After a day of mulling it over, I think that the only way for the Dems to have a chance of winning in '04 is to get rid of the party leadership that was responsible for the loss yesterday. Gephardt was the first to fall on his sword. He really could have staked out differences between the two parties, but he is so moderate he is almost a Republican in some ways (I remember how he ran right when he ran for President in '88). The dems in the HR need someone as partisan as the GOP leaders like DeLay, and I think that Pelosi is the ideal person to take over the leadership. Daschle showed the lack of power he has by the way the Senate campaign went. Heck, he couldn't even win his own state! He looks to return as the minority leader, but I hope that some senator will step up and challenge him. As for party chair McCauluff (sorry for the spelling), time for him to go. He spent more time just raising cash than building the party. Overall, the party needs to ditch the DLC people that took over the party in the early '90s and give the progressive wing of the party a chance to run things. Sure, there is a possibility that they will fail in '04, but it is clear from the last couple of years that moderation in the party leadership is clearly not the way to go. I for one will be watching what happens. If someone like Gore gets the nod in '04, I will jump to the Greens. Bill Q.
I disagree with dumping the DLC people. The Dems had become a party that wasn't seen as being a legitimate White House party until DLC came around and pushed it back to the middle. Looking at the Congressional races the Dems lost, I don't see where being more liberal would have helped. The south and the midwest were close elections because we had moderates running. I'm not saying dems shouldn't have challenged the president, but they should have done it from the middle.
As someone who has voted Green for four of the last five major elections (voting for Democrats in northeast New Jersey is electoral equivalent of driving to get across the street), I generally agree with BillQ that the Dems need leadership changes. The Dems stood for nothing this election, kinda like they were Bush Lite, even though there was a lot of low-hanging fruit like corporate scandals, the Bush energy policy, and the economy, stupid. Someone needs to give the Democrats some direction. The way I see it, they have two choices for '04: 1. Follow the DLC model. Downplay the ties to labor, focus on the economy and some basic social issues like abortion, avoid talking about taxes. Don't make a big deal about foreign policy; just say that Bush made some good moves and you won't screw those up. Raise money like hell and spend it on TV in battleground states like Missouri and Florida. The ideal Presidential candidate for this strategy is Edwards in NC, with Ed Rendell in PA as a running mate. Low risk, but you likely still lose in '04 as it requires some major trend shifts. 2. Blow up the DLC model and press social/economic issues hard in order to reinvigorate the base constituency. Don't fear union ties; use them for grassroots campaigning and GOTV. Get the environment back on the national agenda (as if it's ever been there). Screw the southern states and rural midwest -- you're not going to win there, anyway. Screw suburban men, too, as your strategy is targeted to suburban mothers and urban voters. Taking the entire Northeast, Rust Belt, and West Coast gets you to ~290 electoral votes, and you win. Close shop in Alabama and Mississippi if you must focus money elsewhere. The ideal candidate for this strategy is John Kerry in MA, maybe with Evan Bayh in Indiana in order to help in the Midwest. This is very high risk, but high reward. My guess would be that the party doesn't do either, or tries to do both and fails on both sides. It is more likely that they'll send Gore out in '04 as a sacrificial lamb and just let everyone jockey for '08.
Whenever i see this, I wonder what people are trying to say. It's been 40 years since primaries, hence average voters, have been deciding nominees. What the hell do you mean, Gore as a sacrificial lamb? Like millions of primary voters are going to suddenly be expert, deep and far thinking strategists. Don't be silly. My guess is that the candidate who runs the smartest and best campaign in the primaries will be the nominee.
Let's put it this way: who do you think is going to want to run in '04? When things look bleak for victory, as they likely will for Dems in '04, why send out your top prospects if they're likely going to lose anyway? In the Dems' case, their best national people right now are Edwards and Kerry. But if these two guys don't think that they can win and the Dem leadership agrees that things are bleak, it doesn't mean that the Dems forfeit; they send up the guy who doesn't have anything more to lose. Usually, that means someone in the twilight of his career -- examples: Mondale in '84, Dole in '96. The machine backs them by default but deep down people know that it's a loser of a campaign to start. The one grand exception to this is Clinton, who was sent out to lose graciously but got unbelievably lucky when (a) Bush Sr's post-Iraq poll numbers dropped like a rock, and (b) Perot got in and siphoned more Bush votes than Clinton votes. If the US economy is moving back up by Summer '03, the Dems will renominate Gore and save Edwards, Kerry, Rendell, and/or Bayh for '08. The candidate with the strongest network of endorsements (govs, Senators, Congresspeople) usually wins the nomination before anyone casts a vote. That's what happened with Bush Jr. and Gore. If we were really nominating the best candidates, we would have had McCain vs. Bradley.
True for Bush in '00. He was the Republican choice as soon as Dole failed miserably in '96. It was a consensus that cleared the field until McCain decided to launch a populist revival ... didn't work though. True for Gor in '00. He was Dem choice as soon as Clinton won in '96. Not necessarily true in '04. It could be a completely wide-open primary, with the real money not being dedicated until front-runners become apparent in NH, Iowa etc. Candidates could literally come from anywhere. But I suspect that this is too much fun - Gore will run with a slightly more left message and a different complement of turtlenecks.
Not to be mean or anything, but you're killing your credibility right there. OK, so when Perot lost half his votes in '96, the Reeps ran better right? Oops. McCain's successes were built in primaries where Dems and independents could vote for him. Bush absolutely destroyed McCain among Reep voters. The same thing happened on the other side, but not as extreme.
Three things made '96 different: First, Bush Sr was a better candidate than Dole. Second, in 1996 Clinton was the incumbent. Third, Perot went from being a trendy protest candidate in '92 to a nutjob who was fighting an uphill battle with no groundswell of support. Keep in mind that Clinton failed to pass 50% of the popular vote in either election. So much of the success in primaries is due to getting the vote out. Bush had the machine behind him, and McCain didn't. The fact that McCain held on for so long in the face of massive institutional resistance is a testament to his general popularity.
What the Democratic part should do to win 2 years from now is ... nothing. Don't do anything. Don't try to stop the Republicans. Wait until the nation goes into depression and the nation turns its anger towards Bush the Younger. Then position yourself as the alternative. No matter how bad things get after that, you can always blame it on Bush for starting it. If Bush did conquer Iraq, the oil should start coming in in during the Democratic term, making them look golden. Even without Iraqi oil, you can just keep blaming Bush for at least a decade. If there is a real recovery before the next election, then the Democrats are doomed. Even I will vote Republican.
Truer words were never spoken. But there is a lot at stake for the Reeps as well - 2004 could be like 1994, but in a Presidential year. Or they could run the table and set the Dems back for a decade.
But I don't think there will be a recovery. The Fed wouldn't be cutting rates .5% if they thought things were doing alright. They are scared.