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
that's true, but that's different from saying they're all corrupt and ineffectual. they do have an affect, just not as great as they used to.
― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:39 (eighteen years ago) link
My first and greatest b-day!
As to your larger point, yup. I tend to find hope in events that happen outside of electoral politics anymore.
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:44 (eighteen years ago) link
And trying to hog the center, as they've been doing for, oh, the last 2 decades is working really well.
― TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:45 (eighteen years ago) link
Oh I agree completely. I just hope people remember this.
― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:47 (eighteen years ago) link
I can be over-optimistic electorally, but I think it's quite likely that Warner, for one, early and easily develops into a credible Hillary alternative (if not the dominant player on the field), and Kerry gets laughed out of town. I think Feingold has the potential to be a serious contender in the pre-primary stakes, but isn't going to go anywhere once people start voting.
anyway, there's another thread for personalities. it would be nice that if we talk about personalities here, we try to talk about them in context of the discussion, i.e. what (real, rather than imagined) message they're using
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:49 (eighteen years ago) link
*sigh* I heard a Wisconsin woman, a party activist apparently, say on "Morning Edition" recently something like 'we can't nominate so far left as the last two in 2008.' I reached through the radio and strangled her.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 22:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 22:25 (eighteen years ago) link
Yes, OTM.I read an article to the effect that Dean is putting most of his effort & resources into rebuilding the party at the local level, precinct level basically, which seems urgent and key. Karl Rove has prob always been a right wing ideologue but he started out doing direct mail, not working on message or on policy. I am not a huge fan of Dean whenever he opens his mouth but if he's getting stuff done at the ground level, it's about time.
-- dar1a g (dar1a_...), January 19th, 2006.
Absolutely, absolutely. OTM OTM OTM. That's why he's in that position in the first place.
And I think this is the most important part of the solution by FAR. If you build up the party at the grass roots level, you not only have local people to canvass their neighbors and get out the vote, but you have a much larger TALENT POOL from which to pick candidates and strategists. No amount of triangulation using focus groups and advanced polling software is going to replace that, especially since the Republican party will always have the same cheap tricks at their disposal.
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 22:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 22:36 (eighteen years ago) link
There are now better means to get the word out than there were before. Now they just need to figure out what to say, and how know how long that will take.
― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 22:41 (eighteen years ago) link
The people who engineer GOP victories these days are people who are working at the top and doing pinpoint market research the way the guys in the article linked at the start of the thread are. It's about targetting these voters directly and through paid and free media. The organizational base helps only at the margin.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 22:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:04 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:14 (eighteen years ago) link
36 are up for grabs, 14 D, 22 R. I just wish stuff like this(i.e. states voting for governors of a differing party than president) would be incorporated into all the shit "red/blue" talk.
― kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:33 (eighteen years ago) link
it would be interesting to find out what fundie voters concerned with lineage think about kerry's none-too-distant heritage.
They don't like Catholics.. I am guessing neither part of his heritage would be a plus there.
About finding new voters, the Dean campaign's big plan in the primaries was to inspire & bring out all these people who never had a reason to vote before & get them to vote Democrat. That didn't work out too well for them. Through the churches & megachurches in particular the GOP seems to have had more success in this.
― dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:39 (eighteen years ago) link
-- gabbneb (gabbne...), January 19th, 2006.
But that strikes me as a little like answering the question of "How do you become the most powerful country in the world?" with "By having the best weapons." Where did Republicans get the strategists who came up with these campaigns? Where and how did they get the money to do it?
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dan (3 Million Hits MUST Mean 3 Million People!!!) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:47 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dan (Or We Could Follow Your Ludicrous Conspiracy Theory) Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:59 (eighteen years ago) link
No offense, but what the fuck are you on??
― TRG (TRG), Friday, 20 January 2006 01:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Friday, 20 January 2006 01:39 (eighteen years ago) link
even I'm not that paranoid. newsflash - there's no such thing as "the Dem leadership". yes, there are Dems who worked to bring down Dean *before* the scream, some of them quite wealthy and most of them aligned with rival candidates (in particular Gephardt, who is only further to the right of Dean if you judge ideology by how they voted on the war and ignore the fact that Dean didn't need to get elected in a Red state)
to the extent the 'Dem leadership' did anything about Dean, they mostly helped rather than hurt him - the CLintons threw Clark into the mix so he could have a Veep who would reframe 'crazy' as 'crazy like a fox', then Gore endorsed him giving him some measure of legitimacy (which you can argue hurt rather than helped him)
no offense, but what the fuck are you on if you don't think Kerry lost because he was perceived as too 'liberal' (i.e. too different attitudinally/identity-wise from swing voters)?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 02:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 03:00 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 20 January 2006 03:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 03:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 20 January 2006 03:43 (eighteen years ago) link