Regrouping after the election....

Well said.

Segovius seems to be rehashing how bad Bush and the Republican campaign is from a Democratic point of view, but I think we really need to stop doing that and look at why we failed. We can stay in denial and blame everyone else about why Democrats lost so badly this election, but that's not going to get us anywhere.

So I'm going to pose a few introspective ideas as to why we lost the election and what we might be able to do next time. In 2000 I had figured that the Democrats basically won the election but just lost to rediculous voting issues in FL. I thought they'd come back in 2004 with a vengence to not let something like that happen again. Instead, I saw more of the same.

Do Democrats need better candidates? I mean, yeah, Kerry had a lot of support, but I think it was mostly people that "hated Bush" than "loved Kerry." Bush supporters, on the other hand truly do love him with a devout passion. Instead of analyzing why this is (with regards to Republicans), why don't we ask ourselves, what would it take to get a candidate on the left side that has a following like that of the right side? Basically, what is it going to take to get more voters? There's really only 3 options:

1) Awaken the "sleeping giants" that don't vote. Have a candidate that truly, for the first time, reaches out to the young and minority voters out there, without alienating the existing Democratic base. It might even take a minority candidate or running mate. If you watch the documentaries on MTV (a definite liberal media outlet) and the like, leading up to the election, you see everyone on there --the hip hop artists and celebs -- saying how important it is to vote and that every vote counts. BUT, what you don't see is any enthusiasm for any candidate, particularly John Kerry. You see P. Diddy interviewing a bunch of Democrats and Republicans but he feels as if no one is really speaking to him and his constituents. Yet he runs an aggressive Vote or Die campaign. You see minorities on the streets talking to each other, and how they feel the system works against them and no one speaks to them, and you see no endorsement for Kerry. These mixed signals and lack of appraisal for a enthusiasm for a candidate is what kept the percentage of young voters the same as 2000.

2) Run a "liberal with a cause" type of candidate. Some would say Howard Dean was like this, and while I liked him too, he didn't win. So it's time to start fresh. Pick a strong, determined candidate who is solidly in support of liberal and progressive policies, and someone who could never ever be labelled as a flip-flopper. If there's one thing I see in Bush followers that I don't see as much in Kerry followers, is that they see him as a very strong individual who is clear on what he stands on. I think it's important the Democrats get a candidate like this next election.

3) Run a moderate, personable candidate who can penetrate the south. I guess you could say Clinton was like this, but the fact is, the South is a damn powerful group of voters. I don't know what else to say other than, this strategy might work, but it wouldn't be my favorite.

These are some strategies I think the Democrats could work on. What they don't need in 2008 is another candidate who is just like Kerry. While I liked Kerry and wanted him to win, I never really did see him as strong as he could have been on some issues (dare I say a lot of issues) and there's no doubt his voting record is questionable. He comes across as not really having a cause, something you can't really say about Bush, whether you like his cause or not.

Also, who is the Karl Rove equivalent for the Democrats? Why don't we have someone like him on our side? He's run a successful campaign for the Repubs and some tout him as a genius. He certainly did good this election.

After suffering losses in ever facet of gov't this election, I think the it's important for all Democrats as a whole to reunite under a renewed platform and message. Whether it be a liberal or moderate platform, I don't know, but I think they need to phase out the word liberal, now that it has such a negative connotation. Progressive should be the new liberal. It should stand for policies that are for scientific growth, faith-agnostic, fiscal responsibility, and improving our strength and acceptance with the rest of the world. Those are my examples, whatever they maybe, Democrats just need to pick something and hammer home their message via all their politicians in office. Strength, conviction, and purpose is what the Democrats need to project. They need to talk the talk and walk the walk. We need to get people excited about about being Democrats, not just being anti-Republicans. I feel as if they need to have a 3rd-party, cult-like platform, to get lukewarm Democrats to actually say, "hey, I actually like this guy."

I also think the Democrats need to take the high road during the campaign trail, and leave the Republicans to the smear campaign, false ads and blatant lies. If the Democrats stick to truth and facts, while still staying on the offensive, undecideds will notice and take into account. Fighting fire with fire really isn't good; I certainly don't like it. And I mentioned they need to stay on the offensive, which I think is true. Take for example, the whole Kerry using Cheney's gay daughter debacle. The Republicans came out and lashed at him for using her to support his idea. While I think he could have done without it, what no one --and I mean no one-- mentioned was the fact that Bush said "I don't know" to the question whether gays choose to be gay or not. Umm, hello? This should have been bait for the Democrats, but all they did was ust say that the Republicans were over-reacting and that Kerry's comment wasn't a big deal. What a good way to stay soft on an important issue that your opponent is clearly on the far-right of.

Alright, so, I'm no campaign strategist, but these are just my thoughts on the election and what the Democrats need to do better. To sum it up, pick some central, progressive policies, unite all Democrats, and hammer home those policies with strength and confidence. It worked for Republicans, I think it can work for us too.

And then there's the idea that no matter what we could have done, Bush would still win this election. The Christian right is perhaps the most powerful block of voters, and when 11 states are having Gay marriage propositions, you know damn well that they are going to come out, vote on that, and support their Hero. What can you say to that? I guess you can say that the Democrats have nothing to lose now, and should try some new ideas. Not more of the same.

The far our view is that progressive politics essentially won and got everything they wanted from FDR to LBJ. Since then, it's been nothing but maintaining the status quo. Since RMN, it's been a very conservative country.

Democrats, the opposition party, have to essentially start over with a new vision, new people, new platforms, new strategies. The country needs its infrastructure rebuilt, from energy to education to environmentalism. The culture war was lost and the fundamentalists won, so Democrats have to work from the Church level to convince the populace that bigotry is wrong. Democrats have to work at their message-making at all levels, from the Church to the radio to the TV, Democrat representatives are uniformly terrible at it.

My platform would be:

1. Infrastructure
1a. Education reform involving ciriculum reform, diverse teaching methods, and cheaper college education
1b. Energy reform involving energy efficiency and alternative energy
1c. Environmentalism in the form of staving off the impending crisis in fish and wildlife populations through planned conservation
1d. R&D institutes need to be funded to support the above
2. Culture wars
2a. Infiltrate the Churches and reinterpret the Bible for the religious folk and bore into their head that bigotry is wrong
2b. Instead of all-out pro-abortion, compromise halfway and provide support for pregnancy issues.
3. Fiscal accountability
3a. Balance the budget
4. Soft power foreign policy
5. Space is our future! (pet project)

I'm sure there is more, but there is lot the Democrats could do, but have refused to reinvent themselves with.

New blood, definitely.

I have no problem with the north east, but a lot of the country does. And I do not like the perception that liberal = northeast. It's too "Camelot".

Someone like Obama is in a great position to make waves. Bright, young, passionate and progressive. That's what we need.

You don't need to change your ideas to woo middle America, you just need to change your tone.

Also, the progressive stance on abortion needs to be far more tempered than it is now. As a pro-choice liberal I share the pro-life's disgust at the way a lot of people talk about abortion and try to hide how horrible it is. You do not fight delusion with more delusion.

This post scares me to death. It really does. Infiltrate the churches? I thought you guys were for Separation of Church and State? MORE government involvment in education? Curriculum reform at the federal level? I don't know about that. Soft power? We tried that, and look what it got us.

The problem is that you are STILL blaming the right for your problems. Nowhere is it more telling than in the statements you just made about religion. In your view, it's the people that should be brought to the thinking of the liberal leaders. This is completely the opposite of the spririt of Democracy. It also carries with it the false pretense that conservative Christians are racists and bigots. The fact is that very few of them are.

The Democratic party no longer stands for the masses as it used to. It no longer represents mainstream America. But according to you and MANY others, that's not the problem of the Democratic party, it's a problem with America itself. I can't even express how incredibly misguided and twisted that line of thought is.

Basically I agree. Though I do think many of the positions of the Dems must change for them to ever regain power.

made a crap post and deleted it because it was all crap

here's a sobering thought for democrats...

turns out LIEBERMANN was the most "electable" after all.

Yes indeed. Speaking as an evangelical Christian who happens to lean Republican, Lieberman (being Jewish) is one of the Democratic senators who I happen to admire. I might actually vote for him because he has his head on straight regarding some very important issues (e.g. security).

For those who are stunned about why liberalism isn't working in America, please read Tom Wolfe's insightful pre-election editorial article about why the liberal elite don't have a clue. I'd strongly reccommend reading this article because the Democratic leaders seem to have a fundamental inability to figure out what is wrong with their current cultural strategy.

you are right, BUT those who are are incredibly concentrated in some places. i mean, hell, i am surrounded by white Christians in Louisiana who only talk to someone of another color if they have to, and are visibly horrified if you tell them someone they live near is gay. can i speak for them all? no. but it gets VERY difficult to see any positives when you are surrounded by that hate every day, and it's the haters that are the loudest and most organized.

as much as i would love to run for public office to make a difference, i wouldn't stand a chance in hell here, unless i totally sold out or lied through my teeth. plus, on a personal level, i am sure someone would run a smear campaign that would not only cause me to lose, but basically destroy my entire life and reputation.

in that respect, i am impressed by both bush and kerry that they would and could put themselves through it all.

You have a problem with this? You don't a have problem with what Bush, Rove, Bennet, Buaer, Falwell, et al did and is doing? No problem with Faith-based funding? No problem with scores of religious groups powering the Republican machine?

My comment isn't about the government infiltrating Churches, it was about Democrats infiltrating Churches. They have to take back their share of the pulpit and provide a more liberal interpretation of Christianity and what it means to be religious.

I want zero government money flowing between Churches and government.


Like [NCLB] federalizing testing wasn't federal involvement in education? Not only that, it does squat for education. It sounds like you are against education, for crony capitalism and gov't waste if you supported that. The education system is broke, it's curicula needs fixing. It's institutions need revitalising.

What I would like to see is the destruction of the rigidize and moribund education system. I would like a more dynamic and less structured public school system allowing different types of schools, allowing different sorts of teaching. But the one thing coming with public money is a standard set of curicula more benificial to students like personel finances, ethics, et al.


Soft power means economic power. The only place we've tried it is China. The means to moderation is the empowerment of the people through increasing their personal wealth. All we've done is support cartels, especially in the oil-rich countries.


Heh. I'm merely suggesting the Democrats do what the Republicans do. What's wrong with the religious folk having a more liberal leaning point of view? They are still doing God's work. They are still faithful. They are still going to Church. They still support each other. They still go on missions, helping and converting people.


Is it bigotry to restrict gays from civil unions and marriage? Is it bigotry to restrict gays from the various rights of hospital visitations, inheritence, tax benifits, etc?

Parts of Christianity says that you are not the judge of man's actions. Only God is. Meanwhile, our country is entirely about giving everyone a chance to do well in life. Not giving gays equal chances at what we all agree is the most important part of life does not follow the spirit of this nation.


Hehe. What's wrong with the Democratic party retaking their share of the Church and liberalizing it? Nothing. It's only good to have a strong debate amongst the Church folk about what it means to be religious. Movements in reinterpretation has been the standard practice in Churches going for nearly 2 millennia now. Do you have a problem with Martin Luther? Calvin? Unitarians? What's wrong with Unitarians presenting their world view to Baptists and Methodists?

I've got another observation about Democrats. Ever since the 2000 presidential campaign, even further back in time, what I see in Democrats is an attitude that the American people will come to their senses and suddenly realize that GWB and various Republicans are baaaaad. It's always this action or that word has to shock the American people out of its stupor.

It's a very reactive attitude based on the assumption that America is just filled with Democrats. I hope Democrats realize that it is not true and that they have to be proactive, just like the Republicans, who began mastering it in the 90s. People do not have an innate sense of decency at the level of political positions. They have to be educated into outrage and educated into certain policy positions. Democrats have to start education the American public about their positions and why they are good for America again. The Democratic message-making machine has been awful for the last decade and they need to rebuild it.

Your first statement again shows that liberals would rather dismiss their opponents than debate them. Yes I'm Republican. But I'm simply telling you the fact that liberals and democrats REFUSE to accept: It's not that the country hasn't gotten their message, as McCauliffe claims. It's that they've heard it and REJECTED it. The country is more conservative than the Democratic leadership is. The real rift in thinking comes into play when we discuss what to do about the problem for Dems. Your solution is to change the will of the people? You have got to be kidding. This is not what Republicans did in any sense of the word. If anything Republicans have become far more liberal, especially fiscally, than they ever were. They saw what the country wanted and adopted what used to be the Dems platform, coupled with tax cuts. That's why their in power. They adapted their positions and agenda over 30 years so that they, not the Dems, were the populous party.

Somehow I question your perceptions. And somehow I find it amusing that you're allowed to generalize, while someone like me is not.

The Democrats need to hire psychologists. They need to look at why the core reasons people believe/behave and act the way they do. Then they need to counter brainwash.

GWB has dug a big hole over the past four years. He has four more years to do whatever he wants with it. It is a wait and watch game now.

And I wonder if GWB's vision of 'uniting' means Democrats accepting Republican principles, while Republicans dont budge an inch?

I propose that any Republican that asks for unification...Smack the fucker down, and make sure they stay down

Thus demonstrating why Democrats won't ever be elected. "Once we fix them, they will vote for us". Nice. how would you like it if I talked about un brainwashing the leftists in SF or NY?

Your party stands no hope of winning an election if you think that people across the asile need therapy to be proper voters.

I would rather not ever win another election IF it means becoming or pandering to intolerant bigotted greedy twats.

glad i amuse you. and that's fine to question my perceptions, but i would be goddamned shocked if my perceptions were wrong about my local community. i mean, shit, indian american bobby jindal polled great throughout the state for governer, yet the well-documented "bubba vote" felt like putting a woman democrat in office rather than him... and i'm sorry to generalize here, but it was because he wasn't white. EVERY SINGLE ISSUE he polled great on, yet when the votes came in... he got into cogress this go 'round because, well, his competition was terrible. i work for an election consulting company, so i get to see a healthy amount of data most folks don't.

btw, did i say that you couldn't generalize? if i implied that, it wasn't my intent. hell, stereotypes are handy. it keeps us from doing stupid shit like asking a hell's angel what the result of the tennis match was. but didn't i friggin' say i couldn't speak for everyone? that i recognized that?

The right wing has incredibly galvanized its media image immensely high on cable news, radio, and internet. They've made an outlet for their followers to be able to communicate with each other, and their book sales are strong. Not only that but advertisers clamor to be on their networks as people who generally watch and pay attention to them have money to spend.

On the left wing side they used to have the media their last bastion is really MSNBC, Film, and also a very good lot of authors and publications to tap from. But almost all of which is owned in some part publicly by conservative stock-holders.

In terms of funding, its image, and its message we're in a very precarious situation.

The democratic needs turn back into its social reorganization party it was in the 40's, investing huge in military technology (less troops), R&D, and education K-College, create new government work programs, and not the anti-war, everyone else is wrong, and a bigot party, lets spend millions of dollars in SS, and healthcare reform, all while having the same problems party.

Its very clear to me that if you go over the airwaves and claim to someone that by their beliefs and structures that they are a bad person, they will not vote for you, or your interests.

We need to reach out and shake their hand... not their neck.

THT:


Wow. Do you honestly believe that it is the Republican party that is responsible for "interpreting the bible" and for the current beliefs of Christians? You don't understand. Conservative Christians are Republican because the party represents more of their interests. The reason Democrats won't "infiltrate" the churches is because of the nature of the party itself. It's not a party of religion. The leadership of the party stands for secularism, abortion, the abolishment of religion from all public life, etc. That is why conservative christians will note vote for the Democratic party. And with this, you make the rather absurd statement that it is the Democratic party that should redfine the values and beliefs of their own constituents? So the goal then is to get the block of the the vote, not by changing to fit the block, but by redfining it? Who is representing who here?

(As far as "what Bush did", I am not thrilled about campaigning in churches...on either side. But honestly, when I wake up very Sunday to John Kerry in another black church, I don't think you have a lef to stand on with this argument)





Well first, remember you are talking to a teacher, so realize that before you start spouting off about NCLB, of which you obviously have zero understanding. Don't assume I'm 100% on baord with it just because Bush signed it, either. Also realize that Ted Kennedy WROTE the NCLB, and John Kerry voted for it. As far as the act itself: I think it does begin massive federal involvement in education, which at this time I oppose. The federal government certainly should not be yet more involved in curriculum. That is a very bad idea. I do want to poitn out that under this President, federal education spending has gone up 50%, so everyhting you hear about not funding education is basically bullshit.




We do use our economic power. You're not even making sense now. What do you want to do, sign an oil deal with Iran?


HAHA. This is getting amusing now. Nothing at all is wrong with that. Nothing. But what are you going to do? Make a concerted effort to get secularist true blue liberals to be more Godly? Why? Do you feel churches are discriminating against liberals? Has it occurred to you that true liberal democrats don't share the values of most churches? You're not suggesting that the Democrats do what the Republcians do. You're suggesting that Deomcrats become more religious and "inflitrate" the churches to they can grab the conservative Christian vote.




Question 1: No.
Question 2: No.


Christianity forbids homosexuality, at least most denominations do. You picked the wrong issue to make a biblical argument on. And really...there go you again. Now that 11 states have unquestionably repudiated your views (not that you can't still have them), you still think it's not your party, but the people themselves that are the problem.




Pardon me, but you must be smoking crack. "Their share" of the church? What the hell does that mean? The leaders of churches and the bible itself will dictate what it means to be Christian, not a political ideology. The people will then take their beliefs and make a decision as to which candidate or party (or both) represents THEIR beliefs. That is the very root of Demcoracy. What you are suggesting is that the Democratic party and liberals make a concerted effort not to find the best way of REPRESENTING the elecotorate, but actually change it to suit their political interests.

In other words, you guys want that block of the vote. What you don't understand is that until your party changes, it won't happen. Repeat that to yourself until it makes sense. Parties that don't represent their people cease to exist.

So incredibly wrong. "If only they could comprehend what we stand for, they'd aghree with us".

The American people heard and comprehended the message. They just rejected it.

Good start. I don't agree with you on specifics but I do agree with your approach.

there's that phrase again, and i feel like i have been bludgeoned with it by both sides in this campaign. you're a smart enough guy, you do realize that a hell of a lot of people didn't reject it, right?

Your just being semantical. Bush and the Republicans got a clear majority. 51% of the vote in a national election is a mandate.

A mandate for death.

I believe that Republican beliefs and Christian beliefs feedback on each other and the liberal voice within American Christianity has been minimized, most notably in the heartland. Democrats need to retake, a better word would be to participate more, in their Churches and provide a liberal voice.


The reason why I think it is a good idea for Democrats to infiltrate their Churches again is that it would create more liberal Christians and less conservative Christians.

Being progressive is to force change is it not?


For the first question, Democrats have some work to do to redefine the values and beliefs of people who are not their own constituents, ie, to change people's minds. If it were their own constituents, they would be voting for them already.

For the second question, the goal is to change the block of voters to believe in a more liberal message. Liberals like to change things.

For the third, it is a complex question.


I see who is currently in power and who is making the wall of separation more and more porous. I vote the other way. GWB is actively providing public money to Churches. If he was a real Republican he wouldn't have spent the money and gave everyone a tax cut to do what they see fit with the money.


If there is a less structured education system that allows a group of educators to organize a school in whichever way they want, I think it is important that there is a standard level of curicula that each school should teach.

Only place where I think we need more funding is the college level in form of performance-based educational grants and more R&D style graduate level funding.


I thought we should have signed an oil deal with Iraq in trade for lifting certain restrictions. If we open up business to Iran, Iran must lift certain restrictions. If we open business to North Korea, North Korea must lift up certain restrictions. Economic soft power, promoting freedom and democracy through business.


Hence, more Democrats should become Church leaders.


Not to grab the conservative Christian vote, to make Christians more liberal in thought. To me, Democrats are just as Christian as Republicans are. They just need to make their message heard more in the "heartland," and the best way to do it seemingly is through church associations.


This is why Democrats have to participate in Church more and convince their fellow Christians otherwise.


Liberal Christians have less of a problem with it.


I'm suggesting that there be more liberal Church leaders providing balance to the conservative Church leaders in delivering the message of the Bible.


It's a long twilight struggle, but it is the fate of those who want to change things. Not political interests btw, to do what is right. You are in the same struggle, no?

Post of the year. I wish I could have done it my self

um, no. remember in 2000, when bush actually lost the popular vote, but still won? he called THAT a "mandate." by your logic, this constitutes a shut-out. hell, in an alternate universe where kerry won ohio, bush would have "pulled a gore" by winning the popular vote but still lost.

well, thank GOD someone realizes this.

I had this exact thought earlier today about Democrats and the churches/religion, although I was thinking about it much more nefariously in terms of the Dems attempting to fracture the Republican unification with the Xian right. The message should be simple enough: Jesus was a liberal. How can true conservatives support this kind of expansion of government? This kind of intrusion of government into the home?

That kind of thing.

Damn fine post(s), THT.

Cheers
Scott

This is an important statement and very true. I think the media gets a lot of blame for being biased when in reality they just follow a good story. With Democrats being lame and timid, the press didn't rally behind them. It wasn't necessarily intentional, but it happened. If they were at least interesting their whole public image would be changed.

No, I'm not trying to say the media is at fault, not at all. But the media is the vehicle used most often to reach voters. So, Democrats simply have to get better at being an attractive target for the media in order to gain some advantage from it.

Hey! some of your posts have scared me!

Democracy and america is all about the freedom to think how you want. Something your group doesn't practice.

THT:


Most Christians are not Democrats because most Christians do not share Democratic beliefs. I don't see a way to put it more simply. The Republicans simply represent their beliefs more closely. What don't you understand? It's not about changing the nature of the church or its people. It;s about figuring out what they want and are, and representing them accordingly.


You will just not let it go. Democrats infiltrating churches isn't going to "create" anything.



OMG. I simply cannot get through to you. The Democratic leadership must change, not everyone else. People vote based on their beliefs and desires, not because someone reeducates them and tells them what to believe in. I literally cannot believe that you are advocating changing people's opinions instead of your platform. It's the worst form of denial on your part. It's not a complex question at all, btw.


What public money? Examples please.




OK.



Please, please listen. We've DONE those things. The NK nuke framework was a prime example. The problem is that these regimes are not negotiating in good faith. They cannot be trusted. And really, do you honestly advocate making a deal with with someone like Kim jong-ill or Saddam Hussein?


For what purpose? Oh wait...I know! We have to educate Christians!




Why should Christians become more liberal in thought? Why would this happen, when to do so in most churches involves a renunication of the church's teachings?




True, and they are also disregarding the bible.




Why does there need to be a balance?

He didn't call it a mandate.

Damn misguided posts. It's EXACTLY the kind of thinking that is going to keep the Dems out of power for a long time.