The strategy behind Kaine is the strategy behind Ed Schultz

[Nikki Stone 1]

Look like the Repugs, sound like the Repugs, then bait and switch.

These guys don't appeal to the core because their job is to look like the other side and sound like the other side so that the average inattentive voter can't tell the difference.

In a hurried moment at the supermarket, a consumer can confuse one brand of a product for another if the packaging is sufficienty similar. Most American voters are hurried, working more than one job, and are not terribly well informed. They'll remember a conservative looking/sounding guy and vote.

The strategy with the other party has such complete control is not to fight them directly--that's a certain loss. It's to bleed in enough to pull some voters our way.

[DBoon]

1. politics is largely about brand recognition

sad but true

[Nikki Stone 1]

2. Yeah, it's all about marketing. We in the base are sincere types

and it makes it hard to stomach the things that have to be done to win elections.

[dogday]

3. Marketing and short sound bites

catchy phrases, not too much info, confuses the public....

[brainshrub]

4. Ohh! I get it!

Oh, I get it: By sounding and acting like conservatives, Republicans will be fooled into voting for Democrats!

In order to make the plan work, Liberal activists will sneak into the Board of Elections offices across the nation and white-out the letters "R" and "D" on all the ballots. (We can electronically remove the letters if a district uses BBV)

Brilliant plan!

:eyes:

[Nikki Stone 1]

6. Actually you don't

But thanks for playing

:)

[jonnyblitz]

7. LMFAO

:thumbsup:

[mattclearing]

11. It worked for Republicans.

Look at Bush in 2000, with "Affimative Access." Bush sounded like a moderate, but we knew in reality he would be anything but.

But he sounded enough like Clinton to make people think he was as able a replacement as Gore.

[Nikki Stone 1]

12. Exactly. Great example

Thanks

[Zenlitened]

5. But the conversation I'd like to see our party having...

... is this: Can we bring more votes to our side by standing up as loud-and-proud progressives?

We've tried the look-act-walk-talk like a repub approach, and it doesn't seem like a big winner these days.

What if we tried embracing radical ideas such as the right to privacy, or liberty and justice for all, or even -- gasp! -- economic fair-play?

It might cost us a few republicans, sure... but might it not bring in far more of the biggest untapped voting bloc out there, the great many people who are eligible to vote but have opted out of the process?

:shrug:

[Nikki Stone 1]

9. I would like to believe that this could work

I have been thinking about this for a long time. There are so many things that we believe and stand for that are core US values, core middle and working class values.

The problem is that 20 years of right wing talk radio has convinced some of the middle and working class that their rights are somehow not their rights; that they are part of a leftist agenda. The right wing echo chamber has convinced many Americans to vote against their own interests and rights by labling their interests and rights "anti-American", "anti-patriotic" even "anti-God".

The emotional energy that backs up the labling process has created a suspiciousness in people about their own rights.

I think if the left comes out and trumpets these rights, it will cause an explosive reaction in much of the American middle, aided and abetted by the right wing echo chamber. The reaction has been set in place and for many will be a foregone conclusion.

I think the party is playing it extremely low key to avoid setting off this reaction. There is a stealth political game going on and I think it is necessary.

But it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. It all comes from this stupid idea...

...that Clinton won because he behaved similarly to a Republican. This is stupid for two reasons:

1) Clinton didn't act like a republican, he acted center-left (emphasis on center.)

2) Clinton had charisma and actually took the time to understand how and why people vote.

This is the model that Tony Blair put to such good use - control the center, force your opponents on the right to move further to the right, scaring the shit out of most of the country.

Of course, nobody in the Democratic leadership today understands this, because none of them have any political acumen whatsoever (I'm talking to you, too, Hillary) and they simply believe that "Ah, I'll be somewhat conservative, and then I'll win!"

It's stupid. Clinton won because he was a charismatic voice for the politics of middle America.

[Nikki Stone 1]

22. Clinton may have won because of Ross Perot

Perot syphoned off enough conservative votes to keep Poppy from getting a majority.

He never came across as conservative except fiscally--then he turned around and raised taxes and erased the deficit. A good progressive policy that worked.

You have to remember that in the 80s and early 90s, government agencies were quite bloated. Some belt tightening was necessary. This is why the neocon message rang true to so many Americans in the middle. The problem was that the neocons didn't just want to trim down waste, they wanted to strangle and kill government entirely. (Except for the Pentagon, of course).

Clinton had to play the fiscal conservative to appeal to the middle class who felt--with some reason-- that government spending was out of control. The problem was that before Clinton could actually enact some reasonable measures, the midterm elections swept the Democratic majority out and brought in the killers and stranglers of government.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. You mean... agencies like Welfare, Section 8, etc?

Just about every branch of Government that serves the rich, or upper middle class, is far more bloated today than at the beginning of the Clinton years. It's all off the books because they've fired the (secure, unionized) Federal workers (whom they stopped hiring in the 80s) and replaced them almost entirely with Contractors. Beltway Bandits. The only programs being "belt-tightened" are those that help the poor and allow them to remain in their communities (where they are now being forced out into other jurisdictions with no social services)

[Vincardog]

8. Excuse me but that is a load.A big steaming pile of fresh Bovine Excrement

WE can win by being loud proud PROGRESSIVES.

[Nikki Stone 1]

10. Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.

:)

[Vincardog]

14. Your plan is what the DLC has been doing for the last 15 years.

How has that been working for you? If given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat acting like a Republican the people will pick the real Republican. The time has come to reject the "Chasing the mythical middle" strategy and STAND UP FOR REAL PROGRESSIVE IDEAS.

PS Ed Schultz is really a republican, his wife convinced him that he would do better to say he was on the other side. That has not changed his core Pro Business beliefs.

[Nikki Stone 1]

19. It's not my plan. It's what I am observing the Dems do, and I think they

have good reasons for doing it.

Since 1994, the power center in Congress has been neocon. Part of the blame for the '94 neocon win went to Bill Clinton's clumsy embrace of some progressive agenda items in '93 and early '94. If you remember in his first year or so, there were so many Clinton "goof ups" (on important issues) that David Gergen was brought in as a consultant to teach him how to be President. (Odd that it was the Repug Gergen, but it was very blatantly done. Gergen was filmed going to the White House.)

I don't blame the progressive agenda for the '94 loss. I don't even blame Bill's ineptness, although Rush Limbaugh and the right wing echo chamber made the most of it. The neocons won because they had been planting seeds and organizing for years. I fault the Democrats for being asleep at the wheel while the neocons were building their base and getting out their vote.

Since '94, the Democrats have had to play a stealth game. So, you are correct that the strategy goes back aways: about 11 or 12 years. It is a strategy chosen because of the political climate and power balance after the 94 win.

As to how successful it has been, the 2000 election was actually won by Al Gore (in the final analysis done after the Supreme Court stepped in) and the 2004 election seems to have issues of tampering; I believe the exit polls that gave Kerry the lead. Zogby is one of the most accurate pollsters; Kerry did win that election.

The stealth strategy would have actually been seen as working had the vote count been honest. Even with the right wing echo chamber, the country swayed more toward Kerry than Bush.

This is not an argument for keeping the strategy, necessarily, since the ultimate vote in 2004 cannot be proved without a thorough investigation.

However, the Dems are dealing with a pretty ruthless bunch in the Bush group. These are people who play absolutely and completely dirty without any scruples or concern for democracy as a whole. The Dems are entirely on the defensive and have to play a defensive game. It would be nice to get an interception and an unexpected touchdown, but so far that doesn't look promising.

I am painfully aware of the past 12 years. It has been a period of regression for so many causes that I care about, espouse and have fought for in the past. I am a traditional Ted Kennedy Democrat, so you can imagine the turmoil I am in personally.

At this point, I don't care how the Dems win--I just want them to win. And if they have to do it by stealth and mimicry, than so be it.

[Vincardog]

26. We can agree At this point, I don't care how the Dems win--I just want

them to win. If you believe that please visit this Progressive's Web site and make a contribution to help him win.
<http://www.vanosfortexasag.com/ >
But I have to tell you he is not acting like a republican.

[Nikki Stone 1]

27. Darling. I've been donating, but thanks for the link

Let's see how much more I can squeeze out.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. But that doesn't explain why we lost the cloture vote.

[mattclearing]

17. We lost the cloture vote because people are afraid to throw a

monkey wrench in the GOP's agenda. The SOTU would have been totally compromised if Alito were blocked. I think they feared voter backlash. I think respect would have been a more likely result if they played it right. But it's too late now.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. My point being, they're playing pretend GOP too well.

I think we're the ones who are getting swindled.

[Nikki Stone 1]

21. The filibuster would have created a firestorm

and the 2006 mid-term elections might be totally lost.

I HATE the fact that Alito is in; it keeps me from sleeping at night, literally. But I understand the party's priorities. I just hope that someone is keeping the progressive flame alive in Washington.

Actually, the Congressional Black Caucus, Lee, Boxer and Feingold are good examples of this.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. I don't believe that for one minute. It's conjecture.

It's what the Republicans wanted us to believe. We should have called their bluff.

[Nikki Stone 1]

28. It was probable, almost to a certainty

Look at the media, look at what it has been doing. It took until NOLA for them to come out of their stupor, but many of those shocked into reality are now back to repeating Rovian points.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. If the media says something, you have to take into account that they're

pushing an agenda. Any Congressman who allows himself or herself to get played by conduits is getting their vote usurped. We're getting votes by consensus.

[Nikki Stone 1]

35. No need to consider the media opinion. Just look at the numbers and

the ruthlessness of this particular bunch. The media often gets it wrong, sometimes gets it right and usually has an agenda, but it wasn't the media that threatened the "nuclear option." The neocons are not playing by even the normally slimy rules of everyday politics. They have no rules, and no limits. When their President is ready to let thousands of people drown in a hurricane, all bets are off.

[iamthebandfanman]

32. because they are the majority

and not just the majority in one branch, but in all.
and so its hard , without the people in place and in office, to back it up.

doing so with them in full control only puts their position at risk, so they sit back and save their ass instead of possibly losing their seat.

i think they woulda voted for cloture had we controled a branch of government.

[w8liftinglady]

16. I agree-to a point

there are a lot of moderate republicans who are disgusted with bush.I think if we can appeal to them,it would be a good thing for our party.don't forget-the first thing is to get back power-then we can push our more liberal agendas.

[Nikki Stone 1]

20. That's the idea. The Dems have to remember, though,

what their core values are.

And Lieberman has to go. He's not playing the game. He's, sadly, the real conservative McCoy.

[Zodiak]

24. As long as we are thinking

We moght want to go after more than just Leiberman. I know he is a visible target, but we have other targets who are more damaging to the party when it comes down to brass tacks.

Harkin (Iowa) 89.2
Boxer (California) 85.7
Lautenberg (New Jersey) 85.7
Akaka (Hawaii) 78.6
Durbin (Illinois) 78.6
Kennedy (Massacheusetts) 78.6
Kerry (Massacheusetts) - DLC 78.6
Corzine (New Jersey) 71.4
Dayton (Minnesota) 71.4
Feingold (Wisconsin) 71.4
Levin (Michigan) 71.4
Mikulski (Maryland) 71.4
Reed (Rhode Island) 71.4
Sarbanes (Maryland) 71.4
Obama (Illinois) 67.9
Dodd (Connecticut) - DLC 64.3
Leahy (Vermont) 64.3
Shumer (New York) 64.3
Wyden (Oregon) 64.3
Bayh (Indiana) - DLC 64.3
Biden (Deleware) 64.3
Clinton (New York) - DLC 60.7
Dorgan (North Dakota) - DLC 57.1
Stabenow (Michigan) - DLC 57.1
Inouye (Hawaii) 57.1
Reid (Nevada) 57.1
Byrd (West Virginia) 50
Murray (Washington) 50
Rockefeller (West Virgnia) 50
Bingaman (New Mexico) 42.9
Cantwell (Washington) - DLC 42.9
Johnson (South Dakota) - DLC 42.9
Kohl (Wisconsin) - DLC 42.9
Baucus (Montana) - DLC 39.3
Conrad (North Dakota) - DLC 39.3
Feinstein (California) 39.3
Leiberman (Connecticut) - DLC 35.7
Carper (Deleware) - DLC 28.6
Lincoln (Arkansas) - DLC 21.4
Nelson (Florida) - DLC 21.4
Salazar (Colorado) - DLC 21.4
Pryor (Arkansas) - DLC 17.9
Landrieu (Louisianna) - DLC 14.3
Nelson (Nebraska) - DLC 0.0

Carper is worse than Leiberman, and he is in Deleware...not exactly a red state. How about we make it a two-pronged attacks against both DLC turncoats?

[Nikki Stone 1]

30. Before we start picking off our own, let's get the numbers up and

control of the House. Then, when we have some breathing room, we knock off a couple of those on the bottom. I'll take your word for it that Lieberman is not the worst.

[Zodiak]

33. He's not the worst, trust me...I wish it were true.

Control of the House....I completely agree.

As far as the Senate, make them sweat out a primary against a bolder, more populist or progressive candidate who is ostensibly against the war and against more corporate power. If the challnger doesn;t win, that's okay, at least they will understand that the base do not have to vote for them by default and change the way they listen to constituents.

We do not have breathig room now, and if we do not solve this problem, we will be seen as undecided and wishy-washy. It is these lower Senators who make our party look divided and lose us elections in close districts and nation-wide elections.

[bpj1962]

25. Tim Kaine

First of all lets get one thing straight. Tim Kaine is a Democrat. He is a traditional "Virginia Democrat". The republican party in Virginia was created because they felt that the democrats were too conservative. He ran a campaign that emphasized traditional Virginia Democratic values as well as his own deeply held religious beliefs. Like it or not he and his predecessor Mark Warner are the face of the Democratic Party, They are pragmatic, they understand the need for compromise and they are also able to promote traditionally republican ideas such as strong law enforcement and make it seem as if it was a democratic position. Mark Warner was able to get both a personal tax increase and a sales tax increase passed by a republican controlled legislature. Many political activists have looked at the Virginia model to see what makes it work. I consider myself to be a traditional virginia democrat. I believe in a strong national defense and in good law enforcement, I also believe in a womens right to choose and I strongly believe that the government has no right to invade my privacy.

My question is this, what exactly is a progressive and what do they stand for and is the person capable of being elected to a political office at any level. I know that states like Oregon, Washington and Vermont have many progressive office holders but as a whole what is the percentage on a state or federal level. We can scream and holler all we want but until we are able to get elected it doesn't matter whether we are a conservative, liberal or progressive democrats. Let's first get more democrats in office and then lets worry about whether they are progressive enough.

[iamthebandfanman]

31. i agree

honestly i do

i know people dont want to hear 'just elect a democrat', but it would and will work if its done correctly.

if we get them in there, they are going to hafta listen to the base(pretty much us and like minded folk)
so i mean, with the democratic party in power , im sure we would get our back scratched plenty regardless

[iamthebandfanman]

29. exactly

see ive been saying this around the boards lately
but it seems like people arent found of the idea to much

i mean, i say we beat them at their own game and then screw them for atleast one presidential term and take and get whatever we want.

*shrugs*

i mean, if they think payback isnt going to be a bitch, yeah right...

i think the bait and switch is a good idea.