrats HAVE to be economically liberal as well as socially liberal?

Maybe the message needs to be explained that economic liberalism is good for the economy.

_

As I said above, I don’t think a properly legislated same sex marriage law would have been better. It would only more clearly highlight the differences between what passes for acceptable conduct in blue and red.

What’s the Matter with Kansas, is the prototypical example of them-midwesterners-are-stupid thinking that is the whole problem.

Hate speech and scare tactics may work for a certain demographic, but it definitely has a negative effect for others.

When I was listening to Kerry’s concession speech, I remember thinking:
“Wow, if he spoke like this during the campaign, I might have voted for him.”

I also remember overhearing a lot of conversations from my colleagues about the nastiness of the campaign and wishing that the candidates could have been more civil to each other.

What I’m looking for in a candidate:
*Has a clear vision and position without being dogmatic
*Responds to insult in a civil (and perhaps even humerous) fashion, but can also be properly outraged
*Good public speaking skills that are neither too patronizing nor too heady

Reading this string has left me with the knowledge that middle America will continue choosing your leaders for a long time to come.

All I see here is pushing the same hate filled vile that we’ve heard for the last decade. How many Congressional seats have the Dem’s picked up during that time? You might want to start adopting some of the views of middle America rather than thumbing your noses.

Same as any other rhetorical contest.

  1. Stay on message. Kerry was dealing with an economic collapse, a disgrace in Iraq, record deficits… and he spent the last few weeks talking about stem cell research. The back burner issues are back burner for a reason. People may have strong views about them, but there’s no passion there.

  2. Stay honest. Dancing around your record gets you nowhere, and it only helps the other side frame the debate. Go out and say what you think. Not what you think people want you to think, what you really actually think. The best way to keep from getting muddled in an argument is to not sit there trying to spin some web of obfuscation.

  3. When you get knocked down, get back up and kick the other guy in the balls. Losing Dem candidates have been the beta male over and over. When the Republicans attack, they cower back. You have to hit them harder than they hit you. Look at the way Bush I or Dole got hammered by Clinton. Voters are just super-evolved chimps, they are going to lean towards the dominant individual.

  4. Set the agenda. Don’t get dragged off into fruitless arguments. Don’t walk face first into rhetorical traps. Go out there and frame the debate on your terms. Dance the lead, don’t just react to the other side.

  5. Have some fucking passion, and find a candidate who can convey it. You have to excite voters in order for them to listen to you. A boring white guy in a dark suit is not going to accomplish that. Go back and look at the Democratic debates. Try remembering anything that was said by anyone but Sharpton and maybe Dean after half an hour.

The Pubbies are the uncontested leaders in peddling hate, and they seem to be doing all right. Perhaps you’ve heard of “hate radio”? Keeps the base energized, brings in new recruits.

The former is dishonest, true (I always thought that “values” meant stuff like personal integrity, human decency, keeping the peace except for necessary self-defense, and the like, and had no idea that it had something to do with prohibiting some people from getting married.) However, I fail to see any dishonesty in the latter (one might argue that high taxes are good public policy, but not that it’s the only honest position).

IMO, this will happen anyway in the long run – the obvious parallel to the Islamofascist enemy will do for the religious right what the parallel to the Nazis did for old-fashioned genteel anti-Semitism.

Yeah, but don’t forget…when the Rapture comes, most of them are going to simply disappear. And the rest of them will be too embarassed to admit that they didn’t make the “A” list.

Actually, heck of a deal! They go to Heaven, good, and they’re out of our face, better!

  1. Quit treating the south (and midwest) as if the people who live there are all a bunch of inbred redneck bigoted puritans. We can smell the contempt a mile away. We’re not fooled by a few visits from a candidate and a photo op with a rifle. We know you think we’re ignorant poor white trash.

In fact, why ANY registered Democrat in a red state who voted for Bush would remain a Democrat now is beyond me. The party has already shown what they really think of people from the red states, and surprise, surprise! Most southern states have Democratic majorities.

Bush won my state by 13 points, and Democrats outnumber Republicans 2 to 1 here. And these are faithful Democrats, too, not just people who registered Dem so they could vote in the primary.

But of course this is West Virginia, where we’re all inbred toothless redneck puritans who want gays to be shipped off to a deserted island. We don’t count. There’s something wrong with us, not the party that has lost TWICE IN A ROW now what was a lock, stock and barrel Democrat state for 70 years.

Keep treating conservatives as if they are unworthy to lick the bottom of your collective shoe, and you’ll keep getting your collective ass kicked. You think this year was bad? Wait until 2006. People in the red states are not going to forget what the Democrats said about them after the election was called for Bush.

  1. Don’t mess with Texas. :wink:

Here is a small observation from an outsider. I offer it in the hope that it might help your party unseat the tyrant and his henchmen next time. Not one person has mentioned freedom in this thread, except for one who said that Americans don’t understand it. There is your clue as to why your party is clueless.

I recommend that you reread at least the following portion of this document. If you do not believe that it is understood and beloved to heartland America, your losses will continue and increase. It is time you stopped trying to out-Marx Marx, and return to your roots, which are found here:

All good points. I think the Dems, for whatever reason, project the impression that they don’t have a heck of a lot of fight in them. Voters sense this, feel threatened by the Muslim terrorists, and vote Republican. It’s really important that Dems develop a mean streak if they want to break out of their blue state enclaves.

I’m with you in the general support of liberty, but surely you see that the Pubbies won the election on “moral values” which had everything to do with restricting the freedom of gays to marry and restricting the freedom of women to control their bodies. I don’t think the heartland is AT ALL interested in freedom, with the possible exception of gun control.

I do think the Dems should drop the gun control issue. It’s costing them too many votes, and it’s doing them precious little good. I don’t think a lot of people vote Dem because they are for controlling guns.

Abbie, I’m a native Georgian, both side of my family are from Georgia, I’m as southern as you can be. And I just don’t see any advantage to the Dems in trying to appease southern conservatism, which is bound up in racism, sexism, anti-intellectualism and so forth. I have seen it up close and personal and it is ugly as hell.

My thought is that the Dems should write off the South, marginalize us as thoroughly as possible, while working hard to educate the South.

How do you think the Dems could reach out to the South and not become Republican Lite? Are there any specific policy changes they could enact?

Democrats did not adequately counter the fearmongering by the Bush campaign. Once the herd is convinced that the terrorist boogeyman is outside their door, the only way to counter it is to give them something even more worrisome to consider. Sadly, we must become more like Republicans in this respect.

I think you are mistaken. Gun possession is all about freedom. What has happened is that your party has made “rights” into a dirty word, much as it did with the word “liberal”. The heartland can understand if you want to give freedom to all people, but you have not framed your plea that way. They see you as demanding “special rights” (i.e., privileges that they themselves don’t have or want). You keep citing the “Pubbies”, and they hardly ever failed to make freedom a cornerstone of practically every speech they made. Why do you suppose that is? You have stood by and let the Republicans appropriate for themselves the very thing you as a party used to hold dear: liberty. It is no accident that liberal and liberty come from the same Latin word: “liber” -> “freedom”. Go with the CNN polls if you want to, but that’s what you did last time. Keep on doing what you’re doing, and you’ll keep on getting what you’re getting.

Take heart. The three broadcast networks and many newspapers are on it for you.

Such as using the word “extreme” when you mention a Republican?

Or the phrase “Tax cuts for the rich”?

Those two are just off the top of my head. The main problem the Democrats have is that the priorities of the electorate have shifted away from them. The two big issues of the future are reforming the health care system and social security. The problem is that most democrats are focused on the entitlement mindset…and that will not work with either of the two issues above without a massive tax increase. And Democrats that propose massive tax increases are playing to a stereotype and will be dead before they begin.