Why I Think Repuke Strategists are Smarter than Us

[louis c]

I'm a labor guy. I have this discussion within the labor council all the time, and I'd like to share my thoughts with you. Please understand that I am speaking to a strategy position, a strategy of winning.

Example; In the all important 2004 election, all knowledgeable political pundits believed that the election would come down to Ohio. When the "Gay Marriage" issue broke, Repukes quickly placed the issue on the ballot as a referendum in key battleground states, including Ohio. This pulled out just enough votes in rural Ohio to re-select President Asshole. As a result, we have his entire agenda, which is a nightmare to all middle class Americans.

Now, you can see the President's poll numbers plummeting in the wake of his Social Security "plan". Bush is pushing his unpopular cause after the election. If this became a key issue during the election, Bush would probably have lost. The Repukes didn't take that risk.

Can't we learn to stay on point with issues that resonate with the majority of Americans, like pocket book issues. Remember James Carville, "it's the economy, stupid".

Let's try to win an election, or at least a majority in one branch of Congress, before we try to tackle the controversial and divisive issues that allow our opponents the ability to cobble together a slim majority that is hell bent on destroying the middle-class.

What do you think?

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Hard to be a democrat , especially when it comes to selling, casuistries!

Sugar coating "narcissistic fibrosis" is easy,when people want to believe it, no matter what they know.

[skippyusmc]

2. They May be Evil, but They Do Plan Better

Listen to Big Ed Schultz on Air America at 3:00 PM. He says the same thing. We don't plan and organize like they do. They have been lurking in the background for the past three or more decades plotting this strategy. Now they are reaping the pay off.

They use sound bites for the average American who doesn't read the news any more but depends on things like Faux and CNN to tell them what is going on.

We can compete with them and win. WE can use both sound bites and the truth and kick their butts back into the cellar of history. When they talk about people of faith, we need to go back and tell them there are just as many on our side as yours. We need to get right back in their faces and challenge them on this verbal vomit they are spewing all over US.

[Aviation Pro]

11. Let's up the ante on these "news" organizations....

...and change their names to "Fux" and "CNT."

[mhr]

20. They Have A Planning Infrastructure - We Do Not

Without a mechanism to support groups of people that can do the ling-range planning we will forever be at a disadvantage.

How do they do it - they pay people full time.

Typically these folks sit in positions at the think tanks or phony grass roots organizations. This is just a cover for their real job - strategy and planning.

Until the left realizes that everything can't be run on a shoe string, we will continue to be outgunned.

[Nay]

62. Agreed, mhr. Why are rich Dems so slow to fund the think tanks,

position paper writers, talking heads, etc., that could swing people to the dem side? Do most dems really think that propaganda techniques don't work? We have a hundred years of advertising to say that it works great, yet we keep trying to reach people with reason and discussion. It's absurd, and we're wasting precious time.

[newyawker99]

47. Hi skippyusmc!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[slaveplanet]

50. Evil is always organized

good always hold the majority, but are disorganized.

It's always been that way...

[leveymg]

3. Their strategists ARE smarter than Carville - time to get new strategists

But, I disagree that we should adopt single-issue politics. "The Economy Stupid" was a fine talking point, but national politics (and the Democratic Party) are far too complex for that.

The job of getting back into power will require the Dems to stand up and make clear that we have IRRECONCILABLE differences with the far-Right. On that point,I hope we can all agree here.

:kick:

[orpupilofnature57]

9. Yes irreconcilable, not progressive.

Fuck the far right and corporate America,they need to be BEAT not reconciled with.

[UdoKier]

56. Kerry's defeat was orchestrated by Shrum and Cahill.

By the time Carville was brought on as an advisor, it was already too late.

[TomClash]

4. We wanted this

but the Kerry tried to appease everybody to get enough votes to win so he had a milquetoast message. Corporate America doesn't want to talk about "pocketbook issues." And the Dems get contributions from them and less now from Labor. You need $$$ for campaigns. It's a vicious circle.

That said, I'm all for changing the topic to class issues. I think it is necessary to pick up votes and seats in red states, some of which are quite winnable. But how do you communicate the message through the MSM, which then distorts or ignores it because of its own class bias?

[louis c]

6. The point I'm making

is that both sides have some divisive and controversial issues, and others that are more popular.

It seems we roll out our divisive ones before the election, and they work on their's after they win.

[TomClash]

26. That's a good point

I agree. But JK had a mediocre communications team, starting from the top (him). But I just need you to realize it's not that easy because of the MSM right wing bias. It's an uphill fight that MUST be waged nevertheless.

[AP]

28. i think a lot of Dem voters didn't realize that Iraq was as big a wedge...

...issue as gay marriage.

It should have be framed within a progressive model -- ie, "we cannot win the war on terror by sacrifixing the jobs of and impoverishing working Americans and by using it as a tool to funnel taxpayer wealth to private corporations" (the latter was the frame for the 87 billion appropriations bill and Kerry missed the opportunity to use it).

[KittyWampus]

36. That's Not Very Concise. "Earning A Living Wage Is A Family Value"

and Clark was the only Primary Candidate to say it in such simple terms.

[AP]

39. It's less than three sentences.

You can't get more concise.

Clark's one sentence reply, "Earning A Living Wage Is A Family Value", is so concise it doesn't connect what gay marriage or Iraq has to do with wages.

[leveymg]

12. The Repugs sidestep the MSM by organizing locally through all

available organizations and alternative media, from AM radio to church newsletters. That's where they put most of their focus, and it HAS worked for them.

I'm even going to take my own advise here. I'm now doing something I haven't in many years. Getting active within my local Democratic committee. I won't stop my other political work, but I think it's time to put some energy into organizing my own neighborhood.

:kick:

[TomClash]

24. Me too

And good for you! Welcome to the fight. With more people like you I know we can win.

[dsc]

5. The main reason we lost Ohio

if we really did lose Ohio, was the fact we didn't organize there fast enough. They still were doing virtually nothing when I moved in late July. In marked contrast, Repubicans were organizing there starting in January. We never could make up the ground.

[louis c]

8. The Gay Marriage referendum

helped them tremendously, not only in energizing and organizing their base, but by obscuring the economy issue, which should have cost Bush Ohio.

[dsc]

10. Then why did Kerry win in Oregon and Michigan

two states which also had those referenda. The fact is we messed up Ohio by not working hard enough.

[louis c]

22. The Electorate in Ohio is far more Conservative

Ohio is generally a Repuke state.

there is a greater Evangelical base in Southern Ohio than in Mich. or Ore.

Plus, both Mich. and Ore. have a Dem. cushion, so we can withstand a little erosion and still carry those states.

In Ohio, we cannot.

By the way, the referenda lost in both Mich. and Ore.

I don't think being on the losing side of a ballot question helps you get more votes.

[dsc]

52. No it didn't

In Michigan it won by a greater percentage than it did in Ohio and in Oregon, which was thought to be our only hope, it still won by around 55 to 45.

[KittyWampus]

37. We Lost Ohio Because Of BBV, Blackwell & NO Amount Of Planning Or

groundwork would have helped, IMO.

[PowerToThePeople]

51. True, we did not lose

We had it stolen. Repukes are salivating that we are thinking we can "plan" our way to a win. WE could promise and secure funds to make every single citizen of this country millionaires and still lose. THey own the vote counters, therefore they own the vote.

[ixion]

7. personally, I don't think it's a question of smarts

I think the dem leadership has purposely developed a strategy of being the GOP's bitch.

I cannot believe that such educated people could simply lack the planning intelligence to create a good counter strategy. People like Joe LIEberman, et. al. are purposely subverting the dems, IMO.

Why? Power.

I believe that dems could take back the party, but it would require replacing the leadership.

I had alot of hope when Dean took over the DLC, but it seems that the first issue of business was to get Howard to drink the Kool-Aid®, because all of a sudden he starts parroting the 'centrist' BS about us having to 'stay the course' in Iraq. :cry:

[Disturbed]

13. A shitload of posts about '08 when..

'06 is crucial for Dems to at least gain a few seats in the House. The Bush Junta is moving it's agenda rapidly and Amerikans are barely aware of the loss of their freedoms and economic lives and the destruction of the environment. Dems need to stop the appeasment and complicity and vote in reps that actually represent the less than wealthy classes.

[dsc]

14. actually this isn't about 2008

lessons learned can be used anytime.

[orpupilofnature57]

18. No doubt ,everyday counts now.!

[leveymg]

15. The DNC is dominated by centrists. Appointing Dean as Chair

was a concession by the Party leadership that the triangulators and appeasers failed AGAIN, and that the Dems have to keep their base together and mobilized or we're going to get wiped out next time.

The fact is that real progressives are the future of the Party. All we have to do is realize that and proceed accordingly. We shouldn't even waste our time and energy shadow-boxing with the Liebermans. That crew is already on its way out the door and will probably do a Third Party thing in '08 with McCain and the centrist Repugs.

Keep on keepin' on, folks. :kick:

[orpupilofnature57]

19. "Real progressives" if it can be confused, it ain't real.LIBERALS are.

Real I mean.

[marions ghost]

42. I agree...but with a footnote

You say "real progressives are the future of the party." I do agree that this is true at this point, because the centrists have failed to stop the Juggernaut. But they have failed ALSO because the compromisers and triangulators have been thoroughly used and abused. We are witnessing a power grab of unprecedented proportions.

I believe that the centrist Dems WOULD be in power, if the elections were not also controlled by the Republican machine. Gotta remember that the centrist/triangulators methods are not always bad and may contribute something --IF we really were operating in a fair system. It's not all black and white, is all I'm sayin.

But it will have to be the Democratic/progressive "hardliners" that wrestle it back. And maybe some of the Centrists who realize that it's just not working all of a sudden (agreed we should leave them in the dust and let them come to this realization themselves). And then MAYBE the progressive values of a large percentage of the populace will have a hope of being represented.

[w4rma]

59. "centrist"/corporatist Dems refuse to wield the power necessary to remove

control of the election process from the GOP hacks. It is their nature and the GOP has exploited that superbly.

[AP]

29. I don't think Joe intentionally subverts the Dem party. He's not in the

bottom tier of Dems who vote against the party. The problem is that he doesn't vote with the dems on what should be one their two top-priority issues: corporate responsiblity (which should be right behind worker's rights).

[louis c]

33. Lieberman is an Asshole

[marions ghost]

43. corporate responsibility = worker's rights

not behind. No more important issue, IMO.

[AP]

48. IIUC, Lieberman has decent union vote record. It's whoring for Account-

ants and for Wall St's ability to report bad audit reprts where he falls down big time.

[bunkerbuster1]

66. In that respect, he's no worse than Joe Biden.

Lieberman is a pain in the ass, but he's solid on a lot of issues that matter to progressives (environment, reproductive rights, he's come around on SS).

I'll criticize him when it's merited, and I won't be surprised if he winds up facing a primary challenge by a more progressive candidate, but I think he draws way too much ire in here (and wastes a lot of energy) for what he's actually done. Just because a lot of Republicans like Lieberman is no reason for us to hate him.

[ixion]

44. Lieberman

-- Helped produce the unPATRIOTic Act

-- Has acted as a Bush enabler, by providing agreement from the opposition.

As far as I'm concerned, he's a DINO.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. Uh ... couple of things .......

Dean is the head of the dNc (Democratic *National* Committee; i.e. 'The Party') ... not the dLc (Democratic *Leadership (ha!) Council* - a centrist *faction* (fraction?) of the party).

As to the message you seem to be hearing, I'd ask that you listen a bit more carefully to what is *really* being said. I really don't see (or hear) Dean speaking of centrist *policy*. What I *do* see (and hear) is Dean framing bedrock Democrat issues in a way that is less aurally abrasive to the center and even right of center people.

For example (and NOT to debate this issue here): We are not *for* abortion (baby killing) ... we 'want abortion safe, rare .... and legal' (or however he's saying it these days ... his message is, quite frankly, still in the formative stages). We've been painted *pro* abortion. Parse that out and it *easily* translates into 'baby killer'. Are *you* a baby killer ......... ? No? I didn't think you were. Calling us 'Pro-choice' is only marginally better. What Dean, and many others, are doing is working to change the vocabulary ... and thus the framing .... and thus the perceptions ... and thus our credibility. There simply is NO change in policy. None. Nada. If he's successful, then *our* candidate can stand there in a national debate and (as I *wish* Kerry could have) point at the other guy and say "He will take away your right to make your own choices. *I* will not." Nothing is more unequivocal than that. And that line *is* a winner. But it simply won't work with the debate as it is now because *they* own the debate. We don't. Give Dean a chance. To me, he's the most hope I've had for the DNC in many election cycles.

He is also working to make us much more grass roots and less top-down-corporate. That was his message in the pre-primary season, in the primary season, during the campaign, and since the campaign.

In the end, we must be about winning. Not abandoning our base, but speaking in a way that a goodly part our *former* base (those millions of 'Reagan Democrats" who are now reliable Republican voters) can hear and *understand* and *accept*. To speak in a way that is blatantly to the way left of center energizes our base .... but leads to nothing more than another few years of mental masturbation as we again watch the Republicans win.

And I'm sick of masturbating. I want the real thing!

... and no .... I wasn't a Deaniac in the primaries. I supported another guy. But I am absolutely in favor of Dean in this role and am thrilled he's there.)

[ClarkUSA]

16. All things being equal, I agree with you

The margin wasn't Diebold-proof in OH because of the gay-marriage issue voters.

Democrats aren't interested in winning at any and all costs.

That's why we lose.

[slor]

17. They were not smart enough to keep...

the chimp from saying he did not mind gay marriage a week or so, prior to election. Now if I was in charge of the Dems, we would have recorded every statement made by anyone in the administration from day one, and we would have had that statement on record, and a commercial based on that statement, five minutes later. The gop strategists, have clearly shown that they are mere mortals, particularly on the issue of Social Security, and privatizing SS was discussed at least a year ago, but they did not push it hard. Again, the Dem leadership decided to play softball with the liars, and missed a chance to blast them.

I would suggest that we go soft at times when the rethugs hand us not only the ammo with which to shoot them, but the gun as well. Right now, the stage is set for a populist movement that could change our country for the better, in ways that we can only dream of, but the Dems appear to want to "play it safe" yet again. Of course, the media is complicit in this, and save the rethugs untold millions, by supporting their talking points, so this cannot be discussed without mentioning that.

The Dems do need to have a smart plan on the issues, and yes that includes Social Security. They can hold it in reserve, while the rethugs impale themselves, but they still need to have a plan. They should be convening with constituents about these issues, particularly energy, and sharing their ideas. Then they can present a plan that has the backing of the people, and contrast those with the disastrous policies of the chimp. If they use this approach about the real issues facing all of us, believe me, you will not hear the words "gay marriage" as an election issue ever again.

[LandOLincoln]

21. I think you're absolutely right. Another DUer came up recently

with what I think is the perfect slogan for the Democratic party:

(Paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact words)

"We're the party for people who work for a living."

That's it. Forget the wedge issues. That's the bottom line.

[louis c]

23. Now, You get my point

[TomClash]

27. Bingo! eom

[AP]

30. Yep. And when the wedge issues come up, they need to be framed...

...within that basic message.

Like I said in my last post, Iraq should have been framed that way ("we cannot win this war or any war by destroying the opportunities of and impoverishing Americans who work for a living") and the only way to talk about gay marriage should have been the way Edwards responded to it ("it's probably not right for NC, but I think same sex and opposite sex couples should have all the same federal rights because democrats believe in making the lives of people who work for a living easier, and not harder.")

[cap]

34. it doesnt matter about poor results in polls regarding

gay marriage and abortion. It does matter if those issues galvanize enough of the base in key counties and key states.

We need to call these people out. We need to speak in terms and in magazines that average people read and understand. We must start invading Ladies' Home Journal, Reader's Digest etc.

[AP]

38. But if you look at the polls, the issue didn't influence who showed up

at the polls and why they voted relative to 2000 and they do show that people accepted terror as a higher priority than their jobs and their economic opportunities and their future.

The Plan A was very successful. Plan B was a wash.

[marions ghost]

45. yep

how it is framed in the media is the key

Dems arguments are framed by the opposition as "elitist" when nothing could be further from the truth. Challenging writers: write something for one of these average consumer mags and get it published...

[AP]

49. It would also be nice if we didn't run elites for President

[marions ghost]

63. yes well

almost anyone who gets in the position to be prez in this country is going to be in an elite economic bracket, politically supported by corporations and lobbyists. You'd have to limit campaign spending for anyone else to have a chance.

What other kind of elite offends you?
I am so burned by the RW use of this word to disparage academics and intellectuals that I'm hoping you don't mean that.

I would argue that some Dem elites still have a shred of integrity and concern for the common good, unlike their Repub counterparts who are all about themselves and their buddies' bottom lines.

[AP]

64. Clinton wasn't. He was straight out of the middle class with a story

a lot of voters found compelling. It was harder for the Republicans to cast doubt on his conviction. Most Americans felt that he did feel their pain.

What is most important to me is that the candidate's conviction is crystal clear, and Million Dollar Bil Bradley'sl and Al Gore's convictions were not clear.

If you're claming to respresent the interests of people who work for a living, what's so hard about about finding someone who is a great symbol of that and whose convinctions about helping those people are obvious.

[marions ghost]

70. sounds like you're talking about an image thing

rather than substance.

Personally I don't see much diff in the reality of who Clinton is, Gore is, and (also for ex) Edwards is...and how they got to be where they are. Intelligence, hard work, luck, and support. (I don't put Bradley in their league). To me they have similar convictions, whereas Clinton stands out mainly in his ability to speak effectively, with Edwards second.

Kerry had a definite image problem to overcome, as far as the "elitist" label, but I think he managed to do that. I had no problem believing that he would work for me and my concerns, as much as ANY of them can at this point, under the contraints of a powerful opposition which is hell bent on undermining everything this country stands for. Kerry did brilliantly in the debates, he made effective speeches, his record is convincing. Kerry wuz robbed. But as long as it's a media war, when even elite princes such as George Bush can be packaged and sold as "the guy you want to have a beer with"--what and where is reality?

Yes, it would be great if we had someone else who is as good a communicator as Bill Clinton was, but I don't really want any more "symbols," more media hype, more emphasis on finding the exact "right" person with exactly the right background for the job. I just want a government (and an election system)that WORKS for, by, and about the People. So I blame the abuse of the system and the failures of the media more than the candidates, whatever their stories.

[AP]

71. I'm talking about an idea thing.

Gore wasn't a great student in college, floundered after college, and didn't find success until he went into the family business.

I think it's pretty clear that, but for his last name, he wouldn't have gone to Sidwell Friends or Harvard, and wouldn't have been elected to the Senate. He did a fine job when he got to the Senate for the most part, but, seriously, replace "Senate" with "Governor" and "Sidwell Friends" with "Andover" and you've described George Bush.

I'm not surprised that someone who would come post at DU would have fewer problems perceiving Kerry's convictions for helping the middle class and the commendable implications of his biography. But I definitely think the average voter would have a problem. When you hear his biography and you see where he is today, I think a lot of people would have a hard time seeing as accessible for themselves the opportunities Kerry had, and I think that limits the resonance of some of the most important ideas you want people to pick up from Democrats.

Republicans don't have this problem because their ideology is basically, hhierarchy is good, obey authority, and only a few have the right to lead (while at the same time they like to pretend that there are no class differences among everyone else).

Anyway, yeah, I want a government that "works" too -- but I'm under no delusions that you don't have to run good candidates whom people understand in order to win office and implement good policies.

[marions ghost]

73. well you raise good points

but I'm still skeptical of your emphasis on picking apart Dem candidates backgrounds in the face of the Republican Juggernaut. It seems kind of quaint to think that all we need is another Bill Clinton, or harking back further, an FDR. You could run Jesus Christ as a Democrat and he would be destroyed today. I don't think it's just a matter of finding The Right Guy. We've put up some decent ones. Certainly they were better than * anyday.

I agree that the Repugs benefit from a heirarchical situation because their constituency more readily accepts that, whereas we liberals want to think that true equality rules. This causes problems, definitely. But sorry you'll NEVER get me to equate Al Gore with George Bush, apart from some superficialities. One of them has integrity and is intelligent (despite school performance)-- for starters.

If you are saying that the Democrats should not field candidates who have grown up with privileges such as Kerry had, I think it's missing the point. We will not achieve greater equality by casting out those whose background is not the same as ours. (I did not grow up rich or privileged either--in fact my family was victimized by relatives who were better off (OK they were Republicans). But STILL I think it matters more who you are and what you have done with those privileges. I believe that Kerry's heart is in the right place. I believe that he wants to make more opportunities available to others, that he has a vision of a more equitable world. You seem to be saying that there are such divisions of class and opportunity now that Democrats can only be led by those who have a "rags to riches" story.

[AP]

74. I'm saying we need to learn lessons from the past about what works

and apply them.

Not saying we need a new B.C., but let's at least look for someone with things we know worked in the past.

[marions ghost]

75. I don't know...

my gut instincts tell me that the Bushites have already changed the rules of the game so that things that "worked in the past" can now be thwarted. I think we'll have to come up with new strategies. We will have to out-fox them. And to do that we need a new media that can sell our messages without using Republican-style distortion, cleverly blended with outright lies. So I agree the problem lies in how to influence public perspective, but I don't agree that a certain kind of "populist" democratic candidate alone can do this.

[AP]

76. These rules are universal, and when everything else changes, they still...

...apply. Furthermore, the Republicans are using these same rules to win. Not only do they modify them so that they work for Republicans, they use the Democrats' failure to follow these rules to beat them.

There will never be a time when things have changed so radically that it isn't important for Democrats to see their candidate clearly embodying the principles for which the party stands.

If the party believes they represent the interest of people who work for a living, then let's have candidates that don't require voters to sift through a lot of complicated and contradictory motivations in order for people to understand the things we stand for.

[louis c]

65. Ya, who wants candidates like FDR and JFK

it's not the candidates, it's the strategy

[AP]

67. Nobody had any doubts about their convictions. Read Sidney Blumenthal's

book -- the first chapter.

He said that JFK was rich, but because he was catholic, a lot of people who worked for a living saw him as an outsider to the Boston Brahmin world.

Also, if there ever was a time when a playboy was going to get elected, it was 1960. Everyone felt like they were JFKs then.

As for FDR, nobody doubted his convictions. He was labelled a class traitor by other rich people. I never heard anyone call Al Gore or Million Dollar Bill Bradley a class traitor.

So, a great litmus test for elites: don't run them unless they're popularly known as class traitors.

As for the problem being all strategy: you need good raw materials too. You need candidates with compelling stories whose convictions are clear.

[louis c]

77. Like George Bush?

Our candidates were better than their's. We had a better story, and better ideas.

Our strategy sucked.

Again, don't take on unpopular or divisive issues until after the election.

Job losses, a fiasco in Iraq, health care.

That's it. If we stayed on message, we'd have won.

It was all about tactics, and they know it, otherwise, why did they wait 'till after the election to talk about Social Security.

They get it.

We're on the right side, and they win.

[AP]

25. Republicans are great at convincing people to prioritize issues in a way

that doesn't match people's actual prioritization of issues.

Most people (should) care most about their job, their rights as a worker, their paycheck, and whether their kids will have access to a good job at a fair wage more than anything else.

Republicans so easily convince people to have a different prioritization. However, I don't agree with you that it was gay rights that killed Democrats. Republicans did try to throw that into the mix, but I don't think it worked as a Plan B. The % of religious right voters who went to the polls was the same in 2004 as it was in 2000, and the general population didn't put gay marriage at the top of its list of reasons for voting for Bush.

The prioritization -- the Plan A -- that worked really well was convincing voters that terror and foreign policy and the fear of dying at the hands of terrorists was the most important issues, and was so important that it didn't matter if you sacrificed your job, opportunities and your future in order to be safe.

FDR fought the same sort of mentality but was able to argue that America was not safe unless each individual America had a secure job and was wealthy and happy. FDR's politicial strategy was brilliant -- from 1932 right to the end. So was Kennedy's and Clinton's (and Edwards's if you ask me). They were all able to get people to have a prioritization of issues that worked for Democrats, no matter the historical circumstances they were confronting.

But now it's the Republicans who are able to set a mood that resonates throughout politics and culture in a way that encourages people to have fucked-up prioritizations that produce Republican electoral victories. We are absolutely inundated with talk about God, so I think the Republicans are undaunted by the poor results on gay marriage in 2004. And we'll see what they do about terror for 06 & 08.

[marions ghost]

72. Agreed --Generalized Fear was brilliantly exploited

by the Rovians. This is the wave that George rode in on this time.

Also agree with your emphasis on how the voters prioritize...

"But now it's the Republicans who are able to set a mood that resonates throughout politics and culture in a way that encourages people to have fucked-up prioritizations that produce Republican electoral victories."

A lot of the brains of regular citizens have been hijacked. I think they will have to go through a process of realization of this. Dem politicians can only try to sell Democratic values --we cannot hijack those brains back. Dems have to be less compromising, more firm in promoting OUR values, more tough in the current climate.

[sweetheart]

31. It depends on what our strategic objectives are...

and who "we" are. If we are the decent people the world over who
oppose tyranny, then the strategy has worked miracles. These people are
serial abusers and by asserting this abuse-culture on a global scale,
they have isolated the USA in a way previously inconceivable. They have
done more damage to the emprire and american soft power than any
foreign enemy could EVER do.

An election every 4 years is tactical... and not strategic. At this
point, no matter the short term suffering, these pukes have destroyed
permanently any strategic advantage that america once held in the world.

Militarism and imperial repression are no replacement for goodwill and
long term intelligence. They have metaphorically started lynching
slaves in the public common, and nothing could be more distrubing or
distance decent people from these heinous criminals more effectively.
In this regard, the criminals are the imperialists, of both colours,
dem and repuke. That is why i say it has to do with who "we" are.

So given the strategic destruction of the republic, the repukes are
horrendous strategists, and your statement is debatable. They may know
how to be coercive and fool the public for a while, but that is no
replacment for the real deal... and it will all unwind in a veil of
tears.

[louis c]

32. We can only make changes in a democracy

is to win elections.

Losing sucks.

[sweetheart]

40. akido, using losses as a win

All the problems of america are because of the GOP. A tactical
strategist must resonate this message. The GOP are in power in all
branches, and if democratic-we can't stick them with responsibility
for this terrible state of affairs, then we are not tacticians.

The new frame must "blame" them for the mess. They are a fiscal
disaster, a military disaster, an economic disaster, a disaster for
civil rights, for schools and a litany of messes that are all THEIR
fault.

Their traditional harping of blaming clinton for what they themselves
have done, has grown old. It is time to resurrect the mantra in
reverse and for plato's blind capitain to pin the tail on the elephant.

[louis c]

79. That May Be True

but you have to at least win once in awhile

[KittyWampus]

35. A. Ohio Was Stolen B. Emotional Issues Can/Do Dominate Discussion

C. Pocketbook issues may be of prime importance but Democrats need to talk about said issues in terms that resonate. For example, workers earning living wages is a FAMILY VALUE.

[Stirk]

41. I couldn't disagree with you more.

I'd put it down to 4 main points:

1) Republicans have an easier product to sell. It's much easier to make appeals to hatred, fear, and greed than to civic duty and community.

2) As the corporate party, Republicans are backed by US corporate media. They can usually count on that media to push the issues they want to talk about, and bury the issues they don't want to talk about.

3) The Democratic Party is not currently a populist party, and truly populist platforms seem to be considered "unreasonable" by DLC sorts. Hopefully these idiots will be marginalized.

and of course...

4) Vote fraud.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. I agree with you, but see opportunity in the "problems" you posit

1) Republicans have an easier product to sell. It's much easier to make appeals to hatred, fear, and greed than to civic duty and community.

We can and should use that very tactic ...... an appeal to every human's base emotions, like fear and greed. But make the Republican *leadership* one of the enemies (make sure to distinguish between 'Republicans' ... who are the one's we're trying to convert, and their leaders, who even their followers have come to question these days) ... not just the 'terrasts", "evildoers", dead enders", misfit du jour, and assorted bogeymen. It is the Republicans (*them*) who want to take away your (your mother's) social security. It is *them* who wish to make bigotry and discrimination an issue of a constitutional requirement. It is *them* who wish to put our nation so deep in debt that your children's children's children's children will still be paying for it. It is *them* who wish to see *your* standard of living decline so *theirs* can increase. Etc., etc., etc.

2) As the corporate party, Republicans are backed by US corporate media. They can usually count on that media to push the issues they want to talk about, and bury the issues they don't want to talk about.

This is an issue, to be sure. But imagine, if we were smart, having a go-to person for issue A ... a go-to person for issue B, etc. We do actually get air time. What happens though is we get shut out of the debate when they lob leading or stupid questions at us. We need people on air who can successfully speak in spite of that. And we need to slap the shit out of our own ambitious camera whores who go on to further only their own agenda and not the agenda of the party. We need to find not only new leaders, but willing and loyal followers. They're out there. We just need to press our leaders to use them.

And we need to get our own media. (The internet qualifies as 'media' too.)

3) The Democratic Party is not currently a populist party, and truly populist platforms seem to be considered "unreasonable" by DLC sorts. Hopefully these idiots will be marginalized.

What's not populist about the working class, the under class, the middle class? Don't make it about issues (that's the 'populism' they attack). Make it about **people**. Relate everything to just *one* person ... the one you're speaking to. Make every speech **personal**. Make every speech tailored to that one person right there. That one. The one in the middle. The one who's attention you now have. Speak right to ... him ... her ... him .... that one .... that one right over there in the corner .......

As to the DLC aspects .... that, mercifully, seems to a shrinking entity these days. Not gone yet, but not currently in power.

4) Vote fraud.

Relate this to the personal again. Tell people *their* precious vote *must* be counted and valued for its full weight. Make sure people know we're fighting for fair and verifiable voting so *they* get what they want. Make this an issue about *them*. Don't whine that we're the aggrieved party. The fact is, *they* are the aggrieved party. Make sure they know that. And make sure they know who has engineered the capability to again steal *their* vote.

And we need to work (as well as we're able since we have no fucking power at all) to make paper a part of the process. BBV ain't going away. Ever. We need to work to make it reliable and verifible.

So yeah ... these are real issues. But that can and must be turned into strength for us. And done with intelligence and strategic thinking, we can turn this one around and fire their own gun right back at them.

[Stirk]

58. You've got a good point.

What Republicans would call "class warfare", and what I would call populism, could be considered an appeal to greed. I'd call it an appeal to fairness, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

This is why it drives me nuts when our candidates do anything to avoid these issues. They're a sure win.

Thank you for the well thought out reply, by the way. It was good to read.

[louis c]

60. Sure, but

there is no need to play into thier hands.

[GreenArrow]

46. not smarter, simply less scrupulous

Completely unscrupulous, actually. That's it in a nutshell. Nothing is off limits to them. They will lie about anything and everything.

[Hamlette]

54. GOP spends its time figuring out how to win, we spend our time

figuring out what is the best thing to do to solve our problems.

They are ideologues. We are thinkers. We are smarter. They are more dangerous.

[UdoKier]

55. I think you're ignorant of who started the gay marriage controversy.

It was a maverick "dem" mayor in San Fran and some REPUBLICAN judges in Mass. that started it, it was not a plank in the dem platform.

I wouldn't be surprised if a LOT of democrats advised Newsom to hold off on his gay marriage stunt, but PR for his own career came first.

I continue to be dismayed at gays who don't see that this man was exploiting them for personal gain.

Anyway, I agree with what you're saying about timing. They are the ultimate cynics, so they have infinite patience and unity.

We, on the other hand, are ALWAYS letting our idealism get the best of us.

And that is not an appeal for the filthy republican-owned DLC. (Hell, they probably thought the SF circus was hilarious, just as they secretly REJOICED in Bush's win.)

You can be a progressive AND use your head.

[louis c]

61. I know the whole story

but we let it carry on.

[losdiablosgato]

68. I have been thinking this for awhile now

Bush has been to lucky to have it be luck. He and or his advisors are smart and good at what they do. This makes them many times more dangerous. We have to be smart as well. That means finding issues that will get rural and blue collar voters bck to the democratic party.

[louis c]

78. You've got it.

[ClassWarrior]

69. Agreed. And I wish Progressives would quit giving Bush** a pass by...

...calling him stupid. He's a brilliant, ruthless criminal. As someone posted yesterday, he may have ruined every business he ran, but he also left each one obscenely richer. Yeah, he's stupid... all the way to the bank.

NGU.

[PKG]

80. Why I think Repuke strategists are smarter than ours:

They control everything, despite having policies counter to the self-interests of the electorate.

Next question.