Dems need to win.

[forgethell]

both the base and expand our appeal. I know I'm gonna get flamed. Flame away.


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=171&contentid=253206

[Deja Q]

1. It'd be easier for me to get a boyfriend or even a wife.

In other words, it's IMPOSSIBLE.

[forgethell]

2. Then we

will continue to lose. We have the most to lose by not making needed changes. The satisfied middle is, well, satisfied with things the way they are, and the leaders we have. Are you??

[ananda]

3. No NEED

The Dems don't NEED to do anything except remember how to be Democrats, representing the people and not big business.

As Noah Chomsky said in the latest article posted on the Greatest page, both parties are now the parties of business.

Sue

[forgethell]

5. I don't understand??

We're going to sue our way to electoral victory. that has certainly worked well so far.

[Discord]

6. your not all democrats anymore.

the sooner people realize this, the better off you'll be.

[me b zola]

40. Escussie?? Who is not all Dems anymore??

If you are speaking about the Democratic party, well, in a sense you are correct because we have been infected by the DLC, who insists on turning our party into retropubs.

I'm sick to death of of people who have no idea or no respect for Democratic values telling us what is wrong with our party & how we should fix the problems.

The problem is simple...corporate whores who wish to pimp our once great party.

The remedy is simple, as well...vote out dinos and stand up for Democratic values.

[mcscajun]

4. I can't credit your premise.

We only lost for one reason: the game is rigged.

We have a population zonked out on American Idol, Survivor, Desperate Housewives and The Apprentice; lied to by the Corporate Media and those in power; whipped up and divided by hate radio and Republican 'wedge issues', and an election system rigged by businesses and RW operatives.

You don't expand your appeal by abandoning your core principles; all we'd do if we did that is lose the base and, not only elections, but our souls.

[forgethell]

7. Yep,

all the yahoos have a vote that counts every bit as much as yours, and there are more of them.

We can't implement our core values if we are not in power. I have long advocated pulling back, and going slow to educate the masses. It worked well for so long, and then we finally over-stepped and went too fast. Now here we are with minimal power (filibuster and a remnant of liberal judges), and that is going to be taken away from us this year.

It won't hurt me, I'm Anglo, Christian, male, and straight. But I feel for those that aren't when we no longer have any power to protect them.

[Dave Sund]

11. We're not losing because of the game being rigged...

And that is exactly the kind of attitude that causes us to lose. We can't just say that we lost only because of electoral fraud. Because, if that were true, how could we ever win anywhere? If the right wing was capable of rigging elections so easily, surely they wouldn't have just started doing it on the presidential level five years ago?

We are trying to explain away our deepest faults and the ignorance of the overall electorate by claiming that it was rigged.

The deck is stacked against us. But it's not because of electoral fraud. I won't deny that there are aspects of the system that need fixed, not the least of which is the presence of partisan overseers of the electoral process, but they are minimal compared to the very real factors causing us to lose...

The public is uninformed. And it's our fault. We're not getting the truth out there. We aren't playing the media's game. The media isn't inherently biased towards the right or the left. You ask anyone on this site, they'll tell you otherwise. You ask anyone from a right-wing site, they'll be sure to tell you the opposite of whatever anyone here says. The truth is neither: the media is more concerned with entertainment than information. The national media isn't concerned with pushing either agenda, they are concerned with what sells. And what sells is conflict.

I won't deny that the media is complicit in the lies of the right-wing by allowing them to spout their lies without doing their duty as objective journalists and calling them on it. But, you know what? Our side is complicit in the same regard, because we aren't countering the lies with facts. In the runup to the Iraq war, did our party do anything to stop it? Or did Tom Daschle step aside and endorse the travesty to come? Chuck Hagel, a Republican, put up more of a fight against the war in Iraq than the leader of our party at that point. And even he voted for the use of force.

And, sure, there were a few outspoken opponents on our side, the usual liberals. But in the end, when it mattered, when we had a Democratic majority in the Senate, we had far more Liebermans and Daschles than Byrds and Kennedys. Even John Kerry voted to authorize the use of force. Our own party, and even some liberals, did not question the lies that were told to the American people in order to justify this war. So, if the Democratic Party did not question it, until it was too late, why should the American people?

You are right about one thing: It's time we stop being ashamed of being Democrats. Kerry lost because too many people saw him as a flip-flopper. I recall Matt Conneally being asked in the NE-01 debate who he was going to vote for. Conneally never said. Even though, as a Democrat, it was painfully obvious, Conneally ran away from Kerry. And he still lost. Now, this isn't a cause and effect thing, either. Conneally didn't get a hell of a lot of money from the DNC, although I think the DCCC may have given him some support. Conneally felt he had to run away from the party; and the party, apparently, didn't even care about a district that had been in Republican control for decades, despite a moderate Democrat running against an extreme conservative for an open seat.

We need to quit running away from each other. The lack of establishment support for Howard Dean is troubling, though not surprising. I can tell you one thing, though. State Democratic Party organizations in red states are thrilled with what Dean intends to do. Dean's already putting money into party organizations in states that haven't seen any large funding for years (Nebraska, for example).

We'll get election reform on the table in 2006, when we take back Congress.

[me b zola]

41. "we can't just say that we lost because of electoral fraud"

The more I read from you DLCers, the more I believe that you are all freepers, and not just freepin at DU, but freepin within the Democratic Party.

Spare me. Really. To me, you all are worse than the cons because you operate in stealth.

Flame me if you want, I'm so sure that you will, as none of you know any shame.

[Dave Sund]

42. You assume too much

and you make me sick.

I hate the DLC, but here's the thing:

I live in a red state, go to school in another red state, and I'm bombarded by YOU people saying MY Senator Ben Nelson isn't good enough to be a Democrat.

I don't know why you feel you have to brand me a freeper for taking a reasonable position. People attacked me for arguing that we shouldn't be calling Bush Hitler.

If you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that we lost cleanly, then you will continue to lose. You're also misquoting me, leaving out the "only," which changes the meaning of what was said. I say we can't just say we lost ONLY because of electoral fraud. It's possible it was stolen, sure. I don't put it past them. It's also possible that it was a clean win for Bush. Point is all the votes weren't counted, and that's something that needs to change. But if you're going to claim that we don't have any problems, you're dead wrong.

Of course we should reform election law in this country. But if you think that's going to solve all our problems, you're a fool.

[me b zola]

46. If you are lucky enough to have health insurence,

then maybe I won't make you feel so sick.;-)

I was not responding to any posts that you have made previously. Its just that we are so bomb-barded by DLCers and their views that it is difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

For me, it is difficult for me for to understand any Dem that has witness to what has been occurring in our Nation and not connect the dots. I came to DU because the results of the '04 elections did not make sense. Since then, my eyes have been opened to many other issues that I did not believe needed illumination--oh how I was wrong.


The problems that I see with the Democatic Party are simply that they refuse to stand up against the bullies that slander our good name, and that we have allowed the DLC to infiltrate our ranks.

Truely, if you are just someone trying to figure it all out, I did not mean to offend you. But there are those who have infiltrated the Democratic Party who mean harm, and those are the people that I have HUGE issues with.

Can't we all just get along?





Spell check not working

[Dave Sund]

47. Yeah

I get a little defensive. It's fine. We're all on the same team, here.

I don't think saying "it was stolen, we were right" does anything to help us. In the eyes of most Americans, it makes us look like whiners, while doing nothing to solve the very real problem we have with conveying our message. I am not suggesting we pander to the right. No. I am suggesting that we move on, get our message on track, win in 2006, and get election reform through, then. Election reform is important. But it won't mean anything if we don't improve our media image. The media isn't an active agent out to destroy the Democratic Party, as many here would like to believe. It's a passive agent, emphasizing conflict and allowing the right wing to get away with their lies by presenting spin as news and not excercising journalistic responsibility. It's not that the media has malicious intent. It's that they're incompetent. Their constant focus on Michael Jackson should prove as much.

[welshTerrier2]

8. Al From ... what a total asshole

From deserves much of the blame for the state the Party is in ...

first, look at this hypocrisy:

A party gets only one chance every four years to define itself for the voters. That comes in the presidential nominating process, and that definition is determined by the party's presidential nominee and what he or she stands for. Ironically, the best thing a party chairman can do is to keep his head down and his nose to the grindstone, and give potential candidates a clear field to have that debate. ... I agree ... how then does From rationalize hand-picking Casey to run against Santorum ... what happened to his call to let the Democratic voters decide ???

but the real mistake, the whopper From makes, is his belief that Democrats need to out "macho" the Republicans ...

Until we recapture the muscular, progressive internationalism of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy -- and convince voters that national security is our first priority, not just something we talk about until we can change the subject to more comfortable domestic issues -- we'll have a hard time convincing them to return us to national power.

That is why a distinguished group of Democratic elected officials and thinkers has signed an open letter urging Democrats to put security first, because the "American people will not trust leaders who will not vigorously defend their ideals." <skip>

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, and others have suggested that NATO be given an entirely new mission, to win the war on terror.

From is advocating more military, more aggression, more war ... if that's where the Democratic Party goes over the next year or two, count me out ... way out ... what From fails to understand is that those who fight against the U.S. do so as a direct result of the terrorism America imposes on the rest of the world ... take a hint, Al, we're the bad guys ... we are the direct cause of the "terrorism" you want to fight against ... MY Democratic Party will not put winning elections ahead of doing what is right ... MY Democratic Party understands that getting our own corrupt government under control will make the American people safer ... MY Democratic Party understands that we already have a $400 billion Pentagon budget that is bankrupting this country and making Americans less safe ... MY Democratic Party will not tolerate From's "macho posturing" just so we can win votes ... MY Democratic Party understands that the road to peace, safety and strength lies with truth and diplomacy, not muscular militarism ...

Fuck you Al From ... you've done enough damage ...

[Wilms]

9. .

[sandnsea]

10. bla bla bla, blah blah

If they can't say that in ten words, we're fucked. They still don't get it. No identity. No benefits. No voters.

[marcologico]

12. We won the last two elections. We need to count the votes.

The message is fine IMHO and nobody's confused. Brainwashed, yes, but message rejiggering is a game for con artists which is why the GOP has to play it.

[Dave Sund]

13. You don't speak up, how are you possibly going to win?

The people obviously aren't hearing you, no matter how much you think they are. Otherwise we wouldn't be in a mess where one state could so easily swing an election.

[marcologico]

14. Sure, a louder message would help, but whose mind would it have changed?

Mr. and Mrs. Pro-life in Ohio? I doubt it. People opposed to social welfare and civil rights are going to vote GOP, even if they benefit from Dem programs.

We're getting the votes, they're just not getting counted. That's job one IMHO.

[Dave Sund]

15. The message is important

Even if we win Ohio, we still lost the popular vote. Even if we win Ohio, we still have a narrow electoral victory. It should never have been that close. The defeatist attitude of: we'll never convince them, so let's not even try, is killing this party. And the sooner we realize that we have to start TRYING to win the hearts and minds of these people, the sooner we will.

Most Catholics will vote for a Democrat, anyway. The rest are persuadable. The evangelical Christians, yeah, they're probably lost to us. In the south, it's not really about abortion. It's a generational thing. People who were still pissed at LBJ for the Civil Rights Act, who converted to the Republican Party, their children grew up being taught to vote Republican. You think support for abortion rights changed their mind?

Crafting a better message doesn't mean changing our ideals. But like it or not, we have to play the media game. The fact that the Republicans are playing is exactly why we have to. Because, if we don't, their lies go unchallenged. If we don't, they will continue to win.

[marcologico]

17. Challenging the lies would be helpful, but it wouldn't change anybody's

mind. People inclined to believe that Kerry is the anti-christ because he's a Massachusetts Democrat are going to find reasons to believe it whether faith-based flacks and the SBVT give them cover or not.

That's why I don't think tweaking the message is helpful. Civil rights and social welfare, and you can add peace, justice, jobs and healthcare if you want, are never going to sell in Dixie no matter how much Lakoff they're shellacked with.

[Dave Sund]

18. But you seem to assume that

anyone who voted against Kerry this time around was 100% against any Democrat we were gonna run out there, and was not going to be convinced otherwise.

This is wrong. What's more, you know it. I'm a fan of Kerry, but his message was NOT resonating with the American public, and to claim that we don't need to change our message is ignoring the facts.

[marcologico]

19. I forgot to mention that I think we DID win Ohio and also a majority.

The evidence is piling up and whether it comes to anything or not it's hard to deny.

Anyway I don't think Dems are going to toss out civil rights or abortion so we're just going to have to work on counting the votes we've already got, which are enough to win.

[Dave Sund]

20. AGAIN

You're assuming that the people who didn't vote for us WON'T vote for us.

[marcologico]

21. I'm assuming Kerry did as well as any Dem could have done

or is likely to do. He had huge levels of support and did better than Clinton in '92 and about as well as Gore in 2000, and Gore wasn't running against a 9/11 "war president" incumbent.

Maybe you think there's a Super Dem lurking out there who could do better in '08 but I sincerely doubt it.

[Dave Sund]

22. Hold on...

Both the other guys you mentioned WON the popular vote.

You want to ask anyone here if Kerry did as well as any Democrat could have done, I think 90% of them will tell you no. And those who don't have a rather pessimistic view of our party.

So, you're basically telling me winning in the South is hopeless.

Kerry failed. It shouldn't have been close. Bush WASN'T a popular wartime President. He was just a wartime President.

[marcologico]

23. Clinton didn't win a popular majority in '92 (he got 43.3%).

But I strongly suspect that Kerry did. And by any realistic measure, Kerry did better than Gore, because he kept the Nader vote to a minimum even facing considerable opposition over the war.

Most criticism here is over his IWR vote. But Edwards also voted for it, Dean endorsed it, and Kerry didn't lose any votes because of it. So I don't see how anyone else would have done better.


p.s. Dean on the war (12/15/03): "The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world. Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be brought swiftly to justice for his crimes. His capture is a testament to the skill and courage of U.S. forces and intelligence personnel."

link: http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002698.html

edit to clarify terminology.

[Dave Sund]

24. Excuse me...

But Clinton DID win the popular vote, he just didn't get a majority. There is a difference, one you failed to recognize.

You think Kerry WON the popular vote? I mean, seriously?

[marcologico]

25. Yes, I do think Kerry won FL, OH, NM, and probably a few others.

Also don't forget that Clinton had to demagogue on the death penalty and civil rights (executing Ricky Ray Rector, insulting Sister Soljah), and was urging Kerry to demagogue on gay marriage. Kerry refused and still got a bigger share of the electorate than Bill, even WITH the fraud.

[Dave Sund]

27. You didn't answer my question

You think Kerry won the popular vote?

You're comparing Clinton's 43% in a three-way race to Kerry's 49% in a two-way race. Apples and oranges. What's more is you know it.

[marcologico]

28. Yes, I do. And for what they're worth, the exit polls confirmed it (n/t)

[Dave Sund]

31. For what they're worth...

Exit polls aren't worth a whole lot. I keep hearing about proof Kerry won. I've yet to see any proof. Exit polls don't prove anything, and you can't sell exit polls as proof.

I can believe that there was electoral impropriety on the part of their side. Can you possibly believe that we would have lost a clean election?

If you can't even entertain that possibility, then your attitude is exactly the attitude that's killing our party.

[marcologico]

29. on your 2nd point: the 3-way race in '92 favored Clinton, in '04, Bush

Perot split Bush Senior's vote. Nader split Kerry's.

[Dave Sund]

32. Perot did split the vote

But not ALL of Perot's voters would have voted for Bush. Nader got less than 1% of the popular vote, so how can you possibly compare his impact to Perot's?

[marcologico]

34. The fact that Nader got 1% of Kerry's vote says that Kerry was a popular

candidate who effectively neutralized the Nader vote. That's why I think he did as well as any Dem could have done or can do in '08.

By any fair assessment, billionaire businessman Perot is a conservative who cut deeply into fellow conservative Bush Senior's vote in '92.

[Dave Sund]

35. We're in serious trouble

If Kerry's failure is the best we can do.

I can't see how you can possibly spin it that way. Nader's 1% was a combination of many factors, including the historic tendency for third party candidates to get a decreasing percentage of the vote in repeated runs, and the absolute commitment of the left to the Democratic Party that year.

You fail to mention how that relates to the middle. We come up with a candidate who appears stronger on defense, we woulda creamed Bush.

[marcologico]

36. It wasn't a rout, it was a loss, and more likely a theft.

Maybe you're thinking Clark would have appealed to the South and gotten some of Bush's "security" vote. Possibly, but the fact is he didn't make it through the primaries. He'll get another chance in '08.

If anything, Clark might have helped more as a veep, but Edwards pretty much earned that spot, and even he doesn't seem to have pulled much of the Dixie vote.

[Dave Sund]

37. Your entire message

is that Kerry did the best any Democrat could do against Bush.

I don't think that's true. I think Kerry could have won. I think he could have creamed Bush. But he ran a poor campaign for months, and when he finally stepped it up, it was too late. Kerry and his campaign had already conceded most of the states before the campaign even began. And THAT'S one of the mistakes we have to avoid.

[marcologico]

38. Yep, that's my analysis. I also think he won in terms of votes cast.

Votes counted are another story.

p.s. Most of the stuff we wring our hands over -- Kerry's IWR vote, his weak SBVT response -- probably made very little difference in the numbers of votes he got. People basing their votes on an SBVT commercial wouldn't have voted for Kerry no matter how much money he spent denying it.

edit--typo

[ElectricIron Sweeney]

16. Dead Democrats

What do you mean win? If you can't beat a dead horse what makes you think you can ride one, let alone win with one. Have I got the right group? The only Democrats underground are dead. The party is dead, and the people are not. The party is dead, and trying to suck the life out of every liberal, progressive, and environmentally sensitive issue it has. Let it stay dead. Don't get sick trying to get it well.

[candy331]

30. Caustic remarks but in the realm of reality, sorry die hards don't and

won't get it.. They prefer more of the same with more of the same results.

"The party is dead, and the people are not. The party is dead, and trying to suck the life out of every liberal, progressive, and environmentally sensitive issue it has. Let it stay dead. Don't get sick trying to get it well".

[welshTerrier2]

33. what then ??

what then is your prescription for progress ??

i am not sure the Democratic Party can be reconstituted into a vessel for social progress ... but, if we do not take over it's vacated shell of power and bend it to our own will, what then is our strategy ???

criticizing the Democratic Party as an institution is fine if you offer viable alternatives to progress ... got any ??

[ElectricIron Sweeney]

48. Prescription

Like a guy said once: Rednecks are red because the democrats kept them that way. Democrats in power are no better than republicans. They helped republicans to beat labor and commies and now surprise surprise they look left, now that the left is dead. Your Kennedy line is typical. Dead Kennedy's, dead democrats, FDR kneejerks.
The frustration of the people is the result of an antiquated government system made worse by the changes of congress and court, but dissatisfaction is turned to hate and hate is turned to votes so nothing much will change until it all changes.
What should we do? act. revolt. obey the law and expect others to do so. Be a democratic over ground. Drive the speed limit, the lower end, and expect others to do so. Pay your taxes and expect others, especially corporations to do so as well. Don't buy the bullshit of two party rule. Demand proportional representation that is more like the government we started with. We should have one representative for every thirty thousand people. The house has limited the number, and it would not take a change of Constitution to make it right. With staff and all we have plenty of people in dc. What we need is more votes, more representatives, and more democracy. A committee is no better than its head.The whole government is our head, and if the head is sick the body will not be much better. The democratic party is not the answer. Democracy tending toward the direct democracy that our technology makes possible is the answer.

[welshTerrier2]

49. but it's all theoretical

i have no problem at all with a revolutionary vision ... there is no "spirit of renewing our democracy" in most of our citizens and real change will not be possible until there is ...

so the question i still ask you is, how do we bring the changes you envision to life ... to say technology is the answer falls far short of a battle plan ...

my view, unlike yours, sees the Democratic Party as a power structure that could potentially be exploited to our own ends ... whether we like it or not, for the time being we do have a two-party system ... that's where the power is ... i don't argue that we should ONLY work within the system; i argue that we need to work both inside and outside the system ...

and i don't know that we will ever be able to effect radical change through the staid institutions within the Democratic Party ... frankly, i'm skeptical we'll be able to take over the Party and make the changes we seek ... but still, rioting in the streets, joining the Socialist Workers' Party, calling for revolution, what does this really accomplish ??? and calling for "proportional representation" as you suggested is a fine idea ... it's a "democratic" idea ... again, the question is how do you get it implemented?

some of us may be well-suited to writing and laying the theoretical underpinnings for change, but we also need actions to actually make the changes ... too many on DU criticize the writers and, as they call them, "armchair philosophers" ... i don't ... those providing the ideas and the maps make a very real contribution ... but so do those who get out on the field of battle and actually implement the plan ...

i guess the bottom line for me, regardless of what tactics are used to fight for change, is that without an educated, informed electorate, we aren't going to succeed ... whether we use the channels of the Democratic Party or not, outlining our values and the issues and policies that we care about, and then communicating them to the American people has to be our first task ... campaigning for Democrats, Greens, Socialists or anyone else is all well and good but without a long-term vision and an inspired constituency, any electoral gains we make will be very short-lived ...

[Skidmore]

26. From and the DLC can keep flapping their gums.

They don't stand for substance but for the same empty style the Rs are into now. Their bandwagon is the last I'd jump on.

[Clarkie1]

39. You are absolutely correct.

But we don't have to shortchange our values and policies to broaden our base. We need to reach out and educate. We need a candidate those on the "other side" will be willing to listen to because he is someone they implicitly trust, respect, and admire. We need someone who can change minds and open minds.

Vote for the candidate in 08' you think can best accomplish that in the general election. That's all I ask.

[Bluehammer]

45. YOU are absolutely right...

because it is EXACTLY education that is imperative. Belief is the foundation of political opinion, and belief is founded entirely on knowledge. Knowledge is founded on education. People vote for Bush because they don't know better, because the media is infused with pro-government, Foxesque syrup; so why SHOULD people who are unaware of its fallacies think otherwise? America's culture is mediacentric to the point of what will ultimately be a perilous ignorance. Isolation. Hence the Decline and Fall of the American Empire. Mission accomplished.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. From and Reed have been trying to explain what Democrats stand for

for years.

Unfornately for them, they have failed to convince a lot of Democrats that the Democrats stand for that.

[Lone Pawn]

44. Pity nobody wants to hear this.

We'd all rather blame everything but ourselves--and we'd all rather be pure than win elections.

[GOPBasher]

50. That's all well and good, but when it comes to national security, he

didn't mention the Iraq War. I certainly agree that we should be committed to fighting terrorism. So why did we fight the Iraq War, which made us LESS safe? It diverted our troops and money away from the actual terrorists, and it helped create more terrorists by giving those evil recruiters a great sales pitch.

[welshTerrier2]

51. Exactly !!

America needs to be safer, not tougher ... From's emphasis on "my dad can beat up your dad" politics will be seen as nothing but political posturing ... it's an "insincere" position ... it's not only bad policy; it's bad politics too ...

the US can wipe out the entire planet with its technological weapons ... being tough and spending limited budget dollars on defense doesn't make us any safer ... what we need is a platform that emphasizes our cooperative role in the community of nations ... that's the right policy for America, not From's macho pretense ...

From and his party insiders are finished ... they've done their damage and proved they are unable to lead the Party in the right direction ... it's time for a change and changes there shall be ...

[Bluehammer]

52. Well said.

[welshTerrier2]

54. thanks ...

welcome to DU, Bluehammer !!!

[WI_DEM]

53. what's to flame--of course we need to win our base and

win converts among swing voters.

[marcologico]

55. From and Reed are definitely on the wrong track.

If I read them correctly, they're saying we should back off from gay marriage, abortion, and civil rights, get tough on "terror," and play the GOP game of "promoting family-friendly tax policies."

In other words, Clinton's trick of triangulating wedge issues and pumping up Wall Street every way possible, including free trade.

I really don't think that will work any more. Peace and hard-core anti-corporate populism will probably be better selling points in the next two elections, in blue and red states IMHO.