Why Dennis and Hillary might be doomed

[pnwmom]

and so might the Democratic party, if we don't find another great communicator. With the swing voters, it's not about policy -- it's about gut reaction.

This is why, more and more, I think Obama and Edwards are our best choices.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-neffinger/democrats-vs-science-wh_b_44733.html

SNIP

Many Democrats are still mystified too, even those with long political experience. How can that be? Aren't we the party of science, smart people and ideas? We are, but that has its own perils too. We are Democrats because we want to see the world become a better place, and believe we have policy ideas that will help. It is our strength, but also our weakness: We have such a keen understanding of how important sound policy thinking is in governing that it's hard for us to imagine that anyone wouldn't consider the issues above all else when casting a ballot. Our powerful love of policy blinds us to the experience of the average swing voter.

Which is the second great irony here: Democrats feel wronged when swing voters let emotion cloud their view of reality, but our side often doesn't grasp the reality of how swing voters make up their minds because we can't get past our own emotional attachment to the power of ideas. We accuse swing voters of voting capriciously, irrationally, but if we were only rational ourselves, we could easily see why they do.

In fact, unlike blinkered Democrats, in some ways swing voters are acting perfectly rationally by voting with their gut (yet another irony, if you're still counting). For voters who don't pay close attention to issues, it's not easy to figure out which positions are best (not least because conservative think tanks and media do an excellent job at muddying the waters of debates democrats would otherwise win). So what can a casual voter do? Go with what they know. Every day they make judgments about people they interact with, size 'em up, trust their instincts. So they use the same method to pick a candidate.

But if you're not really engaged with the issues, does it even make a difference to you who wins? Actually, it does. Because as long as that person is in office, he (usually a he, still) will speak to you through your car radio. He'll appear on your TV. He'll be joked about by comedians, discussed among your friends and relatives. Your kids may even ask you what you think of him. And if you don't feel generally positive about this person, all of that is going to be more unpleasant than it has to be. And that definitely matters to you.

SNIP

[station agent]

1. Not sure Kucinich has the noteriety to go by his first name in a post title (n/t)

[DemBones DemBones]

4. He has name recognition,

not notoriety. Big difference. I think most DUers know who Dennis is.

[pnwmom]

5. I think he does on DU -- especially when linked with Hillary.

But if I'm wrong, then that's one more reason why maybe he shouldn't be running . . . .

[Poiuyt]

2. I couldn't agree more

Nobody votes on the issues, it's what kind of image the candidate projects.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. In other words, a pretty face and making people

think "I'd like to have a beer with him/her" are more important than experience or positions on the issues. That's the Chris Matthews school of judging politicians and I don't see why Democrats want to buy into it.

Remember also that Arianna is a former Republican, or maybe she is still promoting the GOP agenda while pretending to be a Democrat?

[pnwmom]

10. Democrats might not want to buy into it.

That's why we manage to produce candidates who lose 49 out of 50 states. We're too in love with our own ideas to see how little difference they make to average voters.

[AshevilleGuy]

22. BINGO. That second sentence should be read by everyone.

As I have said, ad infinitum, WE are political junkies; most people are NOT. They process all this far differently.

[pnwmom]

12. Fred Thompson has an ugly face. But he may be a communicator.

Some people obviously think so, but I haven't seen him enough to know.

[jcrew2001]

14. Image is 50% to 100% of a presidency

Most Americans don't have the time to obsess over policy decisions. Its an overall image of the candidate that can connect with the voter for 10-30 minutes at the time.

A voter will then decide after the 30 minutes if he wants to continue listening to that candidate's ideas, or whether to discount that candidate.

If it was only about ideas, then why elect a Presdient at all, and just rely on a machine to process the policies that we want enacted. That might work actually.

[Redneck Socialist]

19. Has nothing to do with Democrats buying into it.

That's how a large mass of people vote. :shrug: Like it or not, a winning candidate needs to have that "He/She seems to be a pretty cool guy,gal" feel to win. Not too many people are going to vote for someone that they don't "like."

[AshevilleGuy]

21. How else do you think GWB got close enough to steal the 2000 election?

No, he doesn't have a pretty face, but how could he have gotten 49% of the popular vote based on issues and experience?? Of course it was the Beer Test, added to the thorough trashing and ridiculing of Gore by the media.

Yeah, 80 or 90 percent of voters use issues as criteria at some level, but the critical 10 or 20 percent of the rest of the voters do not. Matthews is right; it's happened too many time for him to be wrong.

If it were only about issues, Dems would always win.

[Poiuyt]

25. I didn't say "a pretty face", I said "image"

That's why I'm most worried about Fred Thompson on the Republican side. He's not handsome, but he does have that look of authority about him.

I think that Obama also has the right "image," but in a different way. He conveys a sense of hope and freshness and unity that America will need after Bush.

[pnwmom]

26. I feel that way about Obama, too, Poiuyt.

He seems like a fresh start. Edwards does too, IMO.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. Why don't we let the voters decide?

"Another great communicator"? Does this mean Dems need a Reagan? I never heard anyone else called that, though of course it was all media hype.

[pnwmom]

8. Bill Clinton was frequently referred to in those terms.

And John Kennedy had that personality, even if that term wasn't yet in common usage.

Why not let the voters decide? Because if we're not careful in choosing our candidate, the voters might very well choose another Repub simply because he comes across as the guy you'd "rather have a beer with."

As swing voters said about Bush.

The sad truth is, policy wonks don't tend to win. And if they somehow manage to (like Jimmy Carter), they don't get reelected.

[jcrew2001]

15. Al Gore is more interested in policy and never

liked the politicking and meeting crowds, he's said so himself.

[DemBones DemBones]

16. I don't remember the media ever praising Clinton's

communication skills the way they praised Reagan's or W's, much less calling him "The Great Communicator" as they called Reagan. Democrats always recognized Bill's superior communication skills but the media were too busy nosing into his private life.

The press said Kennedy had "charisma." And in those days, reporters didn't report about a politician's mistresses, unless one fell into the Potomac, as Wilbur Mills' exotic dancer girlfriend did. The press knew about JFK's extramarital activities, and FDR's, and LBJ's, but they didn't report it because it was considered private.

Carter didn't get reelected for a number of reasons, one being that the economy went South on his watch, gas prices went up, up, up, another being that the Iranians took Americans hostage, but don't forget the dirty tricks "October Surprise" that the Reagan/Bush ticket pulled, and who was behind it.

After eight years of W, I think most voters have learned that it's not important whether you think you'd like to have a beer with a guy. If they haven't, we're "screwn" no matter who the nominee is.

[AshevilleGuy]

24. I remember the moment I KNEW he would win.

It was the second (?) debate with GHWB. A woman in the audience spoke of her hardship because of the economy. Clinton went to her and LISTENED, then spoke to her in a way she knew he understood her problems: he communicated it to her and to the TV audience in no uncertain terms. Meanwhile, Bush was looking at his watch. The next day I began making my plans to be in DC for Clinton's inaugural.

Had he been a wonk without the Common Touch, would he still have won? He is probably a genius, and smart enough to NOT let it show. It worked for him.

Which of our Dem candidates has this common touch? I think I know.

[pnwmom]

30. I remember that Town Hall debate, too. Clinton was impressive. n/t

[pnwmom]

27. The MSM praised Clinton in those terms frequently, but more in his

second term. It was his connection with average voters that saw him through the impeachment debacle.

Perhaps these skills were something Clinton developed as time went on. One writer thinks so:

https://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=37

"In politics, the late Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have both been hailed as fabulous communicators. Many have called them “naturals.” Are they? Ronald Reagan spent more than a quarter century learning lines, practicing and evaluating himself as an actor before he entered politics. If you believe Bill Clinton was always a great communicator, find the video of his speech to the 1988 Democratic National Convention in Atlanta. He delivered a long, rambling and boring lecture that got the biggest applause when he said “In conclusion.” Many wrote him off as a player in national politics, because he failed to connect with the audience. Clinton learned from this blunder and focused like a laser beam on improving his communication skills. When he thanked his party for his two terms as President during the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles, he delivered perhaps the most effective speech in recent political history.

"Some in politics believe that you either have it or you don’t. It is that magical ability to dazzle television viewers or a live audience. You may know a candidate who never practices but who can handle the toughest of questions and look like a glib leader on Meet the Press. How do you know this candidate never practices or has never been coached? Many candidates, executives, and television hosts would prefer that people consider them natural born communicators. They want you to think that their ability to dazzle and motivate is divine. This image adds to the mystique and makes people feel that they are uniquely qualified to lead. In reality, these candidates practice. They often do it secretly—and with a communication coach.

"Communication coaching combines practice with guidance. What may take a candidate weeks to accomplish by practicing solo can often be accomplished in a few hours. Communication coaching is the secret weapon of countless candidates for public office who get elected. The right coach can polish a candidate’s media and presentation ability by carefully analyzing traits that impede clarity and interfere with the candidate’s message. The coach intensively works with the candidate to improve voice tone, language, body language and to communicate clearly and concisely. Also, coaching gives the candidate skills for staying on message, answering tough questions, projecting a leadership image and motivating voters.

"The next time you see a candidate, executive or a leader who dazzles an audience, realize that person has done a lot of practicing and has been coached. Natural born communicators exist only in imaginations."

[IndyOp]

6. Dennis must have something that works - his constituents are majority Republican

And election after election he gets the votes. I saw him at the recent Health Care forum - he walked out to tepid applause and won the crowd over by speaking blunt truths.

[pnwmom]

9. Then why did he get so few votes in the 2004 primaries?

He didn't appear to be a very effective candidate then. Why is he better now?

[IndyOp]

17. Good question. I don't have the final answer, but I suspect that it has something

to do with why a majority of Americans believe George W. Bush won Florida in 2000 fair and square, why Al Gore is "stiff", and so forth: Biased media.

One of the biggest biases is that candidates who don't have BIG $$$ won't get any coverage at all. Even during debates that included all candidates in 2004, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich had to push themselves into the conversation to have an opportunity to respond to questions.

If the playing field were even so that Dennis could get his message out and was treated with respect by other candidates and the media he would get a LOT further -- how much further I don't know.

I do know that we desperately need public financing of campaigns!

[DemBones DemBones]

18. The media marginalized him because they pimp the candidates

their corporate CEOs want them to pimp. They've been pimping Hillary for years, which suggests to me that the corporate CEOs either think she can be counted on to roll over and play moderate Republican as Bill so often did, OR they don't think she has a chance in hell of winning.

Ditto for Barack, plus they get to feel good about promoting a black as well as a woman as historical firsts, just like they talked up Holy Joe as the first ever Jewish candidate on a national ticket. The one good thing about the stolen election was that there is no sitting VP Lieberman poised to win the nomination in 2008, considering how he has behaved ever since the 2000 election, beginning with the day he unilaterally spoke for Gore and said all military ballots would be counted, though it was known that there were military ballots that had been illegally cast after the election.

The media marginalized Kucinich, Moseley-Braun, and Sharpton in 2004, never took their candidacies seriously, never gave them as much time on camera. I guess Sharpton and Moseley-Braun were "too black" for them and maybe Kucinich is "too ethnic" a name.

DU has done much the same, in 2004 and 2008. Everybody's looking for a middle of the road candidate but as Jim Hightower says, there's nothing in the middle of the line but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos.

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. Pragmatism. People vote for who they think can win, not who they most like. If the primaries

underwent a major overhaul, including some form of ranked voting, I think you would see a lot of the lower tier candidates bump up.

[DemBones DemBones]

11. Excellent point. Before Dennis and Elizabeth got married,

her family of course came over from the UK from the wedding.

Her father has said he was amazed when he walked around Cleveland with Dennis and people kept coming up to thank Dennis for various things he'd done.

Elizabeth's father said he finally decided there was no way Dennis could have paid that many people just to impress his future father-in-law! :hippie:

[rinsd]

32. His constiuents are majority Republican?

Granted the districts were redrawn in 2000 but isn't Cuyahoga county pretty much his district?

Because looking at who Cuyahoga voted for President you have Democrats winning in landslides as far as the eye can see, at least back to Mondale (the last election the SOS of OH has a breakdown by county).

I do see a longtime Republican followed by a Republican with declining support until Kucinich beat him.

I can't find a voter registration breakdown for his district though.

[sendero]

13. I've been saying this forever..

... people don't vote ISSUES, because there is no one left (no media) to sort out the lies from the truth in the she said he said world politics has become. Politicians never do what they say they are going to do anyway. Why pay attention?

They vote on "impressions" and likeability and "trust". These are things everyone THINKS they can assess, of course they don't do well at that either.

[ruggerson]

23. You and I are on the same page

We need someone people can RELATE to. Democrats always go for this long, laundry list of specific issues, but they forget - they're going to vote Democratic regardless. The people who decide elections, the middle, don't care as much about issues and position papers as they do about character and authenticity.

Obama has it and so does Edwards.

The man who has it IN SPADES is Brian Schweitzer.

[pnwmom]

29. He's not hinting of a run, is he?

[Mass]

28. False. They vot e on who the media tells them connects with people.

Most people never see the candidate. They see clips of 30 seconds chosen by the media, which will this way be able to describe people the way they want.

This is how a candidate is seen as charismatic one day and totally non charismatic the next.

If people were allow to see the candidates, it would be different. They are not. It is all show business.

So, if you want to elect good people, start by changing the way the media acts. Use the web to promote your guy. Use the web to attack Republicans. And hope it works.

The rest is BS because the image of the candidate is largely created by the media.

[pnwmom]

31. A lot of people do see the debates. Since the media can't filter them or

turn them into sound bites (until later), they can be an effective way for a candidate to showcase his or her communications skills. I'm sure there are others, too, but these moments from past debates come to mind:

Bill Clinton: the Town Meeting mentioned by Asheville, where he took a woman's hand, looked into her eyes, and connected. He also connected with millions of TV viewers at the same moment.

Michael Dukakis: the debate when he was asked what he would do if someone raped his wife, and he answered in a rational but "cold" way.

Gore: and his eye-balling rolling debate.

Bush also failed debates, but all he had to do was get his brother to fix the Florida election, and he squeaked in. Then he had another four years to push election boards all across the country his way. He has never learned to communicate, but he has been adept at lying, cheating, and stealing. I suppose that's the other way to go.