2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Not sure you understood what I was writing there, Set. MoveOn's policy. What to do with its online capabilities. What issues MoveOn should address. Whether to have a poll... etc. etc. Leading eventually, one supposes, to some effect on a Democratic/Progressive candidate's priorities. But essentially a populist opportunity within MoveOn about ITS priorities.

And I disagree slightly with that, doggie.

Karl Rove has elaborately fine-tuned the standard of deriving policy goals from polls--despite the WH's furious efforts to disguise it.

Clinton established it and was roundly criticized by the Republicans for divining his policy objectives from poll results, but they're doing it more and better than he ever did.

Bush's about-face from the right-wing agenda on human cloning is a testament to this growing phenomenon. Poll-driven policy is going to be the order of the day for the less emotional decisions of governing, not the capital punishments, the tax cuts, or the selection of judges. This trend won't ever diminish the influence of ideology on policy-making.

Back to the MoveOn primary, for a moment:

This is also something we will see more of, as politics acknowledges the influence of the wired community in their arena. And it's high time.

All of us in here are very plugged into politics; many of us are activists, and since the masses won't be paying attention until the end, the decisions we influence now result in the either/or selections the Moron-Americans whine and remained 'undecided' about until the first week of November, 2004.

Warts and all, that's a good thing from where I sit.

I'm with you P Diddie (except I think Setanta misunderstood my post).

Also I think it's worth pointing out that the use of the web is so wide-spread now, relatively speaking, that we are ourselves part of "the masses." In a sense, we are probably the disillusioned voters (and ex-voters) re-armed and revitalized by a new communication tool. In the past couple of days, as a matter of fact, I've had a couple of emails from people who (1) grudging and loyally vote, but without hope, and (2) one who went Green by default and is back on the progressive/activist list thanks to the web (and Dean). I've even seen family and friends persuade their webless friends to get a machine and log on.

TV (we now realize) is a frighteningly powerful. manipulating and distorting source of communication -- and it's a one-way deal. "Reframing" (Scheufele... and NLP) is dangerous stuff. To counter that we have the web -- two way communication -- and it's increasingly powerful. I think we can expect some serious attempt to manage, manipulate, shut down this tool.

On whether MoveOn is a primary or a poll:

Which is a more representative sample: a few hundred New Hampshirians (?), a few thousand Iowans, or a few hundred thousand online progressives across the country?

Each most certainly has their bias, but since this a party-defined activity, bias is inherent (and IMO acceptable, if not preferred).

I think the problem arises when MoveOn "endorses" a candidate and focuses on him/her giving itself less room for change and movement if another candidate begins to pick up steam.

BTW -- one of the interesting things I noticed at the big meeting last Monday evening in Austin was the numbers of people there who were not "just" supporters and donors but who were actively organizing precinct and state Dem meets. Assuming this is happening also in Dallas, Houston, SA, etc., the primaries here are gonna be pretty interesting. Now there's something MoveOn (and Dean) have accomplished which is invaluable, regardless of the outcome of any poll.

I like "Fossil Fools" except for Christie...

BRAUN 7021 2.21%

DEAN 139360 43.87%

EDWARDS 10146 3.19%

GRAHAM 7113 2.24%

KERRY 49973 15.73%

KUCINICH 76000 23.93%

GEPHARDT 7755 2.44%

LIEBERMAN 6095 1.92%

SHARPTON 1677 0.53%

OTHER 6121 1.93%

UNDECIDED 6378 2.01%

317647 100.00%

FWIW, I find the current debate here about the MoveOn primary/poll interesting and inspiring. Sharing so few viewpoints with liberals it can be easy to misconstrue them as one large homogenous group. Watching you share your differing opinions on MoveOn reminds me that I need to avoid that kind of thinking.

Perhaps i did misunderstand, Tart--i hope you know it is no attack, despite my species very natural distrust of kitties. PD, i would modify my statement to say that the poll-driven policy decisions are likely only to be taken in so much as they do not conflict with the agendae of the close support of any given administration or campaign . . .

You need to avoid critical thinking and discussion with your peers, Scrat?

I wrote (clearly, I thought) that I need to work to avoid assuming all liberals think alike and agree on everything.

ok, maybe it's the heat. My brain is moving very slowly today.

The problem with polls, Set (as well we know!), is that the ones that agree with me are just fine and the ones that don't are crap!

Now, I'm aged enough to know that there ain't nuthin' perfect in this world. I have reservations about Dean and am keeping an eye on MoveOn -- taking nothing for granted. BUT in principle I think the coalescing, discussing, and political action on the web is one of the very few positives I can find in our political future right now. MoveOn's issues-oriented projects (like forcing Congress to reexamine the FCC ruling, or helping to organize anti-war rallies) are just what we need. How they and the candidates handle the straw polls -- and the final poll which came out this morning -- should be subjected to continuing scrutiny. As I think I mentioned elsewhere, I'm pressing MoveOn to continue to be more issues- than candidate-oriented. If one looks at their history, what got them started, it's clear that issues/democracy were the motivation. They got involved in the Wellstone candidacy and that perhaps tempted them to continue work with candidates...

If one scans the press (via Google) one has to admit there is a curious anger at Dean on the part of the media... I actually read the Dean interview with Russert and (once again) print is very, very different from visual images. The print edition shows Dean to be clear-headed, unwilling to play either/or games. That's what keeps me in his camp.

Tartarin

Body language says as much as words.

it seems that much discussion here about the moveon project dwells on their electronic polling as "event," and rightly so if one wishes to ignore the process of which this polling is merely a part.

this process, of increasing particpatory democracy is in its infancy and is the crest of the wave of the power of the internet to reach and organize people like never before.

looking at the problems that the moveon project reveals should be looked at in a positive light because now we know more about the process, and can make it better.

we are looking at a proto-type here of mass engagement of electronic politicial activism, it is not in a finished or completed form, and dwelling on the problems directs one away from the point of the lesson, viz., that what is being attempted is possible.

pointing out that the results of this particular poll undermines centrist political stances and jeopardizes elections is a short term analysis and is dwarfed by the recognition of the potential power what moveon is trying to do.

so, when the wright brothers could fly a plane a few hundred yards, what the hell was that useful for?

Tartar: sorry to add to reservations re Dean, but I googled and found this link. Would you be so kind as to read it? Thanks!

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html

Yup, SweetComplication. I knew that -- my sister knows him and his wife. What I admire in him is his ability (with MoveOn) to fire up the progressive wing of this party AND the more conservative Dems.

Au -- I think you're wrong, not about body language (which does tell a lot) but about reading transcripts vs. watching the program. I do/have done both. The difference is enormous and print (when the transcript is faithful) much more reliable. (Before I got rid of it altogether, I used to watch TV with the sound off and video on, and vice versa. Can't tell you how they differ in effect, every time.

Mebbe true, mebbe not . . . i've heard and read that those who watched Kennedy and Nixon debate gave the palm to Kennedy, but that those who listened to the debate on radio thought Nixon had won it . . .

Truthfully, Setanta, as I remember it, they thought Nixon was smarter, more experienced.

What i thought interesting, however, and germaine to the body language remark, was the difference of opinion between those who watched and those who listened . . .

Excuse me for butting in here, but . . . Nixon may have been smarter, but he was a manipulative, scary SOB as well! Recall all his damage w/HUAC? I mean: aaaaaggggghhhhh