LBJ: nobody ever won elections on what they're against. Do we know what...

[AP]

...Democrats are FOR yet?

A couple days ago I posted a thread saying that I've noticed, talking to voters, that people suddenly aren't talking about issues. They just want to jump on the bandwagon because they hate Bush so much.

I've also said that this is how Nixon won in '72. He made sure that the person running had defined himself according to what he was against. When Nixon removed the things by which the Dems had defined themselves, voters lost their reason to vote Dem.

So, do DU'ers feel that Dems have in this primary, through debate and comparison and contrast, sufficiently defined what they are FOR -- what their identity is? Or have the Democrats simply defined themselves as being against Bush, and in terms of Bush?

"I just want to get Bush out of there" is the response I hear which is a substitute for any discussion of issues which would establish what Democrats stand for. This is dangerous.

The Democrats MUST come out of the primaires with an IDENTITY which is so much more than just "electability."

Regardless of who gets the nomination, I think it's really important that Edwards wins Wisconsin so that Kerry and Edwards HAVE to have the debate about what we stand for before the primaries head into the major media markets of NY and CA.

In fact, I think if Kerry wins WI, it reduces the chance of Democratic victory in November.

If Edwards wins, it increase the chance of the candidate coming out of Super Tuesday ahead winning in Nov, regardless of whom that candidate is.

Remember, the primaries are the last chance the Dems get to frame the debate about themselves. Once we get into the general election, the media will be entirely on Bush's side. The primaries will be the only opportunity to arm voters with ideas and images which they can take into the GE. The idea that the bandwagon has value is not one that I think will get Democrats very far in the GE.

[SoFlaJets]

1. Oh yea

just listen to Kerrys speech last night at Mason.That vision thing really troubles the GOP

[AP]

6. In a paragraph, what is Kerry FOR?

National security, health care, and, primarily, the idea that he can beat Bush, founded simply on the fact that he's ahead in the polls.

I'm not sure that's enough.

We still need a debate about ideas and identity (the Democratic party's).

What do you think the Democratic Party stands for? Equality of opportunity on a level playing field? Middle class opportunity? That we're better off when we lift up the least among us?

Do you think any of those ideas have been adequately articulated yet?

I think we lose if we come out of the primaries and people don't think that's the stuff we stand for.

[SoFlaJets]

14. a simple answer

just about everthing that Bush is against go do a little research and check your own heart AP and then tell me what YOU stand for-with all due respect to you

[AP]

15. I just told you what I stand for. See my post above.

The equal opportunity stuff...that's how I think the Dems SHOULD define themselves.

I think "I'm for what Bush is against" is a losing proposition.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ewagner]

2. An early lesson in Politics

That I had to learn was to give the voters something to vote for

The old formula still works:

1. Point with pride...to you achievements/plans/proposals
2. View with concern...what the other party is doing
3. Promise

Haven't seen too much of that in the primaries. Gep tried to do it with bringing up the successes of the Clinton initiatives. Edwards is doing the "positive message" thing but it's getting stale with the media. (I admit he has written his plans but they aren't getting the play that they should.) We need one or all of our candidates to articulate a brave, new initiative that grabs the imagination of the voters.

[LiberalBushFan]

3. Trying to excuse Edwards's pro-Bush attitude?

nice try

[AP]

7. What's a foktard?

What did Edwards do that was pro-bush? Voting against him more than Kerry or anyone else running certainly doesn't qualify him for that characterization.

Are you thinking about IWR? Well, Kerry made the same vote, so I can't be making excuses about that if I'm contrasting Edwards to Kerry.

4. Give it time

It's all in how things are phrased.
for example
Being against unilateral preemptive war means you are in favor of multilateral diplomatic alliances.

If the FOR rhetoric doesn't start before the convention, I'm sure it will after.

[mmonk]

5. the less the dems frame a debate

on both issues (domestic AND foreign policy), the less the chances of victory.

[AP]

9. More important than frames, now, is CHARACTERIZATION and IDENTIY.

You know what Friends and Star Wars are so popular? Good characters.

Now's the chance for the Dems to characterize themselves and to establish their identities.

Defining yourself in terms of Bush is a losing strategy. LBJ knew it. Nixon knew it.

[Kanary]

8. I've been thinking of this for over a week

I, also, keep hearing all the rhetoric against Bush, but haven't really heard any proposals that light any fires.

I guess my problem is that I followed Dennis Kucinich early on, and am very clear what his proposals are, and am disappointed that there is so little coming from other candidates, especially the current front-runner.

I guess, once again, it's up to the voters to press for more details. If we don't, we're likely to get mush.

Kanary

[zbdent]

10. Do you really believe that Reagan was elected in 1980 based on

what he was "for"????

The nation was pissed off about Iran holding 53 of our people hostage. We were facing a second "oil crisis" in the decade.

The "Reagan" issues is just whitewashing what was going on at that time in US history. Carter was trying to get a peaceful solution for getting our people out (and yes, there was the ill-fated helicopter rescue attempt), while Reagan was running the "Bomb 'em back to the stone ages" wave. Similar to freepers' ideas of Iraq in January 2002.

[AP]

12. Oh yeah. He's a great example. Morning in America. Cowboy. Handsome.

They had a great set of images they used with him.

He didn't go around advertising himself as the anti-Carter. Even while Republicans were sabotaging Carter on the nat'l security front with the Iran hostages, voters weren't thinking "Carter is dangerous, I'll vote for anyone to get him out."

They were thinking, we need someone who makes us feel good and proud to be an American, and here's someone who is defined by all those qualities.

Of course it was a lie. But people had a very coherent image of Reagan that was self-defined (and which contrasted well to Carter, thanks to circumstances under the control of Republicans -- the hostages, particularly).

[Terwilliger]

11. Another demonstration of how bad things are for Democrats

their best hope is for Bush to virtually implode

[polpilot]

13. Like...........'Maybe Bush won't be the nominee?'

Hope there's a back up plan??!!??

Dean '04...

[Terwilliger]

18. what?

[Monte Carlo]

17. I think Kerry's stumping about a new fuel source and energy independence

... is a very good start. I think most here would agree that our energy consumption leads to a great many of our problems at home and abroad. A new energy source not dependent on fossil fuels would be a GREAT campaign issue, especially against the Oilman and Vice Oilman.

[AP]

21. I don't think that captures the core reasons people are democrats.

It's like Gore running only on a prescription drug plan.

[cosmicdot]

19. you raise a reasonable concern

much of it can be done by how the advertising is done; how the over-all message is conveyed ...

are enough people involved in helping to formulate the Big Picture?
I'm volunteering thoughts here ... for whatever ... because of your thread ... suppose some of America's greatest minds are ... for whatever ... somehow ignored in the process ... and, don't get asked to join the brain-storm.

the people of this country need a refresher course in history ... they need to revisit some lessons which they may have slept through in high school ... use ads to do this; and make the identification of we're here to continue progress in America, not the non-direction of the BFEE ... they're only out for themselves ...

they need to be made aware of similarities in our past history with the Bush-Cheney name put in proper perspective as in they're doing it again but only bigger and more corrupt ... the people must know what is at risk ... enough of off-the-cuff history revision done by the craftiness of Rush Limbaugh and his contemporaries ... people need focus, orientation, re-conditioned of the promise made by our Founding Principles, and the history which has so many landmarks of human advances/progress in its short span ...

... a progress ... a spirit ... which seems to have gone to pasture after Bobby was killed, and, of course, MLK ...

JFK offered us the torch which had been passed from one generation to another, challenging us to aspire to ideals, not corporate proxies ...

I feel my covered wagon was left somewhere post-1968, with a broken wheel ... adjacent to a dimming torch ...


I wouldn't hesitate at all to incorporate and superimpose history cases which can help carry the story ... and, definitely call upon the talent that we see daily on the Net, a talent which has a special skill for delivering the message in a flash movie ...

We need Voices walking the talk ... true integrity ... no hypocrisy ... you can't have it both ways ... you can't be a populist AND a corporatist ... we need unified voices talking the vision and not being obstructionist to peers and colleagues in the public dialog and forum ... if we disagree as much as many of our Democrat representatives disagree between themselves, someone's shown up at the wrong Party ...

remember seeing Bobby Kennedy walking in front holding hands marching with protesters ... that created quite a bond ...

I'm thinking back to a couple of Gay Right marches, and trying to recall what elected officials were there ... Jesse Jacksons probably was ... were any Senators there? Do they need engraved invitations?

We must have a clear mission statement.

This is always fun ... looking back to see how the New Dealers did it.
Those weren't fun times either.


Platform of 1936:

Democratic Party Platform

June 25, 1936



We hold this truth to be self-evident -- that the test of a representative government is its ability to promote the safety and happiness of the people.


We hold this truth to be self-evident -- that twelve years of Republican leadership left our nation sorely stricken in body, mind and spirit; and that three years of Democratic leadership have put it back on the road to restored health and prosperity.

We hold this truth to be self-evident -- that twelve years of Republican surrender of the dictatorship of a privileged few have supplanted by a Democratic leadership which has returned the people themselves to the place of authority, and has revived in them new faith and restored the hope which they had almost lost.

We hold this truth to be self-evident -- that this three-year recovery in all the basic values of life and the reestablishment of the American way of living has been brought by humanizing the policies of the Federal Government as they affect the personal, financial, industrial and agricultural well-being of the American people.

~snip~
http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/lloyd/projects/newdeal/democ36.htm

[paulk]

20. I think with this election

Bush has been such an incompetent moron that he, himself, HAS become an issue. I've never seen the kind of anger toward a president that I've seen expressed toward Bush by people I know.

Also, I'm not convinced that the media will be 100% on Bush's side. GW's recent slide in the polls was triggered by David Kay's admission of no WMD. (there's an interesting blurb on this at JMM's Talking Points) The point is, Bush has lost credibility - and once he loses that the press will see him as fair game.

I think that three candidates did a good job of defining what we as Democrats are for, those being Kerry, Edwards, and Clark. Once we choose a nominee there will be time to hone that message for the general election.