I've been avoiding all of the "This is how we win" threads, but...

[WilliamPitt]

Please note that I do not address the electronic voting issue here. That is a whole 'nother thing, one that I have dealt with in detail here:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804A.shtml

I've been avoiding all of the "This is how we win" threads, but I wanted to throw my two cents in now that a week has passed.

We saw a lot of really good things, and a lot of really bad things, come out of the Kerry campaign. We need to go to school on those things, take the good and discard the bad.

Good:

* ELECTIONS ARE ALL ABOUT MONEY, PERIOD. The Kerry campaign out-fundraised and outspent the GOP in a national election. And the sun became as sackcloth, and the moon became as blood...but seriously, it happened. The infrastructure which created this unprecedented event needs to be duplicated at the national, state and local level. A tip o' the hat also must be given to Governor Dean, who was such a strong candidate in the primaries that he forced Kerry to forego the matching funds route, thus ensuring he'd be financially competitive in the general. This proves that a good, hard, occassionally nasty primary fight is healthy and necessary in the long run.

* The grassroots organization was excellent, and spurred the best get-out-the-vote drive we've ever seen. That infrastructure likewise needs to be duplicated.

Bad:

* Kerry's crew was not ready for the bright lights. They choked on the Swift Boat thing - the "We were keeping our powder dry to save money for later" excuse is good copy, but isn't what happened. They dropped the ball. Likewise, they were unable to address the flip-flop thing, and never came up with a good explanation for the $87 billion vote. This is why Kerry finally brought in his Boston Mafia, along with Lockhart and the rest. The damage had already been done.

* A lot of Southern and Midwest Democratic Party leaders were SCREAMING for Kerry to spend some money in known red states to boost the popular vote totals. None of those states were winnable, but it was possible for Kerry to have gotten 40-45% of the popular vote in a lot of them, boosting his numbers nationally. The Kerry crew refused to do so, and spent NO MONEY IN THE SOUTH to raise those numbers. Want to know why Bush has a three million vote advantage in the popular count? That's why. Had Kerry won Ohio, his mandate would have been crippled because his opponent got way way more votes than he did nationally.

There are two main schools of thought here. One says run a fifty state campaign, work on winning over the ideological right to our side by talking about Jesus and morals, and shove those pesky gay abortionists to the back of the bus. I see this as a flawed plan for a couple of reasons:

1. In the short term - the next two elections at least - no amount of morality talk is going to win us any of the hardcore red states. Our candidate could be dripping with the Blood of the Lamb, and we would still lose those states.

2. In the process, we would cause our base states to become shaky by betraying our core principles, and we would shatter a number of coalitions if women and homosexuals came to think our party was ashamed of or afraid to stand for them.

The other school of thought says the red states are unwinnable in the short term, that they can only be won after governing nationally for a term or two, and so why don't we just accept what we are - a part of both coasts and the Great Lakes region - and play that card to the hilt.

Run to win:

Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New York
New Jersey
Maryland
DC
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Hawaii
California
Oregon
Washington
New Mexico
OHIO OHIO OHIO.

Run to win those states, and spend enough in the red states to boost the popular vote. The next election will be about Ohio, period. Run to win Ohio, and be what we are in order to carry those other states. Do the math, that's the win.

I, for one, am loath to walk away from the South. I don't know how the Democratic Party remains viable in the long-term by ceding such a powerful geographic base to the GOP, but I also know that a frontal assault on a well-fortified castle usually results in a rout. We have to see thinbgs for what they are, win with what we've got, and *then* start chewing on that base.

Last week, I was thinking that we would never again see a Northeastern or California Democrat run for President in our lifetimes. I have changed my mind on that. We are who we are, and so we run who we run. Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton (yeah, I said it, she could win those states and no one will be able to raise more money), or even John Kerry are viable alternatives.

So them's me thoughts. Thoughts?

[KittyWampus]

1. Talking About Family Values & Morality Does NOT Mean Abandoning

ANYONE. These are NOT mutually exclusive.

Wes Clark got it.

Why can't the rest of the Democratic Party?

Reducing debt, health care, jobs, homeland security, protecting the environment are ALL about valuing Families.

Loving acceptance is a Value as is Tolerance and Diversity.

Pointing out "Gods, Guns and Gays" as the GOP tactic was "nice" but not ultimately helpful.

How about learning to COMMUNICATE with people in different areas?

[greenohio]

101. You will not win Ohio on a radical gay-abortion agenda.

Moderate and you will stand a chance. A DLC, New Democrat, moderate pro-choice (accepts some regulations) from the Midwest can win. If all you care about is having a hardline gay-abortion agenda, then vote green. If you care about winning then moderate. Bill Clinton, a DLC New Democrat won. Gore and Kerry did not become president.

[spooky3]

2. Generally agree, but two thoughts:

1) it's troubling to me that so many posters on DU have drawn conclusions before the facts are in. Solving the problems depends on whether we have correctly defined what the real problems are. It's only a few days after the election and I want more info first as to what actually happened, including but not limited to what extent fraud played a part.

2) I think there are borderline Southern states that are experiencing shifts in demographics or other changes that should favor Democrats, such as Virginia. So rather than view it in black-and-white terms, I think we need to take note of the gray. We may not win over all of these borderline states but we can make inroads, and we have NO chance of doing it if we devote few resources to doing so.

[RafterMan]

3. Wait a minute

That was the strategy this time, and we can't count on running against a monstrosity next time around.

I think you should check out some of the "how do we win" threads, or wait another week.

[WilliamPitt]

5. Not quite

We did run for those states, and won all but one of them. We fucked up with the mistakes I listed - better campaign staf next time - and we also failed to seed any money in the South to boost the vote totals. The Ohio complaints now would resonate much louder if we weren't down three million votes nationally.

[RafterMan]

7. Didn't Bush get New Mexico as well?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

This is the problem with the Fortess Blue strategy -- the Repubs have to do almost nothing to hold their territory, and can focus huge resources on picking off one or two of the Dem states.

Also, what are the componenets of the Ohio, Ohio, Ohio strategy you envision that weren't in play this year?

(oops -- in reply to #5)

[auburngrad82]

4. I agree and would also make a concerted effort to change the south's

perception of the Democratic Party. The way to do that is by constantly attacking the GOP's week record. The GOP has been very successful by attacking the Democratic Party but they use lies and mistruths. We can attack them based on their record and on their lies.

[Nashyra]

6. Strong local issues and strong local candidates

The Democratic party is a very large and inclusive party. Our base is WIDE but consequently not very deep. The repukes are very narrow and very DEEP. All those who say that the Dems did not target this group or that group are forgetting the fact that to target every strong but not very deep group takes more money and more organization. Get together with your local groups and target some of those groups. When the big election comes around the local parties must get their message out that for the Dems to win we must TRUST that when the Dems WIN an election that our ship will come in. We have to come to a consenus and message that is focused and will sell, yes sell in the more moderate areas during the national elections. We have to have our candidates visit us early to let us know that they are with us on our goals but we must win to be effective. This leaves it up to local Democratic groups, County Steering Committees to get the message out that we will be included in the agenda when we win. We are a wide, fair, inclusive, and moral party. Get together with your local Democratic party and start working with them. I also think that some of the Dem candidates in the primaries need to get to these local areas to help spread the word about how the Democratic party will guarantee that we all will be heard and be part of the agenda once we are in the White House. It can be done, start now. Here in Douglas County we have already had one meeting and our Dem women are meeting on Thurs. nite. We have to trust that our leaders will come back to our base as large as it is when they are in office. We have to figure out how to go DEEP and keep the base together BEFORE the national elections, the base should be satisfied by the outcome of the 2006 elections and the National elections should be time for our National Candidates to go Nationwide. IMHO

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. I agree on the southern spending point

We have waved the white flag in the south for far too long. What are southern DU"ers to do? Go third party since THEIR party has given up on them? For all the money we had, establishing a viable long term presence in the south would not have been terribly costly. They could start in LA, NC< and VA where trends seem to demonstrate we ARE more competitive now.

[WI_DEM]

9. I agree with your analysis

Along with Ohio I also think we need to really target these competitive red states in the west--Nevada and Colorado--they are trending our way.

[DinahMoeHum]

10. Agree with your thoughts about being competitive in the South. . .

and I was pissed that the DLC/DNC axis wrote those states off.

But organizing and strengthening the base down there should be left strictly to the Southern Dems themselves - with us Yankees staying on the sidelines providing more money.

The people down there won't listen to a Yankee, but they WILL listen to one of their own kind.

AND, we all have to keep a sense of humor and have fun - or as the old gonzo Hunter Thompson says, be a Fun Hog. I almost died laughing when he mentioned in Rolling Stone that Bush "...doesn't like music, football or sex - he's no fun at all..." I mean, c'mon! Not like football or music! those things are next to religion down South!

Just a start.

:evilgrin:

[realFedUp]

11. My .02 cents

My .02 cents

Good things about this past election:
Higher voter registration numbers that have to be maintained and strengthened.
Better use of the Internet, on line groups and money raising by different and more creative methods.
More inclusive use of the grassroots (really energized by Dean’s campaign)
More communication tools, opinion-makers (mostly out of the mainstream media though and speaking to the choir) Find ways to get those tools to people who aren’t plugged in.

Bad things about this past election:
More rampant voter fraud, suppression, no paper trail on voting machines, longer lines to wait to vote and partisan Secretaries of State etc.

I support:
-Dean for head of DNC
-Removing the power of the Democratic party from the DLCers
-Having a summit with leaders who oppose what Bush Inc. is doing to this country before any more decisions are made. Include the heads of progressive Christian, Muslim, Jewish communities as well as political, business, environmental groups. Men and women need a seat at the table to decide the future….not the ones who have been doing business as usual.

-Some real and public changes need to be made in how the party is leading itself to keep a lot of us from lapsing into apathy or forming a third party (not a Green or Indie one either)

I don’t support a Kerry/Edwards rerun in ’08.
I don’t think either of them spoke pointedly or plainly about what the Dems could offer and why those solutions are different from the opposition. They didn’t speak in simple terms as to why the actions of this administration are leaving us all more vulnerable in our pocketbooks, cities and future. Deflate the wedge issues before they outgrow the real issues. Wedge issues seldom really affect everyone’s daily lives.

I don’t support pushing liberals in accepting a watered-down version of the rightwingnut platform to get some more votes. We do have justice, truth and right on our side of the fence and people who believe in those things must take a pronounced stand against Bush Inc. now.

I don’t know who I would support at this point in ’08.

I am a fiscal conservative…a social liberal…a woman, a Christian, who believes that everyone should have equal rights under the laws of America and that being a faithful Christian means doing unto others as you would want done to yourself…I want an affordable health care plan that anyone can buy into and that will include any doctor of one’s choice. I want corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and to be penalized when they don’t pay them due to off shoring.I don't support attacking another country unless first attacked and that the wisest use of our anatomies are our brains. I don’t want tax cuts for the very wealthy subsidized by the middle class. I want alternate energy sources used more predominantly now and less dependence on oil and natural gas. I love people in red, blue and purple states as well as those in the rest of the world and think we should be united in our commonality in wishing to live free lives, to love, pray to our own creators in private and respectful ways, to use our talents in beneficial ways, raise healthy children in clean environments. Call me a liberal, a child of God and a member of the world community.

and a DUer :-)

[blue neen]

32. Your $.02 is worth a lot! You really summarized how I feel.

I particulary liked the idea of having a summit and including the heads of progressive Christian, Muslim, and Jewish communities. Also, environmental issues were all but ignored in this election.

I'm not sure how I feel about a Kerry run in 2008. It's too soon to put all of our eggs in one basket as far as a candidate is concerned.

[hippiechick]

68. Here's another .02 !

Wow, you put it perfectly !!!


:yourock:


:hippie:

[Stinky The Clown]

80. I'll see your $.02 and add a half

You articulated my feelings very nicely. Thanks!

I am you (except I'm a guy!).

[diplomats]

93. My sentiments exactly, realfedUp

But you said it much better than I could.:loveya:

[VelmaD]

12. Is this headed for publication...

or our own personal edification?

If it's going on truthout a couple of minor nitpicks.

paragraph 10 - I think you meant "a party of both coasts" rather than "part".

2nd paragraph after the long list of states - you spelled "things" wrong in the last sentence.

With that out of the way, I agree with you for the most part, especially about ceding the South. We worked our butts off down here in Texas and we got ZERO support from the national Kerry campaign or the DNC. It's like we don't even exist.

BTW, it's nice to see you aren't a part of the screaming anti-Hillary brigade around here. :)

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

15. What IF

this nation consists of parts that are simply ideologically incompatible?

What IF fulfilling the minimum requirements of winning in Mississippi would also mean falling short of the minimum requirements of winning Michigan?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

18. The republicans are competitive in Michigan and a shoe-in in Mississippi

and the Democrats are competitive in Michigan and a shoe-in in New York.

The Republicans aren't playing nationally, either; that's a myth perpetrated by the fact that in purely territorial terms, there is much more red real-estate in the country than blue. But the Republicans have given up on the North-East as well. The difference is, they took Will's advice and played for turnout of the minority of conservatives in the blue states to boost their popular vote total -- which is the one and only reason that we're wringing our hands here thinking that we need to deeply revise our strategy. The fact is, if 70,000 votes changed hands in OH we would have won.

And that is all in the spirit of forgetting the voting fraud issues in this thread.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

23. I meant in terms of presidential politics

If you look at the republicans who are competitive for other state and federal offices in the North East (and I predict they will be pushed out in a backlash over Bush's election), their ideologies have nothing to do with what Republicans run with nationally. They are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights, etc, etc. No Republican presidential candidate would ever take those positions. I though this conversation was solely about presidential elections.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

25. If they are one in the same,

then you tell me: could you ever envision a presidential candidate who can win every state in the South win a single state (other than NH) in the NE?

I think that local offices are a whole different ballgame, and subject for a whole different thread.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

30. Well, if you're going to go back to Reagan....

...then you have to consider that Carter won a bunch of Southern states, too -- most of them, in fact. And even Clinton won LA and AK. That was a whole different ballgame back then, when the country was much less ideologically polarized.

OH is not in the North East.

NJ you may have a point, though -- to argue the other side -- a candidate more palatable in the South would also likely be less palatable in NJ.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Goldmund]

33. If we only take the deep-blue states,

where Kerry won by 10% or more, you get:

CA, IL, NY, MD, MA, CT, VT, RI, MD, DC. That's 156 EV.

No Republican that could win the South in this environment will win any of these 156 EV.

[WilliamPitt]

38. But how?

I'd need to see an effective plan to assail the southern stronghold without bankrupting our ability to hold what we got.

[RafterMan]

40. Start by moving the early primaries South

Southerners have a better chance of choosing someone who can communicate with them than Iowa and New Hampshire do. I thought Kerry could have been a good president, but he had zero chance of convincing Southerners of that.

As for platform suggestions, there have been some good ones on these "how we can win" threads you've been ignoring: repackaging subgroup rights as a commitment to individual rights, economic populism and a dose of Federalism.

[Goldmund]

42. But that doesn't answer Will's question

if the Southerners got to pick our nominee, you are in danger of ending up with a candidate who will have a weaker hold on what we already have.

What would have happened this time around had the first few primaries been in the Deep South?

Joementum vs. Shrub?

Primaries should be in swing-states, generally -- and IA and NH are. I think that instant runoff voting, combined with simultaneous primaries in multiple states, are a better idea.

[RafterMan]

48. This time around

they'd have probably chosen Clark, maybe Edwards, who knows.

I don't see it as inviting a rightward ideological push, just vetting for someone who speaks their language. It's a sort of smell test, and Iowa and New Hampshire don't get it.

It won't weaken the hold on the North any more than the Republican primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire weaken their hold on the South.

[Goldmund]

49. I dunno...

Republicans don't have their primaries in MA and NY, but again, swing states like NH and IA. What you're suggesting is an equivalent of Republicans holding primaries in deep-blue states.

I don't see how it wouldn't invite a rightward ideological push; after all, look at the Democrats who are elected in the South -- they are all more culturally conservative than Northern Republicans.

[RafterMan]

55. You know,

if you're that afraid of letting even Southern Democrats have more of a say, I'm guessing a Southern outreach strategy is probably not for you.

[Goldmund]

81. That's a cheap shot

because I wasn't advocating that we here in NY should have "that much of a say" either; equivalently, it shouldn't be the democrats from Mississippi. It should be some states which well represent the diversity of the Democratic voting body. Whether that would be IA, NH, OH or whatever, is up for discussion -- but it definitely shouldn't be the region known for prefering almost exclusively conservative Democrats (or, for that matter, the exclusively liberal).

That's in terms of politics, in terms of the chess-game.

For me personally, just calling myself a Democrat is already a compromise, since my heart is really Green. And that's where I intend to go as soon as we can get rid of the neocons.

[Stinky The Clown]

83. I think you've hit it on the head

Neither Clark nor Edwards can be called "right leaning". It is about seeing who frames our issues in a way that connects in the South.

Old Jomentum for example, no matter how to the right he is, would be seen as boring and dull and probably would do little better in the South than he did in his neigboring states in the NE.

[pmbryant]

54. Kerry won almost all the Southern primaries

So I don't know how that would have affected this election one bit.

--Peter

[pmbryant]

53. Don't fall for the "red state/blue state" mumbo jumbo

That is BS. The first task to "assail the southern stronghold" is to quick talking about red states and blue states as if they are completely different planets. That plays right into the GOP's hands, as it cements their base into an electoral lock (by the barest of margins, but that's all that counts).

Pennsylvania is "blue". Michigan is "blue". Ohio is "red". Missouri is "red". Florida is "red". But what is the real difference between them? Very slight.

We are still one country and a true national candidate of a national party with a compelling national message can win it for us.

No more fighting state-by-state.

--Peter

[evilqueen]

58. Michigan is really purple.

The Repubs have made huge strides in infiltrating the Democrat base here. The number of people who voted for shrub this time around... simply disgusts me. We should be a strong blue state, but we're not, and if we don't work on bringing back the votes for Democrats, we may very well end up a red state in the next election. *gag*

[pmbryant]

75. Yes. The entire country is purple, though, to varying degrees.

More on this thought here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1345639

[WilliamPitt]

59. I have family in politics deep in 'the red,' as it were

They'd love your spark, but would tell you the reality is far, far more grim.

[pmbryant]

65. We don't have to win Alabama or Texas.

But we do need a national campaign. Because we should be able to win Missouri, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.

And of course, Clinton won far more than those in '92 and '96, despite far more pathetic performances by Dems in the preceding 3 elections. So we shouldn't sell ourselves short, especially four years ahead of time.

(Alas, I am 'deep in the red' for the time being myself. I need all the spark I can get. :-) )

--Peter

[Goldmund]

14. One question that has been on my mind:

There were 40% of eligible voters who did not vote. That's a huge fucking number of voters. I think in a lot of our "how do we win next time" calculations, we are tacitly assuming that these 40% are somehow genetically predisposed to not vote. As if that's a block of country that did not vote, does not vote, and will not vote -- and we're concentrating on changing the minds of some of the 60% who did.

I believe that an integral part of any future strategy has to be an examination of why these 40% of voters did not vote, what their ideological composition is, and how they break down in terms of the reasons they did not vote. Some of them didn't vote because they just don't know or care what's going on. But others didn't vote because they didn't hear enough from the Kerry (or Bush) campaign that turned them on, some didn't hear enough reasons to vote against Bush, and some thought that Kerry and Bush were too similar to make a difference (and didn't vote for Nader because they didn't feel like taking a trip to the voting booth to vote for a losing candidate -- or, they may not have liked Nader at all). And some others didn't vote because they live in "safe" states.

I'm not saying that this should be the alpha and omega of our strategy, but I do think that a research of the non-voting population is a necessary ingredient of deciding where we go from here.

[vetwife]

19. Dean got it right about educating those folks and was jumped on

in one of the debates and I was for Clark not Dean but Dean got it right. I am from the red red state of Ga. Dean said to educate those folks who vote against their best interest. You know the ones.
The confederate flag carrying, bigoted, I am a republican because my Daddy was and my Mama was. The truth is that most of these folks only know what is shown on Faux news. They never even realize that there was a Civil Rights movement and resent what they heard when they integrated. Now they are all up in the air about the Latinos. I am saying DEAN had it right. When you ask a person down here why are you displaying that confederate flag on your vehicle, "The answer is always the same" I am honoring my folks who was in the civil war. As if that was something to be proud of. Go to Stone Mountain and see whose face is carved on the mountain? Jefferson Davis and all the rebels ! Don't kid yourself bigotry and racism is very high in the south. Go to any white church and count black attendance. Go to any school and see the Dixie outfitters clothes.
Come down here and see how many times you hear the N word in one day.
I am telling you. There has to be some integration allright but it needs to be from those who voted blue to come on down and and out here and get the south on the right track. Edwards and Sharpton got mad over Dean's statement. HE WAS RIGHT. We can't educate all of the bigots and they are NOT all in the south but predominately more open about it. Get some blue voters to start moving South and trust me it will be hard and run for office and lets start turning things around because we blue voters in a Red state are already marked as who we are. We need integration allright ! We need progressive people to help us retake the South.


Go Rent Ghosts of Mississippi and Norma Rae and you got a pretty good picture of the problem.

[hippiechick]

72. I think, without even playing the 'race card'

... if somehow we could just EDUCATE the people you refer to that voting (R) is voting AGAINST their very own survival - and (Goddess only knows how) making them understand that they are not and will never, under a GOP Administration, be 'middle class' or treated fairly.

Somehow they have to start to connect the oily GOP neocronies with 'them that would harm muh famerly' rather than equating us 'goddam hippie liburls' with that notion.

And I have no idea, at the moment, how to bridge that chasm.


:hippie:

[Logansquare]

17. Ohio is purple, and can be tipped

I grew up there, and the battle can be won. Believe it and achieve it.

[geek tragedy]

21. I disagree with most of this:

1. Money is most clearly not everything. This election is proof of that--we lost much bigger than we did in 2000.

2. The Democrats need to stop thinking about stricly left vs. right. Another dimension, populist vs. elitist, also comes into play. We have populist goals, but package them in an elitist manner. The Republicans have elitist goals, but package then in a populist manner.

3. Dump goddamn gun control from the national platform. Politically, this is a big time loser for us. It keeps us from wooing libertarian-types who are not religious but see us vs. the Republicans as a wash on civil liberties with examples of hypocricy. It also prevents us from reaching out to a populist base--even Democrats in small towns and rural areas like to hunt. Let state governors and legislators deal with it.

4. We do need a coherent message--one that combines our values, ideas, and plans. The Republicans have built their party and dominance by hammering home for 40 years that they believe in low taxes and a strong national defense. They don't even need to prove these points anymore--they have said them so often that people just assume that's what they really stand for. Dems need to be associated with positive plans and values, not merely anti-Republicanism.

5. Don't concede national security as an issue. The Democrats essentially did this for forty years--they let Republicans claim to be the "tough guys" on national security. Kerry did a very good job asserting a tough stance on national security, but that kind of rhetorical imbalance cannot be overcome in one election cycle.

6. Don't let the Republicans define the debate. Make the debate on defense one of wisdom vs. foolishness while taking away the "we're the only ones tough enough" argument of the Republicans. On abortion, talk about reducing the total number of abortions (through Dem-friendly policies like planning and education) and speaking to a broader ethic of life to include war, poverty, and the environment.

7. Develop a national message. What do New Hampshire and California have in common besides voting for John Kerry? Any attempt to tailor a message to individual states just leads to incoherent ad-hockery and detracts from the party's core message.

8. NO MORE ARISTOCRATS OR ELITISTS as presidential nominees. Having a centi-millionaire socialite trying to carry the banner of the common man just doesn't work. The Democrats are the party of the little guy--the nominee should be someone who does as good a job as possible of being consistent with that message.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blue neen]

34. The gun issue is big even in blue states.

Here in PA there were people who voted for Bush solely ON THAT ISSUE ALONE. Gun control is a no-win issue for a national platform.

[cattleman22]

70. Would no Gun Control in Party Platform do anything?

On another thread a poster listed quotes from prominent Democratic politicians advocating a total ban of private ownership of guns. Even if the party platofrm removed gun control, would people believe it?

[blue neen]

87. Well, cattleman22, identify yourself.

Let's see your profile info.

[fishnfla]

82. I like what geek tragedy said...nt

[AP]

26. Bill Clinton. What's so hard about finding another Bill Clinton?

He won Nevada, Georgia, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisianna, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee AND all the northern states and great lake states and west coast states.

That was '92.

In '96 he won AZ and FL too and only lost GA and CO from the states he won in '92.

What's the big mystery?

[ArkDem]

36. In the meantime

during Clinton's administration, the Democrats lost:
- 48 seats in the House
- 8 seats in the Senate
- 11 governorships
- 1,254 state legislative seats
- Control of 9 legislatures
In addition 439 elected Democrats had joined the Republican Party while only three Republican officeholders had gone the other way.
While Democrats had been losing state legislative seats on the state level for 25 years, the loss during the Clinton years was striking. In 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November 2000, the Republicans controlled one more than the Democrats. It was the first time since 1954 that the GOP had controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Among other things, this gave the Republican more control over redistricting.
In fact, no Democratic president since the 19th century suffered such an electoral disintegration of his party as did Clinton.

[AP]

37. Twice in the last 40 years the RW got really organized. Once was in '72.

Corporations decided they wanted more profits, and they got busy. They didn't let Watergate hold them back except for about 4 years.

They got organized again in '94 when the incorporated the religious right into their agenda and used the contract for America.

Winning is one thing. Clinton showed us how to win. Playing smart defense when the RW gets really energized after seeing their advantages slip away (which they saw throughout the 60s and again when Clinton got elected) is another thing.

Democrats need to WIN and they need to play SMART DEFENSE after they win.

[ArkDem]

44. Looks to me like he showed us how to lose.

[AP]

47. By winning? Whatever.

[rniel]

66. he really only squeaked in

If there was no Ross Perot he would not have won the first time. He won the 2nd time because despite the right wing constantly complaining everything in the country was going great.

[AP]

71. Condorcet voting analysis says Clinton would have won without Perot in the

race.

And, again, look at the states Clinton won.

He won states that Pitt thinks we should abandon.

[Julien Sorel]

27. You left out the other side.

This whole strategy depends entirely on holding the Gore/Kerry states and winning Ohio. That's it -- the whole shebang. The assumption is that holding the Gore/Kerry states is a given, but is it? We won Pennsylvania by 2%, at a time when their economy was hit hard. We drop Pennsylvania, and boom! We lose. We won Wisconsin by less than 1%. We drop Wisconsin and boom! We lose. Minnesota? We won by 3%. Ditto Michigan.

In fact, there are several states that are very close to flipping that would sink us.

On the other hand, the only way we win is if we hold all of Gore/Kerry and add Ohio or Florida to the win column. It's not impossible, but it's low percentage campaigning, with no margin for error. If things go bad? We have a Dukakis electoral map. And while we were a couple of hundred thousand votes shy of winning, we were also only a few hundred thousand votes away from an electoral blowout this year.

That's the electioneering side. Now, you are saying it will take a long time to win the South over on the "values" issue, and I tend to agree. What message would we be sending to the South by running Hillary, or, worse, Dean? We've sent them two candidates in a row who are completely unpalatable to them. Is sending a third somehow going to help the whole "values" thing?

[Chili]

29. I agree with almost everything you said...

...except the part about the South. I sent an email to the campaign begging them to consider taking a few serious swings across the souther belt - right through from Georgia to Texas. Not just a pass or lipservice, but at least two serious campaign trips. However, I'm not sure time and funds would have allowed it, in retrospect - all those trips to PA and MI and WI paid off, and should've (and in my opinion DID) paid off in Ohio. But I did think, maybe early on, in the days when we had the lead, a trip through the South was a good idea... why not use THEIR tactic and put pressure on them to hold THEIR states? It would've helped in the popular vote, and who knows, we may have won AR and VA in the process.

Being an Ohioan, I was squirming from the pressure by October, but... I think you're right, Ohio is the ultimate swing state, totally diverse in every way and unpredictable, sort of a microcosm of the nation with the exception of the sophistication of CA and NY... and I guess it's true, as Ohio goes, so goes the election.

[BlueMinded]

35. Yeah, that.

I agree.

[NewJeffCT]

39. We cannot count on outspending Republicans next time around

A few points.

1) While we outspent Republicans this time around because they got caught flat footed on 527s, their financial network of Scaife, Murdoch, the Olin & Bradley foundations, the Coors & Walton family, etc, will be funding 6 zillion RW equivalents of MoveOn.org for 2006 and 2008. So, if Howard Dean becomes the nominee next time around, we can expect “Doctors for Truth” and “Vermonters against Dean” and more… If Hillary wins the nomination, she will get everything & the kitchen sink thrown at her… if Wes Clark makes it, we get “Generals for Truth”, etc. We cannot count on outspending the Republicans next time. I forgot who, but somebody made a good point that RW 527s outspent our 527s by a vast amount the last few weeks of the election.
2) We lost ground among African Americans, Hispanics & Catholics – three of our core constituencies. We need to get out there & win them back.
3) We need to respond better to morals issues. Why did it come up after the election that “liberal” Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country? And, liberal New England generally is well above average nationally on divorce rates, wages, health care, etc.

I agree 100%, we cannot abandon the South. If Jeb is out, we have a shot at Florida. If Warner is on the ticket in '08, we can snag Virginia. A few other states down there are not blood red...

[Voltaire]

41. Stupid question by me

When will we be willing to attack the GOP head on? Yep, folks, I'm saying....CLASS WARFARE....among all the other good things I have seen posted here.

[geek tragedy]

43. That means populism, which means we have to actually look and sound

like the people we're trying to reach.

[Voltaire]

45. Nothing wrong with that

We have more in common with them than we don't, we just need to find a way to bridge the gap. The corporations love all of us down here arguing about Blue State v. Red State while they count up the profits. Time we saw the enemy for who it was and attack. But that's gonna take US to do that job. There ain't many politicians of either party who will run with that one.

[geek tragedy]

46. My indirect point was that John Kerry is about the furthest person

from a regular guy that the Dems could have nominated (unless George Soros becomes eligible).

[hippiechick]

67. BINGO !

That's exactly what Voltaire was leaning toward, I do believe ...

Am I right, oh Master Quai Gonn ? :)



:hippie:

[Voltaire]

90. Yep

We need someone not so patrician....or patrician looking.

[blue neen]

50. It's not just about the South.

It's about rural and urban areas. The TV media and print media have been able to brainwash rural voters into thinking this WAS all about gays, guns, and God.

Westmoreland County here in Western PA used to be overwhelmingly Democratic until Dickie Cougar Mellon Scaife bought every daily newspaper in circulation in this county. Westmoreland County went for Bush 56% to 44%. We need progressives to start buying newspapers and TV channels.

Scaife is as evil as Karl Rove, maybe more evil because he has more money.

[Walt Starr]

51. The money thing

Kerry and camp were incredibly inefficient in their spennding of money. They set their strategy haphazardly while the Rovian tactics of focused spend in concentrated efforts were far more effective. Because of this, I give an overwhelming money advantage to the GOP on this one, almost $2 to $1 due to the bang they got for the buck.

Money doesn't mean shit if you are a fool with it.

Know your electorate at the ward and precinct level. Concentrqate your attacks in overwhelming raidsa t the appropriate time in the approrpiate place. Overall thinking at the state level is doomed to failure.

[ReadTomPaine]

63. Good point, Walt. From a distance, it does seem money wasn't targeted well

[pmbryant]

52. I agree with RightLaneMustExit. This is a horrible idea.

You are fighting the last war. 2008 will not be 2004. There will be no incumbent Bush on the ballot. It is a wide open field, and we should treat it as such.

After the blowout elections of 1980, 1984, and 1988, did the Democratic party give up on all the states that they didn't win in any of those three elections? (And there were a lot of them!)

No F'in Way!

We have to be a national party. Elsewhere lies the road to ruin.

--Peter

[JHBowden]

56. What about pink states?

Arkansas, Missouri, Arizona, etc?

[Julien Sorel]

64. Arizona is hardly pink.

Kerry lost by 11, and it wasn't for a lack of spending, as even I saw Kerry commercials here and there, and I don't watch TV.

[Mike L]

57. Run to win the South, and we will win Ohio and some Midwestern states.

That's what it takes.

[Mike L]

60. "run to win Ohio"

Exactly what do you propose that we do next time to win OH that wasn't done in this election?

I can't think of anything, except-- run like we're trying to win the South. Be pro-guns, pro-God and maybe endorse the gay marriage ban.

[sonicx]

62. problem...

1. Kerry is already Pro-God

2. Kerry's voting record is not "pro-Gun." NRA and Cheney reminded people of that.

3. "endorse the gay marriage ban" = adds to the flip/flop meme. He's already voted against all attempts to ban it.

[Mike L]

69. I'm talking about the 2008 presidential candidate.

A Southern Dem governor can give us a clean slate.

[grasswire]

61. If I were in charge....

...I would do this.

1. IMMEDIATELY begin a professional public relations campaign to expand and clarify the definition of "moral values" to include the social gains Democrats have won and sought over generations.

Picture posters in every city bus and transit center across the country telling the narrative of the fight by DEMOCRATS for grandma's dignity through social security, for civil rights, for electricity to rural areas, yada yada.

Picture 30-second commercials in the local markets. Picture ads in small rural newspapers.

All coordinated to expand and clarity what MORAL VALUES really are.

2. CAPITALIZE on the moral authority of Democrats, demonstrable in every issue facing America. Run on it, bolstered by the effects of the two years of public relations work.

3. DON'T waste any money trying to sway evangelical fundamentalists or neo-cons. Aim for the non-voting poor. That's where the new votes lie.

4. START NOW on the re-education. This is the narrative that's been missing.

[KittyWampus]

73. Grasswire, That Sounds VERY Good To Me & Realistic Too

billboards, bus stop ads... reclaiming the Moral High Ground which we know is our legacy to America.

[grasswire]

74. ty

I don't have much confidence that Democrats will be so proactive. I fear we'll see more ossified thinking that results in the Democratic candidate reacting to Republicans, rather than reframing the whole conversation NOW.

[Stinky The Clown]

84. I am neutral on Dean as a candidate, but

as head of the DNC he would hardly be "ossified". These are excellent ideas and he seems to be the type to do it. I say Dean here, but woudl be enthusiastic for any DNC head who would be committed to doing such things to start our national campaign for 06 and 08 now.

[grasswire]

95. I agree that Dean would shake things up

...but I really worry about the fact that he's already been labeled and demonized by Roveco and that the press can't ever mention him without snickering. I'd sure like to see someone in that position who has a history of participation in the struggle for America's working people and who carries some moral authority.

The spokesperson for the Democratic Party shouldn't be a fancy pants. It should be someone with no financial ties (McAuliffe made 17 million off a stock sale just recently) to big America.

I'd love to see Bob Menendez in that spot, but don't want him to give up his seat in Congress.

[Eloriel]

76. Ignoring the South

also allows all the Dems down ticket to twist in the wind. You want more Dems in Congress? Don't ignore the South.

[meganmonkey]

77. I think the most important missing ingredient here, Will

is the 're-education' idea, as another poster put it(edit: grasswire - well-put!). We really need to convince people that voting republican is voting against their own interests. This is vital. It is FACT, and despite the spin and fog of campaigns, it shouldn't be that hard to come up with a simple way to publicize it (professional PR work, as another poster on this thread mentioned).
I imagine that 4 more years of Bush's evil empire will likely make this even more clear. The first four years, it could still be blamed on Clinton. But the people who are now starting to get financially shaky, whose health insurance and car insurance payments are going up, whose gas costs are skyrocketing, whose factories are shutting down, by the time 2008 rolls around they will be hurting bad. And there will be no one to blame but Bush. And as the dollar continues to drop while the deficit expands exponentially, and the trade war starts to gain momentum (there have been threads on this lately)...obviously I could go on and on.
This is a PR campaign that will write itself over the next 4 years and I think we need to grab hold of it and advertise it. The political game is so damn dirty, and it is gonna be hard to keep our hands clean. It sounds bad, but we need to take advantage of the dire situations people are getting in and exploit this as soon as we can. We need to play the blame game.

Or...we could just get Jesus to do some commercials, since we know whose side he's really on.
;)

[Buck Rabbit]

78. Screw the popular vote, it doesn't count and isn't worth the money.

We aren't looking to win a mandate, just an election. Don't spend a dime in Texas except on winnable local elections.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

79. We're on the exact same page

especially about not pushing those "pesky gay abortionists" to the back of the bus in order to win. Absolutely right.

And I am glad you mentioned at the beginning that the entire "was the election on the up and up?" question wasn't addressed in this post.

In my opinion, until we get an answer to reliable, unhackable, paper receipt verifiable nationwide elections, everything else is academic. We can run all kinds of strategies, but if the elections are still able to be hacked/stolen, it won't frigging matter.

[KoKo]

85. You have some Southern roots somewhere...from what I've read...can

you get in touch with them, and write an article about that part of where you come from..that part?

There's more there...than your article says, to write about "down the road" after this is over.

Just a guess that there's something unique you might be able to dig out from those "roots." Not now...but sometime. And, maybe in some other "venue" besides "Truth Out?"

[Blue_Roses]

86. the best way to win the south in 2008 is to start with 2006

we need more southern congressmen--congressmen who REALLY understand the plight of the poor. Working inside out is one way to begin to connect with the southern vote. People in the south vote against their best interest because they don't trust anyone who isn't from the south
(generalizing here, of course not everyone), but most of all, we have to fix voter fraud because there is no doubt that it is happening. We won't win a red, white, or blue state without getting rid of this problem.

Many here didn't want Bush, but during "war" times they stayed with the "war president" (excuse me a second while I :puke:). Ignorance and fear. Southerners--and I paint this with a broad stroke--are "apple pie" and "hi you all" and many haven't ventured too far out their back door, so their views are narrow and judgemental.

It's just so sad that they vote for someone who will do more harm to their livelihood, than help. Maybe they just need to bottom out with Bush before they are ready to see how much better it can be. *sigh*

[Bread and Circus]

88. You get a D -

Anyone not talking about the cultural and political differences
between rural and the "populated" areas is missing the root of
what's going on.

It's not red state vs blue. It's not "North vs. South". It's
rural vs urban/suburban.

The problem is that the Dem party doesn't really reach out to
rural voters and understand them enough to get their vote without
"pandering". The Dems think commercials are gonna do it. They won't.

Until the Dem party sees this and restructures, forget about it. Period.

I'm not even talking about gay rights bullshit.

I'm talking the cold hard economics of rural areas and how the
policies of both the Democrats and Republicans hurt it.

Don't tell me for an instant "they just don't know that the Dems
are out there to help them." Just look at the letter behind
the name of the guy who signed NAFTA into law.

[WilliamPitt]

94. The day you get to grade me

is the day I eat my own fucking hat.

I'll take a look at what you've written on the merits tomorrow. For tonight, you grading me = you getting fucked.

Sorry. Be more tactful next time.

[Julien Sorel]

98. I grade this post an F for tact,

and an A for hubris. Overall, that would make it a "C." But the arrant arrogance knocks it down to .... an F.

Sorry, get a sense of proportion next time.

[Bread and Circus]

100. Jesus, Mr. Pitt. You are taking me or yourself too seriously.

First off, I think my point stands in regards to the "red vs blue"
issue and how pretty much most Dems (DU'ers included) don't really
get why they are losing in the rural areas.

Second off, you asked for feedback. I gave you feedback.

Third, you are right. I can't go toe to toe w/ you in a writing
contest nor a "popularity on DU contest".

But, you aren't above criticism. If you write here you have
an audience. I'm the part of the audience that exalts no
one, whether they be President or an accomplished author.

Finally, I'm pissed and tired of "talking about states" and
"triangulating" the electoral vote. It's all too short sighted
in my opinion. I want the Dem party and the players in it
(I consider you one of them (take that as a compliment)) to
really start looking at themselves and the core root of what's
going wrong with the platform, the message, and the packaging
thereof. We, as in I mean all Dems, DU'ers, progressives, and
leftists are generally losing out more and more in the sticks.
Seeing as how Wyoming gets as many senators as NY, I think
that's kind of important. Don't you? A long term plan needs
to involve getting off the freeway, driving down some 2 lane
backroads, and walking in the brush and mud to see what's going
on. A photo-op hunting trip doesn't count.

I lived 4 years in San Francisco, CA. I know how the Left Coast
thinks. I've also spent years doctoring in rural Maine and
Michigan, so I think I have a perspective that many "in the know"
really don't.

But you're right, I should have been more tactful. However,
what I really wanted was your attention because I think
what I am saying in regards to these issues supercedes (in
importance, accuracy, and insight) the other 99.99% of crap
I've written on DU. If I had been nice or congratulatory,
I doubt I would have gotten a response.

As an aside, can you think of a better way to raise a writer's
ire than by giving them a letter grade? :)

I respect you and your writings here a great deal. Truthout.org
is my homepage when I get on the net. However, you get enough
love on DU and perhaps not enough challenge. So with that,
let me respectfully say I'm sorry and peace.

:hug:

P.S. Here's my original thread on the "rural" issue. I wrote
it on the fly, so it's not quite polished. The nuggets of what
I'm trying to say are there, however.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1337329

[theboss]

89. I agree with most everything except the "electoral college" strategy

Under that plan, the Democrats are (as the cliche now goes) drawing to an inside straight every single election. Sure, once in a while the card may hit, but you aren't going to last long at the table doing that. And of those states you mentioned, the Republicans could easily win 11 of them at any given time and possibly more in bad times.

The problem is you are thinking of the south and midwest and rockies as some sort of monolith. I don't think that's true and think we could be competitive in a handful of them in 4 years. Why can't we make an effort for: Colorado, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee just as a starting point?

If nothing else, we have to up the number of "battleground states." Even if we lose the 6 I mentioned, we need to make the bastards work there. Kerry pulled out of West Virginia a month before the election (or at least the unions did, which is the same thing). This is a state that is Democratic by a 2:1 margin. Granted, it's not many electoral votes, but it allowed the Bush team to focus on a smaller and smaller area.

As you say, a frontal assault on the red states would be a disaster, but if we can loosen a few bricks from the castle, the whole thing may come tumbling down.

And as a final point, the Democrats need to stop talking about their strategies so out in the open. For the last month, it seemed like Kerry's campaign theme was "Stronger at Home, Winner in Ohio and Pennsylvania."

[TXvote]

91. Kick Em' In the Knee

The quickest, most effective way to get the RNC on the run is to walk right into Texas and take it blue by storm starting in 2006. You want to impress a whole bunch of borderline voters in the South? Kick some ass in Texas. Use locals and fortify them with resources like you would a real campaign in the northeast.

Instead of looking for ways we might kick some ass in soft states, let's try looking at some people who have continued to turn out Dem votes in Red States and figure out how we can amplify their effect.

Conservatives respect balls. Maybe we should show some.

[stavka]

92. *Whoops!* John Kerry voted for the war!

...and if it didn't go his way he had a net worth of about 2.5 Billion Dollars

[LightTheMatch]

96. We have to attack in the south and west every time.

We can't cede much territory. We must make the GOP spend money to defend theirs as well, and we must try to win some of those states every time out.

Attacking in the following states every cycle should be a goal:

Colorado
New Mexico
Arizona
Nevada
North Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Arkansas
Florida (depending on demographic trends)
Missouri

At least. These states will help form our new majority, we have to take at least some of them, and we have to threaten in all of them.

[tedoll78]

97. How I Pick My Horsey in the Race:

Before I go any further, I must disclose this: my pet issue is the U.S. Supreme Court. One could label me a single-issue voter, but in reality I'm voting for the court for a multitude of issues. Basically, I LOVE LOVE LOVE the idea of having The Final Word on any issue. If something is remotely controversial (a law, an exec order, an election decision, etc), it WILL be challenged in court. So there's my rationale for being a single-issue voter.

So, here's how I pick my candidate:

Round One: if a nominee says something along the lines of "My favorite is Souter/Ginsburg/Breyer/Stevens," he/she passes. Affirmative statements concerning litmus tests on reproductive rights and equality for all are nice. Bashing of Scalia and Thomas get bigtime points from me as well.

Round Two: The MATH. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that we'll win the Kerry States in 95% of all scenarios. Add Iowa and New Mexico, and we're at {Gore + NH}.. 264EVs. So the nominee must be able show reason for me to believe that he/she can bring-in a Red State. It can be via demographics or residence.. I don't care. Just show me that you can bring in another 6EVs while holding-onto those 264EVs.

That's it. Pretty simple. (Or simple-minded.)

Right now, by this process, it looks like Clark and Warner are my top two ponies, in no order. But we're still a good length away from decision time..

[chaska]

99. John Sperling has something to say on this.

http://www.retrovsmetro.org/