Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

T or F: Democrats don't know how to run for President.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:15 AM
Original message
Poll question: T or F: Democrats don't know how to run for President.
During the primaries, the candidates in each party jockey for position and split hairs over relatively minor differences on issues within each party's mainstream. There are a few exceptions, such as Kucinich or Paul, but pretty much, the party faithful and a relative handful of others pay attention and choose whether they want Vanilla Bean or Vanilla or French Vanilla. The right-of-center DLC-ish, party powerful insiders usually win the primaries.

Once there is a presumptive nominee, the issues that distinguish the parties take center stage. The party faithful on each side and a larger group of engaged, but independent, voters get involved. At this stage, occasionally the party faithful can be lured to the other side, especially when things are going wrong in the country, which is pretty much whenever a repuke is in office. Democrats kick ass during this phase and almost always lead in the polls. This is the time for logical arguments, positioning on issues, presenting plans, and the like.

The second the conventions end, the time for logical arguing is over. Anyone interested and smart enough to make up their mind on the issues has already done so. The battle now is for the vast disaffected body of apathetic, ill-informed, politically intellectually lazy Americans. Almost always, the repukes try to inflame the bigoted, ignorant or extremist elements of this group and try to keep everyone else from voting. (They also use their election fraud machine to suppress as much of the Democratic vote as possible.) The only thing that works from now until the "election" is to smear, attack, ridicule and "PWN" your opponent, while flinging copious quantities of red meat at your own constituency. This remaining segment of Americans loves pro wrestling, monster trucks, trash-talking jocks, reality TV and gangsters. Whichever side appeals most to them wins.

The Democrats don't get this. They run this last phase of the campaign the same way they run the middle, citing plans and statistics and using logic and reason, which are absolutely turnoffs for the only voters left to woo.

Submitted: Democrats don't know how to run for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. The Clintons know how to run a general election
campaign. Let's hope Bill tells Barack how it has to be today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. You're still here utterly failing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrDan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. you are correct
I just do not understand why pres candidates would shun his advice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. Bill LCinton would not have won if Ross Perot did not take votes away from Poppy Bush
This is ridiculous. Yes,Rethugs are nasty. However, Obama is not Kerry. Nor is he Gore. And Gore won in case anyone forgot. Kerry was the only one who never really faught back. Gore did but the media lied and trashed him anyways and he still came back on election day in 2000 and would have won if not for vote manipulation in Florida. Kerry allowed the swiftboating to happen as he believed that the American people would see through those lies. Many people did not. Obama began stepping up attacks only yesterday. Its been two days folks...chill out already. Obama is tougher then many give him credit for. Illinois is not a gentle easy place to start one's career.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wednesdays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. I disagree...polls showed Perot voters supported Clinton over Bush
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 09:49 AM by Wednesdays
If Perot hadn't re-entered the race, 3/4 of his voters would have gone to Clinton.

For example, my sister was a Perot voter. She thought Clinton to be too "smooth" and artificial. But no way in hell was she about to vote for Poppy, especially on his second time around--she detests Republicans all-around. She said she would have held her nose and voted for Bill Clinton, if Perot wasn't an option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
30. Well, my Dad is a right winger who backed Perot.
I really think Perot had a lot to do with how people were sick of the Rethugs and Bush I. He brought up the deficit and national debt over and over again so I think that indirectly helped Bill Clinton. However, Clinton also ran a great campaign about the economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
60. There's no way to know what the dynamics would have been without Perot
attacking Bush from another flank, and keeping his campaign on the defensive.

My guess is that Republicans would have pulled that election out- the same way they'd beaten other Democratic candidates.

Poll data on the point is basically meaningless, because we don't know how the campaigns would have behaved and responded to one another- and what the public perception of that might have been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. where is the slogan like "It's the economy, stupid."?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #15
32. Its called Change is coming. Laughable that McLame is trying to own it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #32
36. what does that mean?
Especially in light of the repukes effective coopting of the slogan.

Joe Six-Pack is just as likely to believe mclame is an agent of change as he is to believe Obama is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
40. Without Perot Running Clinton Would Have Lost In 1992 & 1996
I think more "conservatives" voted for Perot than "liberal Democrats" and that certainly help Clinton win both elections. However, the Republicans didn't whine about Perot "stealing" votes or "spoiling" the election.

If Perot were young enough and was on the ballot again as the "Reform Party" candidate I believe Obama would landslide this election.

So what in the world can Clinton "teach" Obama about winning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
42. Baloney - Clinton ran against GHWBush who NEEDED to lose in 1992 because he expected impeachment
after the release of the Dec 1992 BCCI report. So, Bush's buddy in Arkansas Jackson Stephens had a replacement Dem groomed and ready to go ....and once in office, that new Dem president deep-sixed all the many outstanding matters in BCCI for Poppy and his powerful cronies.

What's the advice Clinton would give? Run against a president willing to lose to avoid being exposed as a thoroughly corrupt fascist working with global terrorist networks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. Don't Understand Your Post
Please restate your comment. Are you claiming that Bush wanted to lose the election and that's why Clinton won in 1992?

Sure haven't heard that one before!

That's really funny!

:) :) :)

And what about 1996? Dole also wanted to lose and Perot had no impact in that election?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Bush NEEDED to lose because he expected impeachment after release of BCCI report in Dec1992.
What part of that is difficult for you to understand? 1996 Clinton was the sitting president and BushInc was happy to have him. Perot had no real effect on that race, except to prevent Clinton from getting a mandate from over 50% of the electorate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. I Now Understand What You're Saying: It's Utter Nonsense!
Please post some credible links and sources for this conspiracy theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Just the facts: BCCI report was due to be released in Dec 1992. Jackson Stephens figured greatly
in bringing BCCI into this country. He is a named figure in BCCI report.

Jackson Stephens shifted his decades of support from his close friend GHWBush to Bill Clinton, including staking Bill's primary run.

GHWBush proceeds to run the worst campaign in history.

BCCI report comes out in Dec 1992 and handed to incoming Clinton administration. The 5 1/2 year investigation's report includes a list of 20 outstanding matters requiring further scrutiny.

Read Bill's book about his presidency and then tell me how he dealt with BCCI's revelations and these outstanding matters.

But, I'd encourage you to read the actual report first, since you obviously have not done so.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/

And here is the list of outstanding matters from the official report, just in case you prefer to not delve into your nation's historic record.

Matters For Further Investigation

There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:


1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.


2. BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada. The Subcommittee has received information that remains not fully substantiated that BCCI defrauded investors, as well as some major U.S. and European financial firms, through manipulating commodities and securities markets, especially in Canada, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This alleged fraud requires further investigation in those countries.


3. BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family. The Subcommittee has not had access to BCCI records regarding India. The substantial lending by BCCI to the Indian industrialist family, the Hindujas, reported in press accounts, deserves further scrutiny, as do the press reports concerning alleged kick-backs and bribes to Indian officials.


4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.


5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.


6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.


7. BCCI's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies. A British source has told the Bank of England and British investigators that BCCI was used by numerous foreign intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI-5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the UK which could shed light on this allegation.


8. The financial dealings of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States. The Subcommittee found numerous connections among Keating and BCCI-related persons and entities, such as BCCI director Alfred Hartman; CenTrust chief David Paul and CenTrust itself; Capcom front-man Lawrence Romrell; BCCI shipping affiliate, the Gokal group and the Gokal family; and possibly Ghaith Pharaon. The ties between BCCI and Keating's financial empire require further investigation.


9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.


10. The nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of shares of other U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political figures. Political figures and members of the ruling family of various Middle Eastern countries have very substantial investments in the United States, in some cases, owning substantial shares of major U.S. banks. Given BCCI's routine use of nominees from the Middle East, and the pervasive practice of using nominees within the Middle East, further investigation may be warranted of Middle Eastern ownership of domestic U.S. financial institutions.


11. The nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI. BCCI's shareholders and front-men have made substantial investments in real estate throughout the United States, owning major office buildings in such key cities as New York and Washington, D.C. Given BCCI's pervasiveness criminality, and the role of these shareholders and front-men in the BCCI affair, a complete review of their holdings in the United States is warranted.


12. BCCI's collusion in Savings & Loan fraud in the U.S. The Subcommittee found ties between BCCI and two failed Savings and Loan institutions, CenTrust, which BCCI came to have a controlling interest in, and Caprock Savings and Loan in Texas, and as noted above, the involvement of BCCI figures with Charles Keating and his business empire. In each case, BCCI's involvement cost the U. S. taxpayers money. A comprehensive review of BCCI's account holders in the U.S. and globally might well reveal additional such cases. In addition, the issue of whether David Paul and CenTrust's political relationships were used by Paul on behalf of BCCI merits further investigation.


13. The sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et de Placements (BCP) in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others. Given BNL's links to BCCI, and Cukorova Groups' involvement through its subsidiary, Entrade, with BNL in the sales to Iraq, the swift sale of BCP to Cukorova just weeks after BCCI's closure -- prior to due diligence being conducted -- raises questions as to whether a prior relationship existed between BCCI and Cukorova, and Cukorova's intentions in making the purchase. Within the past year, Cukorova also applied to purchase a New York bank. Cukorova's actions pertaining to BCP require further investigation in Switzerland by Swiss authorities, and by the Federal Reserve New York.


14. BCCI's role in China. As noted in the chapter on BCCI's activities in foreign countries, BCCI had extensive activity in China, and the Chinese government allegedly lost $500 million when BCCI closed, mostly from government accounts. While there have been allegations that bribes and pay-offs were involved, these allegations require further investigation and detail to determine what actually happened, and who was involved.


15. The relationship between Capcom and BCCI, between Capcom and the intelligence community, and between Capcom's shareholders and U.S. telecommunications industry figures. The Subcommittee was able to interview people and review documents concerning Capcom that no other investigators had to date interviewed or reviewed. Much more needs to be done to understand what Capcom was doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and the Middle East, including whether the firm was, as has been alleged but not proven, used by the intelligence community to move funds for intelligence operations; and whether any person involved with Capcom was seeking secretly to acquire interests in the U.S. telecommunications industry.


16. The relationship of important BCCI figures and important intelligence figures to the collapse of the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank and Tetra Finance (HK) in 1983. The circumstances surrounding the collpase of these two Hong Kong banks; the Hong Kong banks' practices of using nominees, front-companies, and back-to-back financial transactions; the Hong Banks' directors having included several important BCCI figures, including Ghanim Al Mazrui, and a close associate of then CIA director William Casey; all raise the question of whether there was a relationship between these two institutions and BCCI-Hong Kong, and whether the two Hong Kong institutions were used for domestic or foreign intelligence operations.


17. BCCI's activities in Atlanta and its acquisition of the National Bank of Georgia through First American. Although the Justice Department indictments of Clark Clifford and Robert Altman cover portions of how BCCI acquired National Bank of Georgia, other important allegations regarding the possible involvement of political figures in Georgia in BCCI's activities there remain outside the indictment. These allegations, as well as the underlying facts regarding BCCI's activities in Georgia, require further investigation.


18. The relationship between BCCI and the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. BCCI and the Atlanta Branch of BNL had an extensive relationship in the United States, with the Atlanta Branch of BNL having a substantial number of accounts in BCCI's Miami offices. BNL was, according to federal indictments, a significant financial conduit for weapons to Iraq. BCCI also made loans to Iraq, although of a substantially smaller nature. Given the criminality of both institutions, and their interlocking activities, further investigation of the relationship could produce further understanding of Saddam Hussein's international network for acquiring weapons, and how Iraq evaded governmental restrictions on such weapons acquisitions.


19. The alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI. As set forth in the chapter on intelligence, numerous trails lead from BCCI to Casey, and from Casey to BCCI, and the investigation has been unable to follow any of them to the end to determine whether there was indeed a relationship, and if there was, its nature and extent. If any such relationship existed, it could have a significant impact on the findings and conclusions concerning the CIA and BCCI's role in U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during the Casey era. The investigation's work detailing the ties of BCCI to the intelligence community generally also remains far from complete, and much about these ties remains obscure and in need of further investigation.


20. Money laundering by other major international banks. Numerous BCCI officials told the Subcommittee that BCCI's money laundering was no different from activities they observed at other international banks, and provided the names of a number of prominent U.S. and European banks which they alleged engaged in money laundering. There is no question that BCCI's laundering of drug money, while pervading the institution, constituted a small component of the total money laundering taking place in international banking. Further investigation to determine which international banks are soliciting and handling drug money should be undertaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah but if Democrats ran exactly the same types of campaigns
as Republicans, would they be worth voting for?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. the jews were nice to hitler. how did that work out for them? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JBoris Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Fuck you! That is complete horseshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. I don't buy the analogy.
As you might expect. Do not battle with Monsters lest ye become a monster.

I don't want to be like Ann Coulter no matter how much success it might grant me.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. the Democrats don't have to be Ann Coulter
Obama's short-lived ads showing how mccain is the same as bush were good.

it's a dirty, nasty, rotten street fight. either do what's necessary to win, or prepare to get the crap kicked out of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. There I would agree with you
Take them on the issues and their patently obvious deceptions. Like Palin's claims about the bridge to nowhere.

Bryant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #22
37. Obama needs two sets of messages. Ideally, they become the same, but
Democrats have not yet mastered cognitive dissonance as the repukes have.

First, he needs to keep the base informed of the repukes' lies.

Second, and more importantly, he needs to package his message to the undecided voters as simply as possible. If these voters were engaged and intelligent and cared deeply about issues, they would not be undecided at this stage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
misanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #37
48. In a nutshell...
..."If these voters were engaged and intelligent and cared deeply about issues, they would not be undecided at this stage."

Therein lies the rub. That is why that sub-group is so malleable and susceptible to manipulation in the most cynical of fashion. Add in a Fourth Estate as derelict as ours and you have a recipe for quadrennial debacle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. yup.
The Democrats need to lowest-common-denominator it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
misanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. How much more proof is needed...
...before they get a firm grasp of the obvious? The 527s can still swing back hard and enable Obama to maintain his "above it all" image.

If the GOP takes this one, will the Dems learn the lesson and apply it in 2012?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. if that happens, there may not be a 2012...
they never seem to learn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
28. WTF is that supposed to mean?
Not even lunch and we have the dumbest post of the day
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. are they worth voting for now?
:shrug:

if they allow election fraud and do nothing meaningful about it...

if they allow themselves to be swift-boated into oblivion...

if they don't win...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
4. It's funny because you lump Obama in with all the others - no matter how stupid that is...
But that's the only way you can misleadingly phrase the question and expect a lot of handwringing agreement.

You fucking fail pathetically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
27. the logic of your arguments is far too powerful for my meager abilities to counter
you are supreme, oh lord...

no matter how stupid that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. Your underlying claim is incorrect. Kerry's lifetime ratings were further left than Kucinich, and no
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 09:22 AM by blm
lawmaker in DC has ever surpassed Kerry's work to uncover and expose government corruption - hardly an 'insider' accomplishment, but, one that made him deeply UNPOPULAR with the powerful insiders in his own party who supported and protected the DC powerstructure players for decades.

Your generalization about elections doesn't hold water.

The problem Dems have is the complicity of the corporate media - your post supports the corpmedia spin developed over the years as their way of COVERING THEIR OWN ASSES on their complicit efforts for the GOP and its candidates.

I'm sure a thank you note from CNN, FOX, NBCs, ABC, CBS will be forthcoming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. thank you for your, umm, thoughtful response
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Accuracy matters. Without it, you validate the corporate media's tactics against us.
And I doubt that is your intention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #25
39. I think you've missed my point twice.
Forget Kerry. 2004 is gone. He quit. Forget the primaries. They are gone. Obama is the candidate.

Right now, right here, today and until the "election" (or what passes for elections in this country), it is Obama's overarching responsibility to attract as many undecided voters as possible. Short of some catastrophic error, those who support him already will vote for him in November. Virtually everyone in the country who cares deeply about issues, is engaged in politics, is informed about the world and current events, knows what issues affect their lives and how, and who has the will to become informed HAS ALREADY CHOSEN SIDES. The likelihood of changing their votes now is nil.

That leaves people who do not care deeply about issues, are not engaged in politics, are not informed about the world and current events, do not know what issues affect their lives or how, and do not have the will to become informed. So the question is how to appeal to them.

In my opinion, elaborate, fact-based, logical arguments are ineffective and probably even counter-productive with this audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #39
41. YOU set up your argument. It was YOUR point. YOU were wrong. Accuracy matters.
The media is an enormous problem, and posts like yours blaming Dems, the primary process, and the message of the Dem campaign allow them to cover their asses for distorting the truth for the fascist agenda, yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. what was "wrong"?
I said that most of the time a party insider wins the primary. You claim Kerry is an exception, which is arguable, and then you ignore the rest of the issue. Whether or not Kerry is or was a mainstream DC Democrat, the question remains what can Democrats do in campaigns to be more effective than, for example, Kerry was?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. I said your post repeats and sides with corporate media distortion of Dem campaigns
which allows them cover for their complicity.

And you can argue with the facts all you want - I stated a FACT about Kerry - one that is irrefutable if you employ the historic record instead of political mediaspin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #46
51. "mediaspin"?
I don't know from the media, but I do know that since 1980, we've had 28 uninterrupted years of government by, for and of corporations and in the exact worst interests of ordinary American working people.

I also know that except when we were running a right-of-center, "bubba" sloganeer of our own, the repukes have eaten our lunch from convention to election every four years.

I also know that logical persuasion fails at this stage of the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. you assume Clinton won against a hard fighting GHWBush. Bush1 needed to lose.
He expected exposure and impeachment after the release of the Dec 1992 BCCI report. He ran the worst campaign in history against a Dem handpicked and staked by GHWBush's close friend in Arkansas, Jackson Stephens who also was a named figure in BCCI.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. I agree with you.
I don't think there are actual "elections" in America. Nor have there been since 1963.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #59
63. So any practical advice to Dems is to promise to protect Bushes, their cronies and fascist agenda
and only that will ASSURE a Dem gets into the WH. And THAT is why we have to fight HARDER against that incredibly uneven playing field THIS YEAR while we know so much more ABOUT the deceits employed from media to vote purging to electronic voting machines.

Everything else is just bullshit distraction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. Dems. might be a little weak in running but they are strong in winning
With a dirty media and dirty courts it is hard to overcome the cheating.

92 Clinton

96 Clinton

2000 Gore / Florida / SCOTUS

2004 Kerry / Ohio / Blackwell / dirty media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. there is no legitimate way you can count either 2000 or 2004 as "winning."
yes, the "elections" were fraudulent, but the "democrats" Gore and Kerry, conceded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
9. Tough to answer that. But for sure you have it right about the remaining "voters":
"The second the conventions end, the time for logical arguing is over. Anyone interested and smart enough to make up their mind on the issues has already done so. The battle now is for the vast disaffected body of apathetic, ill-informed, politically intellectually lazy Americans. Almost always, the repukes try to inflame the bigoted, ignorant or extremist elements of this group and try to keep everyone else from voting. (They also use their election fraud machine to suppress as much of the Democratic vote as possible.) The only thing that works from now until the "election" is to smear, attack, ridicule and "PWN" your opponent, while flinging copious quantities of red meat at your own constituency. This remaining segment of Americans loves pro wrestling, monster trucks, trash-talking jocks, reality TV and gangsters. Whichever side appeals most to them wins. "

This is totally correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tindalos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
10. 90% of the world would vote Obama.
I don't think the problem is either Obama or his campaign.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
45. Umm. Obama is not running for President of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
12. In a real democracy they'd do just fine.
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 09:47 AM by Xap
If U.S. elections had integrity they would be about issues and debate and not the slimy process that Republicans and the sensationalist MSM have made them. FDR did not have to become a Nazi to defeat the Nazis and Democratic candidates should not have to become slimy Republicans to defeat slimy Republicans. (Not a great analogy but you get the point.) The problem is that half the electorate cannot distinguish between someone who clearly does have the intellect and personal qualities to be President and someone who clearly does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
33. The Democrats don't have to become Nazis (or even repukes).
They just need to appeal to the remaining audience. It takes simplistic, sound-bite messages that are easy for the drooling masses to digest and repeat.

We already know that Obama has a plan for health care (as flawed as most of us recognize it to be) and that mcsame does not. We already know the country can't survive another four years of repuke misrule.

We've made those arguments. Sadly, the repukes have a solid base that rivals our own in size and commitment who utterly reject our belief in a better America. We must appeal to the millions of Americans who don't really care about the issues. They also don't know or particularly care about truth.

To them, it is a popularity contest. It is all about personalities. Wrap yourself in a simplistic, "heroic" image. Ridicule and caricature your opponent, again in simple terms.

Right now, Obama is losing the popularity contest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Again, blame the scores of electoral idiots.
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 11:00 AM by Xap
It looks to me like the Pukes may be trying to turn the Presidential election into an episode of American Idol: a popularity contest that their base understands and can get excited about. You don't have to have much talent or experience to win at least some of the time. Thus the Sarah Palin phenomenon. (I'm guessing that Sanjaya has more international experience than Sarah does but at this point it's still a guess.)

I know, I know, Dems don't have remake themselves into American Idol contestants. But what if that's the game that the Pukes and the MSM have made it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
16. Maybe you haven't noticed the RECORD number of NEW registrations we are doing
Maybe you haven't noticed but the rnc convention bounce is already fading

The issues haven't taken center stage, and THAT is the problem, but that is about to change



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. the "ground game" has to be first-rate.
That goes without saying.

But I see the Democrats, election after election, moving farther and farther to the right of their base in order to capture a mythological middle. Then they fail to do anything that appeals to the only "middle" that is left after the conventions.

Repukes don't need to win, they just need to keep it close enough to steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #23
31. It isn't going to be close. The media wll be left with egg on their face again /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
24. I don't know..
but I am going to be volunteering on Sunday. I have learned a lot about Obama in the last year+, and I intend to spread the cure and not the disease.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hidden Stillness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
26. They Still Have Some Deep Problems
Although it is a factual statement that the Democrats for many years now have not known how to run for President, the way you describe it is not correct, I don't think. You do the typical (lazy, self-praising) pseudo-"analysis" that people who spend a lot of time on their computers like: first, you claim everyone is just so "stupid," except you of course, and then you call them "vanilla," which I assume makes you a groovy white person, not like all the others, etc. There is a lot of offensive jargon, yet you are (let me guess) COMPLETELY ignorant of history, and probably cannot even name some random New Deal programs, what they did, and whether or not they still exist, off the top of your head, not by going to a website.

The problem is not that no one but you has any logic, the problem is that the recent "Democrats" have been so complicit, so craven, so afraid to oppose, so equally corrupted by corporate lobbyist money, that they actually cannot refer strongly to their best issues on the campaign trail, because they themselves voted for them and did not oppose any of it, (in Congress), until the polls showed a backlash, etc. They can't attack Bush/Cheney on the illegal wiretapping, an issue which has Americans very angry and even disbelieving still--because "Democrats" are still trying to get telecom corporations off the hook, and keep the specifics of the situation secret. They can't refer to the huge bailouts of financial institutions with taxpayer money, even as we sink further into general recession, because they supported it; they can't attack Republicans for being totally clueless, minimizing the growing economic crisis and doing nothing month after month, because they themselves were equally isolated and cushy-rich, and were clueless, in denial, still hanging on to the "deregulate everything" cult mind-set, right up to the collapse. They became so afraid of Republicans, as if they believed the Republican spin that this is a "conservative," "pro-business" country, and that Republicans are the "majority," when none of it is true, that they seemed afraid that there were be a huge backlash against them every time, if they spoke up against anything. Nothing else explains their complete crawl, to everything Republicans ordered them to do.

Democrats got themselves so totally taken over by "framing" consultants, making them sound more and more phony--as if talking down to the American people, and reassuring corporate donors that they weren't going to do anything to stop any corporate crimes, at the same time--that eventually they just co-opted them right out of the society, so that now, they don't have any more to do with us than "their Republican friends" do. They will not win until they talk like ordinary intelligent people and fight Republicans and corporations, which they still are not doing. Stop getting distracted by every media "fad," and return to the actual country out here, where we hate the media, too. Stop giving us slogans, and only telling the truth to your corporate donors. They need to dare to be radically against corporations--(like Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt)--and address what we know is happening out here; they haven't got it, so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. why the ad hominem? did I crap in your wheaties or something?
if you could read, you'd know that I didn't call anyone stupid. The "vanilla" reference has nothing to do with voters. It means that in the primaries, for the most part, all our candidates are very similar. They agree far more than they disagree and their differences are matters of specific details more than matters of ideology. Biden, Clinton, Obama, Dodd...all had very similar positions on most issues--hence, vanilla, french vanilla, vanilla bean.

Yes, the consultants are a problem. A huge reason why is that the consultants don't know how to make the candidate and the campaign appeal to those ordinary Americans who don't know or care about the details and who don't pay any attention to politics at all until during or after the conventions. They just want a candidate they believe (no matter how misguidedly) they can trust. They'll vote for the one who seems (via their positive self marketing and their negative attacks on the opponent) most like themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
29. Quit blaming the campaign
It's the idiots who vote in this country. If Obama doesn't become President, fine, it's what the majority in this country will deserve for choosing as they did. If Obama wins, my opinion of the voters goes up a little bit - at least the percentage who voted for him. It's a question of whether a slight majority is STILL so damn stupid as they were in 2004.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. These are people who don't really want Obama to win, and will nitpick the entire way....
hoping we lose so that they can say "someone else" should have been our nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #35
44. you don't know what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
65. the primaries are over
Why are you so desperately trying to reopen the wounds from the primaries? Why continue to divide the party and distract people? Why do you not want people to discuss more effective approaches to defeating the right wingers? Why must it be your way or the highway? Why so angry and hostile toward your fellow Democrats? This is very mysterious to me.

Must those who supported other candidates - are you keeping track or something? - forever remain silent on all issues lest they be accused by you of "wanting us to lose?" What sort of sense does that make? How can we ever improve the party if no critical analysis is ever to be tolerated? How can we unify the party if you continue to spread suspicions and make insinuations?

I doubt that any other candidate would be doing any better. The problem with the party runs deeper than any personality.

You seem more interested in attacking other Democrats than you are in fighting the right wingers. That is one of our biggest problems within the party right there. The election has become more about gaining control of the narrative of the party, and bashing any and all dissident voices, then it is about defeating - or even seriously challenging - the extreme right wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
62. quit blaming the people
Blaming the people is completely antithetical to every principle and ideal of the Democratic party.

The people are smart enough to know that people who call them stupid and who blame them for the country's problems are not their friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
53. spineless cowards get no respect
bravely straddling the yellow line does nothing for Americans. we like strong blowhards who take a stand, don't back down, and damn the facts.

k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
56. the last two actually won their elections
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 03:13 PM by fascisthunter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. no they didn't
"Winning" must include fighting back against cheating, lying and theft. In fact, fighting against cheating and lying and theft is the ONLY thing that Democrats should be doing, and they chronically fail to do that on all fronts.

You cannot with consistent say "we are supporting Dems because the people on the other side are cheaters and liars and thieves" and then when you lose say "well we really won, but the people on other side are cheaters and liars and thieves." Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Sorry....!!! Both elections were Stolen which means....
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 06:14 PM by fascisthunter
their campaigns were run well enough to beat the GOP. The GOP is full of ilegitimate dishonorable weak-minded losers who need to cheat and steal in order to get ahead in life.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. what is versus what should be
The right wingers steal and cheat at everything, in or out of office. If they didn't do that, we wouldn't have any of this mess to begin with. Those who don't, or won't recognize that are living in a fantasy world and cannot fight them and are not reliable allies.

"If they didn't cheat we would have won!" Right. Cheating is all they do, and winning means overcoming their cheating. That might require fighting to protect people's votes, or putting impeachment back on the table - there are many possible ways to fight. But "they cheated" is a weak and unacceptable excuse. Most Democratic politicians won't even dare to go so far as to call the right wingers liars, cheaters and thieves let alone fight them.

If they hadn't cheated and lied and stolen, there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Does that mean that those people are not really dead because the administration cheated? If they hadn't cheated, the federal treasury would not be bankrupt. So I guess we really won, and everything is fine - because the right wingers cheated and lied and stole so their wins don't count.

This isn't a game. People are suffering. People are dying. When the right wingers successfully advance their agenda they have won, we haven't won.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
61. Democratic candidates know how to run; GOP operatives know how to cheat. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC