this defeatist, victimized myopia that the Republicans are somehow playing by a different set of rules (or tactics) has got to end.
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:36 (eighteen years ago) link
did you read the article i linked? it says that the drift is not on policy, but on attitudes. people are voting attitudes first, and the Dems are still running on policy.
Regarding that poll, I ask whether it polled "adults" (I'm betting) or "Registered Voters". I'm sure most Americans do support taxing the rich. Guess what? We already do that, and changing the progressivity of the tax code more than marginally has always been a non-starter. I think it's quite conceivable that most Americans do support nationalized healthcare (though it would be interesting to see how the question was phrased and how much support drops off if you say some call it 'socialized medicine'), and accordingly there have always been Dems who push for that. Clinton sought to take baby steps toward it, in Clintonian style, and Dems got gunshy for years after given the political fallout. But its time is coming back. As for full domestic rights for gays, that doesn't surprise me either, because it doesn't say "gay marriage," which many Americans support, but not most. But most Americans, afaik, would go for civil unions.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:39 (eighteen years ago) link
In your summary, it still sounds like both of these approaches are only dealing with the way Dems talk about the issues - rather than their actual policy ideas. I think Dems do need to change the way they talk about issues, but I also think they need some new policy ideas which will crystallize this identity shift in a way that speaks to voters. Clinton in '92 didn't just talk about issues in a different way - he had some new ideas, like welfare reform, that split open the old left-right dichotomy.
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:42 (eighteen years ago) link
dude, that's what he talks about. that's what his last book was about. The entire point was to make folks on the left cognizant that they had a concrete set of values every bit as valid and cohesive and fitting in with American history as those trumpeted on the right. He's taken pains to point out that what he goes on about is more than just the magic spin words that will ensure the right folks get elected.
He also has gone on at length that part of the problem is that there is a paucity of new ideas coming from Dem leaders, and that even with his newfound fame, those leaders aren't listening to what he's saying. There's a bit in that NYT piece about Pelosi & others only wanting "the three magic words" and everything would be fine, which is more Frank Luntz/spin territory.
I also think they need some new policy ideas which will crystallize this identity shift in a way that speaks to voters.
exactly.
― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:43 (eighteen years ago) link
exactly. building a storyline around your guy is far more powerful than just a laundry list of attractive programs
― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:47 (eighteen years ago) link
people are willing to be on our side, but aren't voting for us, because they think we're not on theirs. to the extent issues come into play, we have to, not 'frame' the issues better, but explain why we take the sides we do. and there are a few issues on which we're going to have to recognize that people really aren't on our side. and we're going to have to decide whether we're going to be more accommodating on them, or better at explaining to people why they're wrong. guns are the first one.
The entire point was to make folks on the left cognizant that they had a concrete set of values every bit as valid and cohesive and fitting in with American history as those trumpeted on the right.
yes, i know that. the thing is he's talking about "folks on the left", not the Democratic party. the people we're going after DON'T SHARE the values of folks on the left, so we'll be talking past each other. they do share the more centrist, diffuse values of the party writ large.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:52 (eighteen years ago) link
My wording might have been a little too strong (at least the asap part), but even the newest Gallup has 50% saying set a timetable regardless of the situation on the ground. That number seems to grow with every poll I see. And Clinton meanwhile, but not just her, still entertain the notion that we should send more troops. What Murtha has to say here is pretty interesting (and this link also contains some poll info). One possible irony is that the Republicans will turn on the war before the Dems are able to in attempt to retain control in the upcoming elections.
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:56 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:00 (eighteen years ago) link
people are willing to be on our side, but aren't voting for us, because they think we're not on theirs
exactly. It's one of the main reasons I have trouble considering voting for a Democrat.
But while the Republicans are farther up the tree, look what they're doing. You can craft your message and sell yourself or your ideas or whatever, but your actions must validate your message somehow.
― don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:01 (eighteen years ago) link
I'm not sure if the Dems talking about "who they are" is really going to solve anything. Yes, maybe in a predominantly Christian state, it helps to say that you're Christian - but have we ever had a Democratic presidential candidate who didn't say they were Christian? Kerry made many references throughout the campaign to his faith. In the end, it didn't seem to help. I think the voters saw someone who was trying to have it both ways on Iraq, they bought the GOP's flip-flopper accusations and absorbed the Swift Boat propaganda, and that kind of settled it, as far as Kerry's moral fiber was concerned. Unfortunately, Kerry was not able to convey any overarching message about values. His proposal to roll back tax cuts on the top income bracket was given no moral context - it came across as the crudest sort of class warfare.
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:04 (eighteen years ago) link
Yeah, I'm not making any sort of point here about timetables (yes, they're nebulous) other than to say it's a pretty clear sign that the general populace is willing to listen (WANTS to listen) to talk about withdrawal. Polls, however, use that word so the answer given is limited by the question.
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:08 (eighteen years ago) link
kerry's an interesting specimen b/c he's half jewish -- something he's always been forthcoming about but not something he ever brought up in debates about religion/morality. he was raised catholic, and it's fair to say that what you're raised as is your religion, but it would be interesting to find out what fundie voters concerned with lineage think about kerry's none-too-distant heritage.
― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:25 (eighteen years ago) link
― stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:26 (eighteen years ago) link
I kind of doubt that was an issue or that many people were even aware of it. In any case, I don't remember hearing much about it during the campaign.
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:35 (eighteen years ago) link
mostly defensively. the point of this article is that you have to define yourself from the beginning. also, making many references does not equal getting the message across. did he do it in tv commercials? in ways that would cross over to free media (i.e. making it the message of the day/week)? and do you think he was believable (whether or not you believed him) to a skeptic?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 19:57 (eighteen years ago) link
I don't think the point is that the broad mainstream of voters is not interested in economic issues, it's that they're more interested in cultural ones. Cultural issues does not mean (only) abortion, teh gays, etc., though, it means community, family, time, stress, and culture in the consumer sense. These are issues that resonate with both the middle class and the "working class." To the extent that the working class has more pressing concerns, they're already on our side. The anti-poverty message is a good one, but it appeals mostly to upper-middle and upper-class (Democratic primary) voters. The middle-middle class searches elsewhere for meaning that the Dems just aren't giving them.
Yes, it's true that these people don't respond to messages about the preferential treatment of the wealthy, because they perceive themselves (sometimes correctly, adjusted for community standards) as wealthy, or wealthy enough, but they might respond to messages about the corruption of the wealthy (which is happening right now), or even the ways in which the wealthy use them. But telling people that they're fools, even if true, is a more desperate move that I'm not sure we're ready for in tone or substance.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:10 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:13 (eighteen years ago) link
Those are good issues, and I could see the Dems seeking some advantage on that ground, but I think they'll need more than just talk to be convincing - they'll need some new ideas. If a Dem candidate comes out and says, "I'm pro-family and I want you to have more time to spend with your family", then I think that's a great message. But they need to convince voters they can make this a reality - and not just by providing government aid to the neediest - this has to be something that makes a difference to the middle class.
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:19 (eighteen years ago) link
and, to the extent we're going to innovate, maybe this is what we have to work on. not doing some kabuki move that sells universal health care, but coming up with some project that most Americans can feel involved in. the Republicans have the great advantage of largely owning the War on Terra, though we'll see how long that lasts. we need to come up with something similarly big-sounding that appeals to hope rather than fear. energy independence might be the logical choice, but logic isn't how we win. if that were going to be our bridge (as it were), we need to find a way to bring it into peoples lives and make it meaningful or even exciting.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:22 (eighteen years ago) link
of course not. you work at the margins, or even on the micro level, and tie the larger theme into your big policy positions that connect with traditional Dem strengths like health care. Clinton knew exactly what he was doing with the Family and Medical Leave Act.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:25 (eighteen years ago) link
which are who, exactly? people who are 'politically active' but don't vote?
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:28 (eighteen years ago) link
i don't think this is true at all, either assertion.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link
yeah, you made that point before, and it's totally wrong as respects the modern parties, i.e. since 1950. all you have to point to is Kennedy, who barely won/didn't actually win, and only because he had a Veep who brought in the last of the Democratic South (which promptly turned against him after the civil rights era began at the Presidential level), and Johnson, who benefited from a self-admitted extremist opponent. Kennedy also benefited from a rare optimistic (and youthful) moment in our social history, and Johnson benefited from sympathy after the death of that moment. it also probably didn't hurt that the Depression generation ran society in those years.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link
well yes. and this is going to be an important part of the Dem Congressional platform in 2006, and perhaps will also be on the Presidential agenda in 2008 (as it was part of Clinton's agenda).
but while disaffecteds shouldn't be neglected, they are not the richest source of potential voters.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:40 (eighteen years ago) link
Or look at how they handled all the complaints of voting irregularities in the last two presidential elections - how can the Dems expect to maintain a monopoly on the black voting bloc when they won't even bother to defend their voting rights?
(h - you know I'm a pro-union guy, perhaps I'm being unduly harsh, but I just don't see the labor unions as the political force they were, say 40 years ago.)
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link
And the Democratic legislative successes since 1950 have been...? Civil rights? Wouldn't of succeeded without the mobilizing force of black southern churches. Post-Watergate reforms? Wouldn't have happened without Nixon's self-destruction and Republican party infighting. Clinton didn't have any successes, as far as I can tell. Apart from winning elections - which, as I said, you can tie directly to the involvement of Perot.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link
First - they should do it because it's the right thing to do! But then there are all those people who will be voting for the first time, and are probably the same people who hold minimum wage jobs. And then there are people like me - who never vote Dem (w/ very few exceptions) because there's nothing I can ever get behind.
Shakey- yeah, unions aren't the force they were because nobody holds union jobs anymore. (Membership is the lowest it's been since about 1934 or so.) Otherwise, you're absolutely right about how Dems handled the war.
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:49 (eighteen years ago) link
Not me. And anyway, it isn't just about simply appealling to swing voters - its about mobilization and capitalizing on developing political infrastructures. The anti-war movement could have benefitted and amplified its message and conceivably reached a lot of swing voters IF it had had the support of Democrats - but it didn't. So their message got buried, didn't make it into the mainstream media, and was effectively sidelined by DubyaCo. If the Party had been willing to work with them, it would have conceivably amplified the anti-war movements core arguments and convinced other people and brought about the national turnaround in opinion on the war that has happened over the last year and is still ongoing.
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 20:50 (eighteen years ago) link
show me the mobilizing force of black southern churches on the Presidential vote. in '64, Johnson won 44 states, but lost Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, and (By the Time I Get to) Arizona. in '60, Kennedy had won all those states except Mississippi (which went Dixiecrat) and (more Western than Southern) Arizona, sometimes by large margins, but his was the only ticket with a Southerner on it, and even then the anti-civil rights movement was beginning to lead the South from the Democratic party
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:16 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:25 (eighteen years ago) link