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

Lola is correct that the proper context in which to address this issue, at least on this thread, is to consider it in the light of a recovery strategy for Democrats following the election. Here are extracts from Lola's quoted piece above from "People for the American Way", which I believe encapsulates their argument;

Excellent idea After reading that missive (twice) I'll make it my mission to encourage every liberal I know to support them as well. Wow...talk about "not getting" it.

I woke up this morning in a rather bad mood. It didn't take me long to decide what I thought that bad mood was all about.

I said, to myself, "Lola, why are you exerting so much energy on a few people on an internet site?"

"Well," I said, "it's fun."

But the more I thought about it, I decided that it's really not that fun, not enough for the effort I'm expending. Plus, we're talking about a subject that I don't really think is funny or simply a good intellectual exercise.

So then I said, "well, then, if you're going to expend that much energy, why don't you do something that will make a difference?"

"Good question," I told myself. "I think I'll find a good outlet for my energy. PFAW may be a good place to start..........or maybe a similar group with people who are doing more than talking about what to do next."

Has anyone here seen that ad? It's often on CNN about the group of stock brokers sitting around the lunch table at a fancy restaurant and one of them starts choking. The other four who aren't choking begin a debate about what would be the best course of action for the choking problem. Finally some stock broker from another table gets up and puts his arms around the guy and pops out the obstruction in the guy's throat. The punch line is something like, "we do more than just talk about it."

This was my association as I was thinking about my very bad mood. Why am I spending so much time on this thread, while we all scratch our a$$es? So, I decided to stop it.

The data Thomas says he needs in order to consider my perspective seriously will take a lot of energy and time collecting.....

So if I'm going to go to that much trouble, I may as well do it with people who have gone to the same trouble I have to make up their minds. They've struggled with it enough to feel comfortable with their convictions. Why try to influence a few retired military officers or others who have the time and inclination to sit around and and do nothing but argue? Why not maximize my efforts? I've made up my mind well enough to take some action, so I'll find others who will too.

Maybe you detect a little disappointment in my voice. If you do, it's because I am disappointed. Sorry for being rude just now.......but not sorry enough to delete it.

Just about the only thing of value I've taken from this discussion of the past few days is that Dems do have to stop saying the people on the other side are supid. (Of course, it wouldn't hurt if the Republicans did the same.....just replace stupid for sinful.) We have to do the opposite. We have to start recognizing just how very smart they are. And then we have to do something about it.

So I'm off to the big wide world, Dads and guys. And I'm not talking about just sending some money. (Of course they need money, george, it takes money to get anything of significance done. Just because they're raising funds doesn't invalidate their message or goals..........but never mind, I don't have to convince you.)

So I'm taking a vacation from these political threads. The fun of it is gone. I'll be around to play in other ways that involve more immediate gratification and have mostly to do with a generalized debauchery. But for political discussion and activity, I'm going to get up and actually do something.

See you boys at the cafe.............. And I promise not to be so disappointed that I'll be dangerous there........really, you can trust me. I'll be good.............. promise. :wink:

Sad to see you go, but do enjoy your vacation.

Lola -- You have always been a voice of reason for me, and if I don't post that, it is only because I would be repetiously saying "I agree," "Yes, you're so right!" and "Obviously, you have thought about this a lot and make loads of sense."

That doesn't add much to the debate, so I've let it go, but I've been silently cheering you on.

Piffka

lola dear, I am starting a prayer group to speed your recovery.

I'm collecting the money to support Dys' group!

In the short time I have been here I have learned not to take people leaving very seriously. They usually don't stay awqay very long, and some people never leave at all. (they fail to do more than just talk about it :wink: )

So BYE Lola, and don't take too long to change your mind, we very much enjoy your company.

I love to see these Swan Songs, especially when they apply for only about a week. I am fascinated with what compels someone to write so lengthy an explanation of why he or she no longer wants to write lengthy postings in an internet forum, and I conclude that it is the the same reason that brings such folks to these forums in the first place: A desire and/or need to announce their identities.

If one is devoting a sizeable amount of one's free time to these boards for the purpose of making a difference, then, clearly, it is not time well spent and there are a myriad of more potentially productive avenues to follow.

Participating in this forum should be enjoyable, irrespective of how you may define enjoyable. If it is not, it is a waste of precious time to remain engaged here.

Good luck in the Real World and vayo con Dios

Lola is OK - she just put a good deal of effort into some posts in the last few pages and lost patience before the issues came to closure. No one is cool all of the time.

And I came in for some intellectual fodder and am forced to consider what use a prayer group would have with money. Oh well, I was tired of world hunger and the Middle East crisis anyway.

So have another falafel, turn on the Fox and join a prayer group. It's not easy saving the world.

Gee, I know lots of poor (in every sense of the word) who send in money to prayer groups on TV. You know, those groups where the women wear as much mascara as Tammy Baker and swoon as the men yell to God to save these sinners and send money NOW!

Lola, come back when you've cooled off. These threads need you.

I found this article very instructive, hope you do too - it's making a lot of sense:

On an aside, this bit was useful for me in particular, because it helped me clear something up.

In my "final" analysis here, I concluded that "it's hard to discern a strong impact of newly mobilised conservative Christians in this list [of states where Bush won most and least]".

But one of the three PS's I never got round to posting was going to note that I did come across one counter-indication that I couldn't properly explain.

The counter-indication in question was the striking regional pattern that showed how the last state-level opinion polls "had on average been pretty much on-target in 13 of 16 non-Southern battleground states, but had Bush's support considerably underestimated in all six contested states in or near the South."

This article now suggests that this makes total sense, since in the South there was in fact a clearly boosted turnout of weekly churchgoers. So the theory that Bush profited from a last-minute mobilisation surge of devout Christians who would not have shown up in the polls (if only because those who didn't vote last time were often not counted as "likely voters") did hold true for the Southern states.

Its just that because the same did not happen elsewhere - because, in fact, elsewhere the share of weekly churchgoers in the electorate went down because other groups were mobilised even more strongly - this didn't show up in the national exit polls. The numbers simply cancelled each other out.

A surge in turnout of devout Christians in the South might thus be said to have helped make the difference in states like AR, NC, perhaps MO or VA. But because their numbers if anything made less of an impact than in 2000 elsewhere, the role of other crucial voting blocks like Catholics, seniors or national security-focused seculars was more important in most of the real battleground states, the ones in the Midwest and West that attracted all the journalistic-analytic attention.

Nimh, While the image of the Television huckster Evangelist is generally associated with the South, the fact is the so-called Evangelical movement is fairly well dispersed and not much more prevalent in (say) Alabama than in (say) Missouri or Ohio.

I believe the Evangelicals are merely a convenient straw man that enables the Democrats to delude themselves into believing that most "right thinking" people support their agenda. While a large minority of the population certainly does support them, the fact is that the majority of Americans - the non-loonie ones - opposes them.

On the other hand, mebbe there's a real shift in Democratic Party perception goin' on here. Mebbe they're comin' 'round to the idea it ain't All Bush's Fault, but that its All God's Fault.

Did you actually read the article, georgeob1? (Or my post, for that matter ...?)

Askin' just because your reply seems to oddly concern things I never said, and not concern anything in specific that I did say ... Hell, I never even talked about Evangelicals in my post ...

Let me summarize again, then. The article above is from Beliefnet. It already includes the info that yes, evangelical voters are a factor across the states. They also probably turned out in greater numbers this time than before, and in any case voted for Bush more often than in 2000; but, since turnout increase was commonplace among many different groups, "evangelical turnout was at least partly offset by increased turnout from pro-Kerry groups".

Opting for a different focus, namely on those who attend Church at least weekly, the article notes (as Timber and I have, before) that their proportion in the overall, national electorate remained stable compared to 2000. But it also notes that there was a big increase in their portion of the electorate in the South - an aberration from the national trend. In fact, considering their share of the electorate nationally didn't budge, their share of it outside the South must actually have decreased (for example because of an even more increased turnout of other groups).

It was this latter factoid - that those attending Church weekly or more often (what I called "devout Christians") represented a surging share of the electorate in the South and not elsewhere, that I connected to an observation I had made earlier. Namely, that the last state polls out on average had been pretty much right everywhere except in the South, where they had significantly underestimated Bush's support. Seemed logical enough to deduce from the correlation that in the South, a (last-minute) increased mobilisation of the devoutly religious might have played a significant role in boosting Bush's numbers.

Echoing the article I also observed, finally (as I had before), that this however was of only limited relevance, since the phenomenon mostly concerned states that were safely Republican in any case and most of the closest battleground states were elsewhere - where other, equally shifting voter blocks (like Catholics, seniors and national security-focused seculars) were more important in turning the elections towards Bush.

<shrugs>

nimh

The politics of division.

Since the last election, GOP strategists have been open regarding the need/wish to increase their percentage of the catholic and jewish votes. They failed with the jewish vote, but succeeded with the Catholic vote, as the analysis shows.

How did they achieve that? First off, we ought to assume that some percentage of the catholic gain was a consequence of the overall gain on terrorism/security issues which seems to have affected most electoral populations.

Secondly, organization, as the analysis shows.

But third, by forwarding a particular type of divisiveness though abortion and gay issues.

Now, let me tell you what I really think. Both of these issues, security and social, are driven by the promotion of fear. Fear of instability. Fear of change. Fear of the other or the alien.

And the solution to these fears is to trust in Authority - the government, the priest, the scripture, the literal. It is an easy and welcome relinquishment of an already shallow commitment to self-governance.

I heard on the radio that some Dems got together and pasted some suggestions on the DNC door in Washingtol ala Martin Luther...