Looking forward to 2008, I'm not worried about the candidate..

[ncteechur]

whether it be Hillary, Gen. Clark, Gov. Warner or someone else. The GOP has proven that you really can take a guy with no business being president and turn him into president. They actually turned a sow's ear into a silk purse or at least made people believe it. No, I worry more about the machine. The best candidate will be mincemeat if their campaign machine is crappy.

[skipos]

1. In general we run better candidates but they are better at

marketing. All we need to do is make sure we have a great candidate that will excite progressives and win over enough independents to win. I don't think it has anything to do with "moving to the center" or changing what we stand for. We just need someone who can connect well with people, speak in a way that most people can understand and relate to, and pick up a few red states.

Clark and Warner have the best shot IMO. Although a lot could change in 3 years.

[sandnsea]

2. "winning over independents"

That's the center. Interesting that you think a centrist candidate has the best shot, know that we need to win independents, but don't think there's anything to this "moving to the center" stuff.

I don't think we have to move to the center, I just think we need Democrats who believe in their candidate instead of the shit that comes out of the teevee.

[skipos]

3. Democrats account for 37% of the voters so

we have to win over some other people. If you think we can win elections by only worring about the 37%, that is your right. I disagree.

Many people vote for very simple reasons, they just get a gut feeling about someone, they identify with the candidate's history, demeanor, whatever. I want to have a candidate that democrats believe in (that gets us about 37% the way there) and a candidate that can get his message to connect to enough independents to win. Having a candidate from a winable red state would help too. If our great candidate can speak clearly, consistently, have the ability to connect with people, and take on the inevitable smear campaign, he will win.

[sandnsea]

4. Defies reality

First, if the voters you want to win over with message believed in the Democratic message, they'd be Democrats. They aren't. They're more to the center, or at least they think they are because they haven't been corrected by their own neighbors as to what the real Democratic message is.

Second, if you believe that we haven't had candidates that connect with people, then you've been listening to what the teevee has told you about the candidates, not what people who have met the candidates said.

Third, the red states are red because they aren't blue. Again, they would be voting Democratic if that's what they thought they wanted. They don't think that's what they want because nobody is telling them and the only people they will listen to is the people in their own states. SO, the only way to ever win those states is if Democrats support their candidate, and NO, Democrats don't do that and DU is daily proof of that.

Conventional wisdom is shaped by people and until Democratic people are smart enough to reject the media charicatures and fight for their candidate, we'll keep losing.

[skipos]

6. Nope.

"First, if the voters you want to win over with message believed in the Democratic message, they'd be Democrats." Do you think people often vote against what is best for them? I do. Much of that depends on how the candidates are marketed and percieved.

Do you believe that democrats are best for America? I do, and that's why I believe most people should be voting for democrats.

"Second, if you believe that we haven't had candidates that connect with people, then you've been listening to what the teevee has told you about the candidates, not what people who have met the candidates said."

As I find myself often saying around DU, you can lay off the condescension. We are on the same side here, we just disagree with the way of getting there. I don't give a rats ass what the TV says. I use my own sense of judgement whether that agrees with everyone here or not. I beleive Bill Clinton has a demeanor that connects better with people than the demeanor of Gore, Kerry or Dukakis. I also believe that demeanor has a bit of an effect on elections. It isn't the end all be all though. Just one piece of the puzzle."

I want a candidate who excites Dems and inspires enough independents to win. You will need to explain how we win elections by only exciting dems and winning 37% of the vote, because I don't understand. Unless you are expecting some third party to sap a bunch of republican votes.

[sandnsea]

9. Bill Clinton got less of the vote than Kerry

Less than Gore. For an election that supposedly brought out hoards of new voters and young voters and women and minorities, he did downright horrible in 1992. Now if you want to bet on 3rd party votes to split the right, then that's up to you. But that is what happened in 1992.

And it STILL makes no sense to call for a centrist candidate in order to win centrist voters and then say we don't need to move to the center. Bill Clinton's message was centrist, he was a centrist, he never would have won with a pure Democratic message.

BECAUSE nobody in those red states will stick up for the Democratic message because the only time we get one is when we DON'T run a southern centrist. The problem is chickenshit red state Democrats who are afraid to stand up for a true liberal, NOT the candidates.

Now if you're saying we need a centrist message, then that's a whole other discussion. But I don't think that has worked so well either, based on the continuing losses in the House and Senate.

We need to stand up for our candidates and the Democratic message. Every time. All the time.

Recognizing that Democrats are not Greens.

[skipos]

10. You don't understand me and I don't understand you,

mostly because you didn't answer any of my questions. This is a useless conversation.

[sandnsea]

11. There's no logic

"Do you believe that democrats are best for America? I do, and that's why I believe most people should be voting for democrats."

You can't call for centrist candidates to pull the vote of non-Democrats and then turn around and say you don't want the message to move to the center. It doesn't make any sense. So your questions aren't answerable.

You're right. I don't understand Democrats who want a traditional Democratic message but won't fight for the candidates who bring it, like Feingold or Kerry. I don't understand Democrats who have hissy fits over our current centrists in Congress turning around and supporting people like Clark and Warner for President. It absolutely defies all logic and reality to me.

[skipos]

13. hypothetical question:

candidate one:
has a traditional democratic message and
has a voice like Gilbert Godfrey
is inarticulate
speaks in a tone people find condescending
weighs 300 pounds

candidate two:
has a traditional democratic message and
has a voice like Morgan Freeman
is articulate
speaks in a tone people find down to earth
has average weight

Which one has a better chance of winning the general election?

If you think the answer is candidate two, you are right. Why? Because it isn't just the "message," it is the way it is delivered, who is delivering it and how they carry themselves. That is what I have been trying to say, perhaps not eloquently. I'll say it again: it isn't just the "message," it is the way it is delivered, who is delivering it and how they carry themselves.

Maybe I shouldn't have said we need someone who appeals to *independents.* That was bad word choice on my part. We need someone who can, in addition to appealing to DUers, appeal to *casual voters* who don't necessarily do a lot of research before they vote. The people who voted for Carter and then voted for Reagan, or Clinton and GW Bush. The people who vote for who they "like" more. This can be done without dumbing down or moving to the center. Candidate two isn't dumbed down or more centrist than candidate one, he is just more appealing.

I don't think this is a revolutionary suggestion, and it is one that many people have talked about many times. Fortunately, you are the first person I have encountered who doesn't seem to understand the logic. Maybe the messenger (me) didn't articulate the logic well.

As for someone who supports Clark over Kerry "defying all logic" I would be curious to see the response you get by starting a thread with that idea. I campaigned for Kerry, and would do it again if he was nominated, but I have no problem admitting he is not to the left of Clark.

[sandnsea]

14. Then explain

Why Bill Clinton got less votes than Gore or Kerry.

I did not say somebody supporting Clark over Kerry defies all logic. I can see alot of reasons centrists would support Clark. He doesn't have a 20 year liberal record to defend being at the top of the list.

People don't want to defend liberal Democratic values. That's why they want a candidate who will tell the "casual voter" whatever it is he wants to hear, and label it "appeal". It's not appeal, it's a conjob. I'd think after Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes, we'd have figured it out by now.

[skipos]

15. Explain why Bush 2004 got 12 million more votes than Bush 2000

or 18 million more than Reagan 1980, or why Clinton got twice as many votes as Roosevelt in 1932, and there is your answer.

Please explain how candidate two is a "conjob" when his message is exactly the same as candidate one.

[sandnsea]

17. No it's not the answer

Larger percentage has nothing to do with population.

None of the candidates have the exact same message, so I don't know what you're talking about with your second statement.

[skipos]

18. Thanks anyway.

Thats how I thought you would respond.
Good luck!
:hi:

[sandnsea]

20. Yep, with facts

what a shock.

[skipos]

21. Hmm... I don't see any facts but I guess

that is often in the eye of the beholder. Again, it is ok for us to disagree, I hope you aren't mad or anything. Good day!
:hi:

[zanne]

16. Where did you get your data?

Democrats are only 37% of the voters? That's a new one to me.

[skipos]

19. Here is one place, but I am sure there are others...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

About 1/5th the way down.

Vote by party ID:
Democrat (37%)
Republican (37%)
Independent (26%)

In 2000 it was
D 39
R 35
I 27

In 1996 it was
D 39
R 35
I 26

Even if the exit polls are a bit off (as they often are) I think it is safe to assume that voters are about 37% registered democrats.

[zanne]

24. You failed to mention that Republicans also have 37% of the vote

C'mon--this is unnecessary depression. It's snowing like hell up here and about 20degrees--give me a break!

[skipos]

26. I don't understand your point.

I just posted that republicans have about 37% of the vote. I think most people know that it is pretty neck and neck between registered reps and dems.

[zanne]

28. I must have read it wrong.

I thought you were saying Dems had 37% of the vote and the rest were Republican. I wasn't thinking of the Independent vote.

[skipos]

29. Oh HECK no

thank GOD that isn't the case, I'd be moving to another country right now. My only point in posting the 37% is that obviously we have to win over some people who aren't registered democrats to win general elections (unless there is a third party sapping a huge chunk of voters from repubs, but I don't see a Jesus Party yet!). And, as I have said before, I don't think we need a centrist to do it, just a well spoken progressive who carries himself well and stands up to the inevitable sludge machine. We have three years to find 'em! :toast:

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Winning independents does NOT mean running to the center.

If we nominate a strong, articulate candidate who stands forcefully for Democratic values and has the campaign machine to communicate what he/she stands for to the American people, and doesn't allow the Repub machine to define him/her instead, we can win independents... even a number of moderate Repubs. It does not have to be a matter of left and center, or left and right for that matter.

In fact, when we Democrats make it a choice between left and center, we play exactly the game the Repubs want us to. We end up tearing ourselves apart during the primaries, and in the end, whomever we nominate, they will then try to paint that person as wildly liberal no matter where they really fall on the spectrum. It's what they did to Bill Clinton. We may think of him as a centrist, but the people who voted for Dole and Perot (combined, more than 50%) sure didn't. They did to Kerry too, and while he is more liberal than the Big Dog, he's no where near the radical lefty that the Bush/Cheney machine succeeded in labelling him.

Besides, you can't automatically characterize Clark or Warner as centrists. Clark for sure not. He's about as liberal as any top-tier candidate is likely to be. I'm not sure about Warner yet, but I suppose time will tell. That he affiliates with the DLC concerns me, but since he's someone relatively new to politics, and needing to form a base in a relatively red state, he may have felt it was necessary to get their backing. From what I've seen of his policies at the state level, he doesn't strike me as centrist, but of course, there are many many issues he really hasn't spoken to yet.

Edit: Oops, let the key word "not" out of the subject. D'oh!

[sandnsea]

25. Bush/Cheney machine

That's my entire point. It doesn't matter WHO we run, if WE aren't prepared to fight that machine and fight what they do to our candidates, we'll get the same result. So all this blather about strong, articulate candidates is just blather because the only reason anybody thinks differently of Gore or Kerry is because they were intimidated into thinking that because of the machine. They're afraid to speak up against the conventional wisdom in their red areas, I've seen it in action. My sister, who lives in Little Rock, thinks Clinton didn't campaign for Kerry despite the fact that he was THERE the day before the election. Conventional wisdom, the machine. We either reject the bullshit that comes out of the machine and stand on principle, or we find ourselves stuck with another centrist. And Clark and Warner ARE centrists.

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Well who's gonna fight the machine

Except someone who is strong and articulate (and to reiterate what I said before), capable of making his/her own machine to take the fight to the enemy?

I'm sorry, but Gore and Kerry let the Repub machine define them. Kerry lost some 23 points, if I recall correctly, in the week following the Swiftboat on-slaught. Gore was switching wardrobes while the American people were falling for the "congenital liar" bullshit. Neither one of them ONCE went after Bush for being a deserter, or past drug use, or any of his many many character failings. Hell, Kerry (or rather his campaign people, but that doesn't matter) wouldn't even let speakers at the convention mention Bush by name.

Maybe I'm wrong--maybe no one could have done better. We don't own the media the way the Repubs do. I think one of the biggest problems in our entire democracy may be the corporate ownership of the so-called mainstream media and the overwhelming growth of the RW shills. It's a problem we MUST correct or democracy is dead.

But I'm not ready to lie down yet. I have to believe we have fighters in the party who would at least try to get their message out and do a better job of it than either Gore or Kerry did.

And no, Clark is not a centrist. But as long as you evaluate every Democratic candidate in terms of left/center/right, I guess you'll never understand what the man and his message are about.

[sandnsea]

31. Who told you that?

Who told you Kerry lost 23 points? Who told you Gore was switching wardrobes? Who told you Gore was a congential liar? Who told you all of this? THEY did. And who is repeating it? YOU are.

It doesn't matter what a campaign does or says if the supporters repeat the right wing bullshit instead of what comes from the campaign. The 23 point bullshit is exactly what I'm talking about because it never happened, Kerry was up in the polls for most of the month of August. Surprised? You didn't know that because you believed the bullshit in the media.

And if you think the same thing won't happen to Clark if Democrats don't pull their heads out of their ass and understand their part in helping our candidates lose, then you're just living in a fantasyland.

Clark is not a left wing liberal, don't try to pretend he is.

[Jai4WKC08]

32. You're the one living in a fantasy land

if you think the problem is with supporters repeating the rightwing bullshit. Or that all that is in fact bullshit. You're mixing apples and oranges. The idea that Gore was a liar is of course bullshit. The FACT that too many people believed he was a liar is not and it does NO good to ignore it. Same for Kerry--the swiftboaters and their GOP backers were liars, but that he did not respond to them and that it hurt him in the polls is a FACT. You're the one in fantasy land if you refuse to see that, just don't want to talk about it, or would rather shoot the messenger.

And let's get one thing straight. I spent untold hours, maybe days, arguing against those lies, trying to educate, inform, and spread the truth. But there's only so much grassrooters can do if the candidates won't stand up for themselves and fight back.

Of course Clark will get the same treatment. Of course any Democratic leader will. The question is, what do they do about it?

I know for a FACT that Clark is expecting it, and working to figure out what he can do about it. Whether he ultimately thinks he can MAY even be an element in his ultimate decision to run at all -- I do not believe he will run without a plan.

Do you believe there is anything he or any of the others can do? Because if not, then what's the point of us even having this discussion? Why be at DU at all? We're screwed, and the country is screwed, if we're doomed to be "gored" or "swiftboated" or whatever the next word will be. Do you think that nothing can be done to turn it around?

And Clark is a liberal. "Left wing" or not depends mostly on your definition. He's farther left than Kerry, and WAY farther left than Edwards. And that's another FACT.

[sandnsea]

33. Kerry lost 23 points

If you believe that then you were throwing away your time, along with so many other people who I've heard similarly wild "facts" from since the election. Go look at the August polls. They don't show what you think they show. Al Gore isn't a liar. Why do people believe that? Campaigns alone cannot keep Democrats from believing lies and scattering like chicken littles every time the right wing says boo, and that's what happens now.

You can plug any candidate's name in and I'll say the exact same thing. No candidate can win without either a split in the right wing vote or a change in the response from the Democrats themselves. We defeat ourselves. We can't even get people to stick to a set of talking points on the WMD lies. It happens over and over again.

That's the reason I'm having this discussion, to try to get people to understand that it does matter what they say and if they want a party that people will vote for, it has to be a party that is somewhat headed in the same direction. That means that you repeat the general talking point and make a point of knowing what it is. I know what people did with the Swift Boat stuff last year because I saw it with my own eyes. Democrats kept repeating "why didn't Kerry respond" instead of expressing outrage the way they did with Murtha. In case you didn't notice, Murtha didn't really respond either. WE did. And the Democratic Party did. That's what was missing last year and in 2000. If it's missing again in 2008, the same thing will happen.

You can piss all over Kerry and go gaga over Clark all you want. But it doesn't change the fact that the only way to get a voice loud enough to get a message over the machine is for it to be unified. It wasn't last year, I heard and saw bickering constantly and so did all those undecided voters. That very last percentage that is necessary to win has little to do with the candidate and everything to do with the bandwagon. Create the bandwagon or lose.

[Jai4WKC08]

37. You've GOT to be fucking kidding me!

I was so flabbergasted to read your post, it took me most of the day to decide how to respond.

So let me make sure I understand. You think it was the Democratic activists who lost the election? Or the DNC? Or Democratic voters as a whole? Blaming any or all seems pretty ludicrous to me.

There has NEVER been a Democratic nominee around whom the party was more unified than Kerry. Whether we liked him or not, we all did everything we could to get him elected. We hated Bush (still do). I doubt we will ever have a more unified party than we did in 2004, and if you think that means we're losers, then that's the way it will ever be. We are not Republicans--we don't disseminate party line without thinking or question. Or even criticism. But we ALL supported Kerry.

Look, I don't think I'm "pissing all over Kerry" to hold him responsible for the failures of his campaign or the aftermath. Fwiw, I hold Clark responsible for what his campaign screwed up, and there was plenty. These are the men we want to be President. You don't think they're big enough to take on the responsibility?

I know for a fact Clark takes full responsibility for what went wrong. I have enough respect for Kerry to believe he does too. I can't for the life of me understand why you want to shift the blame. It won't help us do a better job next time.

[sandnsea]

34. Here

An example of the stupidity that often ends up as conventional wisdom, or at least as examples of our disarray or lack of a message. When stupid stuff like this really takes off, it causes us to lose issues, lose credibility, and lose the vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2274718&mesg_id=2275395

[skipos]

27. I agree with your post completely. nt

[Gato Moteado]

5. yeah, i think kerry is damaged goods at this point......

....he would have been great if he had slayed the swiftboat liars instead of letting them get away with their lies. he also should have taken awol bush and deferment dick to task for their cowardice. even if he still lost the election, he'd be viable in 2008...at this point i don't think he is.

right now, i think clark looks like the best of the bunch.

i'd really like to see gore enter the race but too much time has probably passed.

i'd like to see clark/edwards
clark/obama would be cool also

an interesting scenario would be colin powell finally admitting that the repukes suck ass and becoming a dem....then a clark/powell ticket would be unbeatable.

as for the repukes.....i have no idea who they have to throw up against any dem after the next three years of continued failed republican "leadership". dirty dick will probably be in his last throes by then. santorum, who certainly had aspirations, has already become exposed as a whack job. frist might be in prison...if not, he'll be severely tainted. the repukes would never run with rice....most of their base is made up of racists, so that won't fly. McPain will probably try again, but if he let rove step on him last time, how much credibility does he have left? giuliiani is so ridden with scandals, he'd never be able to stand up to the scrutiny....same goes for newt gingrich. really......who do the repukes have? think they'll run jebby?

[politicasista]

7. We need to look forward to 2006

The last thing we need to do is play into the hands of the Pro-Bush, GOP media. They want us talking about 2008 because it takes the focus off *, the GOP Congress troubles, the war, and other serious issues. If we don't win in 06, it won't matter who the candidate is in 08. They will have the GOP controlled media and a huge, massive, I mean MASSIVE mess to clean up period.

[RC]

8. It does not matter one twit who we run this side of Attila the Hun...

Until the wide spread election fraud is properly addressed and cleaned up. Lets work on first things first.

[I Kant]

12. Ohio is still not be fixed

And until it is... we are at a disadvantage.

[radio4progressives]

22. Be concerned... be very concerned. n/t

[demodonkey]

35. You better worry about the VOTING machines, not the campaign machine!

:scared:

If there's no way to verify, audit, or recount (and this looks likely in many states), all I can say is, be afraid, be very afraid.

[marions ghost]

36. yep

it's hard to even talk about campaign strategies if you're not sure your vote will be counted.

I don't want to see anyone Swiftboated OR Diebolded again.