Did Democratic Party follow DU's strategy in 2002 elections ?

[kentuck]

And consequently, ended up with surprising defeats across the nation, and especially in Florida's Governor's race? Did they not do what most of the people on DU were saying to do? That is, attack George W Bush and his theft of the last election. Terry McCauliffe seemed to be reading DU for his national strategy...and it failed miserably.
Because their strategy was to parlay Democratic anger and disenchantment with the 2000 election into victory in the 2002 elections? If not, what was the strategy? What were the issues that you remember from the 2002 campaigns? Sometimes I can be wrong. Sometimes we can all be wrong...

[Occulus]

1. If they were,

they did the milquetoast version.

[Pepperbelly]

3. so if they'd just do more of what didn't work,

it would work?

Is that the position you take?

[w13rd0]

2. I didn't hear word one from any of the campaigns about 2000...

...nor did I hear anything about opposing Bush. Most of the campaigns were all about falling over oneself trying to kiss his damned ass.

[tibbiit]

9. No body did or didnt do the right thing

In either election. (2000 & 2002) Those elections were stolen by manipulation of the voting machines in key states, and wellstones murder.

If Gore had been rightfully selected after he was duly elected, Donna Brazille would have gotten credit for the same results she didnt get credit for imo. Same as 2002.

I cant believe people still are chewing this since it wasnt the fault of anyone. When the voting is tampered with it doesnt matter whose at fault for any of it! that is my opinion, and of course I cant prove it.

However, I know it is so-- I watched the smirk on Whistle-Asses face when he knew the night before he won in both elections, and I watched the scramble to change the results when they didnt jive with the VNS results in the late afternoon on Nov 2002. In the morning and early afternoon cable tv news stations (all of them) reported they had record turnout in Florida (and elsewhere)... exit polls showed dems LEADING BIG. Late afternoon at aproximatly the same moment the cable news channels had "reporters" at empty polling stations saying there is no one here to vote-- VNS system flawed we must throw out our results! Bush wins.

Then we had days of coverage telling us of our Failures... with our own dems leading the finger pointing at each other. they suck too as they dont ever sieze any moments to stick up for their own side. There are more sheep then just the asleep sheep of america... there are awake sheep too who believe what is told them too. imo:)


tib

[ryharrin]

16. That was my impression too.

The only place where I remember a candidate trying to separate themselves from bush was during Mary Landrieu's race. And that ended up going rather well.

[Walt Starr]

4. No they didn't

They followed the Lieberman DLC playbook and failed miuserably. They ran to the right and had photo ops with Bush and lost miserably.

I did not hear a single condidate attack Bush once.

This fact proves DU is right about this.

[Eloriel]

24. Max Cleland

Even ran ads with him and Bush together, if you can believe that.

Eloriel

[Ardee]

47. thanks Ryharrin and Walt

As I read this thread starter I couldnt help but wonder which crossover universe the poster was referring to in his fairy tale about the '02 campaigns.Id bet that those who challenged Bush (those few and they were left high and dry by the DLC for doing so)actually fared better than those who followed the DLC-GOP-lite plan to say nothing relevant.....

[FloridaPat]

5. I seem to not remember it that way. Most of the Democrats

up for reelection did not attack Bush on anything but the economy. In Lousiana on the second vote, the senator there did attack Bush and won. The Democrats had no plan, no guts, and were basically republican-lites. They were attacked by Bush and did nothing. They were the ones that proposed Home Land Security and Bush took the credit for it. The race in Florida was about - I can't even remember. Little issues. Not big ones. People were mad because they caved in on Iraq. A lot of people stayed home in disgust. I take every opportunity to vote against republicans seriously. Every liberal amendment to the Florida consitution was passed, but somehow Bush got reelected. Again, the Democrats were fighting for weeks over who won the Democratic primary.

And if the Democrats don't come up with something soon, they'll loose even more next time.

[wryter2000]

6. On the whole, I think you're right

However, the vote on Iraq hadn't been taken by 11/2002, I don't think. There was a lot of sabre-rattling, of course, by 11/2002.

I think we are moving in the right direction now, except for Lieberman and the DLC. I wish someone would point out to the DLC that their strategy only works when Clinton is running. (Remember losing Congress to the Repubs in 1994, if I'm remembering correctly.) That ought to tell them that Clinton was the magic, not their strategies.

[redeye]

10. The vote was before the election

I remember that Wellstone voted against the war, so obviously it was before 11/2002.

[goobergunch]

20. redeye is correct

The vote was taken on 11 October 2002, at 12:50 AM.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Democratic Senators in Competitive Races:

Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay :loveya:

Do I see a trend here? :grr:

[eileen from OH]

7. What?

I sure don't remember anyone campaigning on the previous election. What I remember was a bunch of Dems trying to outdo each other in supporting Bush. The strategy I saw was to try and link themselves to his "toughness" on terrorism. The only way they bucked him at all was to try and get labor protection for the employees at the Homeland Security Dept - a strategy that backfired miserably. He didn't even want the damn agency but he turned it into "his" damn quick and made it look like they were standing in the way of our nation's security.

I wasn't in DU during the election confab, but this is my view: Yeah, I remember it and it still pisses me off - but it's just a piece of my overall disgust with Repubs. And I don't think it's a winning issue to fight about in the upcoming election. Outside of some good offhand, sideways swipes which are always welcome.

eileen from OH

[bpilgrim]

8. huh? we were STILL outraged at being told to 'MOVE ON' by our own party

leaders not to mention the media and had moved on to being against the neo-cons war agenda mostly, but certainly not exclusively, back then but would have been happy if they would have used any of his past transigressions against him in a sustained manner.

only a handful did so led by Byrd and Kucinich for the most part.

and they have been consistant in their opposition to the MANY sins of the bush crime family and their neo-con supporters.

DEAN has taken and RUN AWAY with what most here at DU have been preachin and demonstrating how effective that strategy can be.

no one was anywhere close to that in 02 imho

peace

[Old and In the Way]

11. 2 things

(1) No Voter exit polling
(2) Touchscreens with no paper back-up

The results stunk and went counter to pre-vote polling. We will never win if we can't verify the accuracy of the vote.

[tibbiit]

13. right on

I agree.

Remember the diff between total victory and total defeat was like 50,000 votes.
That isnt many.
It was NOT a mandate for Bush or a landslide.

Where I take real issue with the Dem leadership is where they caved After the election and swallowed the repuke talking point that they were defeated at the polls.
Both elections, thats when they really sold us out.
By repeating the talking point that they were soundly defeated by the american people at the polls... a matter of perception vs reality.

The pukes win by perceptions. Declare victory and keep on saying we won even when they don't.
tib

[userdave2061]

12. Is it possible people voted on the issues?

All campaign trickery aside it should boil down to the issues at hand.

Remember that voters are not a monolithic entity and their views are as different as their fingerprints.

[Old and In the Way]

21. We will never know.....

We do know that Republican contributors own the touchscreen machines, though.

Tell you what, let's have Ted Turner start a company and use just his machines with unverifiable code and see how quick Republicans start to worry about voting machine integrity.

SO until I can verify that the count is verifiable, we can't know the will of the people. Every thinking person in the USA ought to consider that for a moment...it is our democracy that's at stake.

[kentuck]

14. Now that we have that out of the way.....

:) I think we have to look forward and we cannot depend on the people voting "against" Bush - they will have to vote "for" us. We need a positive agenda for the people - not just criticism for the present Resident in the WH. And I think we have candidates that are working toward that end. None of them are perfect. They are human just as you and I and are subject to human error. We are strongest when we are together.

But we should not overlook the fact that it is not just George W Bush that got us into the mess. He could have done nothing without the Republican Congress that does his bidding. We need to make changes there also, and the people need to be aware of just how incompetent and radical this Congress has been. They are getting a free ride when we focus all our anger and energies toward George W Bush, in my opinion.

[PAMod]

17. Let's not forget the "enablers" among the Democrats in Congress

I'm still spitting mad at the Democrats in Washington for not having the courage of their convictions.

There is a difference in the two parties and their vision for the future (thank God).

You wouldn't have been able to tell based on the 2002 elections.

[Old and In the Way]

22. What if 90% of the people really vote Democrat, but

(1) Media polls tell us that 90% will vote Republican.
(2) Touchscreen results confirm this.

Please explain how we can confirm the true sentiment of the American people?

[PAMod]

15. That's not the way it happened kentuck

There was hardly any talk about 2000.

What the national Democratic Party failed to do was emphasise the core beliefs of Democrats.

They should have changed the entire DNC leadership after that debacle.

The problem with the 2002 elections was Washington, Washington, and oh yeah, Washington.

I hate to quote Goldwater, but Americans want "a choice, not an echo".

[pippin]

18. a little amnesia here

re: "Did they not do what most of the people on DU were saying to do? That is, attack George W Bush and his theft of the last election. " i think there is a little amnesia going on here.

The Dems were, to the disgust of a lot of us DUers, still kissing up like mad in 2002--Gephardt backing the president's war plans Lieberman sounding like a repub, and spineless Tom Daschle wringing his hands but kissing up at the same time.

As for Terry McAuliffe--lots of Democrats thought and still think he should have been fired for his management of the 2002 elections. ( see McAuliffe's Mistakes at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784245/posts ) Rereading this analysis makes one wonder why the guy is still around running the Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

19. Obviously we made mistakes but...

Should we really have a link to free republic to explain them to us??

[jiacinto]

23. I will say this

IF they ran a campaign ranting and raving about voting machine conspiracies, LIHOP, MIHOP, and doing other things that people exepct them to do, they would have lost badly worse than they did.

[Generic Other]

25. You know they didn't though

You wouldn't have let them, I'm sure of it.

[Ardee]

48. Oh certainly

lets lose by a little rather than risk losing by a lot.....Great strategy there, and I marvel at the way it omits things like conscience, morality, obligations to the people of the US,etc.

[birdman]

26. They didn't seem to have any strategy

They never really made the 2000 election an issue in 2002
(good thing - it was an issue that the public had long since
put out of its mind and it would have looked like sour
grapes).

But...

They allowed the Pubbies to put forward a unworkable
prescription drug plan and never challenged them on it.

They acted confused, disorganized and defensive during the Iraq
debate and let Bush walk away with the patriotism issue.

They let the Pubbies support Bush's Social Security Plan
and deny they were for privatization. Nobody called them
on it.

They never made an issue of lost jobs and lost pensions.

They frittered away the Dept. of Homeland Security issue
allowing Bush to portray them as unpatriotic.

Wellstone tragic death hurt but so did the bungled Wellstone
memorial.

They gave the voters no real reason to vote for them. The base
held but the swing voters (those who make up their minds just
before the election and often for shallow reasons) tended
decidely toward the Republicans, thus the shift toward Pubbies
in the final days. In 2000 the the swing voters went Dem and
most of the close Senate races went to the Dems and Gore almost
pulled out a race in which he was behind.

They flunked basic politics - give the voters four or five simple
and easily understandable reason to vote for you and repeat them
over and over. The party was in a complete funk after 9/11 and
may only be coming out of it now. You don't need paranoid nonsense
about Bush murdering Wellstone or Pubbies rigging voting machines
to explain 2002. They Dems just ran a bad campaign.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. A Good Case Can Be Made That * Made The 02 Midterm Elections

a referendum on national security and benefitted from it.

Also, Republicans do better in off year elections cuz their voters are more motivated.

[birdman]

30. Good point about off years

the electorate is largest in the Presidential years
and the Dems benefit when more people vote.

[Ardee]

49. off year elections

traditionally favor the "out" party, sorry to counter your argument.Of course, generally the opposition party is actually in opposition.......

[birdman]

50. One of the primary reasons for the off year trend

is the fact that winning Presidential campaigns tend to
carry that parties congressional candidates to victories
that they might not ordinarily receive. That was not the
case in 2000 as the Dems made significant congressional gains.

By and large you're correct on the off year trend, however.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Florida's Governor's Race Was Tough

The Republicans control the FL House and have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Florida is more of a R leaning state in national elections than a swing state.

The two Democratic senators, Graham and Nelson play to the center and that is their recipe for success.

Jeb Bush was hard to beat....

[birdman]

28. Unfortunately money and resources were poured into FL

when it was probably not winnable while close races
were lost elsewhere.

Terry McAuliffe should have been canned the day after the election.

The fact that he's still there is appalling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I Believe Gore Won FL

but the emphasis on it might have cost him the election.

The last week him and * had ads on tv every thirty minutes...

That $$$$ could have been spent in OH or NH, either of which would have given him the victory.

I'm not a big fan of Terry McCauliffe.

He's comes off as too slick by half...

[jiacinto]

33. Well

Nader's campaign played a role in hurting Gore because it forced him to spend money in states like IA, WA, OR, MN, and WI.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. I Agree

[birdman]

43. I was actually referring to the '02 governors race

McAuliffe made taking out Jeb Bush a misplaced
priority and winnable races suffered as a result.

[Dr Fate]

31. You have got it backwords- DUers wanted DEMS to attack Bush...

...expose Bush lies,real scandals, broken promises, weaknesses on foreign policy, Chickenhawk/AWOL scandals, etc...

Most DEMS kissed his ass, played the "me too" game and lost "big time"- I recall 99% of DUers constantly wondering WTF most DEMS were thinking...

No- the DEMS did not follow any DU strategy at all- I believe they would have done better if they had.

[jiacinto]

34. It depends

But if that meant talking about LIHOP, MIHOP, stupid 9/11 theories, and voting machine conspiracies, then they would have fared much, much worse.

[Uzybone]

37. So you cant attack Bush

without talking about those issues you listed above? The economy, the misguided foreign policy, the millions of empty promises? Those issues are all there. You make it sound like you cant oppose Bush without talking about 9/11 and LIHOP and that anyone who does that is a whacko. Im happy most Dems arent following this train of thought.

[jiacinto]

38. Yeah it does make someone look like a whacko

The issues of the economy and the detioriating status of Iraq are legitimate. But the LIHOP/MIHOP stuff is just crazy conspiracy theory.

[birdman]

44. Agreed

But there were plenty of legit issues that they
could have used to their benefit and they went
into a complete funk.

[Uzybone]

35. Revisionist history

Anti Dems usually like to spin thing like this. I dont remember any national campaign talking about the theft of 2000. Most Dems were running to associate with the almighty Bush and the War on Terra. And the idea that 2002 was a suprising failure is also bullshit. Most of those races that Democarats lost were either close or leaning GOP. Very very few were come from behind GOP wins.

[stickdog]

36. Am I in some Bizarro world or was that sarcasm? (NT)

[bpilgrim]

39. you know kentuck

just trying to provoke discussion... by any means necessary ;->

peace

[kentuck]

41. Shh-h-h-h-h pilgrim...

Some people may not know... :)

[bpilgrim]

45. lol

:hi:

ya da man :loveya:

peace

[mot78]

42. We Lost the 2002 Midterms because......

1. We never countered Bush on National Security
-Gephardt/Daschle's immediate assumption that opposing the war would be "unpatriotic" so they decided not to question Bush.
-Allowing Bush to use the Homeland Security issue against us.


2. Thinking that the economy would be bigger than National Security.


3. The "ME TOOism" with regard to tax cuts, Iraq, and the Patriot Act
-We basically thought that instead of directly questioning Bush or offering our own plans on the issues, that we could beat him by agreeing with him on the main issue, but differantiating ourselves based on subtle technicalities (ie. Yes we should go to war, but...) this was where we let the DLC run wild.

This is why Clark or Dean make sense, they don't let the Limbaughs or Coulters get out the first word on the issues. We took our cues from polls, political consultants, and from the Neo Con cabal.

[jiacinto]

46. Well

Issue #1: Americans wanted Homeland Security. It was clear after 9/11 that an agency dealing with homeland security needed to exist. As for the Iraq war Bush was going to have it in any event. I do think that putting the UN clause into it delayed it by several months. In hindsight I do think it should have been opposed more. But, ultimately, given the situation, I think they handled it the best they could.

2. That point I agree with you. The Democrats need to have their own agenda vis a vis National Security. And they still don't have one.

3. The Patriot Act--only those on the far left and the far right care about it. If the Patriot Act were so "unpopular" where were all the demonstrations against it? As for the tax cuts I agree there. But frankly America wanted the Patriot Act. If they didn't then then it would not have passed both Houses of Congress by the margin it did.

I do think the Democrats should have opposed Bush more on the domestic issues and presented their own Homeland Security agenda

[birdman]

51. Agreed. There are no votes in opposing the Patriot Act

It's important to political activists but their votes
are are already committed to one party or the other.

People will almost always opt for security over freedom.
In the aftermath of 9/11 the Patriot Act was going to pass
no matter what.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

52. No...

The DEMS didn't have a strategy in 2002, which was part of the problem. At that time we had Gephardt and Lieberman backing the president's war, Daschle being a tutu wearing imbocile, etc. It wasn't DU's idea to have them act spineless and back the president. As I can remember it, we wanted to point out the flaws in the administration aggressively, such as problems with foreign policy, the economy, scandal and just plain lying. Some candidates tried to focus on the economy... but that didn't work. They did not lose at fault of what we at DU said to do, they lost at their own fault. DU is far too left a platform for most of the candidates that ran in 2002 anyway.