As for a general direction, I would suggest personal liberty and value for money would be appropriate. Americans will hopefully be pretty sick of being told what they are morally forbidden to do, and there must be a way of turning the vast quantities of money the government pours into healthcare into actual near-universal healthcare without increasing taxes (or, at least, by merely re-instituting those the plutocrat-in-chief abolished).
It is, really. Look at the Gay Marriage issue, which seems to be overwhelmingly supported here. Even among many of our conservative posters. Also, the removal of all “under God” in the Pledge, which most here supported. I don’t think I need to tell you how out of the mainstream we are on this.
So, we lefties on the SMDB are out of the mainstream. However, I agree with Fear Itself; I think we are right. And if the Democratic parties moves rightward, I may not even vote for it. However, I won’t criticize the party, because in losing a few thousand internet intelligentsia votes, they would probably gain several million popular votes.
For me, it wasn’t the fact that they were “too liberal”, it’s that Kerry brought nothing to the table, other than the fact that he’s not Bush. His Senate voting record didn’t distinguish him in any positive way. In a field of so many Democrats in the primaries, he just happened to be the guy left standing at the end. At that point he had to come up with his own platform, but it didn’t convince enough people.
This is the first time since Reagan that the elected president won more than 50% of the popular vote. Looks like a 3% difference overall. In presidential politics, that’s pretty significant.
Your advice is to sit back and do more of the same? That makes no sense.
No, we’re not. Unless having at 48% of the country agree with you is out of the mainstream.
Bush won because Democrats couldn’t frame how the issues were presented. As such, the War in Iraq became a front on the War on Terror, even though the two have little to do with each other. Democrats failed to effectively point out Bush’s failures on the terrorism front. Democrats failed to offer a well-publicized solution, preferring to keep the details buried in the back of the Kerry website.
The Democrats didn’t fail due to ideological reasons, they failed due to communication issues - same as in 2000 and 2002.
On September 12th 2001, I believed that Bush’s re-election (and I am still having trouble parsing those two words, rather like “blue red thing”) was a foregone conclusion. That it was as close as it was rather surprised me.
Let’s see what this second term brings.
George H. W. Bush got 53% in 1988.
Another thing to consider about this election: the absence of significant third-party vote (as existed in 1992 and 2000), which makes it more likely that the winning candidate will poll a majority.
And I did not say “sit back”, but sit tight, and exploit whatever whirlwind comes home to roost (to presidentially mix my metaphors).
I just wrote something fairly large but I’m not sure if I want to post it, or when or if I’ll finish it. This is the abridged version:
- Be more aggressive and less afraid.
- Don’t let the opposition define the campaign. Don’t get dragged into defending yourself for not being your opponent. (This is very difficult since I believe the Republicans control the Democrats’ position on the political spectrum more than the other way around.)
- Be offended when you should be offended, and don’t be polite when you shouldn’t be polite. Don’t allow yourself to be misunderstood on purpose.
- Choose a candidate with mostly executive experience, such as a mayor or governor, so they can be judged more by what they’ve done for their city/state than by their voting record, which is a difficult thing to escape. (OTOH the Democrats were right to pick someone morally unassailable, which is something the Republicans could have exploited to no end if they thought they were going to have another Clinton)
- Don’t let wedge issues decide the campaign. (This may well be the best hope the Democrats have.)
I think ‘more of the same’ from the Democrats would be a HUGE mistake. Unfortunately (for them) they learned NOTHING from the Clinton presidency. Instead of running a moderate centrist this time they run a left wing liberal…and try and disguise him as a moderate centrist. They had the winning candidate and he never had a chance for nomination…Liberman. Instead it was a race between equally unpalatable candidates.
I think the idea of the Democrats dropping the left wing stance and going more libertarian is a good one…it would certainly get ME on board with them. If nothing else drop the losing idea that liberal economics is going to be a winning ticket and re-evaluate your entire economic pre-conceptions. Just looking at the various free trade threads here shows me that many ‘liberals’ don’t really understand the nuts and bolts of REAL world economics.
BTW, run Bill Richardson in 2008 and you’ll get my vote…but thats mostly because he’s a personal friend of the family, not because I necessarily agree with his politics. However I think he will have mass appeal to the majority…you’ll have a winner there in a candidate IMO as he is just a personable guy, unlike Kerry. Run Hilary (or another liberal senator) and the Republican domination of the White House will continue (IMO)…if you couldn’t beat GW I don’t see how you can beat anyone.
-XT
I think not. Your theory is compelling, but it fails to account for Congressional races, which have further increased the Republican lead. Surely every campaign can’t have these same issues, can it?
And like I said before, 48% of the country did agree with us on Kerry. But on the SMDB it was probably 90% Kerry. That’s a guess, but you must admit there is a large discrepency.
First time since Bush Sr. in 1988, who won with 54% of the vote.
Considering the coattails effect, I don’t find it unreasonable that the Republicans could pick up seats. Don’t forget the Republican gerrymandering of Texas which netted them a few extra seats right there.
Again, the Republicans were able to use the War in Iraq = War on Terror thing to their advantage. Democrats were painted as weak on terrorism because they couldn’t clarify the issue and suffered for it.
Bingo.
It’s not complicated; the issue in this election was the war, and that’s where the dems lost it. A centrist democrat who can’t be painted as soft on defense and doesn’t harbor illusions about the UN – a Joe Biden, say – would have won. The Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky left is to be tolerated and thrown bones, not allowed to steer the nomination.
The smartest Dem politicians are the Clintons. Hillary has arguably positioned herself to Bush’s right on defense issues. There’s your answer.
Yes and no. I agree that strength on defense and fiscal centrism (i.e., moderation) are keys to Democratic success in presidential politics. But don’t underestimate the Republican slime machine and their lapdogs in the “liberal” media who dutifully and uncritically report every false and misleading claim. Any Democrat would have been “painted as soft on defense” and as abdicating American sovereignty to France.
That doesn’t explain the ass-whoopin’ we got at the Senate, Congressional, state wide, and local races.
Hmm, as I read this thread, it seems to be turning into a “What the Democrats did Wrong” thread, which is already a thread. Obviously the threads are related, but I thought the future direction of the party merits a thread of its own.
Anyway, a few more thoughts: The direction of the GOP will probably change, as it already has. It has moved away from small-government conservatism, but the Democrats only made a half-hearted effort to fill the void. The GOP will probably change in more ways during the next four years, and the Democrats can probably pick up a lot of disenfranchised Republicans. On the off chance that the GOP disenfranchises enough Republicans that a third-party candidate emerges for the next election, the Democrats can probably be safe with their current lovable selves.
For the Democratic internet political junkies like myself, I think it is clear we need to swear off blogs. Blogs led us astray on Howard Dean, and they led us to be overoptimistic about Kerry. Almost everything we were told about Kerry’s chances was wrong. We need to worry about polls, not about what internet pundits say. On the other hand, they were good for fund-raising, so perhaps I am too harsh here.
My bad. I think the thing to remember, though, is that Clinton never got 50% of the vote. He’s thought of as such a great politician, but most of the country wanted someone else, both times he ran.
Yes, it does. The Dems lost it in states that are solidly Republican.
Do you really think that if Perot had run this time around, W would’ve fared better than Clinton?
Clinton won by pretty significant margins, IIRC. The fact that a billionaire’s personal third party managed to make a showing does not reflect poorly on Clinton.
Daniel