Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Kerry delivered the Dem message quite effectively, I thought.

It was the message that was rejected by the electorate, not the messenger.

The message met the same fate it did when Mondale, Dukakis and Gore delivered it.

I think the democrats made several mistakes.

They tried to make the election a referendum on Bush. So focus was always on his side. People voted for Kerry because he was against Bush, but did they ever knew really anything about him (yes Vietnam veteran hero, nice convention speech... anything deep)?

Even after getting their candidate out of focus, they still had the Bush bashing chance. Bush's liabilities seemed so obvious to the democrats, they didn't bother on pushing them enough, or smartly enough. The caricature was OK. Kick the monkey!

Michael Moore was wiped by Mel Gibson. Or, in other words, obvious propaganda was wiped by better made propaganda. Liberals come out of the "Fahrenheit 911" having woodyallenesque discussions. Conservative Christians come out "The Passion of the Christ" wiping their tears. One message dazzles through the mind; the other -at least just as manipulative- stays in the hearts and guts.
During the campaign, different grassroots versions of "Fahrenheit 911" travelled in the internet; different grassroots versions of "The Passion of The Christ" were given at sermons, bible readings, bingo games.

The democrats lost their monopoly of bringing people to register and vote ("carrying", we call it here). Republicans were able to reply with counterparts of (the much admired) BumbleBeeBoogie or Kuvazs.
And while, as Krugman says, democrats need to deepen their work in their traditional niches, their main task should be recovering some "red states".

The democrats totally lost contact with a substantial part of Deep America ("Retroamerica", we call it here).
"If you fail the analysis, you fail in the political response", said Lenin (or Togliatti, I forget).
Democrats decided Deep America was smaller... and unwinnable. Like the man who doesn't want to see how big his belly grew (and he has a stomach tumor).
Is it so hard to understand that Deep America saw Bush as a good communicator? Doesn't any of you have an aunt who thinks soap-opera actors are great? Now, instead of laughing at the actor, how about working on the aunt's tastes?
I also wish Deep America was smaller. I wish it was negligible. But I can't bend reality, specially if I want to win a crucial election.
I may think, deep down, that they're a bunch of red-neck, cousin-screwin', nascar-lovin' bible-freaks, but instead of condemning or despising them, I damn better realize that they're citizens just like me, with rights just like mine, and should analyze ways into getting my politics into their turf.

If I were a democratic cadre, I'd study very well the election results and see what democratic candidates won in republican dominated zones and why. I mean, this guys defeated people who ran of Bush's coat-tails right where the coat-tails were larger.

And for 2008, the democratic presidential candidate:
-should have a personal history!!!!!
-shouldn't be from any "blue" state of 2004
-shouldn't be a woman, black or Hispanic (so far for Hillary, Barack and Salazar)
-should be felt like normal folk (that leaves out old time politicians like Gephard, for instance)
-should be able to dodge with grace hot issues like gay marriage*
-should focus on very few issues, not on the rival.


*strictly a thing to be decided at State level, with cultural differences running so deep. On the long run, it will prevail, but only on the long run.

Tonight on PBS, David Brooks forwarded the idea that I think is correct...that this election was won not on values, not on Iraq or terrorism, not even on the candidates. It was won because for two decades now the Republicans have slowly been winning everything. And that has come about because of a deep and profound reorganization of the conservative party that began in the late sixties. A similar notion was forwarded by Tucker Carlson on election day. Clinton's presidency was the aberration. This goes some way to explaining the sense that the conservative movement had that Clinton was a usurper, a non-American president.

If that is so, then it wouldn't have mattered terribly much whether the dems had chosen candidate A or candidate B.

It also wouldn't matter much what dems said or how loud they said it.

There may well be strategies that you forward, nimh, that will go some distance towards ameliorating the 'cultural divide', and capturing some percent of the vote, but I do not think this critical, or of senior importance. Issues that divide can be manufactured - and gay marriage was largely a manufactured issue that served a purpose. What made if function well as a divisive issue was the organization behind it.

Thomas will probably (being a bit of a libertarian, and all ;-)) strongly disagree with the direction I pointed at in my post above.

But I'll strongly agree with this point he made here about strategy - well, its more than mere strategy - its about how one relates to one's electorate. Treating them like an anonymous mass that somehow needs to be tricked into voting you is not going to win you their vote, not for long.

(Yes, Bush did it, I hear you say. Rove tricked voters into electing a President that does not represent their interests or opinions, by playing the fear card and smearing the opposition. But this is underestimating the extent to which Bush also simply represents the values of these voters - on at least one yardstick's measurements: Religion. Culture. Nationalism.)


Well, I'm glad it's not what you said - though you seem to be saying it again (must be me :wink: ).

Saying its just about marketing is implying that, if the same product and the same person are just marketed better (the biger, smarter, meaner megaphone I was talking about), those benighted souls can be persuaded to love Howard/Kerry after all.

I dont think it'll work, for the reasons given in my post above. And it would be a pity to squander another chance.

What made it function as a vote on Nov 2 is that actual people really felt strongly about it.

Liberals must be so devoid of 'feeling' or belief or just so cynical that they no longer imagine that anyone can actually care about something. This is why they don't get it--and why they are out of touch with the majority of voters. They're dealing in perception, gloss and machinations--and completely overlooking what is being said, hoped for and believed in homes across America.

Gay Marriage was not manufactured. Massachusetts was faced with it months before the election. It was a legitimate issue.

interestingly enough the swing (undecided voters) and young went decidedly for Kerry, Bush did mange to get his votes from the almost solid republican base which included the bloc of the south. the data from the exit polls indicates that the "average" Bush voter was white/male/christian/over $100,000 household income, which is not unexpected however what has been the solid tradition base for the dems (the blue collars) became mixed over the "values" issues. while I would note that "values" have become a headline for repubs messages they certainly have not delivered on their message but then neither has the dems. "compassionate conservative" is a stolen message from the "liberal" ideas of FDR and I think that's were we need to seek our recovery (in our liberal tradition) so it goes.

I didn't mean to suggest that the traditional liberal platform is without value...I think it represents much of what keeps us from the jungle. In this, thomas, nimh and dys are right. But it isn't enough.

In most cases I think Thomas is spot on with his view of our (Dems) cop out to Kerry as candidate. The ABB--Anyone But Bush--crowd was far too quick to insist on a candidate that was "acceptable" to most in the party. How many of us really thought Kerry was the right man for the job? There were many who felt uneasy with Kerry. He isn't a man with the true Democratic convictions of a Howard Dean. Maybe Dean wasn't viable as a winner in a contest with Bush, but he rallied voters as noone else has in years, including young voters; he radiated enthusiasm and honesty and there was a refreshing lack of the gray mantle of political corruptness about him.

I'm with Joe on working to change the caucus system and to increase debates, including the lesser known candidates. How else can we find any candidates other than those already on the scene or those with deep pockets?

I was jumped on for talking about the book What's the Matter With Kansas? but for those who are familiar with Frank"s message, the heartland is bleeding and they being lied to by Republicans. If Dems can get through to them that their situation doesn't have to be so desparate, we will have gained a huge block of voters. We can't be afraid to mention religion or basic values--we've all groaned about the trash on TV and its mindless message; we abhor all the crime and out of wedlock births even if we are pro-choice. Our values and those of America are basically the same. Let's get that message out there. I think many of the fundamentalists are frightened of us. We need to show them that we aren't devils out to debase their children. It might sound foolish, but that is exactly how they think. I know, many of my relatives think in those terms.

Maybe this loss is what we needed to wake up. There will be damage done, especially in the Supreme Court, but we can still get out a message of hope and of real help in the lives of those who are barely surviving because of huge corporations taking over and condemning them to barely making it from one paycheck to the next. Those folks are real, they are hungry and they desparately need help. I hope most of us aren't too comfortable to realize they are out there living under lies and deception. We need to offer REAL help, not arguments against some ambiguous policy. Idealism and practical, understandable ways to improve lives is what we are really all about. Have we forgotten?

I agree with most everything fbaezer just said, only about the Salazar reference I have a nit to pick (or something). Well, he'll be too inexperienced in '08 still, so it might be irrelevant.

But - inexperience aside - he fits the bill fbaezer describes perfectly. He defeated a multimillionaire opponent (Coors) whose family runs back to the very history of the state, it seems, who everyone identifies with the state, and who represents the President in an overwhelmingly conservative state where the President turned out to be very popular. Sounds like the ticket. He did so by running his own campaign, one that was as far removed from a "blue state" campaign as any Republican's.

Fbaezer suggests excluding him after all because he's a Latino. But theres Latinos and Latinos. New Mexico and Colorado have, apart from the new immigrant population, also entrenched historical Latino populations with a history in the state almost as old as Coors'. In fact, some pundits were worrying that some of them, in annoyance at both the new immigrants and at Kerry's attempts to speak Spanish in order to curry favour among them (they don't speak Spanish anymore themselves, not in generations) would turn to the Republican. If Salazar's "old" Latino background was not a problem for the conservative, Bush-supporting state of Colorado, why wouldnt it work elsewhere?

That on an (imperfectly articulated and not double-researched) aside ...

Not sure yet -- I do think Clinton was a good president, and you say his way is one way to go. On the other hand, I don't know what political content you have in mind when you say "they could become the party of the people again". So I'm in no position to disagree with this latter half yet -- which I suspect I will once you explain it.


I agree -- and it is also underestimating the extent to which Republicans before Bush, from Goldwater to Dole, have shown a willingness to campaign on their principles and loose. Bush is profiting from the respect those people have built up for their party over the last few decades. Personally I am surprised he hasn't lost that political credit yet, but sooner or later he will. Difference is, the Democrats have yet to built up that kind of credit.

Hhmmm, well Thomas, re: Goldwater and Dole, one can equally say that Mondale and Dukakis showed a willingness to campaign on their principles and lose ... not to mention McGovern ;-)

Re The Roundtable.

The Libs already had a private group when the Roundtable came into existence.

Thomas, you and nimh and a couple of other non-conservatives were invited within days of the birth of the Roundtable. Precisely because we didn't want to be an amen corner.

Respectfully,
Roundtable Historian

<God, I miss the smell of rich Corinthian leather and cigars... Twas a nice locale>

Yeah Lash, but there's a difference between inviting one or two liberals to prevent one's circle from bevoming an amen corner and welcoming anyone in who comes rushing to the thread to tell you off about who you are.

With or without Thomas and me, the Roundtable was intended, explicitly, to provide a calmer refuge for conservatives to discuss things with another without being forced into strident self-defence by combative partisans jumping in from the other side to chastise all of you. Thats all the Dems here on A2K asked for now, and then only for just the one or two threads, just for this short post-election time ... was that really an unreasonable thing to ask?

Thanks for the information. I admit I hadn't known about this private group.


Are you sure? As I remember it, I became a member about a week after receiving the invitation, and when I first surfed through the threads, many of them seemed to be a year old and older. Are you saying the old threads been moved there from other forums? (That would explain the discrepancy between your account and mine.) But you may well be right about nimh -- he was already there before I joined. Don't know how long before.


Twas indeed. And as I said, I wasn't complaining about the existence of some exclusive domains. I was complaining about the complaining about them.

Oops -- I think Lash, nimh and I confused threads. Shall we delete and repost in the Bush supporters' thread?

Careful. That's a tough, intolerant crowd you are hanging with there.

nimh--

You seem to be talking to someone else through me. When I saw the Roundtable brought up with a couple of erroneous statements, I just sought to clarify.

But, since you ask, yes, it's unreasonable.

In example, I only just now realized this is one of the sacred cow threads, when I read back to see why on earth you were asking me such a question.

One would be easy to keep up with. More than that is childishly indulgent, and makes it difficult for the four or five people the Dems can't seem to tolerate. Hell, they're the overwhelming majority here. It would be understandable if they were the minority. I mean--how many are there? Easy to get them confused.

But, I didn't come here to argue about their threads. I just didn't realize this was another one.

Mondale? Dukakis? I'm not sure what principles you have in mind there.

er, ever try reading a title? Clue?

I didn't realize it either. Is it really? Because while I was a Dem-in-spirit throughout this election, I don't think of myself as a Democrat in a more general sense.