It is not a "candidate" problem - it is a "Party" problem...

[kentuck]

Before people start looking for people to blame or heads to roll, the problem was not our candidate, John Kerry. The problem was/is the ineffective way the Democratic Party handles "moral" and social issues. They cannot continue to permit the other Party to portray them as "flip-floppers", "liars" and "anti-Christian" without quick and bruising responses. When all is considered, the war and economy were secondary to "other" issues. Until the Democratic Party recognizes that the problem is within, we may never see another Democratic president or a majority in Congress during our lifetimes. That is the stark decision we must make as a Party.

[lancdem]

1. I agree

This election is a wake-up call of the highest order. Our base as it's now constructed can't compete with their base. All that talk about our vaunted GOTV effort was hogwash, apparently, because they whipped us.

[pat1962]

18. party not candidate

It is 100% the leadership of the Democratic Party that has has failed all of us. John Kerry did as good a job as any candidate could have done. He was faced with a post 9-11 country and people do not like to change leadership during "wartime". We should hold people like Joe Lieberman and Tom Dashle as well as the leadership of the DNC responsible. The Democratic party refused to play dirty and it cost them. They let the republicans frame them as weak on terror. As for the moral issues the democrats should have stated that there are more important issues facing us then gay marriage, but once again they let the repugs control the issues. This is only going to get worse. You will now see all of the republican state legistatures move to redistrict so that they can increase thier control on the house when the midterms elections occur in 2006. They are 6 seats away from having a veto and filabuster proof senate and they will succeed. The democrats have allowed the repugs to effectively legislate the democratic party out of existence. I left the polls feeling so good yesterday and this morning I am so disgusted and angry.

[greenohio]

40. We need a midwest DLC Democrat

or we will continue to lose.

[bobaloo2]

2. So...

The choice is to become Republicans so the religious right will vote for us, or never get elected again?

As far as I can see the Democratic party is dead on the national level. If we can't defeat Bush, who the hell can we beat?

[lancdem]

3. We should've defeated Bush

and we need to figure out why the hell we didn't.

[RobinA]

21. Here's Why We Didn't

I've said it before, and I'll say it again if I have to. This election was about 9/11. Bush has shown a willingness to bomb Arabs. 50% of Americans want somebody who will bomb Arabs. The RIGHT Arabs? No matter. Will bombing Arabs help in the long run? No matter.

The equation is simple: 9/11 = American rage = bomb somebody.

Maybe we should have beaten Bush by yours and my measure, but for his supporters there is one measure. Bomb Arabs because Arabs hurt us.

[siliconefreak]

52. Wrong

It's been reported many times today that the number one issue for voters was "moral values". The economy came in second, and believe it or not, terrorism was third.

[MsTryska]

NO.

the choice is to remind the rest of America that Liberal is not a dirtry word.


That Democrats have balls.


ANd That if we're going to be any sort of Republicans we're gonna be the Walk Softly and CArry a Big Stick, Rough Rider, Teddy Roosevelt kind of Republicans.


the ones that believed in Control of Big Business, that fought for the Environment, that fought for Civil Rights.

[meow2u3]

37. Winning Over the Heartland--It can be done

The talk is about moral values, which is conservative code for sexual behavior, guns, and religion, trumping kitchen table issues such as jobs, health care, and social security, to name a few. If this indeed is true, I can only say that as long as Democrats not only take the wrong stand on lifestyle issues (in the eyes of the country's midsection) such as abortion, gun control, gays, and religion, we will remain a minority party, and Republicans will strengthen their one-party reign of terror, oppression, and silencing of dissent.
I think the Democratic strategy, despite, or maybe because of, the good intentions of protecting the rights of the most despised and ostracized minorities such as the GLBT community, has backfired on us, mainly because most people have visceral reactions to behavior they see as outrageous and disgusting, and these emotional wedge issues are impervious to reason. Social conservatives are not the only people subject to irrational positions on issues. Social liberals have also demonstrated a penchant for defiance of their own. Liberals seem to have fallen into the conservative trap of going to the other extreme, especially on behavioral issues. We have cut off our noses to spite our faces by digging in our heels and continuing to take positions even social moderates would regard as extreme.
The solution is not to espouse polar opposite positions on moral issues, such as stubbornly insisting on the litmus test that we have to remain pro-choice, for strict gun control, and anti-religion at all costs. This plays right into the Republicans' hands. The best way out of this trap is to co-opt and put a progressive spin on "moral values" issues such as abortion, guns, and religion. Here's one model for neoprogressive change:

*On the "pro-life" issue: spin it as an either a civil rights issue, or as the liberal position of protecting the rights of all underdogs, the unborn being the smallest, most helpless beings who can't speak for themselves. We can point out the cases where women are discriminated against by the policies of employers or colleges, as well as the prejudiced attitudes of families and the irresponsible attitudes of young or immature mates. These are the real reasons that drive women to the desperation of seeking an abortion as a means of facing an unwanted pregnancy. I contend that rare is the abortion sought by a woman at her own free will, free of any economic or social constraints.

We can also mention that conservative anti-abortion activists want Roe v Wade overturned for all the wrong reasons: an urge to control women; a desire to extend the death penalty so they have an excuse to kill even more people, namely women and abortion docs. They also want to go about it the wrong way, by making outcasts of single mothers and criminals of Democrats.

Progressive pro-lifers, whom I'll call neoprogressives, are the only ones who really take the term literally. Neoprogressive advocate a different approach to ending abortions--liberal means such as financial support for expectant mothers and women with small children; cutting the red tape to make adoption easier and opening the adoption process to families who otherwise couldn't afford to adopt; free or low-costprenatal care for expectant moms too poor to afford it on their own; strictly enforcing child support laws.
The least we can do is to change the phraseology when it comes to women's rights: Instead of saying "...a woman's right to choose", which is social liberal code for unfettered abortion rights (yes, the other side broke the code), we should put it this way: "...a woman's right to self-determination", which doesn't imply abortion rights and respects the

*On the gun issue: We can and should tie gun rights to environmental protection. Hunters should be convinced that commercial logging and suburban sprawl are going to render their guns useless for hunting. What good is a gun when all their hunting grounds have been laid waste by commercial loggers and suburban sprawl? Your guns will be useless, except for killing one another, if toxic pollution makes the deer unfit to eat? What good is your fishing rod and reel after polluters dump toxic waste in the water, thus killing all the fish before you can catch one?


*On religious issues: This country was founded on the basis of religious freedom, and we should have free discussion of religion in this country. I think we should get government out of religion, but not the other way around. That's why I oppose the so-called faith-based initiatives; it gives preference of some religions over others, in violation of the First Amendment.
Nor do I think we should outlaw all religious expression in our government in the name of either neutrality or separation of church and state. The only way we can expose and prevent the abuse of religion is to allow free expression of religion--not the forcible removal of it; we are a religious country, like it or not. For us to repudiate religious expression entirely in governmental affairs would make us no better than the Communists. But that doesn't mean we have a right to impose our religious beliefs on an entire population. Quite the contrary; the only ones we should silence are those whose religious beliefs dictate forced conversion to their faith.

If we co-opt the Republicans' pet culture war issues, respinning them as progressive issues intended to protect the weak from the strong, we can effectively nullify the power of conservatives to use lifestyle-issue sideshows to intimidate, divide, and demoralize the American people into becoming passive subjects of a tyrant instead of active citizens. Retooling these wedge issues attacks Republicans on their strengths, instead of their weaknesses. We have to stop smearing people as bigots because they oppose legalizing same-sex relationships; we're the ones who look like the bigots because we're the ones who have no tolerance for other views. We have to stop accusing pro-lifers of being misogynists; not all feminists are pro-choice, and not all pro-choicers love women. Not all pro-lifers hate women; in fact, a large number are pro-life (in the closet) because they're concerned about women and preserving female bodily integrity. But if we continue on this increasingly evident losing path of social license, in the name of tolerance, we're not only the intolerant ones, but also we might as well kiss our chances of ever becoming a majorty party goodbye.

[The Chronicler]

4. Democrats have huge problems; we are non-competitive in VAST

portions of the country.

[blondeatlast]

8. We own the right issues, the problem is in the Party structure itself.

Hundreds of thousands of volunteers put to pathetically poor use; plenty of PACs on our side given only lip-service.

This once-proud yellow-dog
is sickened by her party, but won't give up. Yeat.

[Perky]

5. spot on!!!

I agree time to retool the party. Ground up

If Tony Blair can do it witht the LAbor party... it can be done here.

[billyskank]

30. Bad example

Blair has done the same thing to the Labour party that Thatcher did to the Conservatives. Once Blair's gone the party will implode. They might stagger on under one more leader and then we're in for trouble. Both main parties will be shells of their former selves. We could be ripe for an extremist takeover here too.

:scared:

[mzmolly]

6. I actually think it's more of an organizational issue myself.

We had too many cooks in the soup.

Karl Rove and the GOP coordinated the GOTV effort on the part of the RW, we had several disorganized well meaning grass roots efforts, but it was ineffective.

[blondeatlast]

10. Yep. Lean and mean; the PACs ought to fight for themselves and

forget the Dems; they aren't friends of the PACs.

[SeanQ]

45. Organizational and education

We need to retool the party organization. Revitalize it. We shouldn't _need_ MoveOn.org (though I'm grateful they were there!) to help with a presidential race. The party should have the support and organizational abilities to do that. MoveOn could focus on specific progressive bills and more general public interest needs.

And I firmly believe we need to get VASTLY better at the war on words. We need to to change the language used on these topics. We need to bring back moderate Christians and marginalize Fundamentalists. This means we MUST stop using Christ as a dirty word and faith must be an encouraged topic!

[President Jesus]

7. let me ask you, how do yo ucompete against a population that is

willfully ignorant?

This goes beyond party. The civil rights movement changed many people who were willfully ignorant of the apartheid that was going on a few decades ago. That movement did not wait for a political party to wake everyone up...they took the matter into their own hands.

[stuzzy]

9. people in the south

don't relate to northeastern liberals. period. There is a disconnect there.

The democratic party needs to stop writing off the south, and start looking at how to be competitive there.

[QC]

50. Apparently people in the southwest, the mountain states,

and most of the midwest don't relate to them very well either.

This is not so much a matter of south vs. everyone else as it is urban vs. rural. There's our problem, and we need to do something about it quick.

[dolstein]

11. I think you're half right

Yes, the party definitely has a problem on moral issues. At the same time, with one important caveat, I believe some of the problems may have been exacerbated by having selected Kerry. Kerry was singularly ill-equipped to deal with the party's weakness on moral issues. It is possible that with the right candidate, the Democrats might have been able to win in spite of his disadvantes.

Now that caveat -- I think any candidate who took public matching funds in the primary would have been toast. Kerry might the right call to opt out, and thus he had a critical advantage that Wes Clark or John Edwards would not have had if they had been the nominee.

[ibegurpard]

20. Disagree

Look at the candidate who lost in Oklahoma. THESE are the people that are killing us. We could've run a Coburn ourselves and we still would've lost because Democrats=godless immoral degenerates in their minds. It's going to take more than just policy tweaking and candidates to undo 30 years of Republican propaganda and organization. It's going to take a similar effort on our parts and it's probably not going to pay off for years.

[dolstein]

28. Brad Carson still ran ahead of Kerry in Oklahoma, didn't he?

The fact is that the national party, including its candidate, has made areas like Oklahoma next to impossible to win, even for conservative Democrats like Brad Carson.

[ibegurpard]

56. I'll agree with you about problems with the national party

See my post here for some local perspective from my neck of the woods:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1304747

[FubarFly]

12. The playing field is unlevel.

The GOP has 24/7 propaganda tools with Fox, CNN, and MsNBC.

We do not have effective spokesmen on these outlets.

Our voices are being drowned out by the pundits, and the preachers.

This has to end.

We need to 1: Create our own media
2: Make better use of the media we already have.

If McAuliffe doesn't get this, then he needs to go.

[Shopaholic]

13. We need a Democratic version of

Lee Atwater. We assume because we're smarter and we run on truth that we can win. We can't. We have to lie and to fight and to cheat and steal like they do. It's our only hope. Fight fire with flameflowers, dirt with mud, shit with shinola.

[meow2u3]

19. I'd like to volunteer for the job

I can come up with tactics that would put Lee Atwater and Karl Rove to shame....:evilgrin:
My friends sometimes call me a sneak, which would be not a liability, but an asset when it comes to campaign strategizing. It takes thinking like the enemy to defeat the enemy, and it takes being a sneak to defeat a sneak.

[MissMarple]

14. Now here is a discussion I can identify with.

Kentuck is right, it is a Party problem. The Republicans have had over thirty years to organize and plan and to reach where they are today. It is ironic that Coors lost in Colorado, and the Heritage Foundation his family helped found is integral to building and keeping the Republican base loyal. The conservatives have poured money and support into think tanks that have honed their message, and provided the media with scholars and speakers who repeat and repeat the conservative message. School prayer, failing schools, fear of gays, tax "relief", free market capitalism unfettered by regulation, the bogeyman of affirmative action come from these places.

We must invest in ways to build our base, Air America is a good start, but we need more. I think this is the direction Howard Dean is going. He has been influenced by George Lakoff's work, I recommend his books. They are a starting point in learning what we must begin to do to take this country back. Let's just hope George doesn't start world war three before we can.

So, how do we jump on the bandwagon?

[DeepModem Mom]

15. I will not blame the victim!

This country is under the control of a ruthless political faction, which perpetrated a coup in 2000, aided by a willing press, and that faction has just been granted electoral legitimacy by a populace that has been submitted to endless propaganda for four years by a controlled press. I will not blame the Democratic party, or its excellent candidate who would have made a great President, John Kerry. Checks and balances, and traditional American politics, in which the policy positions of the Democratic party mattered, I'm afraid, are now things of the past.

[RafterMan]

16. Nope, it's both

I keep saying this -- it's not cultural issues, it's culture.

"Which candidate would you like to have a beer with?" is the *exact same question* as "Are you voting primarily on cultural issues?"

Please learn this lesson before the next primary.

[Robbie67]

17. Oh, the problem was the candidate

I talked to tons of Dems and leftys and left-leaning people who really didn't think much of Kerry, for one reason or another.

There's a big problem in the party itself, too.

[FubarFly]

23. The perfect candidate doesn't exist.

It's hard to think positively about a candidate when the opposition is spreading lies and disinformation around the clock.

Even if Kerry won, this would be a serious problem.

[MissMarple]

24. I agree, one person can't defeat a political machine.

And this one is quite well oiled and efficient. So, let's build one of our own. :D

[Kitka]

39. I agree. It's both.

[juliagoolia]

22. strategy

strategy we could have used.


we should have blanketed these churches with flyers saying bush supported gay marraige .. /civil unions and give the quote where he said he supported civil unions.. same sex/sex

should have also put his quotes about backing the arms bill if it came to his desk.

We should have hit church parking lots with this info..and told them all they were being pandered to. We should have used bible verses easily found to point out these things to them.

People do not like to be pandered to.


We should have talked up the social programs for the poor and children on the same flyer and talked about how Dems have always worked hard for the poor.

We should have pointed out how God does not force anyone to be christian, and that chruches need to do a better job of changing hearts not laws.

We could have won if we did this things or start doing them right away.

[patrice]

25. Agreed. nt

[Tatiana]

26. No, it's a candidate problem.

We still have the same "social issues" and "moral issues" that we had in '92 and '96. Yet we won the Presidency and carried five Southern states.

[Jasper 91]

33. But America's right have moved further to the right

Since then .

[MrTriumph]

63. Beg to differ- Gay marriage became a HOT issue in the last year

[graywarrior]

27. If the Dem party in the rest of the country is anything like the Dem party

in Sarasota FL, I can see why we lost. NO ONE lead but everyone lead at the same time. And the leaders are the types of personalities that drive others away.

If the dems don't get their shit together and elect strong within the party, this is going to happen over and over again.

[Cush]

29. The DNC failed to learn from the 2002 Midterms

maybe now they'll see that it isn't working

[GreenArrow]

31. it was a personality problem

People voted for Dubya because they felt most comfortable with him, felt that he was most like them, most closely approximated them. He symbolizes them, their (percieved) dreams, aspirations, biases, and fears.

Fuck 'em, I say, if they don't want to do better. Don't throw your pearls before swine.

[meow2u3]

54. I disagree. W is just a very good CON MAN

He's well adept at conning people into looking the other way while he fleeces them of their life savings, even after he had screwed them over time and time again

[GreenPartyVoter]

32. A better election system would help too

-------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT for election reform at the municipal and state level!
Clean up the American government from the ground up!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[BootinUp]

34. incorrect.

Kerry was too big a target. Senator with a vote against the 91 war, an anti-war protester. From a liberal state. Look I am not saying it in hindsight. You can check my posts back in January. Kerry wasn't even the top candidate until Iowa frantically selected him in the last week before they voted. The dem party was lukewarm to him even after he won the primary.

He is a great man and politician too, just not the right candidate for this election.

You advocate changing our values instead of changing the candidate. No thanks. I like my values pretty good.

[liberalpragmatist]

35. Nobody's talking about CHANGING Values

We have to shift the parameters of the debate. There's no way we can move to the right socially, but we have to do something to compensate.

For me, that means clearly claiming our own "true American values" - stress patriotism and individual liberty, embracing the spirit of the founders and the original Republicans. It's a message that can resonate among blue voters and can hopefully resonate with voters in currently red areas.

We can't win on religious values - we have to show how their values are "unAmerican" and claim the values that founded America. Combine that with outspoken support for "acceptance" and even "brotherly love" - emphasizing compassion.

It won't give us religious voters, but it'll hopefully turn secular right-leaning independents pro-Democrat and allow us to improve our margins, at least, among the former group.

[BootinUp]

38. Were you a Clark supporter?

You are advocating his platform. Obviously I agree. I may have misunderstood the original post.

[liberalpragmatist]

43. Actually, no

I liked Clark, but actually I was a Kerry supporter from the start.

[kentuck]

41. Exactly...

to do the same thing over and over expecting different results is insanity.

[drdigi420]

36. its a religion problem

even in the supposed enlightened party, there are many who enable the right wing christians by perpetuating the same myths

here's a big FUCK YOU to anyone that doesnt keep their religion 100% to themselves

[SeanQ]

46. Same to you pal!

I'm a Christian, and don't keep it a secret. STOP equating Christian with RW or even conservative!

[regnaD kciN]

42. No...it's an "American" problem...

As long as people are willing to look past trivialities like their own economic suffering, $2-plus gas prices, and a quagmire that claims a thousand American lives, in favor of the "big" issues like preventing gay marriage, there's nothing we can do to save them.

[kentuck]

44. Actually, it's a "world" problem....

But, it can only be corrected at the Democratic Party level.

[John_H]

47. Reality Check: Guess who will be running our elections in 06!

The EXact same people who lost in 00 and 02!!!! SCHWEEEEEEEET!!!!!

[SeanQ]

48. Go back and watch Barak Obama's keynote address

I think that's exactly the message most Americans want to hear!

[Redleg]

49. Yes but how do we deal with those "social" issues?

If the majority of Americans think that gay marriage is the greatest threat to our welfare, how can we convince them otherwise? I know it has a lot to do with framing the issue but how can our support of woman's choice, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc. ever appeal to a bigoted, narrow-minded population?

[kentuck]

57. I think we need to take it out of the public arena and put it...

in the legislative arena, once we attain the majority. Would the Civil Rights Bill have passed if it had been debated in the public?

[Maiden England]

51. I don't belong to an organized party - I'm a democrat

How true that expression is.

We had 8 separate democratic campaigns running where I was in LA, 9 if you count the court of appeal race. There was no coordination between grass roots support, none. Everyone competed with everyone else, didn't share campaign information, didn't pool resources for a national campaign.
That's how come we now have a neo-nazi David Vitter as our brand new senator. If thats a reflection of a larger problem within our organization then no wonder we got fucked.

Compare and contrast - the local repukes coordinated all of their separate campaigns and complemented the GOTV effort between all of them.
We must learn from how 'the dark side' does things, we must be as organized as they are, we must find a unified approach. There is no choice.
The DU has a very important role in brainstorming this and encouraging a push to unify the base.

[d_b]

53. How about the media?

[DinahMoeHum]

55. Time to purge the DNC and DLC and replace the leadership

with real fighters, like Howard Dean.

We need ass-kickers, not boot-lickers.


:kick:

[chyjo]

58. The problem with this is

that Gay-Bashing ammendments helped Bush in all the states that had them. What are we supposed to do? Create our own Wedge issues, bash people who believe in evolution to try to get the support of the religious right back. Sorry, no thank you.

[Sean Reynolds]

59. It's the candidate.....

I've been saying this since last year. John Kerry was NOT the best man for the job. I saw it in the Democratic Primaries and I knew it all along. He pandered to every group he could. He changed his stance on the issue with every gust of the wind. He never really stood for anything strong and I think we ALL KNEW IT! Why do you think there were so few Kerry supporters during that time? He only became the nominee out of fear that Dean was unelectable. Well look where that got us! 4 more years of Bush.

Hell at least Gore WON the popular vote. Kerry didn't even do that.

To answer your question, I believe you're right. The Democratic Party can't let the other party portray them as flip-floppers, liars and anti-Christian. Sadly JOHN KERRY IS a flip-flopper and a liar. However I'll admit he did a pretty good job at combating the issue of him being anti-Christian.

He lost this election because Kerry lacks leadership. He lacks that leadership because no one knows where he stands on the issues. I saw it all the way back in the primaries, and now America is seeing it today.

He failed America.

I'm pissed as a Dean supporter, because I was told BY everyone out there that he could beat Bush. Well he didn't...he didn't even come close to beating Bush. In fact, if Bush had never bombed in the first debate Kerry probably would have lost this election by 10 or so points.

John Kerry is a loser. And the Democratic Party is a loser party for making him the nominee. Most Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Dean and Sharpton supporters could have told you that.

[BootinUp]

61. pretty accurate

I like Kerry, I think he's a good man. Just not the right one for this election.

[mumon]

60. we have to re-seize the high ground on moral issues

it can be done simply, but takes hard work.

We need organizations that are associated with the left that actually go out amongst the "red state folks," and actually help them, and organize them.

Something like IWW, or some new "union" paradigm.

Maybe faith based, maybe not.

But we have to be known for the moral high ground.

I think that's the problem.

Check out my blog (http://mumonno.blogspot.com) for more info.

[lapislzi]

62. It's been a party problem for years

Who the hell are we?

Read "What's the Matter with Kansas."

Why is our traditional base racing away from us in their droves? We no longer resemble the party of FDR, or even the party of LBJ. Why are we not connecting to the people whose interest we supposedly represent? And what can we do to fix it?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Not Candidate, Not Party; It's Message, Education, and Critical Thinking

We have to get a coherent message that shows that liberal Democratic tolerance and compassion is aligned with core American values, especially "heartland" values.

We have to educate the American public so that they don't reject science and global realities.

We have to awaken the American public so that they think critically. Middle class and poor people must be enlightened so that they don't automatically buy into Republican policies that hurt them, simply on the basis of the way Republicans frame the debate.

Seize the meme.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Kerry was my second choice, but

he was never able to move me to tears the way Kucinich did, with his positive vision for a new and different America.

He always seemed to be playing defense, not creating a coherent picture of what he aimed to do. I saw him in person twice, and while he gave passionate speeches, he seemed rehearsed and a bit ill at ease. Contrast this with Edwards, who seemed perfectly relaxed, and Kucinich, whose ability to relate to an audience has to be seen to be believed.

Thanks to America's superficial culture, someone who looks like Kucinich may never be taken seriously, but keep in mind that economically/politically left Congress critters like DK and Marcy Kaptur in Ohio, Peter DeFazio in Oregon, and Jim Oberstar in Minnesota win term after term in districts that you would expect to have high levels of freeperism, judging from their demographics. (DeFazio's district contains the city of Eugene, but the surrounding area is full of ornery libertarians.) Recall also, that the late Paul Wellstone managed to earn the love of both peace activists and the VFW with his reputation for both integrity and feistiness.

They mute the social issues. DeFazio votes against gun control, which is the key to a rural freeper's heart. Kucinich used to vote anti-choice and Oberstar still does--and in that respect, they are in line with their constituents. They're all down to earth and approachable.

If the Dems want to win back the working class and the rural areas, they cannot go out with social issues as their primary focus. This doesn't mean abandoning any genuinely held beliefs on social issues, but leading with a coherent vision in the form of an economic program for the rebuilding of America.