It's really simple. We need a REAL ELECTION and competition.

All of the nitpicking over candidates, and the rest is probably worthwhile on some level. (I do it too.)

But something just struck me after reading the sober "analysis" of Democratic "operatives" on anotehr thread abiut how Dean can;t win because he is a northeast liberal (yikes).

When all of the gradoo is stripped away, what we really need to win is a real choice between two clear alternatives. Bush and all he and the right wing GOP represent and (fill in the blank with a Democratic presidential/congressional candidate) representing a clear difference. Ultimately that means a difference between "conservative" and liberal and progressive.

It can be a moderate liberal, a kick-ass liberal, whatever. But it has to be different and REALLY address the core issues that bother people. NOT JUST what percentage unemployment happens to be at the moment. NOT JUST what the Dow average or last quarterly GDP is. But the FUNDAMENTAL problems of excessive corporate power, the real systemic loss of jobs, the hollowing out of the econpomy, etc.

Simarly on other issues. It's not about the fine points of perscription benefits for seniors. It's the basic problem of unaffordable and unavailable healthcare for everyone....It's not just affirmative action, gay rights, women's rights, ethnic rights, religious rights -- it's about CIVIL RIGHTS and EQUAL OPPORTUNITY for everyone.

It's not just the kabuki dance over Iraq strategy -- it's the whole set of assumptions that underlie Bush foreign policies and their approach to national defense.

There are, of course, many possible variations of these. But what we can't afford is to have another mushy campaign of arguing over the fine points of specific "focus group" proposals, while ignoring the Big Picture. That will be a recipoe for defeat, IMO. Plus it will be a disservice to the nation.

Any thoughts?

perfect is the enemy of the good. It amazes me that despite everything that has happened in the last 3 years, people (particularly on this board) can actually sit there and say they WON'T vote for (insert candidate here) because he/she (insert issue here).

Tell you what, perfect is the enemy of good, but good is the enemy of *, and the sooner people understand this, the sooner we can get out of this hellhole we find ourselves in.

That hackneyed phrase (sorry nothing personal) is always used to shoot down anything of substance.

I'm 50 years old. I figured out a long time ago that nothing is perfect, life is compromise, you can't always get what you want, etc. etc. blah, blah,blah.

And I did NOT advocate not voting for a "non-perfect" candidate.

But the GOP has been the party of hard positions, while Democrats have become the "soft and squishy" party, in both tone and substance.

There's a difference between compromise and selling out. I'd turn that phrase around and say "The perfect is the goal of the good. The nothing is the enemy of the good."

I wasn't arguing the original post...was just kind of ranting in the same vein. Yes we are constantly striving for perfect, whereas the other side believes they have already achieved it, and it's just a matter of forcing everybody to go along with them.

Sorry if I overreacted......It's just that phrase gets me seeing red

More and more, "substance" on DU has come to mean "running so far left that we're guaranteed to go down in flames."

you mean go down in flames like the "new" democrats
that have destroyed the party

geez

Remember 9/11? Remember the paranoia that resulted therefrom? Remember how you couldn't even ask a question that might reflect badly on President Bush without instantly being labeled a traitor?

The reason that attitude was so ingrained by late 2002 is because the Democrats never challemged the assumption that Bush is a great leader who is winning the war on terrur.

n/t

the me-too crowd did.

Hey a me too stand from the opposition is an ENDORSEMENT of the opposition.

First of all, not that many seats changed hands. Second, Democrats who lost came in all stripes and colors. True, many loud-and-proud liberals won, but they were running in safe liberal Democratic districts that went more than 60% for Gore.

remember the "me-too george" campaign?

remember the blank check for invasion?

remember the let's not rock the boat rhetoric?

If someone actually ran a campaign based on the real hard truth they would be axed in a heartbeat.

How 'bout one of these candidates taking on Tim Russert and telling him to his face that he is a whore for the elite power structure?

How bout someone telling it like it is?

Gotta suck up for the corporate money machine. Hmmm....
Seems like that tactic has been a total failure.

Every politician's dream. Real helpful to the party and its constituents, also. Not.

joining them gives everybody such a choice.

Gee, if we'd just elect a centrist Democrat, all our problems will be solved by waving a magic wand. Let's tun on "the economy" without really talking about economic realities.

Yep, that's a winning formula.

that the Clinton administration, though far from perfect, was hugely better than the Bush administration?

As for solving "all our problems," you might as well talk about magic wands. Nothing political is going to solve "all our problems."

But it creates a framework that allows us to address the specific ones. Unless -- as has hapopened -- is that real choices and ideas are shut out of the "marketplace of ideas" by corporate monopolists and their minions in political leadership.

>>>Nothing on my first point, I notice.<<<

Well, gee yes Clinton was better than Bush.

But in some ways he was just as bad -- or maybe worse by lulling people into complacency. Bush is a symptom of deeper problems that were allowed to fester and be ignored throughout the 90's. The chickens happen to be comning home to roost under Bush's watch, but the Corporate Democrats helped create those chickens.

would be better than four more years of Bush? Because those are our choices in the real world.

Why do you assume those are out only choices? Why couldn't a Democrat who takes a strong stand on the issues that matter stand a chance?

IMO if the Democrats offer a choice that is a tepid, slightly more enlightened version of Bush policies, they'll reelect Bush. But if the Democrats offered real answers to real problems -- and "sold" it well -- they'd stand a good chance of winning.

Either way it's a gamble, I'll admit. So why not gamble with something positive?

I agree that we've got to pick issues and make strong stands. We've just got to be careful how we pick those issues, and not start a fight about everything that we don't like. Some important issues are just going to have to take a back seat until we can pull the party out of the dumper.

We need to pick issues on which we can deliver real life-improvements to significant constituencies who vote and who don't all vote for us anyway - working people, minorities, nontraditional families, etc. This means soft-pedaling issues that are important only to people who vote for us anyway or on which we can't command enough national consensus to accomplish anything.

This is why the pros strategize and focus-group and the rest - to see what the electorate is ready for, what it will support. Yes, of course, we have to be for things that further our agenda and help our natural constituencies, but we need to steer clear of "third rail" issues and stands until we have achieved enough "pull" to get the national conversation back on track.

I believe the way to energize people is to put things in a larger context, while also focusing on the sub-issues that grow out of that.

That's what the GOP did with their right-wing agenda. Their overriding message has been "We'll get the government off your back, lower your taxes and protect you from those terrible minorities." They stated that clearly all the way back to Nixon, but especiually with Reagan. And it worked for them.

We need to have an equally strong counter message to that.

committed the sins that lead to Bush 2.

An old, old thread on this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=39521&forum=DCForumID60

Clinton came in on the heels of the most criminal administration in history, on a crew of gangsters who had plundered the treasury, started illegal wars, made mincemeat of our ancient rights... and he, Clinton, let them get away with it. At any rate, did nothing with the power of presidency to make them pay for it. Oh, that would have been divisive. And he spent his eight years in power in a political holding pattern, caring only for his own remaining in office. Nothing of what the first Reagan-Bush years "accomplished" was rolled back, on the contrary the nation's most draconian "anti-terror" and "anti-crime" and "welfare reform" programs (at any rate, the most draconian pre-Bush 2) were passed.

Well, having once again seen that crime pays, the same group of gangsters went off with their killing, built up for a return, plotted, and came back to power in 2000, this time even stealing the election openly.

And everyone had to get over it, complaining would be immoderate. So they kept getting away with crimes.

The only way to build an opposition is to be an opposition, and to start early.

Right. Because the President can just try, convict, and sentence members of a previous administration because he thinks their politics were "criminal."

It's one thing to throw around words like "gangsters," "plundered," and "crimes," and it's another thing to make a real case under law that any identifiable individual committed any particular punishable offense. Cutting taxes for your rich friends, for example, is not a crime under law. Neither is undercutting environmental regulation.

It would have been a tremendous waste of time for Clinton to have tried to criminalize his opponents' politics. He had enough trouble trying to get the positive parts of his agenda passed, e.g. health care and gays in the military.

There's no point in trying to build a political opposition around viewpoints that command the assent of less than 10% of the population. If all you can do is promote conspiracy theories and call people who disagree with you criminals, the electorate is likely to ignore you, at best.

TAX CUTS? HA!

Do you know the first thing about the S&L plunder? Plunder it was, by networks of gangsters (in the conventional sense of mafia) leading back to Bush's Texas financiers like Walter Mischer and a whole bunch of CIA friends. Sonny boy Neil was in it. Research this, and then tell me it's not plunder, it's not gangsters. A $200 billion bailout! Do you have a clue about Iran-Contra? CIA-Drugs? BCCI? Iraqgate? The FEMA planning for martial law? If you don't, you can join the 90 percent of Americans whose viewpoints are incomplete. Sure, as long as it's deniable, most people don't want to believe it. What happens when they learn what their government really does, and has really done to them? (Plunder is a "pocketbook issue," by the way.)

"If Americans knew what we had done, my god, they would lynch us." - GHWB.

Clinton as president had the ability to see to it that more information about these events leaked out. That investigations were encouraged. He would not have "criminalized his opponents' politics"; they were criminals from the start, and he was one of the factors that allowed their crime to pay.

It didn't have to be from the top, or as a public campaign led by Clinton. He had the means to encourage exposure, to command declassifications of the relevant documents. But he did nothing on this front.

And when THEY criminalized him - how did he react? Like a chump.

But you don't know about Mena, either? Where Bush crimes and Clinton coverups converged for the first time...

And you didn't follow that thread, did you?

Ignorance as ever is strength.

:tinfoilhat:

What's your hurry?

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

You're right, I don't.

n/t

There have been two announced mega-mergers of major health insurers. The devultion of our economy and society towards a Monopolist Corporate State is a central issue that is being ignored. Too bad. Politics was nice while it lasted.

----------------

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031027/health_insurance_antitrust_1.html
Reuters
Doctors' group questions health insurance mergers
Monday October 27, 7:20 pm ET


WASHINGTON, Oct 27 (Reuters) - The largest U.S. physicians' group on Monday sharply questioned the billion-dollar mergers proposed by two of the largest health insurers and said they should be "highly scrutinized" by regulators.

The American Medical Association said proposed multi-billion dollar acquisitions by Anthem Inc. (NYSE:ATH - News) and UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE:UNH - News) could lead to too much consolidation in the industry and add to the ranks of those without insurance at a time when premiums are already rising.

AMA president Donald Palmisano said in a prepared statement that the two merged companies would control more than a quarter of the U.S. health insurance market.

"The announcement of these two mergers on the same day should raise concerns that the country is headed toward a health care system dominated by a few publicly-traded companies that operate primarily in the interest of shareholders," Palmisano said.....

MORE
--------------

Associated Press

Monday October 27, 7:01 pm ET

Insurers Anthem, WellPoint to Merge for About $16.4 Billion in Cash and Stock
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/031027/anthem_wellpoint_merger_7.html

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- The two largest Blue Cross Blue Shield providers plan to merge in a $14.3 billion cash and stock deal, creating the nation's largest managed-care provider with 26 million members from Maine to California.

Anthem Inc., the slightly smaller of the two, will swallow California-based WellPoint Health Networks Inc., keeping the larger company's name but consolidating its operations at Anthem's Indianapolis headquarters, the companies announced Monday.

<snip>

Anthem and WellPoint have grown through acquisitions in recent years, with Anthem a particularly busy buyer, now owning Blue plans in nine states. WellPoint's acquisition of Wisconsin Blue Cross provider Cobalt Corp. won final approval just five weeks ago. WellPoint also operates Blue plans in Georgia and Missouri.

MORE

What are you going to do about it? - that's the question. Does what you're going to do have any serious chance of working? - that's the corollary question.

and demand a real candidate instead of the enablers that now dominate the party

How's that going to help?

McGovern actually had a chance.

On what do you base that? He got crushed in 49 states. Do you think voters nationwide were still commiserating with Eagleton?

It was both that he screwed up by picking a guy with a history of psych. treatment, and then that he equivocated on replacing him on the ticket when the bad press came, and the fact that he finally caved and did replace him.

He promised to send every person a $1,000.00 check every year. In 72 that was more money than the entire federal budget.
(In the primaries one of the other Dem candidates, in a televised debate told him that it would cost 200B. McGovern said it couldn't cost that much, and asked where he got that figure. The other Dem answered, "200M population time $1K = 200B" McGovern still denied it would cost that much.)

He promised to cut defense by 1/3 during the cold war when the country was fighting in Vietnam.

Could those have had anything to do with his defeat?

not to mention his fight for Gays in the military---the other issue you used as an example without noting they were failures.

option. If there ever was a time to carefully pick your candidate, it is now.
Not only should he be opposed to the neocons and their doctrine of war, he should also have the balls, the stamina, the intellicence and the support to take on the huge neocon support group that is in place and will remain in place no matter who becomes president, and to take on the wide-spread corporate and political corruption that enabled neocons.

has been for a long time

I've devoted myself to working on issues rather than campaigns at this point.

thank you very much. Now maybe the "base" can get fired up over the real liberal in this race.

Ultimately, I don't care who it is if they really address core issues instead of waffling around with the edges of "ficus group issues."

Personally, I favor Kucinich's ideas and Dean's basic message at this point. But if Kerry (my Sen. who I like) would get fired up as a liberal, I could get fired up over him.

Bush lost last time, and he's pissed off enough of the people who crossed over to vote for him last time that he's not going to get as many votes as he did then - and he lost, remember?

Therefore, the Democrat only loses if Al Gore's voters don't vote, some "filler" voters make up for the ones who don't, or the Republicans and their black box tricks steal the election.

Therefore, we should nominate the candidate who's the best on the issues, presents the clearest distinction to Bush to show people there's a real choice at hand, and who presents the best vision for the future, whomever you believe that to be.

Kucinich: Better Ideas, Better Candidate - it's just that simple

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

not that he had a lot of crossing to do.
Zell is proof we have to offer a clear alternative to Bush.

You can't say that McGovern wasn't a clear choice vs. Nixon, and Mondale definately wasn't a copy of Reagan.

and candidates not the same. Might as well talk about an election in the 19th Century.

When did a candidate who ran left of the mainstream win?

But you seem to forget that the mainstream is not an eternal constant. It shifts along with everything else in the universe.

FDR won, and he was definitely mainstream at the moment he won, and far to the left of anyone running today. And yet four years earlier Hoover had won comfortably. Gee, do you think voters can change their minds? New voters come into the mix? Previous voters leave?

You seem to be forgetting something about the recent past:

Gore won, and he was definitely mainstream.

For the first time since 1976, a majority - 52 percent - voted for center-left (counting Gore plus Nader). The plurarility voted for Gore.

That was the 2000 election. Three years ago.

Understand that, finally. Bush 2 did not win. He has never won an election. He lost the popular vote. Also lost Florida, but managed to steal it back. Was then appointed by the Court, just before the recount would have gone to Gore after all. (Then Gore surrendered it, like the chump he was.)

Never mind if this "matters to Americans" anymore. It should matter to anyone who is trying to make factual statements about the election.

Where is your proof of Bush's popularity? Where is your proof that Americans prefer Bush? In the only test of Bush 2 that ever counted, the 2000 election, they clearly went against Bush. For more than a year after 9/11, most of them probably fell in lockstep (scared out of their wits) with the general campaign to deify Bush. But that campaign has now failed. Bush is more and more hated every day. He is weak.

Who would win against Bush, would attack him already. Would stand for something different. Unmistakably. Let the Right Wing apply the labels. This is getting irrelevant to the mainstream. They are worried about other issues.

Well, let's start with Gore. Yes, he did win. And he was just the kind of centrist that most of the "let's have a clear choice" crowd would decry. If we're willing to nominate this year's Gore, any of the candidates (including Gore's running-mate) would probably be good enough. Not a Lieberman fan myself, but I'm just saying.

Also, what the hell was Gore supposed to do after Bush v. Gore was decided? If he'd had the Florida recount results in his pocket, it might have been different, which is exactly why the SCOTUS halted the recount before they'd even heard the arguments in the case.

Regarding FDR, a lot of people mistakenly think he was a raging liberal, which isn't so even by today's standards. He blocked civil rights legislation, refused to integrate the military, cut the government payroll and veteran's benefits, and subsidized private banks.

Your point about the mainstream shifting doesn't really help. We all know it's shifted to the right since 9/11 at least. You can read the polls about Bush's popularity as well as I can. It's not like it was in 2002, but it's not in the dumper either. Don't forget that the money and the media are on his side.

I'm not saying we can't win. I'm saying we'd be very foolish to view the 2004 presidential election as a slam-dunk just because WE think Bush is such an assh*le. Nor can we expect to win if we have nothing to offer except an attack on his policies and his administration.

We do need to take strong stands on issues. But we need to choose those issues carefully. This is not the time to demand the entire laundry-list of the left-wing agenda, which is often what is meant by the "real difference" rhetoric.

What you brought up originally was whether anyone ever ran to the left of the mainstream and won. And I wanted to point out that FDR ran decidedly to the left of the 1928 mainstream, which he helped to shift to the mainstream of 1932. Then you ignore your own original question, which I was responding to, and pretend I had said FDR was a raging leftist (certainly I do not think so), which, as you say, "isn't so even by today's standards."

By today's standards on economic policy, FDR was a raging leftist.

What FDR was by today's standards on social policy is relevant. He was easily on the left side of the mainstream of his time. He undid prohibition, for starters. And his civil rights and economics policies won the allegiance of 90 percent of black voters at the time, and established the base from which civil rights progress became increasingly possible...

if he had run a less lame campaign there would have been no need for Florida.

He acted like a child in the debates. That had to have hurt him. He needed to project him self as presidental. He had the advantages of a counry at peace and a good economy.

But as a matter of fact, there's no way of knowing whether he would have done better or worse if he had made this or that change in his campaign. And it is certainly strange to see Democrats and leftists so determined to blame the victim (Gore).

Gore started with a huge advantage, the country was at peace and the economy was good, and he represented the party that had been in power for that great economy. The election was his if he didn't screw up.

He blew the debates by not acting presidental. Image is everything, and his childish antics hurt him badly.

He wasn't consistent and kept "reinventing himself".

He handled the Florida mess badly. He wanted a recount only in those counties where more Gore votes would be found. He should have demanded a state wide action from the start. The Reps would have had a more difficult time argueing against a state wide detailed recount.

I blame Gore because he LOST. The race for the POTUS is political hardball at it's hardest. When you fight at that level you are supposed to WIN, not whine about what the other guy did.

I spent some time reviewing Florida election law at the time. The SOBs have changed it since then, to cover their tracks. At the time, there was a protest phase and a contest phase. During the protest phase, election boards from the respective counties were permitted to have manual recounts if the margin of victory was within one half of one percent, but the impetus for that had to come from the boards themselves. So the four counties weren't selected by Gore, they were self-selected. At that point, there was no legal framework for him to ask for a statewide recount.

In the contest phase, the courts were given the power to "craft any appropriate remedy" in cases of irregularities in voting and counting. It was in that phase that the Florida Supreme Court called for a statewide recount.

There's a lot of myth about the recount, but the fact is that Gore and his team availed themselves of every legal opportunity and were eventually blocked by the SCOTUS.

As for the rest, Monday morning quarterbacking is too easy. Oh, and by the way, Gore didn't lose, he won, remember?

Gore had such huge advantages that he should have won in a landslide. Vote cheating is effective only in close elections. In a landslide you can't cheat enough to make the difference. With the advantages that Clinton gave him, an effective campaign would have produced a landslide.

Gore screwed up badly and we need to move on. Looking back and whining about 2000 doesn't help us.

He ran mainstream. He got elected because voters blamed Hoover for the Depression (mistakenly - it was the fault of the previous two administrations). Prohibition was also overwhelmingly unpopular by that time.

"By today's standards on economic policy, FDR was a raging leftist."

Saying that doesn't make it so. FDR kept functions in private banks that are now Treasury and Fed functions, and he stood fast against any tax policy that amounted to redistribution of income. Don't confuse FDR with LBJ.

In context of the original argument, FDR is a completely erroneous example of someone who got elected president by running left. He didn't run left.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Being 58 I've seen one too many campaigns and I've seen such a terrible detrioration in the mentality of the American people. That said here are the problems as I see them: 1) we cannot talk in broad generalities but have to have specific answers; 2) those specific answers to little problems, oh like healthcare, better be able to be presented in one sentence containing not more than 12 words; 3) anything not specific will be branded by the repukes (and believed) as pie in the sky rhetoric with no solutions offered (no one will point out that the repukes just bullshit and lie because the repukes tell the people that they don't); 4) the repukes have erased a sense of "one for all and all for one in this country" thus it's a real bitch to come up with liberal solutions that address the common good----if you can't tell each voter you are going to make them a multi-millionaire they won't settle for merely having healthcare addressed which might mean that a buck might be spent on their stinkin' neighbor. In a word, FIRST this population needs to be educated to the fact that if they don't start standing together, they are going to individually crash faster than the towers on 9/11! Unfortunately, there just is no way to educate them--they hate "smarts". They won't listen. They are stupid. They are brainwashed. But....if you can get pictures of Bush screwing his dog, then, my friend, you have a victory!!

IMO one reason public discourse has gone into the swamp is because politics is no longer considered an educational or inspirational activity. I believe one reason people have become so cynical and selfish is that there is no public "support system" for their better sides.

I know this sounds idealistic, but I think if the Democrats decided to use the process of campaigning as a way to explain the basics of liberalism it could both wise people up, and generate some enthusiasm for candidates.

That requires a mix of soundbites backed by substance. Like how universal healthcare is good for their own self-interest as well as being better for society overall.

The party should run ads next summer briefly listing the things "Democrats", "Liberals" have done for this country as opposed to conservative and now-ultraright wing thinking. Unfortunately, I think the powers that be don't want to associate with those accomplishments!!---example: it's okay to be all union-friendly during primary time but it's like they are ashamed to admit they back organized labor 'cause it mind offend the good folks. That is the kind of shit I've been running into more and more and it sickens me. They need to list the things and tell what it has done for America (like Unions brought you wages, benefits, 8 hour work day, etc. and that's why we support them)!! THEN they also have to remind these dunderheads that all these things they as common people take for granted have really come about in just the past 50 years and that they are going to be flushed if the people don't start engaging their stupid brains!!! (guess they better soften that part of the message, though)!! Anyway, we need separate, general Dem generated infomercials regarding what we have done for this nation.

That's partly what I'm talking about. Instead of always trying to push basic liberal/progressive ideals and accomplishments into the corner, our side ought to be pushing them in the same way conservatives push their philosophy.

Ads like you mention would certainly be part of that. Would be great if the Democratic Party would do that, but maybe it's up to otehr progressive groups to carry that water too.

no small thanks to the media and Rush Limbaugh.

enabled by asleep-at-the-switch Democrats.

This goes beyond right and left. It has to do with understanding what the real needs of the country are, promoting easily understood solutions, using your campaign to educate and raise the awareness of the voters, and having core values that you will not compromise on. I can think of three recent politicians who have won over Republican voters with their advocacy for the little person, their clarity, their honesty, and their "common touch" approachability: Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, and Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon. (Other members of the Progressive Caucus may have similar records of broad appeal across party lines, but I don't know their circumstances.) All well to the "left" of the DLC's preferred formula for "victory," yet all capable of winning the votes of Republicans.

You may say that these are northern liberals. Okay, back in the 1930s, Huey Long of Louisiana won the governorship without pandering to racists (unusual for the time) by offering easily understood solutions for the state's Third World infrastructure and poor educational system. He became corrupt later in his career, but the important thing to note is that he won a rural Southern constituency without pandering to their prejudices.

A Dem who waffles only reinforces the widespread public perception of politicians as whores available to the highest bidder. A Dem who concentrates on the big money donors and ignores opportunities to mingle with the common folks further reinforces that perception. A Dem who talks in vague generalities without relating them to the voters' everyday lives comes off as arrogant.

Most people on DU know by now that I'm a Kucinich supporter, but too many of the "socially acceptable" Dem candidates strike me as being vacillating and passionless, even though their positions look good on paper. From what I see, they are not attracting the kind of devoted following that Dean, Kucinich, and, to a lesser extent, Clark are attracting.

You might talk about Kerry and Gephardt as full-fledged liberals with fine records of support for liberal causes, but they're doomed if they can't find their personal core beliefs, rediscover their zeal, and convey that excitement to the voters. They both seem too locked into the ways of Washington and are concentrating on raising money from big donors instead of firing up the voters. As Dean (although I think that he's more style than substance), has shown, if you fire up the voters, the money will come. Even Kucinich has done a good job of raising funds from ordinary voters, especially for someone who is constantly ignored in the media and doesn't receive 1/10 the publicity that Dean does.

In 2004, Bushboy will be stumbling around the country doing photo ops with gushing supporters, playing the amiable hick and appealing for the mean and/or dumb vote. From a PR point of view, the Dem candidate will need to radiate inner strength, amiability, and an understanding of ordinary people's problems.

:kick:

An automatic rehashing of the "mistakes of McGovern and Dukakis" and how we have to avoid repeating them? :eyes:

I mean, REALLY, WHY IS THAT?

Are people in general (even here at DU) so terribly afraid to talk about ANY issues, to offer ANY real solutions to the problems that so many people face? Or has our political process become so disfigured and tainted that it is 100% about soundbites and "image", and any attempt to interject issues into the debate is a surefire recipe for failure.

If that's the case, in the words of Jim Trafficant, "Beam me up." If that's the case, then any of the ideals that America claimed to represent have become nothing more than hollow words, and any hopes of progressive reform are doomed anyway.

Obviously, I don't believe this to be the case, otherwise I wouldn't still be here right now. And for those of you who avoid any discussion of real issues like the plague -- I would tend to blame you for helping to create the corrupt system that we have today.

The question is, are you willing to try and fix it, or are you just going to be content with the status quo as it currently is?

Please give us three or four examples of issues you think the eventual nominee ought to address and what he or she ought to say about them. As long as the discussion stays in the abstract, we're arguing about nothing.

It has been my experience on DU that "substance" and "real choice" are generally code-words for radical agendas that would send us down in flames in the general election. If I've misinterpreted this thread, prove me wrong - present stands and programs that would command the assent of the political mainstream.

is in the assumption that the "mainstream" is a constant that gives assent.

The mainstream is shaped by events. People change how they vote, non-voters come in, previous voters leave.

There are many issues that would "command the assent" of the mainstream if they were first pressed in a convincing manner. Issues the Democrats have ignored, to the point where they seem "left-wing."

If the Democrats had called Reagan on all the crap he did, they would have had a shot in '84 and a definite victory in '88. But they would have had to do it the whole time, instead of letting them get away for long periods without dissent.

The same applies today. Why isn't the USA PATRIOT Act a big issue? Because (almost all) the Democrats voted along with it and have not brought it up in a big way since.

Issues become issues by being pressed over time - even if the first media reaction is to attack, you must keep pressing.

The 9/11 coverup for being so outrageous was a weird exception. Despite the overwhelming pressure not to touch the issue, it was pressed in some quarters (at sacrifice, as in McKinney's case), consistently enough until now it is increasingly legitimate to demand disclosure, even (as Clark just did) to attack Bush as responsible for what happens on his watch and demand the documents! (Is Clark going to thank everyone who made that possible for him? Never mind.)

I'll say it again. You have to press an issue if you want to make it into an issue, and you have to keep pressing it against the attacks that you will at first encounter. Then it becomes an issue.

(This success has also been achieved with BBV.)

Here are some issues worth pressing - surely in a more soft-pedaled manner than I do here. But thre is still time to put these issues on the table and change what the mainstream thinks:

The real situation of the American economy: it runs on record credit levels and is unsustainable. Down this way lies a certain collapse. We must acknowledge the problem to do anything about it. The infrastructure and a real industrial base must be rebuilt.

The real situation of the energy economy: the oil is going to peak and development and conversion to every form of genuine alternative energy (hydrogen doesn't count as it's a form of battery; solar-hydrogen might swing trick) is necessary now.

The real situation of our state: corrupt, secretive, enormously destructive to Americans' true interests. Plundering the treasury. Plundering the SS fund. 2.3 trillion in missing Pentagon assets.

The reality of those parts of the world where we are unpopular: they blame America for the actions of its government, although the people are often uninformed about it. The need to actually know what that government does (to end secrecy).

The reality of drug prohibition: a failure. A demonstrable failure, a disaster for all Americans, the main driving force behind crime. Unwinnable, impossible to finance, and destabilizing South America.

The reality of the media: a cartel that keeps essential information away from the people and bombards them with propaganda and distraction. The need to break up this cartel and provide open media.

The reality of our election process: fixed by money, and now fixable by way of fraud.

The reality of how our tax money is blown: on creating greater insecurity through the illusion of a strong defense.

You don't address these issues, then I guarantee you, things will only get worse in the years to come, even if at first a Democrat should win in 2004.

You don't at least take on the illusion of Bush honesty, there will be no victory in 2004. You have got to stop giving this guy and his gangster crew a free ride, or they will run you over.

For many years the rightwing attacked, attacked, attacked against a nation they imagined was a bastion of bureaucrats and liberals. They did not lose sight of their vision. That is how they became powerful. Not by watering down what they believed.

You can't give me any concrete examples of stands and programs that would pass muster with the mainstream. You just want to peddle this fantasy that the mainstream will fall into line with our non-mainstream views if we only express them passionately enough. Every time the Democrats have tried that nonsense in a presidential election, we've gotten killed. Every time.

When did Democrats try this nonsense of telling the truth in a presidential election? Go ahead, give me an example. You can't.

You already have your views set. You're not actually interested in whether any of this is true. You're letting your agenda be defined by the national media. This is a good strategy for losing.

I submit a great many who see the level of corruption in the United States but are unaware of the details, don't even trust their own perceptions, and are disaffected with politics altogether would be thrilled to hear a major party candidate telling it like it is.

Clinton, however, won. Get it?

It commands between a 2:1 and a 3:1 majority overall, including >51% allegience from GOP voters.

Give the actual question and the actual numbers from the questionnaire, minus the spin.

and I have seen this caving in since the 1980s.

When Reagan proposed his trillion dollar military buildup and Star Wars, spending valuable resources that could have been used, say, to provide health care or repair the country's infrastructure (the first warnings about crumbling infrastructure appeared in the 1970s!) or stem the already growing plague of homelessness, did the Democrats offer alternatives? No, only the "radical leftists" pointed out the fallacies of Reagan's plans. Way too many Democrats, including Southerners like Sam Nunn and Al Gore (yes, the revered Al Gore!) and Northerners like Scoop Jackson never met a weapons system they didn't like and cheered the brutal suppressions of popular rebellions in Central America.

When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, how many Dems opposed him, and how many said, "Well, the unions are too powerful anyway"?

The 1986 Reagan tax cut screwed the middle class to fund tax breaks for specific corporations was co-authored by a Democrat and approved by many others.

Except for a few Congresscritters and Senators from agricultural states, the Dems did nothing to meet the needs of people who were losing farms that had been in their families even through the Depression.

The Dems believed the media lie about Reagan being "the most popular president since World War II" and mostly played along with him, with a few shining exceptions.

So when 1984 and 1988 came around and all of a sudden the candidates were saying that the Republicans had to be replaced, a lot of voters shrugged and thought, "Well, Reagan seems like a nice guy, and I don't get what those Democrats are going on about."

Remember how close the 2000 election was. As another thread revealed, Gore won New Mexico by a little over 600 votes and several other states by 1% or less. There were amazing numbers of undecided voters up to the day of the election, so much so that comedians commented on it. People who were not political junkies could literally see no significant difference between the two candidates. If Gore had not been so timid about differentiating himself from Bush, if he had hit hard and presented a clear choice that any idiot could see, he would have won decisively, and we would not be endlessly rehashing the Greens/Dems debate.

It was made in 1972 by George Wallace in his bid for the Presidency. He said there wasn't a dime worth of difference between the two parties. Nixon still managed to trounce McGovern despite Wallace's third party run which drew off conservative support. I can't imagine any moderate or liberal voting for Wallace, so I assume his votes were conservative.

That Gore's election was a squeaker proves, not disproves the arguement that you have to hug the center. Bush v.2 was presenting himself as a centerist. If Gore had gone left he would have lost decisively. Of course, Gore could have campaigned better and acted like a grown-up in the debates.

George Wallace ran third-party in 1968 and took close to 20 percent and five states, making it very close (Nixon over Humphrey by half a percent, both with about 41 percent, the closest election until 2000).

In 1972, Wallace was in the Republican primaries - until he was shot and crippled. He dropped out. After this, there was no third-party challenge to Nixon and basically Nixon picked up the Wallace vote (running the original "Southern Strategy," as his people called it).

In other words, the much-maligned McGovern did about as well in 1972 as Humphrey had managed in 1968! And this in the midst of a total dirty-tricks campaign run the whole time by the Nixon staff (which ultimately got Dick impeached, as you may remember).

All of which does not prevent otherwise intelligent people from saying McGovern lost because he was to the left of moderates, like Humphrey.

Sigh.

Wallace did say that about the two parties when he made his 3rd party bid. That was, as you have said, in 1968.

His 1972 presidential bid was as a Democrat, NOT as a Republican
Here's the link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/timeline/index_2.html

Here is the text:
Wallace enters the presidential primary again, this time as a Democrat. Running in Florida against the liberal George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, and nine other Democratic opponents, Wallace wins by an overwhelming majority, carrying every county in the state.

Wallace in 1972 Democratic primaries. Teach me to rely on memory (largely of Hunter S. Thompson's Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972).

However, you did get it wrong; Wallace was not in the general election in 1972, but in 1968.

Safe to say that Nixon succeeded in picking up most of the Wallace vote in 1972 thanks to "Southern strategy." '72 was a reactionary time for an electorate motivated largely by its fear of the youth counterculture, and I doubt anyone could have beaten Dick.

McGovern was actively sabotaged by the Democratic Party leadership, for having dared to take the nomination as a genuine outsider. He also managed to play away black support.

People heard what he wanted to do and didn't want him to have a chance to do it.

My wife isn't very political, whereas I am a political junkie. Since we married way after 72, we have never talked about McGovern. For the purpose of this thread I asked her if she remembered him and what her memories were. Basically, she remembered him as a nutcase, especially for his $1,000.00 a year promise. Everybody that defends McG seems to want to forget that. In today's terms that would be about $5,000.00, (rough guess, I'm not going to look it up.)

MCGOVERN LOST BECAUSE HE WAS WAAAAAAAAAAAY FAR OUT THERE, BEYOND REALITY.

In 1968, Humphrey won Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia. He lost the popular vote by a little over 500,000, or seven tenths of one percentage point. In 1972, McGovern won only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. He lost the popular vote by almost exactly 18 million, or over twenty-three percent. So in what world did McGovern do "about as well" as Humphrey?

By the way, those "Republican states" that Wallace won in 1968 went for Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 and for Kennedy in 1960. Without Wallace, Humphrey probably would have won those states, not Nixon. He got more votes than Nixon in three of them, and almost all Wallace voters were registered Democrats.

Even if you fail to take in what I'm saying. ;-)

Last week, I started a couple of threads on the need to speak to the concerns of rural voters, and to stand up for family farmers against agribusiness. They were inspired by THIS ARTICLE by John Nichols, from the 11/3/03 issue of The Nation.

1. One of the first places I would start is in speaking out against corporate excesses as an affront to the value of hard work held by most Americans. While we believe that people should get paid an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, there is nothing that can be used to justify a CEO making over 500 times an average worker's salary, while at the same time cutting the jobs of many of the workers whose hard work have helped make the company what it is today. It's also not right for these same corporate executives to clean out the life savings of so many of these workers by looting pension funds. And it's an affront to the basic idea of right and wrong that these same people are allowed to get away with it.

Part of ensuring that hard work is rewarded is making sure that there are strict rules in the marketplace to insitute a basic idea of fairness. Just like you can't have a good football game, hockey game or soccer match without clear rules and strict enforcement of those rules, neither can you have a good marketplace and society without clear rules and a strict enforcement of those rules. The Republicans believe that we should get rid of rules in the face of all of these cases of corporate crime. We Democrats believe that we need to lay out clear rules, and to enforce them strictly across the board. This is the only way that we can have a fair marketplace in which hard work is rewarded, and greed and selfishness are penalized.


2. Another place I would go is the reining in of "free trade", because it isn't really free -- it's a system that is written by corporate lobbyists to the advantage of corporate lobbyists. Trade is not a bad thing in and of itself, but we've got to get past this idea that we have to sacrifice protection of the environment to increase trade, or that we have to ship jobs overseas in the name of trade. If trade is working properly, it should be working to INCREASE these things, not decrease them. The fact that trade is not working in this manner is a clear indication that our trade policy is a failure.

All you have to do is look out across the heartland of the United States. We've gone from a country in which General Motors was the #1 employer, a company that provided its workers with a good wage and benefits, and strengthened communities in which it acted as an employer through these wages and benefits; to a country in which the largest employer is now Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, the same company that pays its employees poverty wages, the same company that gets away with illegal anti-union tactics, the same company that recently was found to be employing undocumented immigrant labor for after-hours cleaning services, paying them as little as $2 per day.

Something is fundamentally wrong with this picture. We have failed so many people across the heartland of America -- hard-working, honest people who have traditionally represented the backbone of this country -- by crafting policies to favor corporations who ship jobs overseas, move their headquarters overseas in order to avoid paying taxes, and then come, hat-in-hand, seeking subsidies paid for by these same people whose jobs are being shipped away. It is time that we stand up and say that there is something fundamentally wrong with this kind of policy, and we make a committment to the vast sea of hard-working Americans across the country, that we will stick up for THEIR INTERESTS rather than the businesses that have failed them and America as a whole.


3. Every other industrialized nation in the world provides basic health care for all of its citizens. Every other one, except for the United States. In recent studies, the United States ranked 37th in terms of the effectiveness of its health care system. THIRTY-SEVENTH, for the wealthiest country in the world. We currently have some 44 MILLION PEOPLE who don't have ANY HEALTHCARE WHATSOEVER, many of them children. At the same time, even in spite of 1 of every 7 Americans having no healthcare whatsoever -- and even more than that having substandard care -- we spend more money, per capita, on health insurance, than ANY OTHER NATION.

Something is wrong with this picture. We can do better. It's not just a question of money, it's a question of the basic morality of our nation. Will we stand by when many of our friends and neighbors -- most of them honest, hardworking people just trying to achieve the American dream of living a free life and providing a better life for their children. Yet, we have repeatedly allowed the selfish interests of insurance and pharaceutical companies to trump the basic needs of millions of hard-working Americans. We have to step in and say enough is enough, and make it our mission to come together and take care of each other as a nation -- just as people in small communities all across the country have in times of trouble and crises throughout our nation's history.


I could go on and on with this, but I think you get the idea of where I'm coming from by now. Now, if you can offer anything alternative based on CONCRETE EXAMPLES, and not the kind of broad platitudes expressed by overgeneralizations like, "We don't need another McGovern," and the like, I'm all ears.

thanks, IrateCitizen. Your #2 and #3, health care and free trade, are eminently mainstream issues. Opinion polls on these show majorities supporting the policies you suggest. It is the politicians who refuse to address them, and obviously Dems suffer from that the most since they would be the party from which voters who cared about these issues would expect to see something new and different.

But if you look at Library_Max's posts on this thread, you will see it's pointless to debate. Write it for anyone else reading this, but don't think you'll move L-M.

This is probably what (s)he's going to say next:

McGovern! Oooga oooga!

There's some excellent and productive thinking here. Let's just ignore the snotty and unnecessary "Even if you fail to take in what I'm saying."

Looking at the points you raise:

1. Corporate excesses. We've been going on about this for almost a decade. Nobody cares. It is derided and dismissed as "class warfare." Furthermore, it is not up to government to set a cap on executive salaries, and I'm sure you know that if we did (and the courts found it constitutional, which is highly unlikely), they would just find other ways via bonuses, stock options, in-kind benefits, etc. to get around it. And as far as "looting pension funds" is concerned, that too is a very complicated matter of law. Stopping it isn't as easy as just saying "Stop."

What specific rules are you proposing? The nominee would have to get specific. What rules would you propose that would pass constitutional muster, actually do what they are supposed to do, and not look like "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs." Most people consider companies and corporations to be the main source of jobs. They may envy the wealth of their bosses, but they don't feel good about that, and they won't support policies based on that envy.

2. Free trade. Now here you have a possible winner. Lots of people feel this way - that NAFTA etc. are just mechanisms to move jobs overseas. The problem is that repealing NAFTA will not force companies to keep their jobs in America. Globalization preceded NAFTA and would survive its demise. Globalization is essentially a private sector thing, not a government thing. We would have to go full gonzo Japan-before-Commodore-Perry protectionist to keep multinationals from undercutting American-made products in the marketplace. And we would grow weak and backward and end up having trade rammed down our throats the way Japan did.

That said, there's a lot that could be done by tinkering with NAFTA and other such agreements to protect workers in the U.S. and abroad, protect the environment, and check the unrestricted power of multinational corporations. As Ross Perot said, the devil really is in the details. But talk details to the American electorate and their eyes glaze over.

In this topic, again, I'm disappointed that you don't mention specific proposals. The nominee will have to do that. The rhetoric is good, but it's got to lead to something concrete in the end.

3. Health care. This could be worth another try, but it went down in flames last time, and not just because the plan was too complicated. There is a lot of money that isn't just Republican money arrayed against it. Once again, the rhetoric is good, but where's the plan? Single-payer is the best shot, but it's going to be easy for the Republicans to hang the "socialized medicine" label on that one and fabricate horror stories about rationing and endless waiting and lack of choice, plus the tax-and-spend meme (as in "How do we pay for it?"). Anything less black-and-white runs the complexity risk as last time. I think this issue would have to be tested and focus-grouped to a fair-thee-well before it would be smart to commit to it.

4. As for offering alternatives, I'm not the one complaining about the way the candidates are talking now. I'm not the one demanding a change. I'm not the one saying "To hell with the campaign professionals, let's take over." Historically, that has been a disaster every time it's been tried.

And that is what I am talking about. That is what has made the Republicans so successful -- they wrap their twisted policies around things like "protecting the American family" and such.

Many Democratic races over the past several years have been built around a hodgepodge of single issues, but have failed miserably to tie them all together into one over-arching VISION. An excellent example of this phenomenon is Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's defeat in the MD gubernatorial election last year.

Bill Clinton, for all his faults among progressives such as myself, DID realize this. Aside from the fact that he eventually reneged on many of the things he talked about in 1992, he realized the importance of "the vision thing".

Al Gore was a details guy. Al Gore definitely did NOT inspire people with it. There should be a lesson there. Details is not a winning strategy. The key is a clear and well-articulated VISION, one that offers a clear choice to the Republican agenda.

Additionally, I apologize for the "snottiness" in the initial post, but sometimes I get a little bit bent out of shape when I see people bring up "McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis" at the first sign of wanting to discuss anything approaching an overarching vision to speak to the concerns of most Americans.

No question about it. The nasty thing is, any vision is going to have to come complete with a set of policy initiatives, or at least a good reason why the specifics can't be explicit. Remember the role of the media - they are not on our side. It is too easy to shoot down vision as empty rhetoric when it doesn't include specifics (and, you're right, easy to demonize specifics when you do have them, or make them seem obscure and complicated). This won't happen to Bush because A) the media will be on his side, and B) an incumbent can run on his record, he doesn't have to say what he'll do about this or that.

... an incumbent can run on his record, he doesn't have to say what he'll do about this or that.

If Bush runs "on his record", he'll be in trouble. This was the same guy who ran as a "moderate", a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and then did a hard right turn as soon as he was in office.

I think that if he runs on his record, he'll be in a world of trouble. I think the whole "7% growth" thing is a complete bust, and will be seen as so very shortly, as soon as holiday spending doesn't pan out once again. I think he's vulnerable on security issues, with every attack in Iraq on each and every day. I think he's vulnerable on a lot of fronts, and the only real hope that the Republicans have is to maintain this image of "sacred ground" surrounding the Presidency and any criticism of Bush's misguided policies.

As for specifics, while I'm a political/policy junkie, I'm far from a professional. Same goes for politicians -- that's why they have staffs. ;-)

sad to say. And you can bet that he'll wrap himself in the flag and portray any cricism as unpatriotic, especially in wartime. By referring to his record, I only meant that Bush won't have to field questions like "what will you do about this or that?" He can say words to the effect that his record speaks for itself. He won't have to go into detail. Again, remember that the media is on his side.

As for specifics, that's exactly where I was going with that, thank you. The pros know. My understanding of this thread is that it was intended to be one long sneer at pros and professionalism in Democratic politics and a call to "take back the party" with very little concern over the consequences.

As for specifics, that's exactly where I was going with that, thank you. The pros know. My understanding of this thread is that it was intended to be one long sneer at pros and professionalism in Democratic politics and a call to "take back the party" with very little concern over the consequences.

I'm referring to policy wonks who provide the details on specific proposals. There will always be a need for policy wonks, and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves and others.

However, I believe that the reliance on "strategists" and "pollsters" and other hangers-on is one of the BIG problems facing the Democratic Party today. Too much of our "agenda" is determined by people who view the world outside of Washington, DC with the same familiarity with which you and I might view Saturn. They've amassed power, and they're looking to hold on to it however they can -- even if it results in losing. THEY are the ones that need to be kicked out, IMHO.

Do you really believe that politicians will have a better chance of getting elected if they don't have the help of pollsters, strategists, and etc.? The politicians themselves don't seem to agree. The ones that succeed seem generally to surround themselves with the best talent of that type that they can get their hands on. I mean, every race has a winner and a loser, so of course some strategists and pollsters are going to end up working for losers QED. But is anybody winning in recent elections (last couple of decades) without that kind of help? I'm talking about races above the level of city councilman.

The same kind of crowd that, as I said above, "views the world outside the Beltway with the same familiarity with which you or I would view Saturn." IOW, a bunch of people trying to craft a message to "America" who have absolutely no idea of what "America" is outside of their circuit of cocktail parties and party fundraisers.

I'm not a huge fan of Howard Dean like some on this board, but I admire the hell out of the way that he has been able to tap into a phenomenon of an energized grassroots. And he's done it not by eschewing any sort of "strategist", but by not handing power over to the Washington insider strategists.

That is what I am talking about. There is a place for strategists, but there is a place for the grassroots as well. Dean's campaign has recognized this. But, to many within the walls of the DNC (and more particularly, the DLC), these strategists are to be the entire force of crafting the campaign, without ANY contributions by the grassroots.

This is similar to the debate that took place when Marcy Kaptur ran against Nancy Pelosi for the Minority Leader position. Kaptur said that the party needed to stop holding so many $2000/plate fundraisers, and to put some focus into more personalized activities like BBQ's and bake sales. Her views were dismissed by other House Dems as being "from outer space". But, she has a point -- so long as the party continues to fail to interact with the "masses" in the pursuit of chasing big campaign donors, it will continue to fail to connect with them.

See how many insiders he takes on board. If he wants to win, it'll be lots.

Sneering at Washington insiders is pretty much equivalent to sneering at politicians - it's a Republican/corporatist meme. See my thread on this issue in GD ("Why (some of us) hate politicians.").

in an apartment building that had some luxury suites where elderly women who were stalwarts of the Oregon Republican party lived.

They had a lot of inside knowledge. informing me a year before the fact that Bushboy would get the nomination because he was who the party leaders wanted. One of them refused to speak to me after I had a letter in the paper urging the election of the Democratic challenger for that year's Senate race.

But even these staunch Republicans were vaguely disturbed and upset by corporate dominance. They didn't like being put on hold or having their customer service requests forwarded to India. It made them sad to remember when they could go to a downtown department store and get high-quality examples of every kind of merchandise, all made in the U.S.A., whereas now, the dpeartment stores carry nothing but clothes, and you go to a big box store to get stuff made in the Third World.

They couldn't see the connection between their party's policies and the aspects of modern life that they hated, but the entering wedge was there, even with these nearly fanatical Republicans.

The problem comes when you try to propose a solution. Any government solution to the kind of corporate-culture problems you're talking about would have to be incredibly coercive and probably unconstitutional (under the "takings" rubric for example). It would be really hard to get the electorate to accept any solution which would actually force companies to behave in a way that was less profitable to them.

I agree with you library Max that we can't just offer a government solution to all of these things. A lot of it has to do with what occurs and perceptions created outside of the political process -- which then gets filteed back to politicians, who then legitimize it in political terms.

(Something like that is happening with free trade now, for example)

However, the problem, as I see it, is there has been a growing disconnect between the concerns of people at the grass roots and those espoused by most centrist Democratic politicians. People may not know spe4cifically what is bugging them. but many of their problems can be addressed with liberal and progressive policies.

However, without a political "support system" for those ideas, people feel like no one is watching out for their interests.

The GOP has successfully put issues in a larger framework. We haven't.

Somehow we've got to break that chicken-and-egg problem. What I said in my original post (and here) is that until we address those subliminal concerns of people, we will be seen as weak and vague.

But that involves programs and specifics. The reason the Republicans are cheating so hard (Starr investigations, Florida 2000, Texas redistricting, California recall, etc.) is that they know that government can in fact do real things for real people and they're trying to deny us the chance. But unless and until we can get into office and make some things happen, it's all hot air as far as the general public is concerned.

If we can't give them specifics, it's going to be too easy for the media to dismiss the rhetoric. And I think we're going to have to be "conservative" in the dictionary definition of the word (careful and willing to proceed one step at a time) in the programs we offer. The Family Leave Act was a good model. The point is that we need things we can deliver, even if Republicans hold on to one or both houses. And if it sounds too radical or too expensive, it's going to turn more people off than on.

DU at it's best.

why is it that democrats have to worry about things like "electablitiy". i feel that in a "real" democracy electablity would not be as much of an issue, and instead candiates could focus on policies. there is something wrong with the system of our gov't. how is it that someone like pres. bush, who is completely inept, can get away with being a front man who has no real control. i think most people realize this, even republicans but they don't care bc they're getting what they want. i think in any other country pres. bush would have been thrown out of office, but here he can get away with being a moron by talking to the press as little as possible, and by making sure that when he speaks he has a well written speech prepared by one of his writers. for some reason i feel there is no accoutablity, or very little of it, in our system of gov't. maybe democrats should focus on reforming the system so we dont have to worry about whether *blank* canidate is electable.

i wouldnt call this an extremely informed opinion, but its just a thought

Regardless of what the more rightwing DU pundits say, people will vote on issues IF they're laid out in a clean way. The trick is that almost no politician, GOP or Dem, can afford to lay their policies out clearly and cleanly because their policies are, in the words of the late John Foster Dulles, that the rich should plunder the poor. How in hell do they sell that to the poor? Obviously they can't. So they blow smoke and talk in generalities instead.

And, since the policy of the rich plundering the poor is very serviceable to the rich, anyone who gets in the way of that is derided as 'unelectable'.

But we can change that. If we have the will. People aren't stupid. They know enough not to exchange 2 tens for a five. They can understand where their interests are if we lay it out for them in the right way.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

But you can't reform the system until you get into office, and you can't get into office unless you're electable under the present system.