Democrats Urged to Abandon Election Myths

[Montgomery Burns]

Overall, it seems to be good advice--but will the loons who have hijacked the party agree?

To regain political power Democrats must abandon favorite election myths, adopt a strong position on national defense...

There are no threats of terrorism! It's all a big lie. Ask Michael Moore. The Bush administration only says there are threats to instill fear and control of the populace.

...and pick candidates who connect with average voters, two political analysts from the party said Thursday.

John Kerry connected. The average person can relate to a guy who dumps one heiress to marry another even richer heiress. The average voter can relate to a guy sailing on his yacht--while sipping a shrimp cocktail. The average voter can relate to a guy who goes to the press and says, "I don't fall over; the son of a bitch (the Secret Service man whose duty is to protect Kerry's life) knocked me over". The average voter can relate to a guy who dubiously collected more medals in 4 months in Vietnam than the average career military man. The average voter can relate to a guy who abandoned his mates after only 1/3 of his tour of duty. The average voter can relate to a guy who has his picture hanging in the North Vietnam Museum of War. The average voter can relate to a guy who managed to have 264 of 270 of his Swift Boat mates hate his guts in a mere 4 months (all 264 of the 270 being Republicans, of course).

The said the current "myths" are:

The belief Democrats can win if they just do a great job of mobilizing their base. Republicans have improved at mobilizing their own base, so Democrats need to do more than that.

Got that? We must work harder--we must work harder at getting out our message that Bush is Hitler and that he hates black people (except for neocons like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, etal). We must work harder at: registering more dead people, paying more drug dealers to get their customers to vote Democrat, slashing the tires of Republican Get Out The Vote vans on votring day, disqualifying the oversea votes of those baby-killing, blood-drinking neoc...er, I mean those troops that WE SUPPORT!

Then we will have to get rid of the Christians. Not all Christians--just the ones whose religious beliefs interefere with our political agenda. Now, I'm not advocating violence against Christians--at least, not officially. For the time being, we'll continue to simply mock and ridicule them for the self-righteous, hateful bigots they are (while graciously granting them the gift of our tolerance and understanding).

The theory demographic changes over time will make Democrats a majority, a questionable concept with the Hispanic vote increasingly up for grabs.

The only thing I have seen is that more businesses are moving from the coasts to Jesusland!

Why would anyone want to move to intolerant Jesusland? My cousin went to uiniversity for 4 years in Jesusland. In the whole 4 years, she never saw one transgendered albino midg...er, short person on campus. Where's the diversity?!

The belief Democrats can succeed politically if they simply learn to talk more effectively about their positions.

Calling John Kerry!

Calling Doctor Dean!

The strategy of avoiding cultural issues, playing down national security and changing the subject to domestic issues. National security is too dominant a concern now.

I'm starting to think these 2 Democrat political analysts are Karl Rove plants.

The report noted Republican gains among married people, Catholics, Hispanics and women during the last presidential election.

It's womyn, not women! Gender neutral! You'd almost think this article came from Faux News.

Democrats must choose to appeal to a broader majority that includes many moderates, said Galston, a political scientist at the University of Maryland.

We are the moderates. There is nothing wrong with our message. It's just that we have difficulty getting our message out because of the rightwing-biased MSM.

The Democrats also must develop a coherent foreign policy because "we just don't have one," said Kamarck, a political scientist at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

"We just don't have one"? Is this person deaf? After much thought and consideration, we came out with a coherent foreign policy. Here it is:

GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!!!

[Shady]

I'll add some more. These are opinions from Mr. James Carville.

The problem with Democrat campaign speeches is “litany,” and they need more narrative like Winnie the Pooh stories, political consultant and pundit James Carville said

“No Kumbayah crap,” Carville said

If Democrats try to single out every issue, they’re back to litany, Carville said. He also said Democrats just can’t say “no” to causes from gay rights to abortion to the poor

“Sometimes the problem with being a Democrat is being a Democrat,” he said

Link

[masterkush]

The Big Leagues

Overall, it seems to be good advice--but will the loons who have hijacked the party agree?

the loons are the elite of america they control both reps and dems

they own the power because in America money is the power

the leaders of the 2 parties are the elite's harlots

[Toro]

Speaking of loons hijacking...

[shoop]

The only chance for the Democrats to succeed is if they pick a good centrist candidate. Hillary has spent her entire time in the Senate positioning herself as a centrist. If the left-wing of the party abandons her they deserve to spend a long time longing for the White House.

[Black Dog]

The only chance for the Democrats to succeed is if they pick a good centrist candidate. Hillary has spent her entire time in the Senate positioning herself as a centrist. If the left-wing of the party abandons her they deserve to spend a long time longing for the White House.

It speaks volumes to me that Clinton can be considerd a centerist. I guess when the right wing take soff even furthe rin that direction, the centre lurches to the right. The Dem's ran "centerist" candidates in the last election. They lost because people who wanted a Republican voted Republican, while those who wanted a Democrat stayed home. Can someone name one substasial way in which Kerry's platform was any different from Bush's?

If the Democrats are the centre-left party (which they aren't) they should just stand up and say so. Show some backbone. And don't listen to any moron who says they need to water themselves down even more than they already have.

[shoop]

It speaks volumes to me that Clinton can be considerd a centerist. I guess when the right wing take soff even furthe rin that direction, the centre lurches to the right. The Dem's ran "centerist" candidates in the last election. They lost because people who wanted a Republican voted Republican, while those who wanted a Democrat stayed home. Can someone name one substasial way in which Kerry's platform was any different from Bush's?

If the Democrats are the centre-left party (which they aren't) they should just stand up and say so. Show some backbone. And don't listen to any moron who says they need to water themselves down even more than they already have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm, missing the point on a couple things here. The political centres in Canada and the U.S. are not the same. Not even close.

Personally I favour lower taxes, less government, a sensible gun program, am pro-choice and against capital punishment. I am perfectly comfortable within the Democratic party in the U.S. and the Conservative Party of Canada and don't see any contradiction in those affiliations.

Politics is about winning. John Kerrey has a voting record far to the left of what Hillary Clinton has created as a U.S. Senator. His defeat was due more to an inability to articulate a coherent message, and a poor choice as a running mate. Can't answer your question on the fly because of Kerrey's aforementioned inability to articulate his message - and I can't be assed to look up the answer online.

Democrats didn't lose because they lost their base. They lost because they connected with very few moderate voters.

PS - "Moron" isn't playing very nice. tsk tsk

[Black Dog]

Hmmm, missing the point on a couple things here. The political centres in Canada and the U.S. are not the same. Not even close.

Personally I favour lower taxes, less government, a sensible gun program, am pro-choice and against capital punishment. I am perfectly comfortable within the Democratic party in the U.S. and the Conservative Party of Canada and don't see any contradiction in those affiliations.

Which is kinda my point, innit? I mean, low taxes, small government yadda yadda are not what people tend to think of when they think of the Democrats (the party of the New Deal).

John Kerrey has a voting record far to the left of what Hillary Clinton has created as a U.S. Senator. His defeat was due more to an inability to articulate a coherent message, and a poor choice as a running mate.

If the "liberal" Kerry lost because of his inability to articulate a clear mesage, doesn't that sink the theory that the problem is that the Democrtas are too left?

In other words, what's to say that an articulate, unapologetically left-wing candidate couldn't win?

Democrats didn't lose because they lost their base. They lost because they connected with very few moderate voters.

No. They lost because the Republicans ran a better campaign. They lost because incumbents are always tough to beat. They lost, as you said, because of a lack of an articulate message. I also believe they lost because the Republicans cheated.

[Toro]

In polls, 40% of American's describe themselves as conservatives, 40% as moderates and 20% as liberals. Since 1964, only one Democrat has ever won more than 50% of the electoral vote - Carter - and that was because the nation faced one of the worst legal crisis in its history with Watergate. Slick Wille is the only Democrat to be re-elected in a half century. No Democrat has been elected President from outside the South since 1960. The population is shifting southward and westward into more Republican leaning states.

The simple fact is that the Democrats must track to the centre, if not the right, if they have any chance.

[Black Dog]

In polls, 40% of American's describe themselves as conservatives, 40% as moderates and 20% as liberals.  Since 1964, only one Democrat has ever won more than 50% of the electoral vote - Carter - and that was because the nation faced one of the worst legal crisis in its history with Watergate.  Slick Wille is the only Democrat to be re-elected in a half century.  No Democrat has been elected President from outside the South since 1960.  The population is shifting southward and westward into more Republican leaning states. 

The simple fact is that the Democrats must track to the centre, if not the right, if they have any chance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For starters, I would dispute those numbers. In the last election, avowed conservatives constituted only 34 percent of the electorate. The largest share of the American electorate (45 percent) calls itself moderate, and they went for Kerry by a 54 to 45 percent margin. 21 per cent of voters call themselves liberal.

In any case, I'd still be cautious of using that as a barometer. For one thing, "liberal" has become a perjorative term (or have you not wondered why so many left types use the word "progressive" nowadays): I have to wonder how many "moderates" are simply cowed liberals or fiscal conservatives.

[Toro]

Even so, 40 v. 20 or 34 v. 21, the liberals have a lot of work to do.

The fact that the term "liberal" is a prejorative word demonstrates that the Right is winning.

Bush won the majority of married women. Bush won 45% of the Hispanic vote. Its hard for the Dems to win with those numbers.

[Black Dog]

Even so, 40 v. 20 or 34 v. 21, the liberals have a lot of work to do. 

The fact that the term "liberal" is a prejorative word demonstrates that the Right is winning.

Bush won the majority of married women.  Bush won 45% of the Hispanic vote.  Its hard for the Dems to win with those numbers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is the right winning? Is it because of a massive socio-political shift? Or is it the work of a massive, well-funded political machine that has been steadily plowing its way across teh talk radio airwaves and back rooms, and overall dominating th epolitical discourse. (Indeed, not just dominating, but defining: hence the transformation of liberal into a dirty word.)

[Toro]

Its both.

As populations age, they become more conservative. Also, as I said previously, the population shift is away from the northeast towards the South and the West.

But the Republicans have spent a great deal of time and money to shift the debate their way. From the early 1960s well into the 1980s, the Left dominated the media. That's no longer the case. Only recently it seems that the Dems realized they were losing the battle. Air America, as feeble as it is, is an example of what the Left must do if they want to scape back lost ground.

Bill Clinton's victories masked this trend, but it was certainly happening in the 1990s. The GOP won control of the House in the 1990s and the shift in the senate began then too. Also, its debateable whether or not Slick Willie would have won if Perot hadn't run. But Clinton was a brilliant politician and he understand that he had to track to the right to win. Many of you complain about the Democrats shift to the right under Clinton, but they had no choice. The Democrats simply cannot win if they don't capture a portion of the centre-right vote.

[Guest eureka]

You are a little out in your dates, Toro. The Republicans began their campaign to control the media in 1973 - as I posted on another thread. Several wealthy, Republican famolies spent vast sums of money to do so and established several foundations to disseminate Right Wing propaganda and pseudo thought. The Coors family is the only one that comes immediately to mind but there were several others.

This paid off for Reagan.

About the same time, the evangelical Christian movement began to organize politically and gained control of much of the Republican agenda: again as I have posted on another thread. This large bloc of voters is the difference and the Democrats cannot make a dent in it without adopting the same willingness to allow Church to enter into the decisions of State.

I would disagree that the Democrats must shift to the Right in order to compete. They must, in my opinion, redefine themselves intellectually as a liberal force and get out of the Ivory Towers to take their message to the streets.

It should not be all that difficult to persuade a number of people that the neo-lib agenda is not a blessing to the ordinary man. Or that the Biblical literalism of the Fundamentalists is wrong and unChristian.

It will take a few years but not all that long when the Truth would be on their side as is evidenced by the growing problems of the US.

[Montgomery Burns]

John Kerry lost because he is a traiterous weasel who said that "this is the wrong war--at the wrong time--in the wrong place". Being a heiress-hunting gigolo didn't help much either. Neither did running to the press and angrily saying, "I don't fall down. The son of a bitch knocked me over", in reference to his Secret Service Agent knocking him off his snowboard.

Additionally, with the rise of talk radio, Fox News, and weblogs, the public is slowly starting to realize that they have been subjected to liberal-left propaganda by the liberal media. The pre-election surprises (fake memos--CBS, 380 tons of weapons disappearing under the noses of the US military--NY Times) That is why ratings are down at the news divisions of network TV, CNN, and circulation at the liberal newspapers.

I don't think that the Bush administration is very conservative. They are hawkish when it comes to foreign policy (although I think they should be more ruthless with the terrorists), but what about Bush's domestic spending? He spends almost like a Democrat! "Compassionate" Conservatism--is not my idea of conservatism. What about his limp response to the porous border with Mexico? That's foreign policy and he has been poor in that area. But the Democrats love those "poor" immigrants so they can keep them sucking off the teat of the govt, so they don't hammer Bush on the Mexican border issue. They see those Mexicans as potential Democrat voters. But they are losing the Hispanic vote. Bush garnered 44% of the Hispanic vote. Socially, hispanics tend to be conservative.

And what about Bush's feeble Supreme Court pick--Harriet Miers? She's hardly a rock-hard conservative. Way to motivate the people who voted you into office, Dubya

Bush is right of center, but he is hardly an ultra-conservative. The Bush administration reminds me (with the possible exception of hawkishness) of Canada's old Progressive Conservative Party.

The Democrat Party is coming to a crossroads. The far left has hijacked the party. They have proven to be a noisy and formidable foe. The far left is also somewhat scary to the typical voter--especially in the USA--which is a right-of-center country.

Who will win this civil war? For the sake of the Democrat Party, I hope the "Joe Liebermans" win. Additionally, the population is aging. Generally--the older the population, the more conservative is the population. And the exit polls in 2004 showed voters identifying themselves as 34% conservative, 21% liberal, and 45% moderate/undecided/fringe party, etc. That 45% is a lot, but I think it is safe to say that the US is a right-of-centre country.

I'm not sure Hillary can win the Democrat nomination. She has excellent fund-raising abilities, but the far left doesn't like her. Even if she did win, I can't see her becoming president. She has many negatives, what with being First Lady to one of the most administrations in US history. Plus, Hillary told the troops in Iraq that some Americans were questioning their mission. Way to motivate the troops--Hillary.

Additionally, her infamous statement at that 2004 Democrat fund-raiser in San Francisco..."I know they [the Bush tax cuts] have helped you, but we are going to have to take that away from you for the common good."

Hee hee. That Socialist Statement will come back and bite her in the rear.

[Toro]

I certainly agree with you, Montgomery, that Bush isn't particularly conservative on economic issues. Non-defense government spending is about 21% of the economy, compared to 17% when he took office.

Its also interesting if you breakdown the demos of the independents. They're economic conservatives, social moderates and somewhat hawkish on defense. That's the math the Dems have to deal with. And that's why, eureka, If you don't think the Dems have to track to the Right, they will lose every election. Or if they do win, it will be because the GOP base stays home.

[err]

Why is the right winning? Is it because of a massive socio-political shift? Or is it the work of a massive, well-funded political machine that has been steadily plowing its way across teh talk radio airwaves and back rooms, and overall dominating th epolitical discourse.

Well, in Ohio, they used computers... the ones that count the votes.... They were proven to have cheated in Ohio, but most newspapers didn't report on the commission's results.... and Janet Jackson's breast was a way more interesting story....

The exit polls in Ohio showed that the republicans had a 1 in 65 million chance of winning.... but somehow the computers counted more Republican votes than there were registered voters... There was a commission that studied it, and found at least 25 ways that the Republicans had cheated, including re-programming the computers for the re-count.... and nothing was done about it .....

So just because they got caught in Ohio, it doesn't mean that they cheated in other states... does it... ... well, maybe Florida, but that's understandable, because it's Jeb's country down there....

(See Harpers magazine, about 2 or 3 months ago for the full story.. sorry, I lent my copy to a friend...)

[Toro]

Exit polls are nonsense. This idea that somehow the Republicans "cheated" because the exit polls had them trailing is silly. Exit polls are not scientific. They ask people as they leave the polling both who they voted for. Generally, women vote earlier in the day and men go later. Women generally vote Democrat, men vote Republican. Also, minorities tend to vote earlier in the day as well. So don't take anything from Ohio exit polls or anywhere else as examples of "cheating."

[Montgomery Burns]

Why is the right winning? Is it because of a massive socio-political shift? Or is it the work of a massive, well-funded political machine that has been steadily plowing its way across teh talk radio airwaves and back rooms, and overall dominating th epolitical discourse.

Well, in Ohio, they used computers... the ones that count the votes.... They were proven to have cheated in Ohio, but most newspapers didn't report on the commission's results.... and Janet Jackson's breast was a way more interesting story....

The exit polls in Ohio showed that the republicans had a 1 in 65 million chance of winning.... but somehow the computers counted more Republican votes than there were registered voters... There was a commission that studied it, and found at least 25 ways that the Republicans had cheated, including re-programming the computers for the re-count.... and nothing was done about it .....

So just because they got caught in Ohio, it doesn't mean that they cheated in other states... does it... ... well, maybe Florida, but that's understandable, because it's Jeb's country down there....

(See Harpers magazine, about 2 or 3 months ago for the full story.. sorry, I lent my copy to a friend...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yawn. A one in 165 million chance of winning a state he was projected to win? What a crock. Keep it up though. Do continue to insist that there is nothing wrong witht the Democrat's message. They only lose because the Republicans "cheat". And continue to ignore that 5 people were convicted of voter fraud in the 2004 election--and ALL 5 were Democrats.

[Shady]

They were proven to have cheated in Ohio, but most newspapers didn't report on the commission's results

Who proved that "they" cheated in Ohio? Most newspapers didn't report it? Why not?

[Guest eureka]

I still have my copy somewhere around, err. What is the point, though, of referring to something credible when dealing with fanatics?

[Toro]

C'mon! The newspapers covering it up! Dont' be silly

If that really occurred, that story would have made reporters' careers. It didn't appear in the real media because it didn't happen. Instead, it appears in the Fringe media because they cannot accept that they lost.

[shoop]

I still have my copy somewhere around, err. What is the point, though, of referring to something credible when dealing with fanatics?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm, to give credibility to your fanatical rantings?

[Montgomery Burns]

I still have my copy somewhere around, err. What is the point, though, of referring to something credible when dealing with fanatics?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's a conspiracy by the rightwing MSM--the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, CBC, CTV, Global, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, BBC, CNN International, AP, Reuters, AFP, etal!

[Montgomery Burns]

Toro:

Non-defense government spending is about 21% of the economy, compared to 17% when he [bush] took office.

There you go. A 23.5% increase in non-defense spending in only 4 or 5 years. The Highway Bill, the millions to Alaska for a bridge that links a few dozen people, $28 million to the Arts Community (who mostly hate Bush's guts), and billions to the LA Hurricane Katrina victims (free trailers for previous renters and thousands per person in "free" education).

Way too much spending. Not very conservative in domestic issues.