Walking the expectations game tightrope.

[skids]

Political parties succeed or fail not simply on votes in a ballot box. A lot goes into both the campaign, and into the legislation a party passes. Without active and involved support from the grassroots both before and after the election, a political party becomes like a dead tree -- undeniably there, but slowly falling apart.

So as November approaches I'm interested in people's thoughts on what the winning language is to get more people involved, promote issue awareness, etc. I'm not talking about DUers here, you wild-eyed hustlers! :-) I'm talking about your borderline activists. People who may or may not get involved, depending on what they hear.

On one hand: Talking of an upcoming "unseating of the GOP" and "the GOP is in trouble" and "we are in for a sea change" can play to the procrastinator in all of us, letting people sit back and hope the blight on our nation just goes away by the sheer inertia of public opinion.

On the other: Being pessimistic, e.g. on Rovian tricks, voting fraud, the general stupidity of Joe Six Pack, etc isn't exactly inspiring in a time when many would-be supporters are coping with depression, personal economic trouble, and a sense of disempowerment and national disgrace.

So where is the sweet spot? What are the winning phrases, memes, and rhetoric?

Talk amongst yourselves...

[MrModerate]

1. Not to immediately answer your question, but . . .

Let's not forget that Americans (all people, really) love a winner. Fence sitters (i.e., "undecided voters") are very likely to be swept up in enthusiasm when they smell which direction the wind is blowing from. In that way, a sense that dems are surging and 'Licans are fading is politically useful.

For me, a conveninent centrist theme is: "These guys are completely incompetent. Regardless of what they believe, they can't get the job done. Fire 'em and bring on someone who can govern effectively."

I realize that's uncomfortably close to the colorless and ineffective "Together, we can do better" that dem leaders are pushing. However, it keeps the issue of 'Lican incompetence at the front of the deck.

[skids]

2. I'm all for exposing the incompetence...

To play devil's advocate, though, if my finger is as close to the pulse of America as I think it is, incompetence has become one of those things you wish would go away, and have no idea why it won't, and as a result you resign yourself to its inevitability.

People work for overpayed incompetent bosses, they receive overpriced incompetent service, and they observe incompetence rewarded daily in politics.

So in that context, my question becomes -- how do we break people from that sense of resignation?

Personally I think you are onto something with "everyone loves a winner." In this case, a "winner" would be someone who manages to get somebody incompetent canned or neutralized (and the criminally so prosecuted.) So maybe we should be asking our candidates to come forward with examples if they have had the opportunity to do so? By focusing on the small victories, perhaps that ethusiasm could be built.

[MrModerate]

3. Maybe blend the two:

As an "incompetent" is, by definition a "loser," he/she can't be a "winner." Dems are winners for standing up to bad government, by criticizing the goofus-in-chief and his thumb-fingered minions. The mantle of effectiveness they've wrapped around themselves slips away, revealing puny, petulent, partisan pudknockers.

If we can get America to see with new eyes, then all the rhetorical tics and just plain crazy things Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld have said over the last few years will resonate with the formerly-predisposed-to-support-Bush crowd, and by extension with 'Lican politicians nationwide. Because, to be frank, none of the 'Lican candidates I've heard speak are especially eloquent, so it's not like they can talk their way out of this. And the longer they hold onto these issues that the public no longer support, the weaker they get.