“I don’t belong to any organized party. I’m a Democrat.” - Will Rogers
As long as that rings true, the Democrats will never win. Pick a message and hit it hard. But the Dems can’t even decide on when to meet to discuss the message, much less pick one. That way lies Eternal Defeat.
A leader would be nice, but who do the Democrats have that could lead a pack of Cub Scouts to a Baskin-Robbins?
You are simply wrong to assume the South is a lost cause. Clinton proved otherwise by taking several southern states: Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee…
If you run as a regional candidate, then even if you win that way you will be a regional President. Why consciously divide the country and stir up regional resentments?
Thank God Howard Dean does not share your views.
While I agree for the most part, the one problem with this thinking is that it requires continued skulldruggery from the Republicans to keep their power and prevent their skeletons from coming to light. How many times can you rig an election until everyone starts to get suspicious?
This point seems self-contradictory.
Agreed with that. One of the Dems’ (numerous) problems in the past has been to write off regions as “lost causes” and not bother to do anything. The problem with this withdrawl is that it leaves a wide opening for your opponents to step in and demonize you further, preventing you from winning those votes in the future. It’s better to run a candidate in a difficult election and lose, if only to establish a presence that can be built upon for the future.
When and where?
Two quick examples:
That last map was from the 2000 census. Here’s a more recent map showing that the population shift to the so-called “red states” (and I really hate the divisiveness of that term) continues apace.
The 2010 Census will herald a significant shift of electoral power. Ignore that future at your political peril.
I’m independant, but right-of-center. My guess is that the Dems will analyze the Kerry defeat and decide that they need someone more “dynamic.” They will end up picking some far-left Hillary clone (but not Hillary herself) and pairing her with some irrelevant nobody. They will then set about trying to sell these guys to the public. The Pubbies, OTOH, will be reading the Bill Clinton playbook. They’ll find some likeable Southern governor (staying far away from anyone in the Bush Administration – sorry Condi) and pair him with Rudy Guiliani. The pairing of Mr. Southern Gentleman and Mr. Ground Zero will be much more charismatic than the Dem’s team of Dragon Lady and Mr. Wallflower. Iraq won’t be as big an issue as the Dems think it will be. (It wasn’t in 2004, when American soldiers were dying every day, so why should that change now, when most casualties are Iraqis?) End result: four more years of Democrats bitching about how they were robbed.
I don’t want Hillary to be the Dem candidate or anything, but can people please stop pretending that either she or her husband are in any way “far-left”?
A third quick example. The Kerry campaign effectively pulled out of Missouri two months before the 2004 election. Bush won 54% of the vote (about a 300,000 vote margin.) Missouri Democrats blame Kerry’s pullout for the loss of some key statewide and swing-district elections.
Agree with that. Bill Clinton was the closest I ever came to voting republican.
You don’t have to rig an election if you can win it without doing so. That is the key to the Pubbies’ vote-rigging strategy: they focus on key states where the elections are very close and do their rigging there – places like Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000. I suspect other key states had some rigging going on, but because the elections weren’t so close in those states, they didn’t get the attention, so they didn’t get the suspicion.
And where they do not need to cheat to ASSURE victory, they don’t. They’ll lose a vote in a non-key state and won’t cheat in a key state where their victory is assured, or where a Dem victory is assured. Only the close ones get the treatment.
And while not EVERYONE is suspicious about the Pubbies right now, a LOT of us are.
I agree with that. What the Dems should do is go state-by-state. Where the Pubbies have an overwhelming advantage, lay the groundwork. Where they have a solid margin, but Dem competition, build on what’s there, and where things are close, POUR IT ON!!!
That’s the way the Pubbies do it.
This example is on point and goes some way to convincing me I’m wrong.
silenus has it right.
Here’s what will happen: in the last half of the primary season, the field will have winnowed into a front-runner and a useless competitor. (See: Kerry v. Edwards, Gore v. Bradley, Clinton v. Brown, Dukakis v. Jackson, Mondale v. Hart, Carter v. Udall.)
On the Republican side, the presumptive candidate will begin pulling in workers, constituency leaders, media reps, etc., and hammer out an agenda and talking points. The Republican nominee and staff will make it clear that anyone who strays from point will be cut off from future access.
On the Democrat side, the presumptive candidate will begin being pulled in by workers, constituency leaders, media reps, etc., and be hammered in to staking out positions and talking points on their pet issues. The Democratic nominee and staff will have it made clear to them that if they do not address specific issues and make specific stands, they will be cut off from future support.
The Republican nominee and staff will roll out after the convention with a clear agenda and vision, and pound it home, changing the subject at all times to match up with their talking points, and force the message out through the media no matter what the media really wants to talk about. They will also have a slogan that indicates strength and patriotism. (“Smith: The Right Direction For America”)
The Democratic nominee and staff will roll out after the convention with no clear agenda and vision, and will change their subject to whatever the media wants to talk to them about or what the agenda of the day is. (See: Gore and Prescription Drugs, Kerry talking about Flu Shots, etc.) They will also have a slogan that indicates they don’t think much of America right now. (See “Kerry: We Can Make American Work Again.” or “Kerry: Help is on the way.”)
Come election day, 95% of adults will be able to identify what the Republicans stand for, even if only 40% of them agree with it; less than 50% of adults will be able to identify what the Democrats stand for, and while 60% of them agree with it, that won’t be enough, and the Republican candidate will win by a close margin.
This will be then followed by four years of Democrats whinging about Diebold and generic, unspecified “fraud”.
Are you seriously asserting that the Republicans don’t do this too? Are you kidding me? Their agenda is dictated completely by corporate interests and the religious right. When was the last time you say a GOP presidential candidate who was willing to stray an inch from either of those interests?
I suggest you read for comprehension.
But just in case I used too many big words, let me restate:
The Republicans will come out of their convention with an agenda consisting of a few bullet points. No matter what subject the media brings up, Republicans will find a way to immediately re-direct the conversation back to those few bullet-points. (“Well, Kent, we really brought you on Sesame Street today to talk about kittens.” “I appreciate the opportunity to talk about kittens, Ernie, but I think what the American people really want to know about is my plan to fight terrorism.” “But kittens are soft and cuddly! Surely we can…” “But no one who owns a kitten wants to lose that kitten to terrorists, Ernie, you can see that.”)
The Democrats will come out of their convention with an agenda consisting of several dozen small, unrelated points. Whenever a new subject or issue grabs the headlines, Democrats will drop whatever they were previously talking about in order to opine upon the new subject. (See: Gore and Prescription Drugs, Kerry and Flu Shots.)
This part I agree with. I accidentally quoted the wrong part of your post. I meant to quote this:
This is where I think the Republicans are every bit as culpable as the Democrats.
I withdraw all statements about reading comprehension then.
I certainly agree that Republican special interest groups dictate party policy as much as Democratic special interest groups. The difference is two-fold:
First, Republican special interest groups tend to be larger but less numerous, which means they can be (and usually are) less satisfied with less individual packages. Second, Republican special interest groups seem much easier to placate with “in your heart, you know he’s with you” winks and nods; in comparison, Democratic special interests seem to demand direct, public statements and placation.
That’s my opinion (thus, the forum); it’s hard to seperate “special interests demand attention” from “the candidate can’t stay on freakin’ message.” But the general trend seems to be that Republicans have an easier time staying on message, and that’s in part because their special interests seem to understand that winning the election and having the chance to govern is more important than being immediately verbally placated but then shut out of governance.
Also, it would help if the Democrats nominate someone in 2008 who carries a happy, upbeat attitude. Only once since 1932 has a dour, somber candidate beaten the happy upbeat candidate (Nixon in 1968 beating out Humphrey). People who look like their dog just died (Kerry) or seem like they’re trying to hide a sneer (Dole) have a really hard time winning.
And I’m not saying any of this as an attack on Democrats. When Republicans are splintered and Democrats nominate a happy, upbeat candidate who can stay on a focused message, they win. (1996, 1992, and 1976 as examples.)
The Democrats will probably make two big mistakes in 2008. The first will be their perennial problem of being less organized than the Republicans - Republicans might be right or wrong, but at least they’re focused. The second mistake will be the Democrats running against George Bush - if this plan shows any signs of working, the Republican candidate will simply distance himself from Bush.
This is a biggie. If the Republican candidate doesn’t have any obvious weak points (no scandals, marital infidelity, etc.) then the Dems will try to turn him into a surrogate for Bush, hinting that the Pubbie is somehow responsible for Iraq, foreign relations, ingrown hairs, and anything else they can think of. This is almost certain to backfire, since there is a 0% chance that the Republicans will run someone like Cheney or Rice, whom these charges might actually stick to.
*Clinton, Giuliani top poll as presidential choices
By Michael McAuliff
New York Daily News
(MCT)
WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are America’s top choices to run for President, but a new poll says the Democratic senator faces a tougher fight than the GOP ex-mayor in getting nominated.
Giuliani and Clinton each are the first choice of 32 percent of their parties’ voters, the survey by RT Strategies and the Cook Political Report found*
http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm
*Now I am going to read you the names of some possible candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. AFTER I READ ALL THE NAMES, please tell me which one you would most like to see nominated as the Democratic Party’s candidate for president." If unsure: “Well as of today, to whom do you most lean?” Names rotated
%
ALL Democrats
Hillary Clinton 29 40
Al Gore 13 18
John Edwards 11 11
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060611/NEWS09/606110338/1001/archive
Experts say it’s the first poll showing anyone besides Clinton as the preferred Democrat in the race for the White House.
Thus, you are wrong. She may or may not be able to win the election, but she *is * the most popular Dem candidate and has been for a while.