A friend sent this.
Suggestions, both rhetorical and grammatical are encouraged.
Experience has shown us several truths over time and as members of the Democratic Party we should start thinking about the future, from 2006, 2008 and beyond.
1. Governors get elected not Senators. The executive position of a governorship just is far more translatable to an electable candidate than a Senatorial one. Its not “fair” but its how it is. Every Senator has way too much of a distortable record. There are exceptions that can be made, presumably if being Senator wasn’t your last job before running for President, but in the most case any sitting Senator who has future plans of being president should either plan on running for Governor or hope to be chosen as VP.
2. Only Southern Governors need apply. Right now in this moment of time this a truism must face. Northerners will accept Southerners, but not vice-versa. This is extremely limiting to our presidential pool, but it happens to be true. Southern voters ultimately have a hard time finding a northern candidate likable. The South is the area the Democratic Party needs to focus on for the future. Ergo, only a candidate from the South will give us our best chance. So no talk of “Hillary ‘08." Look around the South, these should be our candidates in four years.
3. Likeability is electability. Charisma trumps better ideas. If your candidate has a better likeability score, voters will trust him to do the right thing even if they disagree with his ideas. Think Ronald Reagan. Sunny charm got most voters past what they didn’t like about his views. Likeability gets us over humps like religious faith and social issues. We did not err badly when “electable” became the motto during the Democratic primaries, the problem was we badly misjudged what “electable” meant. Even Democrats admitted John Kerry’s charisma, while not as absent as Dick Cheney’s was no where need the level of George W. Bush’s. We don’t need to nominate empty-headed morons, but we do need to judge everyone on the Clinton-Reagan scale of likeability, charisma and charm.
4. Message strategy, message strategy, message strategy. Don’t assume better ideas win. James Carville had it right with the simple slogan, “It’s the (blank), stupid!” What everyone liked about Bush was his simple message. It doesn’t matter that we thought it was simplistic, the fact what it was clear enough to get through the clutter. "The Most Liberal Senator in Congress" "Flip-flopper" "Vote for me or we all die." Voters may reject simple messages but at least they understand them first.
5. The DNC needs to work on getting candidates of all levels elected in the South. This is a long-term strategy that will take more than one or even two election cycles. I’m not saying we should abandon the North. But the majority of our work should go into getting candidates elected to state legislatures, School Boards, as District Attorneys and dog-catchers. There needs to be a concerted effort build a “farm team” in the South. In addition to building up our farm pool this will help build our base in the South.
6. Build party identity amongst youth between elections. Our presidential campaigns are candidate-centered. But if we want to build a long-term base we need to do more to cultivate the Democratic Party than nominating the most charismatic guy every four years. Youths must learn to associate the Democratic party using far more partisan methods of attracting them to vote than MTV’s nonpartisan “Rock the Vote” concerts (every four years). Pumping a few thousand dollars into Campus Democrats organizations so they can buy buttons and get speakers four times a year, will not do it. We must learn to cultivate political speech not just in college campuses but in pre-voting youths and high school students. Online is probably the best way to do it amongst this age group. There are many issues youth are interested and active in that the Democratic party only broaches once in a great while. While abortion and sex education isn’t a bad area to engage youth voters in, there are other issues they are concerned about which are only talked about to give them lip service when we need them.
7. Build our own media forums. Although some of this is out of the official DNC’s hands, more effort should be made into creating and promoting progressive-media. Everyone has acknowledged what a benefit AM talk radio, and later Fox News has brought to the Republican party. We should consider our continued efforts at these goals. Also remember, neither Rush Limbaugh nor Fox News were overnight successes. Just because this media may not rival their Republican counterpoints by 2008 is not a reason to abandon the effort. Remember, audiences take time to build, especially with new products.
Notice what I am not saying. I’m not saying we need to change our ideas. I’m not saying we need to change the ideals of the Democratic party. We need better messengers and better ways of delivering out message, but we do not need to become neo-Republicans to win. Gen. Wesley Clark would probably have been the best candidate to win based on the Southern strategy. However, the fact the primary voters did not pick him is not to their fault. He jumped into the race late and stumbled out of the gate, perhaps because he was newer to elections. He now has some experience. If he wishes to run again I wouldn’t be surprised if he did much better with some planning.
Posted by joncim at November 4, 2004 09:51 PM1) Governors instead of Senators: Very true, but although record distortion is possible, I don't think that is the real problem with Senators. Senators just make horrible candidates. The US Senate produces people completely unable to speak directly, convincingly, and with humanity. Senators frequently deteriorate into wonkish specifics rather than big-picture messages. Additionally, for the Chief Executive the electorate perfers executives.
2) It should be more "North-Easterners" need not apply. There are plenty of Democrats from the Mid-West, Plains, and West that can speak in terms that are understood and compelling in the South. The problem is that they are unpaletable to the interest groups that dominate the Democratic primaries. To win the Democratic primary candidates end up having to take the most extreme pro-choice positions (Women's groups), against changes to affirmative action (Black groups), against school choice and reform (NEA), be protectionist (Unions), etc.
3) Charisma means you can argue successfully for your ideas.
4) Message strategy is important -- but having a possitive message is important. "The other guy is incompitent and I have a (secret) plan to win," is not a message that really works. Kerry spent too much of the election as "Not Bush". This isn't a winning message in a competitive election -- it'll only work in an election where the other guy doesn't have a chance.
5) Again not just the south. A great Democrat from Ohio would be very compelling throughout the contry (well except the North East and West Coast).
6) Building party identity amoung the youth is fine, but it isn't going to get anyone elected. The youth that need to be involved, just aren't going to be attracted, until they aren't youth. And if you think "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" were non-partisan, you're kidding yourself. "Rock the Vote" was pushing the "Bush will draft you" line very hard.
7) Dems don't need more "media forums". They have NYTimes, LA Times, WA Post, NPR, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. It is the Liberal dominance of the media that causes problems for Democrats because they just don't get an accruate view of the opinions of the electorate. Fox News is popular not because it is an arm of the Republican party, but because it doesn't have an obvious bias that pisses people off.
I agree that Dems don't need to become neo-Republicans to win. Most of these points are just technical issues that might win the Presidency, but the Dems problem is systemic. Since 1964 only one Democrat has won a majority of the popular vote for President -- Jimmy Carter -- and he won a smaller % than Bush just managed. Democrats used to dominate the Senate and House, but it is looking more like they will be the minority for a long time.
In 2002, when the Dems were spanked, the polls said definitively that people didn't believe the Democrats didn't stand for anything. Unfortunately the Party took this to mean that they should be more outspoken in opposition to the Repubicans. This was a complete misread, IMHO.
Democrats need to be FOR something. Look at some domestic issues:
Abortion: Against any restrictions (even though 70%+ Americans support restrictions).
Social Security: Against any changes
Medicare: Against any modification in how the program works, want to increase coverage and spend more money.
Schools: Against accountability and choice, spend more money.
Affirmative Action: Against changes.
What the Democrats need is a "Contract with America" -- an affirmative plan of action.
Additionally, the complete denigration of many people's moral concerns is just devestating. On embrionic stem cell research, John Kerry never addressed people's unfounded fears -- he just ridiculed them. People fear that for each person you with embrionic stem cells you need to sacrifice one or more fetus -- which could end up being horrific. Instead of trying to alay these fears, Kerry called them stupid -- like a typist against computers. He said that moral concerns should never limit scientific research. So is it OK for cosmetic companies to torture animals? No matter how trivial, it is research.
Posted by: joby at November 5, 2004 04:00 PMCould you give me statements where Kerry called people stupid and where he ridiculed them? I'm just curious because I must have missed that.
Posted by: Heather at November 5, 2004 04:21 PMKerry, of course, did not directly call the public stupid or directly ridicule them. But that is what a lot of people hear when Kerry and Dems call Bush and his views stupid. The above is about embrionic stem cells research (ESCR) was directed against Bush, saying that to be against ESCR would be like and that moral concerns should never trump scientific research. To a lot of people, Kerry was directly insulting them.
Teresa Hintz-Kerry did call people who didn't support them stupid. But not that that matters.
Posted by: joby at November 5, 2004 05:11 PMZorloc was so kind to point out...
http://backseatphilosopher.blogspot.com/2004/11/to-my-fellow-democrats.html
Posted by: :-jon at November 5, 2004 06:22 PMAnd before more left-coasters start attacking open and outspoken Christian who are involved in politics for their beliefs, just remember, Jimmy Carter, MLK, Jesse Jackson.
Posted by: :-jon at November 5, 2004 06:59 PMJoby I happen to be the author of the piece Jon posted. i'm not going to address all your points because, obviously, your a Republican and i'm a Democrat and we want different things.
While I think a candidate from the SouthWest might work, I suspect an Ohio Democrat (of which there are none in the three major positions) would not work. It has to be Southern. The good thing is there is a lot of Southern States to choose from.
Not all Senators speak like Kerry. John McCain is a very forceful speaker. As was the late Senator Wellstone. But the problem is managerial. Running a state is far more like running a country. A governor is by definition, an executive position.
On your point about buiding party identity among youth. Your right that it doesn't win elections if your waiting for the 18-29 year old vote to show up. (Although they did in much larger numbers in 2004. The percentage is the same as 2000 but there was much greater turnout in the ENTIRE population so the raw number makes it seem lower than 2000.) The reason a party would want to build party indentity is to "lock in" party id while someone's positions are still mallable. Most people automatically absorb the party identity of their parents, if their parents talked politics to their children. Most aren't these days which is why party identification is becoming much more fluid in youths. I'm not going to quibble about Rock the Vote. I agree...it was pretty much pushing for Democrats. But officially it is a non-partisan operation (tax-status) and therefore cannot advocate for party identification like a party apparatus can.
The one part I would argue with you is the so-called liberal media. Its an old arguement that I can't completely rehash here. But CBS (which is broadcast) is not the same as Fox. Even if I accept your premise that somehow Dan Rather is as much a shill for the DNC as Sean Hannity is for the RNC...you can't tell me Rather speaks like Hannity does even on his own show. I don't accept your premise and if I did we need them 'liberal media to be a hell of a lot more assertive about their view points then. We need a cable network to present the news in as forceful (and entertaining) manner as FNC does for Republicans. FYI, partisan press is nothing new. In other countries newspapers do not claim to be objective and instead present a point-of-view. In England, everyone knows The Guardian is a Labor paper and Rupert Murdoch's paper is a Tory one.
I do want to confront one other point you made: "Abortion: Against any restrictions (even though 70%+ Americans support restrictions)."
This is where I feel like progressives have lost ground. We have allowed the anti-abortion groups to frame the discussion about abortion. When you talk about the percentage of Americans who are for "restrictions" on abortion what you are probably talking about is polling on the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion ban. Well I'm going to tell you something about that ban and why it symbolizes exactly what i mean. It doesn't mean what most americans think it means. Even my roommate with a ph.d misunderstood it. "Most Americans" when asked think the act is banning viable (third trimester) abortions from being performed. In fact that is not what the act bans because third-trimester abortions are already banned in most states. (I think only three perform them). So you and the rest of America are picturing these 8-9 month old fetuses, which could survive outside the womb. In fact the act is about banning second-trimester abortions. However the language, is perfectly framed to PERSUADE people to think of those images. This is what I'm speaking of. If you poll americans asking "should abortions be banned in the second trimeter" you will not get a number of 70%.
Now if you just personally feel that no abortions should ever be performed, this is not a stance that the majority of americans agree with.
Now Kerry with the Stem Cell issue is one I think he actually handled fairly well. Kerry did not ridicule people's faith. He did speak about his own. But (and this is why we need to nominate Southerners) he didn't come off sounding credible. Kerry does have faith, but he can't talk about faith in the same way Clinton did. Maybe Northerners just don't have it in them to be able to speak about faith in a way that connects with the voters.
What i think you are picking up on, isn't so much what the CANDIDATE has said about faith, but some underlying assumptions voters have thought about Democrats. We have allowed ourselves to be defined as the party of no religion. This isn't true at all. (of the 48,000,000 who voted for Kerry I'm willing to bet a majority would claim to be religious). I can't point to any one politician who has spoken badly of faith, but I think some of the party...faithful has. And we have, of course, not worked on combating this imagine. One thing to remember is of teh 49,000,000 who voted for Bush, I'm also willing to be a majority of them are NOT for establishing school prayer which only a portion of the Republican voters want. Its not like there isn't common ground here. We're just bad at talking about it. Which is the point of my memo.
I agree that targeting kids is a good thing -- I just seriously doubt that that it will pay significant dividends.
Of course Dan Rather is not the same as Sean Hannity. Hannity (who is a shill and tool) is on tv as an Commentatior -- he is payed to have an opinion. Dan Rather is an "objective journalist" -- the problem is that he and CBS isn't objective. Another example is PBS, where on election night while filling in time they discussed (seriously) whether Bush would launch a coup if he lost the election (which they believed he would because of the exit polls). I have no problem with an overtly liberal media -- I'm all for acknowledging one's viewpoint. I just don't think it will get you anywhere. Encouraging the growth of liberal/leftist thinktanks would be more productive.
On abortion the polls are mixed. But this is from 5/2004 by ABC/WAPost:
Illegal in all cases -- 20%
Illegal in most cases -- 23%
Legal in most cases -- 31%
Legal in all cases -- 23%
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:f4i8_8LAUoQJ:www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm+abortion+poll&hl=en&client=firefox-a
That's 74% that supports some restrictions -- though that can mean a lot of things: "partial-birth", parental notification, 3rd trimester, etc.
And there are plenty of non-Southern Democrats that can speak about faith seriously -- Joe Lieberman is an excellent example. What you might find shocking is that the religious vote, when they voted, used to be a solid Democratic group.
On issues, while I think some moderation on would be helpful it isn't absolutely necessary. What is needed is advocacy not just opposition. Gephardt started the Dem Primary with his health care proposal, which forced the other Dems to follow suit -- but the issue and plans became buried. Kerry rarely spoke about his plan, except to say that it would cover all Americans (which it wouldn't). He had a fairly detailed plan but he didn't explain it to the voters, which allowed Bush to label it as government-care. The issue, which Dems have a huge advantage on, was pretty much negated.
Posted by: joby at November 7, 2004 01:42 AM