Whether true or not, this seems to apply as much or more to the Republicans.
Well, you’ve just explained the Obama administration. 
More seriously, I don’t think the Democratic party was ever “cool” per se, just less “uncool” than the Republican party. That may no longer be true.
They already do that: Barack Obama talked about “fundamental transformation,” but he was still a guy in a dark blue suit, white shirt and a red tie saying it, on a stage with a teleprompter, following a whole suite of familiar rhetorical conventions. Mitt Romney was a 60-year-old conservative Mormon, but he still had a well-designed website and modern stagecraft and a Kid Rock theme song, and of course even conservatives always have to claim they have new ideas and an exciting vision of the future and all that, even if they don’t.
Both sides operate within the band of consumer expectation, but they still have to differentiate within that band.
I agree. However the point I was trying to make has been made better by others: in order to win elections, the Democrats need the coolness factor to draw significant support among particular demographics, particularly the young. If they don’t bring the young folks to the polls, then the Republicans will win.
Mitch McConnell has less charisma than an average brick, but he still mopped the floor with his young, well funded opponent.
In Kentucky. Which is cooler than the Beach Boys. Barely.
So, are most Republicans the sort to think elections are about “cool,” or just OP and John McCain?
You’ve got an unmotivated base. I think the Democrats embraced the “cool” factor in this election. I mean, when you push Wendy Davis and Sandra Fluke as serious candidates, it’s obvious you aren’t looking for policy chops.
They were absolutely serious candidates – why wouldn’t they be? They didn’t come close to winning, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t serious candidates. They certainly weren’t nuts like Steve King, Louie Gohmert, Allan West, and the like.
Davis and Fluke were chosen because they made headlines briefly. In other words, the “cool factor”.
That happens to all kinds of candidates. That doesn’t make them not serious candidates. Davis held office in city and state politics for 15 years – she’d be a credible and serious candidate for governor whether or not she had made national news. Fluke is a progressive political activist and a lawyer. She didn’t try to jump into national office – she ran for a state senate seat in California. That’s entirely reasonable, credible, and “serious” for a young lawyer looking to get into politics, whether or not she made the national news.
Your assertions that they are not “serious candidates” is ridiculous.
2008 was also the first presidential election cycle in at least 20 years where neither candidate on the Democratic ticket was popularly considered “stiff” or “wooden.”
Why should political candidates come from all walks of life?
What you think is usually wrong, and this is no exception.
Barrack Obama was a nobody who made a speech in 2004 and was elected president four years later. Bill Clinton was nobody anybody had heard of outside of Arkansas 12 months before he was elected POTUS. Democratic “rising star” gestation period seems to be 4 years or less.
By contrast, Republicans need like 20-30 years to “season” a candidate, so all your “young up and coming stars” on your “deep bench” aren’t going to even have a shot at winning for another decade or two, at best. And by then, a large number of their supporters will be dead.
gg
I think the thesis in the OP is ridiculous, since it appears that we’re really meant to discuss the coolness factor without a hint of humor or irony. What exactly does it mean to be cool, after all? That you appear on late night TV shows with your shirttail hanging out of your suit pants? Or that you have a knack for getting people to listen to you and for winning them over? Most politicians of either party who achieve even merely serious contender status in a statewide contest are bound to have that characteristic, however they wear their shirts.
With regard to policy, the communitarian trend of traditional left-wing policy might be considered uncool by some. For example, they might say it’s uncool to have to pay into a health insurance pool to fund the health care of others when they themselves are healthy. I don’t agree with that judgment, obviously, but I can see how some might make the argument. I’m sure there are other examples of left-wing policies that one could describe in that light, but this is equally true of many traditionally right wing goals and policies.
No, I think it’s more like, “Draw it mild! Get a horse! How’s your Granny off for soap?! Twopence more and up goes the donkey!”
I thought it was relatively clear that the uneven geographical distribution of traditionally Democratic and traditionally Republican groups was at least partly responsible for the disparity in Congress. Democratic policies are still favored by a great number of ‘real Americans’, if you include minorities among those.
My impression is that Democratic voters tend to focus more on the President and are more disconnected from local politics. Republicans have apparently been working on a concerted effort to win local and state governments for a while now. Whatever weaknesses the Democrats have in appealing to the groups they don’t do well with, these are more temporary and easy to overcome than the structural difficulties they face, which are at least partly a reflection of the larger party strategies.
Cool changes really fasts, but Republicans don’t seem very good at it, especially mainstream Republicans, aka not the Paulites. McCain was maybe the last Republican I can remember to have some reputation of coolness, around 2003 or so. Politicians don’t need to be cool to win elections, and Republicans have done the “we’re the ADULTS in the room” shtick for as long as I can remember. When Republican politicians do try to be cool, they mostly end up looking like Mitt Romney awkwardly singing “Who let the dogs out” to a group of black kids.
Of course everyone’s idea of cool is different, but I disagree that the Nazis pulled it off, or even wanted to. With “Blood and Soil” values, spartan militarism, and glorification of the rural, the Nazis set themselves ideologically as angrily opposed to what was cool at the time: modern culture and art (what they called degenerate art), the jazz music and swing dancing popular with the youth, and a lot of urban culture that they identified as Jewish and/or Communist. Triumph of the Will was certainly good propaganda, but its purpose was to make Nazism impressive and intimidating, not cool as such.
Ironically, ‘Nazi chic’ only started to be popular in the 1970s as a kind of counter-establishment statement. When it was popular and politically relevant, it wasn’t cool, and only after it was vilified have some people have taken it up as cool (We’ve had threads here about weird occurrences of Nazi style in Asia).
Communists were somewhat better at being cool, at least in countries where they hadn’t taken power yet.
Probably for the same reason that all-white juries are now disfavored.
Of course, if we actually want to have a wider range of people serve in government, we would need to significantly change campaign finance laws and government salaries.