Democratic (Party) Direction

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

which are who, exactly? people who are 'politically active' but don't vote?

i don't think this is true at all, either assertion.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

And trying to hog the center, as they've been doing for, oh, the last 2 decades is working really well.

Oh I agree completely. I just hope people remember this.

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

*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.

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.