Let's have a sincere post mortem on why DLC strategies were miscalculated

[Lerkfish]

putting aside partisanship for the moment, clearly we are seeing a rejection from the voters of one type of campaign and acceptance of another type of campaign.

What can we learn from this? Let's do a post mortem on what worked and what didn't work, so that the nominee will be best prepared for the general.

My preference is for this thread to avoid as much as possible personal attacks on either candidate, and concentrate solely on the STRATEGY part.
So, leave individual charisma or character out of it and let's discuss what works.


thanks.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Simple: top-down vs bottom-up

One strategy got people involved in the process, and made them feel as though they actually made a difference and had a meaningful voice in politics; the other...didn't.

[XemaSab]

12. Amen to that

It's economic as much as organizational.

For example, one candidate had a big enthusiastic group of followers here in Santa Barbara There were maybe 2 paid people, 10 hardcore volunteers, and about 20 part time volunteers MINIMUM. These volunteers were EVERYWHERE. Tabling in the mall in front of THOUSANDS of tourists, visiting my chapter of Drinking Liberally to hand out free pins and stickers.... EVERYWHERE.

Another candidate, meanwhile, was hiring people to do phone banking instead of getting volunteers. Candidate #2 could have EASILY gotten volunteers to do that stuff who would have been more committed and more invested in the candidate, in addition to being WAY cheaper. Candidate #2 had almost no visibility in the community, and the county wound up going with Candidate #1 by over 5,000 votes.

[Lerkfish]

20. I agree this is a critical point: we need to have strategies that are inclusive

to generate more participation rather than less.

we don't want to "control the message" to the point that no one is invested in listening.

[DemzRock]

2. Covered by #7 in Lakoff's 12 Traps ?

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/rockridge/twelvetraps

7. The Centrist Trap

There is a common belief that there is an ideological "center"--a large group of voters either with a consistent ideology of their own or lined up left to right on the issues or forming a "mainstream," all with the same positions on issues. In fact, the so-called center is actually made up of biconceptuals, people who are conservative in some aspects of life and progressive in others. Voters who self-identify as "conservative" often have significant progressive values in important areas of life. We should address these "partial progressive" biconceptuals through their progressive identities, which are often systematic and extensive.

A common mistaken ideology has convinced many progressives that they must "move to the right" to get more votes. In reality, this is counterproductive. By moving to the right, progressives actually help activate the right's values and give up on their own. In the process, they also alienate their base.

[XemaSab]

13. Interestingly, Lakoff really likes Obama

even though it seems like Obama makes more of a push towards the center.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

Lakoff is my baby daddy, and if he's cool with Barack then that's a MASSIVE endorsement in my book.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

(on edit: I see you've been here for ages. Well, uh, welcome to the 2008 primaries! :hi: :D )

[BuyingThyme]

3. Because they treated us like shit.

They're all about fake interviews and staged events.

Not one progressive radio interview for Hillary?

I suspect she had plenty of time to meet with CEOs.

What a bunch of fuckups!

Fuck 'em.

[DemzRock]

6. WAIT!? She didn't go on one progressive radio show?!?!?

NO WONDER Stephanie Miller and Air America, etc., kept talking against her! AH-HA!

[XemaSab]

18. Which ties into top-down vs. bottom-up

You get the grassroots motivated, and you've got support that money can't buy.

[scheming daemons]

4. Because DLC = Bush-lite.... and people don't want Bush-lite...

...

[jackson_dem]

7. So why did the DLC philosophy win over 80% of the vote?

[billyoc]

17. Union support. A mistake we won't make again. nt

[jackson_dem]

5. The DLC philosophy won over 80% of the vote. What is the problem with that for the DLC?

[DemzRock]

9. When Where?

When and where did the DLC win so much of the vote? I mean it worked for Bill Clinton, but didn't Congress and such take a beating?

[John Q. Citizen]

11. In 1992, Clinton won with 43% of the vote.

[Lerkfish]

16. I think what we have to wake up and realize is that this is 16 years later than that

the country has changed. 9/11 did change things too far in the fascist direction, and many citizens want to swing the pendulum back.

I think we risk losing in the general if we keep harking back to strategies from 16 years ago.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. oh, I agree 100% I also don't think the strategies of 16 years ago were very sound,

given the 43% win.

[Lerkfish]

32. ok, gotcha, I misread your post the first time.

sorry

[jackson_dem]

21. In the Democratic primaries

And has been winning 98-100% of the vote since Super Tuesday. What is the problem for "New Democrats"?

[Occam Bandage]

35. Unlike Edwards, Obama is not a "New Democrat."

[XemaSab]

22. So how does that tie into campaign styles?

:shrug:

[underpants]

8. EJ Dionne's article nails it-national vs. block-by-block

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4666261&mesg_id=4666379

[XemaSab]

25. re: the Clintons have never lived in a world of precinct captains

They have in wealthy areas of California (at least in Marin in the 90's), but probably not for the rest of the country.

[samdogmom]

10. The voters in our country are much wiser in 2008. We can thank Dubya for this education.

The Rove tactics that used to work were exposed. People are on to the games now and most don't fall for negative tactics. We've had over seven years of VERY bad leadership. We've become jaded.

Now we want something real again. We don't want to hear crazy promises. We know fixing our country will be hard and expensive. Don't lie to us. Tell us the truth. We're grownups--we can handle it.

And we want CHANGE. Meaning something that we haven't experienced before. Unfortunately, Hillary isn't change--she's a trip back to the 90's.

[Lerkfish]

14. I think this is a very valid point: Dubya has educated the masses to an extent

further, eight years of the worst president in history has woken people up to needing change.

Whether the promise of change is delivered, the point is people KNOW what's going on now ain't working.

My guess is that even many republicans want a change. The country is ready for it.
I think whoever is the nominee needs to hammer that home in the general. I think that's a more valid strategy than touting "experience".

If everyone's perception of the status quo is bad, then saying you're an expert in the status quo is not all that convincing.

[samdogmom]

29. Exactly!

Plus, things are bad right now and trending downwards. Barack's optimistic "Hope" message is a welcome relief. I think a leader that "inspires" is far more valuable than a leader that "does". Dubya has proven that Presidents really DON'T do anything! It's actually the job of Congress to get stuff done.

An inspirational leader steering the boat is far better than a roll-up the sleeves, nitty-gritty worker who can't actually get anything accomplished (i.e.: Hillary's failed effort to enact universal health care in the 90's. She truly doesn't know how to build coalitions. And her disastrous campaign management style is only underscoring this fact!).

I truly believe that Barack will be far more effective than Hillary could ever be. They have very different approaches to the way they solve problems. And, thus far, Barack is proving to be the more effective problem solver.

[DemzRock]

23. Hmmmm...

True to some extent. I do think the negative thing isn't working as well as it used to. I hope that extends to the General election, where the GOP will throw everything they can at Obama. They will change the b to an s in his name. They will emphasize the Hussein in his name, forgetting that King Hussein of Jordan was an American ally and that Hussein is like Smith or Jones in some places. They will try to make people worry that Obama is a Islamic Manchurian candidate. They will tie him to that slum lord guy. Be ready. On the other hand, maybe people are so tired of all the negativity, that it won't matter that much.

[harun]

15. It's about more than the campaign, it is about the individuals (n/t)

[Lerkfish]

24. even so, individuals are making campaign strategy CHOICES. why are some working and some not?

thanks.

[Mezzo]

19. I think the dlc strategies are working

look at how successful Obama is being. Rahm Emmanuel is doing a great job for Obama behind the scenes.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. it has nothing to do with strategy, it's the Shaquille O'Neal rule

when you're as big as Shaquille O'Neal, you can do whatever you want and there's no way to stop him.

Obama is a force of nature. No strategy would work against him. You might as well try to beat back a hurricane with a baseball bat.

[Arugula Latte]

28. I truly think that old school politicians like Clinton don't yet "GET" the Internet.

They don't know that the rules are completely different now because of the web. Smears and crap that used to work a decade ago are quickly debunked. Video clips are sent around. Jokes are forwarded and forwarded. People compare notes.

For years I remember hearing that Clinton would be our '08 nominee. The prospect filled me with a heavy sense of dread. I knew she'd be a horrible candidate in the general due to her overwhelmingly high and set negatives. I just wanted to move beyond Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. Yet, I was told, there was no question -- she would be the nominee. Apparently, there were a hell of a lot of people who felt like me and wanted a better alternative. We wouldn't have been able to turn that ship in a different direction if not for the Internet.

[Obamaniac]

30. If the DLC couldn't win with Hillary they will never win...

The problem with the people in the DLC is that they always thought that everyone should bow down to them and accept their ideas. They always refused any kind of compromise with the liberal wing of the party. Now they are paying the price for that decision.

They attacked those of us who RIGHTLY opposed the war in Iraq as being anti-American. They pushed Joe Lieberman on us, and screwed Lamont out of his victory by alligning with the Republicans. They sell out our interests to the corporations that give them the most money.

Meanwhile, they have been completely unsuccessful in achieving any kind political victory, save Bill Clinton's victories (with 43% and 49%) in the 1990s. They lost us Congress in 1994. After Al Gore's strong showing in 2000 we were able to win back the Senate, but they lost us that in 2002. Their candidates have been roundly rejected time and again: Lieberman, despite being the 2000 VP candidate was embarrassed when he ran for President, coming in fifth; their candidate for the DNC chairman got an even more embarrassing 5%, which their archenemy Howard Dean won.

Now even Hillary Clinton, with all the advantages she had, has lost the vast majority of states in these primaries. Their golden goose --- the Clintons --- is dead.

The Democratic Party has passed them by.

They have adopted a strategy which is not condusive with winning elections. People want change. They represent the same ol' same ol'.

Now they're getting what's coming to them.

[DinahMoeHum]

31. Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy" is the antithesis of DLC's strategy

The DLC's strategy seems to concentrate solely on the big states, and has written off the Southern states. It also depends largely on consultants, mass media saturation and huge donations from corporations.

In contrast, the "50-State Strategy" does not write off ANY state, no matter how "red" it may be. It also does not take any "blue" state for granted. In Dean's words, "...election by election, state by state, precinct by precinct, door by door, vote by vote, we're going to lift our Party up...". To accomplish this, there have to be BOOTS ON THE GROUND. Guess who are in those boots - everyday people, especially young people.

http://www.democrats.org/a/party/a_50_state_strategy/

Furthermore, the majority of the $$$ raised is coming from thousands of everyday folks donating small amounts. This is largely due to the Internet.

It seems to me Obama's campaign has taken Dean's strategy to heart - the DLC and Clinton have only paid it lip service.

Furthermore, Dean's strategy is meant to be long-term. The 2006 elections were just the first baby steps taken.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Avalux]

33. Because they don't have a clue what the American people are thinking.

The DLC's time is over after this election, thank god. They miscalculated at every turn and underistimated not only their opponent, but US, the voters.

[Occam Bandage]

34. Two words: Fifty. States.

Clinton ran what could have been a very successful campaign. Unfortunately, much as with Bush and Iraq, Clinton did not have a plan B. Just like with Gore, and just like with Kerry, and just like she would have if she were the nominee, Clinton concentrated on the bare minimum necessary to win, and assumed that nothing could go wrong. And just like with Gore, and just like with Kerry, and just like with Bush and Iraq, the first unexpected problem led to a narrow but inevitable loss. Obama ran a 50-state strategy in which he didn't leave anything uncontested. He made her spend time and money in NY and CA, and he racked up huge margins in the "unimportant, doesn't-count" states she neglected. He didn't cede anything to her, and that's exactly the strategy we need against the Republicans.

It'll be harder to build up an infrastructure that can beat the Republicans in, say, Kansas than it was to build one that could beat Clinton. But the principles are the same: there is no state we cannot win; there are no people we cannot convert; there is nothing we should cede.

Fifty.

States.

[Lerkfish]

36. "assumed that nothing could go wrong" precisely. We cannot afford

that lack of strategy and planning in the general

[Beregond2]

37. DLC

DLC was misconceived from the beginning. It was a response to the popularity of Reagan. It made the mistake of thinking people were voting for Reagan's policies, when they really just liked the guy. It tried to remake the Democratic Party as Republican-lite, when that wasn't what people wanted at all. They wanted a Democratic Party that stood for the populist policies it had always stood for, but expressed them in a positive, pro-active way, not defensively. Because Clinton was popular, they became further commited to these mistaken ideas, but again, Clinton was popular because he was Clinton, and because he wasn't Bush.

With this election, those mistakes have come home to roost. Given a choice between more of the same DLC corporatist, elitist crap, or a real Democrat with a lot of personal appeal, the people are opting overwhelmingly for the latter.

The DLC is over. The new Dean-led Democratic Party is on the rise. Make no mistake, Obamas triumph has everything to do with Dean's strategy of rebuilding the party from the ground-up.