How to Build a Better Democrat

I skimmed through this issue at the doc's office the other day. Talk about trying to pump up a story where none exists! The country is pretty much split down the middle, politically, and has been for a while. Right now, the Repubs are still basking in the glow of their little war, so "duh," they're polling well. This has nothing to do with who is or who is not the Democratic candidate.

 

I think it would be fair to say that in 1999, Republicans were not united, and their party was allegedly in shambles. The same thing was said about Democrats in 1996, Republicans in 75, Dems in 1980, etc., etc.

Yes, the party will unite behind a candidate, an agenda, and will have success at some point in the future, be it 2004, 2008 . . .

 

Maybe someone can find the story, but it was widely reported in newscasts this week that 66% of people polled could not name ONE Democratic prez. nominee. I think registered Dems. did a little better - only 60% could not name a candidate.

 

Lots can happen in the next 18 months or so, but those Democrasts who say the election will play out much like the last one, with a divided electorate, or, even better to their mind, like George I's failed campaign, are whistling in the dark.

No, this time it IS different. That doesn't mean hopeless.

For any Democratic candidate to have a shot, here is what he has to do:

--He has to be centrist. Someone of a truly liberal stripe will get shellacked.

--He cannont engage in class warfare rhetoric.

--He has to convince the American public he can be a commander in chief. And that does not mean second guessing Iraq, or even questioning the motives of the war. That will get you nowhere. In fact, you concede the success of the war and get beyond it.

--You run hard on the neglect of the domestic economy. But you do so with a credible set of policy alternatives that provide a plausible programmatic plan.

--You offer a health care plan, but without the bureaucratic nightmare of the Hiliary attempt. And you provide a timetable. "If you elect me, by 2006, 98% of Americans will have health insurance."

--Homeland security. Bush is vulnerable here. Expose the shortcomings and weaknesses, but don't sound alarmist.

Still, it's going to be uphill for the Dems. But if they follow this path, they have a shot. If they don't they're toast.

 

I'm not a Democrat, but I think you misunderstood me. I don't think the Dems have a chance in 2004, but the reason has very little to do them, and everything to do with the Republicans understanding the poltical value of killing people. (Quick: name the last Republican president NOT to start a war!)

Whether or not they have a chance at beating Bush (and it looks very slim), this doesn't represent any major shift in politics: less than 50% of voters will still vote, and close to half will vote for each side. Electoral illusions will perhaps give the veneer of a landslide, but these are actually quite rare. Even Reagan's trouncing of Modale in 84 was 58% to 40%, and we're unlikely to get close to that again.

 

Quite a load of bull. Lets see Clinton started Kosovo, Kennedy and Johnson started Vietnam, Truhman started Korea and Roosevelt started WWII.

 

This time in 1991, G.H.W. Bush was looking just about as unbeatable as G.W. Bush does now. And no one had heard of Bill Clinton.

When only about 30% of the electorate turn out to vote, you can win by convincing just 16% of the people to both support you AND actually show up at the polls.

For Republicans, this is pretty easy. Because they tend to draw on groups who are consistent voters.

But as voter turn-out increases, more and more people from groups that tend to vote democratic get into the mix.

And when you have lots of issues that make it obvious that it really does matter who wins the election, you're going to get higher turn-out. Wars, terrorism, unemployment, corporate scandal, and a crisis in health care are the kind of issues that turn the apathetic into voters.

I'd say Bush is a 50-50 shot at best to be re-elected.

This is the approach the Bob Graham is clearly taking. To me, he comes across as insincere and wishy-washy. I'd rather have a candidate who stands for something.

Totally wrong. Inequity in society should be a key theme.

You're completely correct.

Right.

The plan has to be perceived as less bureaucratic, that's for sure. BUt remember, the media never gave the Clinton plan a fair hearing. And the Republicans backed out of the negotiations for political, not substantive, reasons.

Again, you're right. I saw on Ohio News Network a story about how much money various communities in Ohio got for this. Some big ones, including Columbus (state capital and home of some significant targets) got nothing. This is certainly an issue that's going to play big in local races too.

As I said, not as much of an uphill battle as people think.

 

I'd have to give Bush II a major advantage, more like 70%. He's a much better candidate than Bush I.

Agreed! This just kills me about Republicans. They toss out the "class warfare" label while engaging in a vicious battle against the poor and middle classes.

I can't let Clinton off the hook on this one. He flat out blew it.

 

Go ahead, sneer.

Do you want to win? Or do you want another 4 years of Bush?

Oh, by the way, I just hit the high points. Your candidate can still be pro choice, pro affirmative action, and win.

So, no, it's not just sounding like a Republican.

You can use this approach without the demagogic rhetoric. So it's "health care for all" not "40 million American's don't have health insurance" (while implicitly the rich do).

It's not "tax cuts for the rich...phooey!!" but rather "an economic plan to create jobs."

The problem with the Democrats is that they are perceived not as the party of the common man, but as the party of the anti-rich. They need to junk that whole approach, because most Americans, believe it or not, embrace the idea that it's OK to be rich.

 

After the '92 elections, there was broad consensus that health care reform of some kind was necessary. Clinton had campaigned on it, but so did lots of GOP legislators.

The idea of Hilary's proposal was that it was a starting point for a negotiating process between the two parties. The mistake was that they asked for a little too much.

Have you heard of the imfamous "Bill Kristol Memo"? The pundit Bill Kristol had been Dan Quayle's chief-of-staff. He was at the time a strategist for the Republican party. He floated the idea that the Republicans just walk away from the table and leave Hillary twisting in the wind with an obviously over-ambitious proposal. That way the Clinton administration would look bad. If they had negotiated some successful health-care reform, Clinton would get the credit, and the Republicans would lose the White House again in '96. It was brilliant politics (although they lost in '96 anyway). Unfortunately it meant that the health care crisis would continue unchecked for another 10 years (and counting). Don't blame the health care failure on Clinton, blame it on the triumph of party politics over responsible governing.

 

I remember the events well. However, it is a fact that Clinton failed and it reflects poorly on his Presidency. I expect many Republicans to act like blood-sucking fiends. That much is a given.

 

Republicans don't want people to know just how bad things are.

 

Here's a trap that the Democrats get caught in quite often. They'll point out some statistic about how much a Republican plan will favor the top 1% or 3% of Americans. When you're at that level, you're talking about billionaires.

Then the Republicans will respond with a flood of demagoguery about the top 20%, which gets you down into people who have a household income are 100,000 or even less. The curve is really steep, so the difference between the 97th percentile and the 80th percentile is huge.

Watch for this when you see debates and editorials on this issue. They do it every time. What makes me mad is that the Democrats never call them on it, and neither does the press.

 

Nixon or Ford, depending on your POV. And it's not like Democrats are absolute doves either. Who started Vietnam? Korea? WW2? Kosovo/Somalia?

 

In Kosovo, we entered an existing comflict as part of a NATO operation. That's a whole different thing that invading a country.

G.H.W. Bush sent troops into Somolia, after he'd already lost the election.

Although I don't disagree with the spirit of your post.

 

A NATO operation that we had a big, big, big, big voice in. Korea was part of a UN operation, but it all amounted to a war anyway, one that could have been avoided (much like Kosovo) if we didn't feel like participating in it.

Ok, so maybe he didn't quite start is absolutely, but most of the action in that conflict went down with Clinton in command, and that's what is going to be remembered about Somalia.

 

I remember when it started thinking how stupid it was for a lame-duck President to put troops in harm's way. I never blamed Clinton for what happened there, and I always think of it as a Bush war. Am I the only one?

 

So, the campaign strategy should be:

"Let's spend all our energy telling the voters that the guys in control right now really don't want you to know how bad things are!!"

Yeah, that's the ticket to the White House. Very compelling.

But what does it mean to "call them on it?"

Better to simply avoid the "haves vs. have nots" debate and focus instead on the idea of "having" only.

 

Gore did best in the opinion polls when he was at his most populist. I'm not really sure why he gave up that as a campaign theme. It was probably a winner.

 

Clinton pulling out of Somalia was one of the worst mistakes in his two terms.