Psikotik Psikotik

Is the party over?

▼

Is the party over?

Things we need to do before 2008

from JoeUser Forums
We had a pretty good chance to beat GW in this years elections. His approval rating was low, people thought the war in Iraq was going badly, that the economy was going badly and that the country needed to go in a new direction. But somehow we managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. So he are my thoughts on what we need to do before 2008 to have a chance:

1) Disown Michael Moore - Too many people hate the man. You know how we feel about Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, take that and double it. And it definitely doesn't help when he goes to France and bashes us. If you really feel the need to own a copy of Farenhiet 9/11, hide it with your porn or somewhere else it can't be found. Don't flaunt something that pisses people off so much.

2) Quit getting out the Hollywood stars - It just goes to further the idea that we're elitist and out of touch. Barbra Striesand knows about as much about the middle class as a bunch of things I know nothing about. When you've spent most of your adult life being pampered and having your ass kissed it's kind of hard to relate to regular people.

3) Pick a candidate with some charisma - Kerry was monotone, unemotional, rambled to the point he was hard to follow and except for the constant hand gesturing was like a piece of cardboard. It was like being lectured in college. I WANTED to hear what he had to say and I found him boring. About the only good thing you can say is he had more charisma than Gore. Remember Clinton, how he connected and "felt your pain", we need some of that.(Though not from Hillary)

4)Don't take the high road - In this election the campaign says they decided to try and keep Kerry "above the fray and try to let Edwards do the dirty work. A campaign is a fray. It's a knock down, drag ouy, bitch-slappin' cat fight and you aren't ready for that you're gonna get hurt. By the time the Democrats started agressively responding to the Swiftboat Vets it was too late, you woulda thought Kerry was in the back of his boat mapping out some sinister 30 year plan to be President.

5) Don't ignore states - We pretty much always win California and New York. That's nice, but you still have 184 electoral votes to go The campaign wrote off the South (except for Florida) and most of the Midwest. You know there are people there too, right? They're not all Republican robots. If you give them a candidate and issues they can get behind it could just happen. And as a side note don't take minority groups for granted and assume they're going to vote for you.

6)Stand for something - "Bush Sucks" isn't a platform. Example - Bush screwed up Iraq? Fine, how are YOU going to fix it? "I'll bring in help from other nations". France and Germany won't magically change their minds. Republicans had tax cuts, terrorism and "morals", we had "I'm a veteran" and "Bush Sucks". What was up with Kerry's Healhcare plan? I never understood it, It sounded like Universal Health Care whether it was or not. People don't want to pay for that. Why didn't we talk about Social Security? Bush is going to do some damage more than likely. Why didn't we mention Bush is considering a National Sales Tax? It will be a tax that affects the poor who don't have to pay taxes now.

In conclusion, this campaign couldn't have gone worse unless we nominated Alan Keyes or something. The leadership of the party needs to take a long look at the country and within the party, decide on a course of action, begin working on the 2006 races and find appealing candidates or we may be doomed to repeat our mistakes."
democrat
22,154 views 35 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Democrats are going to have to decide if they want to nominate Hillary in 08. If not they need to find a strong alternative early on, as there will be powerful pro-Hillary forces.


If the Democrats nominate Hillary, we will lose again. In a poll, 34% of people asked their opinion of her said they hated her. That means she would have to win probably 80% (I'm not going to do the math) of the people who don't hate her - not gonna happen. She is connected to Monica-gate for being Mrs. Clinton and the Republicans would also bury her for the healthcare task force she ran under her husband. We need someone more centrist and that can appeal to the South (as her husband did). The last two Democratic presidents (Clinton and Carter) were both self-made Southerners, not wealthy Northerners.

Thanks for all the insightfuls and good comments. Can't belive I made a featured article!! Now what to do for an encore......
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

unless we nominated Alan Keyes

alan keyes would NEVER switch parties to run for office.  alan keyes would NEVER run for office except in his home state. 

(this is just WRONG)

Star Control: Origins
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
Disown Michael Moore
No need. There will be entertainer-polemicists on both sides. Just don't get cozy with him. Let him do his thing, you do yours. (Just the way Bush was with Rush)
Quit getting out the Hollywood stars
Again, there are and will be Hollywood stars on both sides. If you use them to bring in the crowds, that is fine. If you expect their endorsements to mean anything, dream on.
Pick a candidate with some charisma
Sad but true. As long as elections are fought more on television than on the Internet or in newspapers, charisma will considerably outrank other considerations. Ominous for democracy, but a fact of life.
Don't take the high road
That is an oversimplification. The public prefers the candidate who takes the high road, but has trouble recognizing the high road by the time the campaign reaches them through the media. At this point, it is rather muddy what "negative" means. Does that word mean pointing out your opponent's personal flaws? his record? facts about his past? Is it silence about allies' lies? The problem is that what is negative is tied up in charisma... which makes sense, because we all know that, in everyday life, some people can get away with saying things just by their manner.
Don't ignore states
This is flat out bad advice. Resources are always limited, and some states are not winnable. George Bush would not have won New York or Vermont even if he had spent all his time and money in these two states. The public is not limitlessly malleable (thank God) and you often need to recognize where the jury has already made its decision.
Stand for something
I am with you 100% on this. To win, you need a charasmatic candidate who stands for something. Before liberals despair, they need to remember that they had a candidate who rated very low in both of these areas, and they still came quite close to winning.

However, "standing for something" has become kind of a nebulous concept in the television era. To illustrate, think of what George Bush stands for: 1) Standing up to terror... But homeland security is weak, and three years of warfare has had questionable results, at best. 2) Moral values... But we torture prisoners and partake in filthy politics, while accomplishing little on the so-called wedge issues. This is not to say that George Bush does not stand for anything, but he did not run on the things he stands for -- to do so would have been suicidal.

The problem is that "standing for something" has become, not a matter of clear principles, but rather one part clever tactics and one part charisma. This was true in the Clinton victories, and it is true again now.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Quit getting out the Hollywood stars Again, there are and will be Hollywood stars on both sides. If you use them to bring in the crowds, that is fine. If you expect their endorsements to mean anything, dream on.


Celebrity endorsements ARE fine, Bush had some (can't name them though). But when you throw these huge gala fundraisers with them and say "They represent the heart of America" (which Kerry did), you're just asking for trouble. The general populace (especially the South) relates to these people about as much as I do 50 Cent or Snoop Dogg.

Don't ignore states This is flat out bad advice. Resources are always limited, and some states are not winnable. George Bush would not have won New York or Vermont even if he had spent all his time and money in these two states. The public is not limitlessly malleable (thank God) and you often need to recognize where the jury has already made its decision.


Yes there are certain states which are unwinnable and should be considered non starters. But in this election the Dems wrote off way too many states. If you look at the red and blue states from the final electoral map, there were only at most 7 or 8 red states that the Dems made any real effort in.They gave up too many votes in an effort to win Ohio, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa. Plus when you have 225 - 250 million dollars to spend on the campaign, resources aren't that limited.

Don't take the high road That is an oversimplification. The public prefers the candidate who takes the high road, but has trouble recognizing the high road by the time the campaign reaches them through the media. At this point, it is rather muddy what "negative" means. Does that word mean pointing out your opponent's personal flaws? his record? facts about his past? Is it silence about allies' lies? The problem is that what is negative is tied up in charisma... which makes sense, because we all know that, in everyday life, some people can get away with saying things just by their manner.


Yes, I did oversimplify this one a bit. You could write a whole article just on this.The basic faults I found in the Dem strategy were 1) Letting Edwards "do the dirty work". People don't pay attention to or even hear a lot of what the VP candidate says. 2) They were to slow in their eaction times. With the Swiftboat ads in particular it was if they thought "If we ignore it, it will go away". It obviously didn't and did hurt his campaign. Started his convention speech with "Reporting for duty" sure didn't help the Swiftboat situation at all. The unfortunate thing about politics right now is that negative does work. As an example, in Oklahoma the man who won the senate seat compared his opponent to Uday and Qusay Hussien and said he was "limp-wristed" among other things. That people can ignore, and by default, condone such remarks is a sad thing.



However, "standing for something" has become kind of a nebulous concept in the television era. To illustrate, think of what George Bush stands for: 1) Standing up to terror... But homeland security is weak, and three years of warfare has had questionable results, at best. 2) Moral values... But we torture prisoners and partake in filthy politics, while accomplishing little on the so-called wedge issues. This is not to say that George Bush does not stand for anything, but he did not run on the things he stands for -- to do so would have been suicidal.


I agree with you. But for whatever reason, the Dems just weren't able to put together a cohesive/convincing argument to the people that Bush's record didn't back up his rhetoric. And I think Republicans were able to use fear of terrorism (to a degree) in their favor. There was a fear of the unknown if Kerry was elected. A lot has to do with the blinding Love Bush / Hate Bush people you see even here. Some people (rightly or wrongly and on both sides) weren't going to change their minds no matter the facts or ideas presented.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with you. But for whatever reason, the Dems just weren't able to put together a cohesive/convincing argument to the people that Bush's record didn't back up his rhetoric. And I think Republicans were able to use fear of terrorism (to a degree) in their favor. There was a fear of the unknown if Kerry was elected. A lot has to do with the blinding Love Bush / Hate Bush people you see even here. Some people (rightly or wrongly and on both sides) weren't going to change their minds no matter the facts or ideas presented.


And Krry couldn't put together a cohesive plan for America. Doubt what I say, it's okay with me. But while your at it ask the other Dems on this board what Kerry's plan was. Chances are they won't be able to tell you
Reply #31 from PolMach Forums Top
How about the Curse of Al Gore's endorsement for the mystery of Who Killed Kerry? Remember Lieberman, Dean, Gore himself? Then he endorses Kerry late in the game. Ouch! Keep Al Gore under wraps in 2008!
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
Quite frankly I think you have spent too much time absorbe in JU if you think Michael Moore is such a problem. The only people truly insulted by Moore were the hardline Republicans. The rest took it as a joke or an opinion they disagreed with.
Reply #33 from PolMach Forums Top
2008 will be an intersting election because basically there will be no Republican Stars. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, MD is possibly the front runner in my book. But I think after 4 more years of Bush the pendulum will swing back to the Dems. The deficit will soar to new heights, and the economy will be slow and steadily growing, but not a factor in the next election. I'm basing that on nothing more than past cycles. The issues will be an exit strategy in Iran, and continuing the clean up in Iraq, I'm not kidding. Also what to do with Kim Jong Il.

I think Hilary will continue to move more to the center over the next 4 years, and will be sitting in a nice position in 2008. I think 2008 would be a very opportune time for a moderate third party to take power. If we are steeped in war in the middle east, a General Like Tommy Franks, or Colin Powell might have a shot. But Powell has to stop being the presidents BS'er he's starting to come off like a Conspracy Theorist. If Powell switches parties (not necesarily to the Dems, but to a third party) and complains loud enough and starts telling stories out of school on the present administration he could win by a landslide.