Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (9811 of them)

I think the Dems should constantly point out that the current guys in power CAN'T DO THE DAMN JOB. Scary scary Dick Cheney is the intercontential champion of incompetence. Everything they touch turns to shit, they can't keep on a budget, they can't fight a war, they can't deal with natural disasters, they can't do anything right.

that oughta help win over the "git-r-done" demographic

I'm not even kidding.

― dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 26 January 2006 18:58 (eighteen years ago) link

Slojas link is a great read. But that's not really what "conservatives think Dems should do." The publication might be Buchanon's Am Con, but the writer Bill Kauffman, who often writes for them, is always worth reading and defies easy categorization. To their credit Am Con is not the Nat'l Review - in the 2004 election they actually ran an op ed that made the argument for each candidate, 3rd parties included, which is pretty interesting and fair. You didn't see lefty publications doing the same thing. Anyway, Kauffman is definitely worth reading.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:00 (eighteen years ago) link

Democrats DON'T slather themselves in apple pie?????

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:05 (eighteen years ago) link

They prefer strawberry-rhubarb, currently.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:06 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/kerry_convention_salute.jpg

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:06 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/07/26/kerry.jpg

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:07 (eighteen years ago) link

etc etc

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:07 (eighteen years ago) link

I think the Dems should constantly point out that the current guys in power CAN'T DO THE DAMN JOB.

I disagree, at least to your terms. People already think the administration isn't doing the job well enough, but still trust them to do better than the Dems. If Dems said 'you can't do the job', it doesn't address the fact that the public doesn't think Dems can do it either. Instead, Dems have to say 'we're here to get the job done right', and they have a huge credibility barrier to hurdle by means of personality, rhetoric and actual practical steps to point to, as well as ceaseless assertions that they want to protect America, while "others have different priorities," namely... etc.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:12 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost: oh yeah, kerry did sort of do that. and it was the best moment of the campaign.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:12 (eighteen years ago) link

http://www.republicanvoices.org/dukakis_2.gif

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:13 (eighteen years ago) link

i still the think primary process destroys any kind of meaningful presidential campaign; makes it much more dependent on luck; it's no way to intelligently run a party or contest the reins of the most powerful country in the world. you spend months just letting america know who the yokel you're putting up there is. choose that person NOW. let them ride out the attacks, establish their positions on everything, so that once the campaign really starts to heat up everyone already knows where you stand and you can spend time making fun of the other guy's tie.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:13 (eighteen years ago) link

LOL at Kerry-overbite

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:13 (eighteen years ago) link

like i said

a huge credibility barrier to hurdle by means of personality

this means not only finding a sufficiently alpha personality, but also finding a personality that knows the limitations of its alpha-ness. you don't see Bush on a horse.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:14 (eighteen years ago) link

(but you will see Allen on one)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:14 (eighteen years ago) link

ihttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/diet.jpg

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:15 (eighteen years ago) link

most genius Bush-not-going-overboard moments - the frat-meeting-style bullhorn speech at Ground Zero and that Fred Thompson "he takes the mound" (aw-shucks) stunt at the convention. the flight suit threatened to go over the line.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:17 (eighteen years ago) link

Oh, so THAT's who the "Nutritional Health Alliance" are...

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:19 (eighteen years ago) link

In summary, Dems should look and act as centrist as possible, and above all else, listen to the damn consultants. How this is in any way different than Dem behavior since at least Carter is beyond me, but anyway, we'll see where it gets them.

My prediction = if it gets them anywhere it's through no fault of their own. No, they'll have the Bush admin to thank a thousand times.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:22 (eighteen years ago) link

if dems want to REALLY lock up the current youth vote, then i suggest that they took a look at the book referenced in this thread:

STRAPPED: Why America's 20- and 30- Something's Can't Get Ahead

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:28 (eighteen years ago) link

see, the GOP has the United Seniors Association and all that bullshit. we need to start, you know, Line in the Sand, an organization of ordinary Americans calling on Bush to stop avoiding the hard battles (in Pakistan) of the war on terror.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:30 (eighteen years ago) link

In summary, Dems should look and act as centrist as possible, and above all else, listen to the damn consultants

no, you don't get it. (I have no idea what Dem "consultants" say, but I'll stipulate to your kossack/Sirotan belief that they are a monolithic group counseling meekness.) I'm not arguing for Dems to look and act as centrist as possible, I'm counseling that they assert their ownership of the center, aggressively but mild-manneredly (yes you can do those things at the same time) where necessary. Where a Dem position is really way outside the center, which would be rare but conceivable, they should consider whether it may be wrong.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:34 (eighteen years ago) link

btw, lest I be misinterpreted, I'm not against Sirota, or kos. Nor am I against the DLC or its adoptees. All of these factions have something to contribute to the dialogue, and all are wrong on some things. Placing them on either sides of an axis is another obstructive binary.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:36 (eighteen years ago) link

Where a Dem position is really way outside the center, which would be rare but conceivable, they should consider whether it may be wrong.

or they just move the center to where they are.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:38 (eighteen years ago) link

How this is in any way different than Dem behavior since at least Carter is beyond me

centrism-of-spirit has served Dems very well since Carter thanks very much. the two cultural centrists - Clinton and Carter - won. those who lost were Northern/urban/insider professorial types who did little to argue that they better stood for American values than their opponents.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:40 (eighteen years ago) link

yr conveniently forgetting that Clinton won both times because the right was fractured by Perot. Carter won on the strength of Ford's ties to Nixon. I don't think their perceived centrism was the deciding factor for either (but at least they did know how to capitalize on the failures of the Republicans - which the current Dem party seems unable to do).

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 19:56 (eighteen years ago) link

(how many times do we have to do this? it's been shown that Clinton would have won without Perot)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:22 (eighteen years ago) link

That Kauffman article is pretty good.

Appointed U.S. ambassador to the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture by President Clinton, McGovern lobbied for a universal school-lunch program funded partly by a $1.2 billion annual U.S. contribution. As an isolationist skeptical of foreign aid, I am able to restrain my huzzahs, but I’d sure as hell rather spend a billion buying lunch for kids in Bangladesh than $300 billion occupying Iraq.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:26 (eighteen years ago) link

also, the cover the current ish:

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_01_30/images/magcover.jpg

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:30 (eighteen years ago) link

xxpost - And Reagan trounced Carter in 80, so much for his centrist appeal. I think you can definitely make the case that Perot tipped the balance to Clinton in 92. Yeah, people play with numbers both ways though.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:33 (eighteen years ago) link

xpost - Ha, great cover. Am Con has definitely been critical of Bush all along and they remind people that there's more to conservativism than the neo variety.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:34 (eighteen years ago) link

I just realized that there are little particulate bits falling from the crushed building. Nice touch.

― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:35 (eighteen years ago) link

and in '96:

Clinton - 49.2%
Dole - 40.7%
Perot - 8.4&

do the math.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:36 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean come on, that puts Clinton's margin of victory at less than a single perecentage point.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:38 (eighteen years ago) link

You're making the assumption that everyone who voted Perot would've went immediately to Dole. I'm not going to say it's a bad assumption but it's still an assumption with minimal backup from those statistics.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:40 (eighteen years ago) link

sure. 40.7 + 8.4 = 49.1 < 49.2

did you have some other math in mind?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link

But to be fair, Perot wasn't only pulling votes from Bush and Dole.

xxpost - In the same issue they run a pro-Gene McCarthy piece, a piece about Mencken, and a piece critical of Greenspan. Like I said, I don't think it's an easy magazine to pigeonhole and although I don't have a sub I always check in.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:41 (eighteen years ago) link

Sure we're getting into conjecture here - but my larger point is that this polite centrism thing has never resulted in stunning victories for the Dems. Not the way, say, heavy-handed right-wing candidates (Reagan, Dubya) have totally crushed their centrist Dem opponents. Saying the strategy is a time-tested antidote to current woes is just myopic.

But back to gabbneb and his "obstructionist binaries" and focus group claptrap...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:42 (eighteen years ago) link

Yes, def true

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:43 (eighteen years ago) link

Reagan is one thing but GWB didn't even win the popular vote in his first election; that's not exactly a "crushing" defeat of centralism any more than Clinton's victories were a shining example of centralism's virtue.

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link

In fact, I think in 92 Perot took votes almost equally from both of them - where it mattered of course was in the key states where he helped Clinton.

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:45 (eighteen years ago) link

I mean, Clinton didn't win a plurality ever but at least the other dude didn't actually win more votes than he did and get sonned by technicalities. That's a terrible example! xpost

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:46 (eighteen years ago) link

in 96, Clinton went above 50% in Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Iowa. How was that Perot's influence, again?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:49 (eighteen years ago) link

I was thinking more of Dubya beating Kerry with more than 50% of the vote (not Gore - which I agree is not a good example)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:49 (eighteen years ago) link

oh yeah, the closest reelection in history in which exit polls forecast the loser winning = totally crushing the opponent

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:52 (eighteen years ago) link

50.7 to 48. something. That's a better margin than yr centrist hero Clinton's re-election.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:57 (eighteen years ago) link

judging successful campaigns by exit polling = Democratic focus-group myopia par excellence.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:58 (eighteen years ago) link

Well, no, technically it's not. xpost

― Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 26 January 2006 20:59 (eighteen years ago) link

That's a better margin than yr centrist hero Clinton's re-election.

uh, actually it's not. Clinton 96 got 49.23. Gore 2000 got 48.38. Kerry got 48.27.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:01 (eighteen years ago) link

Carter 76 got 50.08

"do the math"

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:02 (eighteen years ago) link

I think there's something in the larger point though of "saying the strategy is a time-tested antidote to current woes is just myopic." Anyway, "centrism" is red-herring. Sirota (again): "From's group is funded by huge contributions from multinationals like Philip Morris, Texaco, Enron and Merck, which have all, at one point or another, slathered the DLC with cash. Those resources have been used to push a nakedly corporate agenda under the guise of 'centrism' while allowing the DLC to parrot GOP criticism of populist Democrats as far-left extremists. Worse, the mainstream media follow suit, characterizing progressive positions on everything from trade to healthcare to taxes as ultra-liberal. As the AP recently claimed, 'party liberals argue that the party must energize its base by moving to the left' while 'the DLC and other centrist groups argue that the party must court moderates and find a way to compete in the Midwest and South."

In other words, whose "centrism" are you talking about?

― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 26 January 2006 21:02 (eighteen years ago) link

Skipping 9711 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.