Worried about 2004

I am seeing the reports of the 7.2% growth race (which will be revised up or down) reported on CNN, and I honestly wonder if Bush is going to win in a landslide next year. Before these numbers came out I had my doubts about the ability to defeat him.

All I can say is that right now it is tough to be a Democrat in America at the moment. We are continuously on the defensive and I look at the elections that are about to take place.

1) LA--Blanco looks like she will lose. On EDIT: someone posted a poll showing her 11 points behind Jindal.

2) KY--Fletcher is going to win.

3) MS--Barbour has a slight lead. With a Green candidate on the ballot the picture looks grim there.

4) Phila--Street looks he will defeat Katz.

Invetiably, when KY and MS flip next week, the media will spin it at as a great victory for Bush. Along with California it looks like we are completely on the defensive.

I think of the long term situation for our party. The problems that I identify here are ones that have been systematic. I've seen them enlarge and grow over the last few years.

1) The Media: This is our biggest problem. I am watching CNN's Inside Politics, and again it is all biased in favor of the Republicans. The one clip of Congresswoman Pelosi portrayed her in a very negative light. No matter what the isuse or position networks like CNN constantly portray the Democrats as "being engaged in political dirty tricks". No matter what the issue or story that's how they are portrayed.

I do commend Vice President Gore for starting the groundwork for a liberal/progressive television station. I wish that we could find a major rich liberal to donate money to create a strong media presence. I wish that some Democrats would come forward and make their own public relations and media firms to counter the companies that exist on the right.

I used to pooh pooh people who said the media treated Democrats unfairly, and now I must say that I was wrong. Watching CNN over this whole year has convinced me. No matter what the Democratic leadership does or says the news networks (although CBS and ABC seem more even-handed) will spin it in a completely negative light.

In the long term, into future cycles, we need to do something with the media. I commend the likes of Guy James and Rand Rhodes for having their shows. They are trying to make up for a deficit that we have allowed to balloon over the years.

I think that Democrats also need to develop a media strategy. Maybe they are already doing it. But I don't see it. They need to be better at the "soundbite" aspect.

2) Aggressiveness: I think that the Democrats simply don't have the same drive that Republicans have. Democrats are not as driven as the Republicans.

Take the issuse of the California recall. That was a bold move launched by the Republicans. Why haven't the Democrats tried to recall an unpopular GOP Governor like Judy Martz in Montana? I know for a fact that recall laws are tougher from state to state, but I do think that we need to be more aggressive and bold.

Maybe that's why I am supporting Governor Dean. I like how he stood up way back before everyone else did. I think that maybe our elected officials need to stand up more to Bush. I don't think that moving to the far left isn't the answer, but I do think that they should ask more questions.

I think of the CIA Agent leak. That issue should be pushed forward continously.

3) The Nonunion Working Class: A book I recommend that everyone at DU read is "America's Forgotten Majority: Why the White Working Class Still Matters" by Rogers and Texeria.

That books talks about how our party has done well in more affluent suburbs. Indeed, in the California recall, per a report shown on CNN last week, where there were more "Starbucks", people voted against the recall and for Bustamente. Where there were more "Wal-Marts" people voted Republican.

I have brought up this issue several times. But the perception still exists that the Democratic Party is hostile to the interests of the lower nonunion working classes. They feel that the Democratic party doesn't respect their values or their taxes dollars.

Clinton did a lot to change that perception, but it still exists enough to elect Republicans in close races. Our party has done well apparently among the more wealthy and more educated suburbanities, but not among the working class.

What are we not doing right? Is it guns? Is it taxes? Is it values?

My answer is probably guns, taxes, and values. How do we convince them that we aren't those "hippies who hate America"? How do we convince them that the party has moved beyond the unrest of the late 1960s? How do we convince them that ours is a party that offers them more than our Republican counterparts?

The party has become less soft on crime and more willing to demand accoutnability out of people on welfare. I just don't understand what we need to do the close the deal with these voters. Maybe the media issue is part of the problem. I really don't know.

I am really worried about 2004. I see a Bush landslide as a realistic possibility. I don't want to write off 2004, but I do think that maybe we might be better served if we direct our resources toward more long term projects to give our party a stronger footing in the 2006 and in the 2008 cycles.

Any thoughts?

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

In sports, you always hear the term, "Defense Wins Championships". That's also true in politics. You have to oppose Bush in order to defeat him. Our problem as Democrats is that the base is willing to oppose him, but our leadership is not.

Bush has no opposition, and that's the biggest reason why he'll win big in 2004.

You need to actually stand for something. Simply being against the other guy is not enough. You need to go on the offensive, have a plan of your own and an implementation policy you can discuss intellegently.

Maybe next week NOT turning out quite like you think it's going to will do the trick!

REMEMBER--2004 is NOT 1984...at least, not election-wise!:eyes:

B-)

Wise up and back Dean if you want to get rid of*.

BTW let the people choose their candiates.

"Bannergate" for two solid days, and there's talk here of doom-and-gloom. Makes ya wonder.

Dean is so close to Bush it's not funny, and with the economy improving Kerry and Clark are the only real alternatives, because they offer something resembling competence on foreign affairs.

I saw a recent poll showing Jindal with a sizeable lead over Blanco. Will hunt it down and post the details here for you and others to disect. I know squat about polling methods and the mechanics of polling. So I will leave that to others to explain to me.

Here it is...

New poll: Jindal leads by 11 points

http://www.theadvertiser.com/newsupdate/html/82FEF386-19BC-47F7-B0BC-898445D49D68.shtml

BATON ROUGE -- Republican Bobby Jindal was ahead 11 points in the governor's race in a new poll out today.

Jindal had 49 percent compared to Democrat Kathleen Blanco's 38 percent in the independent poll by Verne Kennedy of Marketing Research Insight of Pensacola, Fla.

The poll of 600 people was taken Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday nights by Kennedy for a group of 25 wealthy business owners who contribute to both camps.

The poll has a margin of error of 4.0 points, Kennedy said.


Follow the link for the full story. 4% seems like a very large MOE for a poll to me.

I thought she was ahead. Oh well.

polls showing her ahead. Thats why I would like this one looked at by those who know about polling.

my mother lives in Louisiana and Blanco has been the favorite for awhile. Something stinks here

Race Republican Democrat Others Pollster Dates MoE

Governor Jindal 41% Blanco 43% undecided 16%
Marketing Research Insight 10/21-22 3.9%
Jindal 45% Blanco 47% w/ leaners

Jindal 40.5% Blanco 42.7% undecided 16.8%
Southern Media & Opinion Research 10/17-20 4%

Jindal 41% Blanco 48% undecided 11%
Marketing Research Insight 10/13-16 3.9%
Jindal 42% Blanco 52% w/ leaners

Jindal 35% Blanco 41% undecided 23%
Marketing Research Insight 10/2-10/03 3.9%
Jindal 39% Blanco 47% w/ leaners

Jindal 41% Blanco 42% undecided 27%
Marketing Research Insight 10/2-3/03 4%
Jindal 47% Blanco 52% adjusted

and now the victorious democrat be under 40%. I think that is screwy.

n/t

I wish that we could find a major rich liberal to donate money to create a strong media presence.

One has been found. Sheldon Drobny of Chicago has ponied up $10 Million to launch a liberal radio network.

And I see no landslide in the works. Regardless of the position of the economy in 2004, Bush is very beatable. The debates alone, where he will clearly look far inferior to whoever our nominee is will cost him a large chunk of votes.

..

If your biggest concern is about this GDP number, allow to me to soothe some of your fears.

Most of the growth came from strong consumer spending this quarter, but that was inflated heavily at an annual rate by those tax rebates. In October so far, consumer spending has slowed down considerably in many measures such as chain store sales. That trend will likely continue. Also, a near full percent of this figure came from rapid home building in the quarter that will not only not be repeated in the fourth quarter, but will likely decline. All in all, fourth quarter growth will be nowhere near what the third quarter was. If there was another quarter like this, then I would worry, but this was an aberration.

The problem is that the party will continue to flounder until it has a standard-bearer. You can talk about message, you can talk about image, but the fact is, until we have a nominee, we won't have either. The Republican Party speaks with one voice -- the president's. The Democratic Party speaks with many voices, which is, for all practical purposes, no voice at all. So of course we're going to be on the defensive. Of course the Republicans are better able to define us than we can define ourselves. That would be the case even if the Republicans didn't dominate the media and have a huge fundraising advantage.

If the Democrats are able to nominate someone who can articulate a clear message about what the Democratic Party stands for, and both the candidate and the message have appeal to the non-elites, we'll have a fighting chance in 2004. Personally, I think Wes Clark and John Edwards are far more likely to fill that role than Howard Dean.

The media is our #1 problem.

and both the candidate and the message have appeal to the non-elites

I was wondering when the other shoe would drop. Who are the "elites", dolstein?

Elected officials, union officials, interest group leaders and political junkies like you and me. Frankly, anyone who is following the election closely at this point would have to be considered part of the political elite.

I'm not using "elite" in a perjorative way, mind you. I'm just using it to distinguish between a relatively small group of people who wield disproportionate influence over the nominating process and a much larger group of people who decide the outcome of general elections. Sometimes the preferences of these groups are pretty well-aligned, sometimes there's a serious disconnect.

Te word I have always used to describe people like us who follow this stuff way early is HACKS.

I've also used the word JUNKIES to describe us.

Political hacks and political junkies are the only ones following the Dems. right now...too far out for Joe Sixpack to care yet.

... that's interesting stuff about "Starbucks" vs. "Wal-Mart" - and down in South Carolina, we definitely have more Wal Marts. The Republicans down here just have the working class duped - they don't vote their class interests (though they definitely vote their ethnic 'interests'). They go along with income tax cuts, and don't put two and two together when regressive taxes then go up locally.

The GOP's platform and basic ideas are simple - cut taxes and fight terrorism. The alternatives (despite the fact that they're better) are harder to explain and understand. Thus, Democrats come off as wonkish, and (you're right) the media is aggresively spinning everything they say as pure politics.

(BTW, if you want to read a good book about the right-wing media industry, and how they've managed to slant things their way, you might try "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman.)

For my part, I've been writing letters to the editor and trying to campaign for Kucinich with the local (relative ) handful of progressives, but it's hard to get traction, here, man. The South, the poorest region in the country, should be the most receptive to the Democrats appeals, but in reality it's the least.

I saw an interview with Chomsky not too long ago (linked from here) that said what was needed was to "broaden the spectrum", to bring new ideas like sustainability into the political dialogue. I don't see the leading Democrats working toward this goal - it looks like their handlers won't let them try anything out of the box. No matter how much we lose. Damn.

nt

and I think you hit it dead on.

"The GOP's platform and basic ideas are simple - cut taxes and fight terrorism. The alternatives (despite the fact that they're better) are harder to explain and understand. Thus, Democrats come off as wonkish, and (you're right) the media is aggresively spinning everything they say as pure politics. "

WE do need to bring new ideas into the political dialogue. The southern baptist have a cap on what they consider to be the "right" dialogue. But in all honesty it's hard to know where the Democrats stand in the south. My parents were both Democrats and I have been a Democrat all my life too, however, I was raised in a southern baptist church and this is where the wing-nuts get their leverage. I posted something about this Sunday. Very same topic.

Simplicity in message is what the GOP has going for them. Literally if you watch them, their message has been simple and on track.

"Bush is doing a great job fighting terror and he's cutting taxes, oh and he's a good moral Christian man"

Those three things will get him a HUGE number of votes in the south, and being that the media isn't on our side, many people will continue to buy those lies.

through most of 2004. There are just too many people looking for work compared to the small amount of job creation.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I and many others have been trying to tell you for quite some time that to realize the depth and power of what I like to call Goebbels v2.0 one does not have to be a flaming leftist!

The truth knows no political party and the Bushevik (I can't call them "Republicans" because they're not..more like monarchists or Totalitarians) Bully, Bias, and Parasitization of the Mainstream Media, combined with the Party-Loyal Right-Wing Sub-Media (that you now can see drives what is laughably called the National Dialogue in ways large and small) has combined to create Corporate TV Pravda.

Yes, Left Totalitarianism and Right Totalitarianism all wind up at the same place, only the justifications for tyranny are different.

And Goebbels v2.0 is so much more effective, Orwell-style, than the original due to 60 years of "advancement" in the psychomanipulative arts such as advertsising and PR.

What do do? Short of a Richard Mellon-Scaife with $200,000,000 for us and about 100 Al Franken types...I don't know what the answer is.

I have no doubt that the German Social Democrats of 1933 felt the same gasping desperation, too.

I know you don't like the Nazi comparisons, Carlos. I maintain that the Busheviks have employed, from a rhetroical and propaganda viewpoint those very tactics.

Thank God they haven't emulated Grandpa Prescott's Business Parnters further...for the moment.

Your "electoral process" is a joke. It varies between third world ineptitude and police state contol of the voting machines replacing the old systems.

Carlos! Your country is being literally stolen and all you can do is worry about close electoral races that HAVE ALREADY been decided.

Good God man, get up to speed.

If you don't want to have to take up arms to get your country back, you'd better get yourself educated about the Fascist take over of America. This is no joke - it's happening. The Far Right has declared War and they intend to take no prisoners.

All your neuroses over who's electable and who has the best chance in 2004 reads like a modern Don Quixote episode. Alot of sound and fury, signifying nada. Tilting at imaginary electoral concerns, intead of windmills, and actually fooling yourself into believing that the voting process is still fair and tamper proof.

Exposing the criminal inner workings of this Administration is your ONLY hope. The mainstream media has to be shocked into fully investigating 9-11 and exposing the Bush-Carlyle Administration's complicity into those attacks BEFORE the next "election".

It's your only hope.

The US economy is being propped up and manipulated by Greenspan and his cronies to make Bush's tax cuts for the rich seem like a good thing. They will continue this deception until after Bush "wins" re-election - after that, they may not need to worry about silly things like elections.

Emperor Bush.

Hmmm, has a ring to it.

Why?

1) Bush is an idiot. One month of good growth does not mean he's home free. There will be more lies, more screw ups, more bad decisions, more alienation of people.

2) Voters had no problems changing course during the good economic times of Clinton/Gore. A good economy (if it should materialize) is no gaurantee of election.

3) Voter motivation. There are hundreds of thousands of voters who did not vote in the last election who are going to vote this time around. Remembering that Bush did not get a majority of votes last time around, can you really imagine that ant significant number of voters are going to say, "I voted for Gore last time around, but now that he's been in office for a while, I can see how Bush really does represent my interests." Didn't think so. Now add to that the angry new voters, and Shrub doesn't stand a chance.

Go read and learn. Check out the links in the Stock Watch thread. This is a blip they pulled off. Just check market reaction. *yawn*

The sky is not falling.....

Julie

(things really aren't so rosy for Bushco)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/economy_gdp_companies_dc

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. economic growth may have sizzled in the third quarter, but unimpressed corporate executives said on Thursday that job expansion and long-term business investment are still lagging.

"We're going to wait until I have orders in hand," said John Kispert, chief financial officer of KLA-Tencor Corp., a top manufacturer of equipment used in microchip production, in regards to hiring more workers and making new investments. "I'm not going to react to any macro indicator," he told Reuters.

The U.S. Commerce Department (news - web sites) reported Thursday that gross domestic product grew in the July-September quarter by 7.2 percent, the fastest rate in more than 19 years, as consumers went on a buying spree and businesses boosted capital spending.

However, as the economic recovery picked up steam in the third quarter, 41,000 nonfarm jobs were lost, bringing the total lost since President Bush (news - web sites) took office in 2001 to 2.6 million. The Bush administration has vowed not to rest until the job market catches up with the recovery.

more..........

I know how hard it it sto find work.

The democrats need an FDR type president, somebody that is true liberal, no extreme leftism/marxism

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

and he is honest about the process.

I think it takes some courage and is an admirable trait.

:toast: :toast:

(for all the work you do and have done for the Democratic Party, for your voter registration efforts and other things I don't know about...thank you...and I'm glad to see your eyes opening...we need do-ers like yourself to have eyes wide open if we are to have a chance)

:toast: :toast:

You've described quite eloquently and concisely the problems we face as a party. My biggest concerns are the media and milquetoast Democrats that bow down to every request this administration has.

#1 - We need our own national cable network. I won't even call it a LIBERAL network. We just need a TRUTHFUL one to combat the Bush administration lies.

#2 - We need more prominent progressive think tanks.

#3 - We need an issue to rally everyone (with the exception of the staunchest right-wingers) around. Will it be the war in Iraq? The economy? National security? Foreign policy? I don't know. But we need an issue, a "sexy" issue, and the message that the Democratic party has the best solution needs to be conveyed in a manner that even the Faux News watching crowd can understand.

#4 - Democrats need to stop backing down and temporarily forget about compromise until Bush is out of office. When they stand in unison, they are successful. Not ONE Democratic filibuster in the Senate has been broken since Dumbya has been in office. NOT ONE.

#5 - We need to support those in our party who need it. What happened to Max Cleland was a travesty! It should NEVER, NEVER happen again.

#6 - Terry McAuliffe needs to go. He's been ineffective and has not shown the leadership that his position requires. We need someone more dynamic and more in touch with the direction this party needs to go.

#7 - We need to actively foster and recruit suitable candidates to run for office. Any Republican running for office needs to know that he/she will face a formidable opponent.

A few things off the top of my head...

It is precisely the combative tone, harsh black-and-white judgements and militarism that we revile in the repubs that appeals to TV Nation.

Look at Arnold dominating and scorning the dems in the Cal. debate. Uch. It works! Especially in these war mentality times.

This is Dean's appeal, too.

To quote Alice Cooper: "No more Mr. Nice Guy..."

If our nominee stands his ground on economic and fiscal policy, we'll have a chance, whether we're at 6% or 0% growth. This recovery is not the rising tide that will necessarily lift all boats. If we can show how the current path creates growth at the expense of growth of opportunity for most voters, we have a chance.

Ultimately, we'll rise or fall based on how well our nominee is able to speak about the nation's challenges, and how much he'll be able to make our case to the people who decide the elections, the third of the electorate not tied to either party, not particularly attentive, and not particularly informed.

I'm worried too about our prospects. The collective instinct of the party is that we can somehow turn out our base. If two years of Bush didn't convince the base to turn out, four years won't, either. However, if we learn one lesson from the California recall, we'll be ok.

That lesson: personality and snappy one-liners mean everything. If we nominate a personable candidate, we'll be ok.

That'll certainly help.

We need to realize that most Americans want less governmental intrusion into their lives. We're seen as pushing a "nanny" agenda. Middle America doesn't WANT this, and this is how we keep LOSING. We're fighting for the very soul of our party aganst the far left. We need to face facts. Putting forth a far left candidate, while satisfying ideologically and for chest-thumping purposes after we're defeated, still leads to defeats.

Here are some suggestions.

Stay WAY FAR away from ANY kind of Federal gun control law. NOTHING irritates people like gun control, and face it, 25% of the American population owns guns of some kind (the percentage of voters who owns guns is much larger, since the criteria for voting is identical for gun ownership. People who can't own guns can't vote. There are 80 million gun owners, all potential voters, in the US, and in 2000, I think fewer than 110 million people voted TOTAL.) If you live in a state where gun control is popular, fine, push for whatever you want, WITHIN THAT STATE. Federal gun control legislation is a 3 week dead albatross around our necks on a national level.

Secondly, health care. Universal health care is not viable now. What we SHOULD be pushing for is an expansion of Medicare and Medicade to guarantee ALL the poorer people access to decent health care. We can then GRADUALLY expand it until it covers everybody who wants it. Going to a true "one payer" system is NEVER going to happen.

Third: Jobs. Want to win buttloads of voters? Stop the outsourcing of high paying jobs to overseas. One possible way to do this painlessly is to make it so ANY company that outsources jobs can't benefit from or bid on ANY Federal contracts. Think of what a difference that would make JUST in the IT industry (imagine how fast Microsoft would come back to the US if they couldn't license Windoze to the Feds). This is emminently do-able, it's very pro american workers, and it's not FORCING the companies to comply, it's a carrot and stick approach. "We're not sticking it to the Corporations, we're giving them a choice!"

Fourth: Quit supporting people who do stupid shit like comparing Bush (or any other government official) to Hitler in public and setting fire to Hummer dealerships. Regardless of how true or good you feel that is, it alienates the hell out of moderates, and WE NEED THE MODERATES MORE THAN WE NEED the lunatic-fringe/tinfoilhat far left. You can't win without the Moderates, you CAN win without the anarchists/Stalinists/Earth First!ers and people like that.

Why was Bill Clinton so popular? Was it because he embraced the far far left, or because he embraced the moderates? When was the last time you saw Clinton's face gracing a PETA/ALF/ELF/ANSWER/whatever advertizement?

I think instead of dumbing ourselves down to the uninformed voters' level, we need to educate them. Clinton wasn't popular simply because he embraced the moderates. He was popular because he gave EVERYONE a little something of what they wanted. Conservatives got welfare reform, free-traders got NAFTA, college grads got to write off the interest for their student loans, environmentalists had a stringent EPA that went after corporate polluters, low-income families got child care and social services from the reauthorization of Head Start, poor and rural communities benefited from the creation of Americorp, I could go on and on. Yes, the rich got richer, but I didn't do too bad myself.

With this administration, only one segment of the population benefits: Bush's cronies. We need to be making the point that you need to vote Democratic if you want to live like a Republican.

But I've learned that it's a complete waste of time with you. You don't listen. I could name at least a small handful of issues on which I and many, many other DUers tried to help you understand some fairly basic things, only to be totally rebuffed and sometimes in a fairly rude way. ONLY to have you come back months later, after having read some book, and say now you understand precisely what you wouldn't believe us about.

'Tain't worth it. Go read a book.

Eloriel

Keep trying. You do have alot of drive.