How can Dean bring about a political realignment?

I've posted on here my thoughts on why I think Clark can bring about a political realignment, making the Emerging Democratic Majority come sooner, and bringing the political center of this country to the left.

I won't rehash the argument now, because I'm honestly (this is not flamebait) curious to see how Dean could bring about a political realignment towards a Democratic majority.

How can Dean do this?

Please, no hand-waiving clap-trap in the analysis. Guidance questions:

(1) How will Dean get "Reagan Democrats" to vote their interests instead of voting for the false macho image of Republicans? More importantly: how will Dean dissociate our Party from the false, negative CULTURAL stereotypes about it that so many hold?

(2) How will Dean split the South so that we have enough States to deny the GOP a monopoly there (which is all we need)

(3) How will Dean allow us Democrats to appeal to the center without having to move right in terms of policy?

(4) How will Dean bring out the African-American vote both (a) in terms of percentage voting; and (b) in terms of overall turnout?

(5) What analogy is there in American political history to the realignment that Dean will help usher in? Why do you think the analogy applies to the present day?

(6) A coalition is not a consensus. There are dozens of factions in our party. Most factions do not like each other, but we stick together: FDR kept us together brilliantly, Clinton did a somewhat decent job. How will Dean square the circle politically? How will he unite a party that (like the GOP!) is divided by class, ideology, race, cultural affections, and age?

I used to attend Dean Meetups until I read about the New Deal coalition FDR ushered in that ran this country for so long. I asked myself how Dean could bring the same, and I really couldn't see it.

What's the answer to my skepticism?

(edit: unfinished sentence)

guns

on edit...

There are many, many reasons Dean can really unite voters and bring about a significant surge for Democratic power and influence in the country. I am just too darn tired to post it all tonight, however, as I pulled a double at work and am about to head off to bed. I'll try to find this sometime tomorrow and add the other things.

There is no way Bush will be able to beat Dean as long as the Democrats who always vote stick by him. Although Clark has some similarities in being able to pull in some voters most others can't (except for Dean), there are a lot he's not going to be able to get to vote for him that Dean can. Dean is the only one I'm absolutely positive will definitely beat Bush. Some of the others probably could, including Clark, but I honestly believe Dean is the only one who can't lose. I'll explain why tomorrow.

And Clinton outdid Gore in the South.

clinton was more gun control in terms of being so open about it and making it into a huge issue. and he won the south enough to take away gop support. also consider how horrible the right wing attacks on clinton were.

Instead of the old coalitions old politicians needed, Dean has the internet, and a message of righteous fury. You mention 'Reagan Democrats.' How naive of you. Dean doesn't need them. Dean is going to get people involved in politics who have never voted before, people who flunked their civics classes, in fact, and get them registered and voting. Those people, not any quaint, antiquated idea of a 'New Deal coalition' will carry Dean into power, where his fiery rhetoric and impressive forearms will do the rest, thereby empowering the people of this great nation.

You have a lot to learn about Howard Dean, let me tell you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not asking you to co-opt it, but Dean has a message that does speak to a lot of us. Yes, it's an insurgent campaign. Yes, it will attract its share of party-line naysayers.

Howard Dean's views have captured the interest of many people....many of whom were never involved in politics before. Disagreeing with his positions is fine. Posting another one of your rhetorical posts is childish.

He's mocking the tendency of Dean proponents to think that the answers to the tough political questions is: "He attracted people like me!"

But that's not the question. How can he attract a TON of people who are NOT like you?

contribution.

Tell me, has he attracted a TON of people...like me or not?

(on edit)

Would I be questioning his viability as a candidate if he didn't appeal to a broad base of people? You bet. My point is that he DOES and I believe his appeal is a direct result of the message he sends. I sincerely appreciate that there are those who disagree. I'm supporting Dean because I believe that he has the message that will inspire enough people to defeat Bush.

But each of those folks get to vote only once. That isn't the point: the question is whether Dean can usher in what amounts to a political shift in voting patterns.

Increasing the party's activist base gives the party more resources in elections, but of it self it does NOT change patterns our way.

The electoral system has its quirks, as we learned in the 2000 election. Gore lost (if he lost at all) by the slimmest of margins. Any Dem candidate who can swing just one additional state can win this for us. I believe that Dean can do that.

(on edit)

You bring up the point that each voter can vote only once. What candidate has more voter support than Dean?

That was the question--not a single presidential victory (which we also need!)

How can we accelerate the coming of a democratic majority?

I, personally, believe that we are best served with a split executive and legislative. I DO want a Dem President, but I don't think a Dem Congress (coupled with a Dem Pres) is a good idea. Ideally, I'd like to see a Dem Prees with a slightly Rep Congress (enough to defeat a vote but not enough to override a veto) and a more clearly liberal Supreme Court.

if the GOP wasn't run by a bunch of crazies. We need at least 12 years of the Dems running everything, and for the GOP to purge itself of the lunatics at the top, before I might think there were advantages in mixed government.

These people are crazy.

from the ranks of all the Americans who don't vote. That's exactly what Dean is doing. He's also giving people reason to change affiliation to Democratic so they can vote for him in the primaries. IF Dean gets the nomination he's going to beat Bush. As long as Dean gets the nomination, all these new Democrats are going to feel empowered by it and will believe they can make a difference. They will be more likely to stay active in politics and remain Democrats. Not only is nominating Dean going to strengthen the Democratic party, but not nominating him could seriously harm it.

I just don't see it. I posted somewhere else that most of us over 35 have been through Watergate and 3 assasinations. We've been around the block. We're not a bunch of idealistic kids anymore. Give us something CONCRETE not just a bunch of "feel-good" sentiment.

What I like about Clark is that he's uplifting and positive. He makes you feel like there's hope for the future. I like that about him - plus his stance on the issues. In addition, you can just tell that he is a whiz when it comes to economics and foreign policy. He is familiar with most of the players on the world stage.

humorless fall? How about the humorless who are unable to connect even the most simple of dots? How about the humorless who are unable to connect simple dots, and who talk about the appeal of a message that they never actually get around to articulating?

Clark supporter here. First, you have already specified the areas in which Dean should cause a political realignment, and by specifying the terms you're not going to get any answer on how he could.

There are many things that the progressive left and the religious right actually have in common, in principle. So there is possibility of a realignment there, but very unlikely since they hate each other. Dean, being a secularist, could not do this.

Dean could, however, cause a realignment by bringing some libertarians into the Democratic Party and forcing some conservatives out.

I was looking for anything. I could see pissed-off, sophisticated Northeastern Republicans going to the Dems because of Dean, but we already own the Northeast, and there ain't that many of them.

As for:

"Dean could, however, cause a realignment by bringing some libertarians into the Democratic Party and forcing some conservatives out."

Conservatives out of the Democratic party? That's terrible: I meant a good realignment! I want a bigger party!

Except for Lincoln Chafee, who is definitely a liberal. And conservative Democrats do not like pissed off, northeastern Democrats, so they would be more likely to leave.

That was Bush's strategy in 2000: getting Democrats to leave the party.

I guess that depends on your defintion. Consider though the 2002 elections, the dems tried a "realignment" more in sync with the administration and it failed miserably.

If your idea of a "good realignment" is one that is more appealing to conservatives, I'm afraid the democratic party will be doomed.

A realignment that brings in first-time young voters, libertarians, progressives, some portion of the 50% of the electorate who didn't vote in the last presidential election, Greens, and which fires up the democratic base is the way to go.

I'm still giving Clark the benefit of the doubt that he might get this, but for now, Dean's the one on track to shape a viable opposition party.

no one and nothing can rebuild it. First, you are wrong when you say blacks were part of it. It was only in 1964 that the Democrats started winning the monolithiic support of blacks. In the 1930's and 1940's we got a little more than half that vote. In 1932 and 1936 I wouldn't be surprised if FDR did better in the nation as a whole than amongst black voters. Second, abortion split it for good along with civil rights. Unless we run a person who will literally abandon our positions on those issues we will never get a majority of white Southerners to vote for our party again. If we did we would lose droves of suburban women and black voters.

That said this is what I think Dean can do.

First, he can get enough gun voters to vote for him to make states like MI, PA, OH, WV, and KY possibilities. Of those five Gore lost three. He narrowly won the other two. I make no claim that he would get a majority of those voters but he doesn't come close to needing that either. He needs just enough of them to win those states.

Second, he can get some libertarian voters who we lose to the Republicans. That could help us in some of the Rocky Mountain states. I think he would have the best shot of any of our candidates at places like CO, AZ, MT, and NV. All states lost by Gore.

Third, he can get Arab Americans to vote for us. They went overwhelmingly for Bush but they are pissed now and Dean is saying the right thing for them domesticly. On ME policy no one is saying what they want to hear save Kucinich who isn't going to be our nominee.

Fourth Dean will appeal to Hispanics with his smooth Spanish. I would love to see a bi lingual debate between him and Bush.

I don't see any candidate causing a realignment. Parties are too weak for one thing. People are to disconnected if one wants to be nice or ignorant if one doesn't for that to happen. But I do see a Dean victory followed by a second Dean victory.

I happen to think that we can reclaim many white Southerners by giving them an appealing cultural image that offers progressive poisitions in a non-stereotypically-liberal form. But I digress.

"First, he can get enough gun voters to vote for him to make states like MI, PA, OH, WV, and KY possibilities. Of those five Gore lost three. He narrowly won the other two. I make no claim that he would get a majority of those voters but he doesn't come close to needing that either. He needs just enough of them to win those states."

Two points arise.

(1) Clinton and Gore had similar positions on guns, but Clinton was more popular. It's not just the guns; it's the fact that guns serve as a cultural indicator.
(2) Guns will gain votes, no doubt; but will it be enough to counteract the votes lost because of civil unions and being a New Englander?

"Third, he can get Arab Americans to vote for us. They went overwhelmingly for Bush but they are pissed now and Dean is saying the right thing for them domesticly. On ME policy no one is saying what they want to hear save Kucinich who isn't going to be our nominee."

Except perhaps for Lieberman, I think this is frankly a bit of a given for any Democrat. Any candidate who doesn't consistently screw up can get a good percentage of the vote. Where that matters most, of course, is winning MI.

"Fourth Dean will appeal to Hispanics with his smooth Spanish. I would love to see a bi lingual debate between him and Bush."

Clark could do this, but this is misguided from the onset. As a young Hispanic, I really doubt that this will do anything. (And I worry it might backfire against uncertain whites.) If it doesn't have perfect pitch both in terms of accent and lack of affection, it can outright turn Hispanics off.

Gore endorsed registration and Clinton never had. That is a huge difference. Also he learned his Spanish by working with entirely Spanish speaking Cubans for a year. It is reputed to be very good by people who should know.

Let me tell you that speaking Spanish will have a marginal, and possibly negative impact.

but am I right in assuming that Latino voters will be more so attracted by policy rather than whether the man can speak their language. Its a good skill to have, to know the Spanish language but FDR probably one of the biggest people's candiates ever didnt go in to towns like my grandma and grandpa's and start speaking their language, instead he gave them hope.

wouldn't have been our votes under any circumstance I can think of. The country is ready to take this step forward for equality, and Dean explains it VERY well.

I'm really too bored with your other arguments (no offense) to get involved with trying to respond. That one jumped out at me.

Eloriel

Well, that's what has gotten me. The boring questions are the ones I haven't seen answers to. Unfortunately those are the ones that matter.

As for people who are skeptical of civil unions not "having been our votes under any circumstance I can think of."

This is just so false I don't know where to begin. There are a lot of religious or culturally conservative people who would be sympathetic to a Democratic candidate, but who would look askance at this. I mean, really: you can't imagine us getting their votes under any circumstances? Whoa. . .

Moreover, the irony of Dean's vote is that his progressive record on gay equality is a liability in his achieving further progress on this front as President.

This is going to be a huge issue. And many of those gun states that Dean is banking on, also happen to be more conservative states on issues like this. The GOP and other outfits are putting huge resources behind this issue. I am not saying I agree, I am saying don't be complacent.

Dean can run commercials showing CHeney at his 2000 debate saying that states need to do all they can to accomodate same-sex unions. Then he can frame the issue this way: if I'm an extremist, than so too is Dick Cheney.

That will go a long way in covering his backside on the civil unions issue.

They call him the gay marriage guy, and that will stick. It's easier to smear than rebut.

Unfortunately.

pardon the expression, but the people would have to be down-right retarded to not get the point, whether they like it or not. It's not that difficult a defense to articulate, especially with the communications skills that the Dean campaign has been showing-off so far. (And something tells me we wouldn't get the anti-gay vote for any candidate we put-up.)

You might be right. I don't know.

As for the anti-gay vote, my issue is this: those who define themselves in opposition to homosexuality, we won't get. Many who are against gay marriage or civil unions or whatever take it as a second or third tier issue.

But civil unions are one of Dean's claims to fame (and I admire that). But his progressivity on this point is also the peril: another candidate could have identical views without it being a big issue. With Dean it rightly is one of his big issues, since it's one of his larger accomplishments. The people who aren't _actively_ anti-gay-marriage wouldn't care if, say, Edwards was pro-gay beacuse it ain't on TV all the time; but with Dean it would be, and it would stick as a primary tag.

Sorry if I rambled, but I think this could be a big problem. The country is moving towards more acceptance of gays. But it's a very mixed bag now. I think the right strategy is more action on the state level and local level, more action with corporations to get them to recognize these things, and holding not doing anything worse on the Federal level. Tide is turning the right way.

My take on it is that we are unlike to lose many votes which matter here for several reasons.

First, most anti gay people are pro life and we will have a militantly pro choice nominee no matter who wins. I think the subset of people who are willing to vote for a Presidential nominee who favors protecting the right to have 'partial birth' abortions, teenage abortions without parental conscent, and abortions paid for by Medicaid, but draw the line at a candidate who favors civil unions even as openly as Dean does is quite small. I amy be wrong on that but I don't think so.

Second, Those voters are going to be overwhelmingly in states we won't win anyhow. We can lose Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina only once no matter how spectaculary we do it.

In 1932, FDR got 23% of the black vote. Truman in 48 got 70%. The shift among blacks was as unthinkable politically then as reclaiming Southern whites is now.

Do not discount the chances of realignment. It's the 50/50 nation, trends are in flux, the demographic potential is there.

They had no idea how he would turn out you know. I had no idea that Truman did so well in 1948, Ike got the most black vote since Hoover with like 30-40 percent. I sure hope we can get a New Deal like coalition back, why not.

in the 52 and 56 races. Nixon got over a third in 60 and would have gotten way more if MLK hadn't been arrested.

With Dixiecrats still in power. That's a huge change. If we could get 10-15% shifts in demographics we are weak in, we would be just invincible. That's all we need for a reliagnment.

Plus he had a popular black democratic congress, one Adam Powell Smith I think the man's name was campaign for him. Nixon hard to believe it was a member of the NAACP, Jack Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy supposely met with MLK in the jail and it turned the older King, Martin Luther King Sr from a Nixon supporter to a Kennedy supporter.

First, he can get enough gun voters to vote for him to make states like MI, PA, OH, WV, and KY possibilities. Of those five Gore lost three. He narrowly won the other two. I make no claim that he would get a majority of those voters but he doesn't come close to needing that either. He needs just enough of them to win those states.

Gore lost Kentucky by 57 - 42 % in 2000. Gore lost WV by 52 - 46%. somehow, I don't think Howard Dean's position on gun control and manly forearms will be enough to turn those around. Gore is a Southerner as well. I know, I know: Gore wasn't running a 'new kind of campaign,' blah blah blah. Clinton, a popular, Southern incumbent working with a strong economy and no damning position on gun control, won Kentucky in 1996 by the barest of margins, but Howard Dean is going to win it in 2004? I hope you're betting with your own money, and that you can afford to lose it.

Second, he can get some libertarian voters who we lose to the Republicans. That could help us in some of the Rocky Mountain states. I think he would have the best shot of any of our candidates at places like CO, AZ, MT, and NV. All states lost by Gore.

Do you know how many libertarians are out there? The Libertarian Party itself has far fewer members than the Greens; many other libertarians are not going to care for Dean's desire to increase taxes, but overall, there simply aren't a lot of them, and the vast majority of them vote Republican out of habit. The idea that there is some large bloc of libertarian voters who will be drawn to Dean is wishful thinking, only on a slightly lower plane than the notion that Dean could even threaten in Kentucky.

Fourth Dean will appeal to Hispanics with his smooth Spanish. I would love to see a bi lingual debate between him and Bush.

In my rusty and wretched Spanish:

Los hispanos no les gustan los uniónes civiles -- les gustan mucho los valores del la familia. Yo estoy muy apesadumbrado. Los hispanos no les gustan los altos impuestos y servicios reducidos. Los hispanos no les gustan mucho el medico Howard Dean, no pienso. Pero, solamente el dios sabe.

What about Oregon and New Mexico? And now we are going to have to campaign in Cal-e-fornia to offset Arnold. Of course, the Republicans, against Dean, wouldn't have to worry about a single Southern state, so they could throw their resources into the battleground states.

But let me save you the trouble of replying: new kind of campaign, raise endless amounts of money over the internet, attract new voters to politics, righteous anger, fiery rhetoric, change change change, empowerment, Ken Lay and the boys at Enron, people power.

Saved you an entire post!

I'm still going to try to keep it somewhat simple. But here goes...

Dean has over 120,000 people going to meetups. When you go to those meetups, over half of the people there have never been involved in politics before. These aren't typical primary voters. They are all going to be voting in the primaries this time. There are many Dean supporters who are not involved in the meetups. These people are going to be voting in the primaries as well. Just by the sheer number of people he is attracting to his events speaks volumes. His support is very strong and these people are willing to get off their duffs to go see him and get active. This is a real hurdle in politics, and Dean has successfully overcome it.

Now lets look at the people who support him and their political makeup. The press would have you believe that Dean's supporters are just a bunch of ultra liberals and that his appeal goes no further than this. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dean has VERY broad appeal. He has proven that he can attract strong support from all over the political map with the exception of the radical left and radical right. Every other political type of voter is in play for Dean. His positions are so unique and varied that there is enough about him to make damn near everyone open to voting for him. I even suspect that the bulk of the supporters of other candidates who attack Dean on here only do so because he is a strong threat to the person they support and that if their candidate were not running they would not have any qualms about voting for Dean.

The last issue I'm going to address is the whole "excitement and interest" issue. Dean has made politics exciting and interesting for people who normally would be bored to tears by this stuff. His campaign is almost like a rock concert tour in that he draws one hell of a crowd wherever he goes. People want to listen to what he has to say. That's a pretty powerful position to be in. When Dean talks, people listen. He can REACH people. That's the biggest key right there. You have to be able to get people to stop and listen if you are to bring people together. Then you need to have something to say that people can relate to, understand and that makes sense to them. Dean has this. Clark has it to a lesser extent, which is why he's having a certain level of success. Clark's disadvantage is that he has some other issues going on that tends to trip him up a little, and slows the growth he'd otherwise have. I don't dislike Clark at all, so when I say this, try to remember that. He's not a politician and he jumped in without having all his eggs in a row. I think it's hurt him. He has some of those "Things that make you go 'Hmmm'" issues hanging over his shoulder, like the speech and fundraiser for the GOP and Bush and his administration.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the reasons why some people like Clark and think he can be a uniter are the same reasons
why people think that about Dean. Also, Dean has more of a foundation and more supporters than Clark. There are some differences that I feel give Dean an advantage over Clark, as I've stated. That's not saying I think Clark is a bad candidate, I just think Dean is a better one.

That is presuming they live to be a hundred, and that they weren't older people when Reagan was alive.

Dean will change American politics by showing Dems that they don't need corporate money. That will make a huge difference in the South and every other part of the US.

It will be business as usual DLC style.

" My point is, the Democratic nominating contest is essentially about determining the nature of that party, not the "electability" question. Howard Dean represents anti-establishment insurrection from the ground up. His popularity is not about left or right issues (as the media and his opponents keep claiming) but rides upon the swelling anger people feel toward Bush and the Dems' own complacent, top-down, risk-averse, corporate-compromised leadership. The press is still on Dean's case, picking away at his supposed contradictions. But the Washington Post fronted an insightful counter-version by Laura Blumenfeld (October 1) that explains Dean's empowering language and angle of vision. It's not about him, he tells voters, it's about them -- all the people who feel ignored and disenfranchised, not only by Bush the right-winger. but by their own party's Washington elites.

Dean is profoundly correct in this critique. If he survives their assaults and prevails in the nomination (I think he can), it will be like an implosion of the insider illusions governing the Democratic party. He lacks their esteemed connections to the corporate-financial infrastructure that runs politics, so why is he raising more money? Because he has a list of people -- active citizens, not monied contributors -- unlike anything the party itself possesses (I've heard Dean's database variously described as 400,000 or 600,000 or 1.2 million names)...The Doctor might stumble, of course, but his nomination (even if he then loses to Bush) would produce a profound ventilation -- actually a violent shake-up -- in the modern methodologies of what used to know as the party of working people.

Who could be against that? The Democratic incumbency. The last thing they want in their lives is competitive elections or citizens who come out of the woodwork to launch their own techno-grassroots campaigns. Yes, incumbent Dems all want Bush out, but they would much prefer it's done by a safer, more reliable candidate.

General Clark? I don't mean to pick on him but he seems the perfect vessel for conveying a "new face" sense of change without actually disturbing the status quo. A number of fellow bloggers accused me of seeing black helicopters when I earlier described Clark as the Clinton establishment's stalking horse . But that is self-evident now that Clark is an active candidate. Mr. Bill's Hollywood friends are swarming around the General with money; his campaign is run by Clintonoids. The General's tepid economic-stimulus plan is off-the-shelf stuff from the Democratic Leadership Council. He is being tutored on economics by Citigroup godfather Robert Rubin and Gene Sperling, the DLC's economist in chief.

If you want four more years of Wall Street economics guiding the Democratic party, go with the Four Stars. If you are ready for risk and real change, listen to the Doctor. People who put aside convictions in order to win an election often wind up regretting it. I know I did during Bill Clinton's presidency."


http://www.williamgreider.com/article.php?article_id=21