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
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 03:45 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 03:46 (eighteen years ago) link
Kerry did not lose for that reason. Kerry lost (and maybe didn't lose at all) because he was a mediocre candidate running against an incumbent in time of war with a position that wasn't in any way distinctive. On foreign policy there wasn't a difference and Bush had the advantage of holding office already.
― TRG (TRG), Friday, 20 January 2006 04:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 04:34 (eighteen years ago) link
I think this comparison highlights the Democratic party's huge disadvantage. MoveOn members aren't exactly meeting every Sunday to network and soak up the latest party propaganda. Without a strong, organized union base, what social networks still exist that can bring liberals together to discuss issues and provide an organizational foundation for party politics?
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 20 January 2006 06:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 07:05 (eighteen years ago) link
This is a common error in the way the left thinks about the conservative movement; if we were to look at a 'hinge' moment, most historians are starting to see the nomination of BARRY GOLDWATER - yes, BG - as the moment in which conservative politics grabbed a foothold. Sure he lost, but he lost representing a conservatism that was essentially presumed dead, and he did it working with grassroots orgs. Despite the historical noise about the rise of the left's grassroots organizations in the early 60s, the right as we know it now was basically born in the 60s with the Goldwater campaign and the alignment of a bunch of different strands of social + economic conservative thought.
― deej.. (deej..), Friday, 20 January 2006 07:41 (eighteen years ago) link
...alignment of a bunch of different strands of social + economic conservative thought powered by grassroots organizations - PTA groups, john birch society, Phyllis Schlafly, Ayn Rand. Everything came together with the parents of the baby boomers.
― deej.. (deej..), Friday, 20 January 2006 07:42 (eighteen years ago) link
― deej.. (deej..), Friday, 20 January 2006 07:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― deej.. (deej..), Friday, 20 January 2006 07:48 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 07:49 (eighteen years ago) link
and also worth remembering that our culture -- as opposed to our politics -- is still largely trending liberal. the culture is globalizing and multiculturizing a lot faster than our politics. politics will catch up.
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 20 January 2006 07:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 20 January 2006 07:58 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 08:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 08:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 20 January 2006 08:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 20 January 2006 08:22 (eighteen years ago) link
ideologically, yes. attitudinally, no.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 08:36 (eighteen years ago) link
So how can Democrats compete with a powerful top-down structure like the church? Without unions how can Democrats organize supporters and potential supporters in a social situation that meets regularly? Can MoveOn and Dean-style internet "activism" really mature into effective replacements for genuine grassroots organizations that meet in the flesh?
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 20 January 2006 08:40 (eighteen years ago) link
Without unions how can Democrats organize supporters and potential supporters in a social situation that meets regularly?
what would be the purpose of meeting regularly?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 20 January 2006 08:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― TRG (TRG), Friday, 20 January 2006 14:27 (eighteen years ago) link
The Christian Coalition may be a "top-down organization," but you have to understand that the power of the church comes from the fact that people actually get together and meet. In many non-urban places in America, the Church is THE place for social and family life -- it's the only game in town.
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Friday, 20 January 2006 14:32 (eighteen years ago) link
they're an essential part of the chicken. their reach is very much real.
― don weiner (don weiner), Friday, 20 January 2006 15:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Friday, 20 January 2006 15:03 (eighteen years ago) link
― o. nate (onate), Friday, 20 January 2006 15:10 (eighteen years ago) link
The thing about the Goldwater 'hinge' is that it would likely never have resulted in a conservative revolution if a genial front man like Reagan hadn't emerged. To win the presidency, the Dems need someone who can recast their attitude/ideology/wotdafuck in positive terms, and who doesn't sound like inauthentic and grating with every breath like Gore and Kerry.
RWR was inaugurated 25 years ago today. To update the smartest thing I've heard Michael Moore say, we're entering the second quarter-century of the Reagan Administration.
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 20 January 2006 15:11 (eighteen years ago) link
Well, even if all he manages to do is to get two conservative justices on the Supreme Court (thereby shifting the swing vote to the right) who will likely be there for the next 30 years, he's already been quite effective from the right's perspective.
― o. nate (onate), Friday, 20 January 2006 15:32 (eighteen years ago) link