logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> Where do we go from here?, Now what?
Where do we go from here?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 58
Guests cannot vote 
nebraska29
post Nov 4 2004, 01:19 AM
Post #1


*********
Only siths speak in absolutes.

Sponsor
November 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,712
Member No.: 1,871
Joined: November-29-03

From: York, Nebraska
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Being very active in local politics, I'm now trying to set up fundraising and other events. Understandably, people are disappointed, but I never knew how much people are just dejected about the election until I talked with about five others. I'm not thrilled about it, don't get me wrong, but there are a lot of us who are facing a political-existential crisis of sorts. I post this in relation to the Kerry "losing" thread because while I want to continue discussing why Kerry lost, I want to know what we can look forward to in '08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 50)
LNAB
post Jan 29 2005, 10:07 PM
Post #41


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Member No.: 4,421
Joined: January-29-05

Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(TennesseeDemocrat @ Nov 11 2004, 03:56 PM)

Please do look at the link. It is not what O'Reiley said, it is what his guest said about where we need to go as a party.

He made some valid points and i just want to add that next time we have an election, we would be wise to distance ourselves from left wing propagandinsts like michael moore.
*



In hindsite...here in January 05..this is a ridiculous statement. Michael Moore was NOT the problem, the Democratic "agenda" was not the problem, the "message" was NOT the problem.

It was all about the LACK OF DELIVERY AND ORGANIZATION! I am now active in my county party as well as several other political action groups. The biggest problem that I have encountered is the GENERAL LACK OF MANAGEMENT in these groups. Please excuse me if this sounds insulting but a 22 year-old running the campaign office for the democrats doesn't know SQUAT about managing resources much less organizing those resources. Time and time again I'm faced with "lack of information" or directives that say...GO GET EM!...without a script, a plan much less a goal in mind. THAT is the number one reason Bush managed to steal the election.

Now my personal management style is not "patient" but the party system works at a snails pace. I have been handed 50 pages of "democratic voters names" for my H.D. without 1 DIRECTIVE other than...call them. This is a waste of activism. So that list sits in my drawer until I get a scripts, an agenda and a goal! I have contacted no less than 6 or 7 candidates, party officials etc to please ADDRESS this lack...it has now been over 1-1/2 months and NOT ONE HAS RESPONDED. (and I have made followup requests).

THAT....is the problem. I suggest we get more "experienced professional people" in the loop if we want to get something to happen! And that means at the local, county and state level. The absolute poverty of leadership at the grassroots level in the Democratic party is appalling . NOTHING is going to change until we change THAT!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A left Handed pe...
post Feb 5 2005, 02:03 AM
Post #42


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 333
Member No.: 4,459
Joined: February-3-05

From: Southwest Conneticut
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



We need a person who:

-Is Intelligent.

-Responds to all political attacks, and ignores none.

-Doesn't have much to hide.

-Can create good arguments of the top his/her head.

-Looks like an optimist.

-Has the ability to be unpolitically correct if he/she has to.

This post has been edited by A left Handed person: Feb 5 2005, 02:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nighttimer
post Feb 13 2005, 04:46 AM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Rather than start an entirely new thread, now that Howard Dean has become the new head of the DNC, I thought I'd just bump this one instead.

I don't think Dean becoming Democratic National Chairman is any reason to start singing, "Happy Days Are Here Again." The job of pulling this political party out of the ashes of November 2004 and back into the role of a serious player in American politics isn't going to be an easy gig.

But at least in Dean the party has a passionate and committed person in place. I take him at his word that he's going to try and pull the diverse factions of the party together. Heaven knows he doesn't have much time to do so before the 2006 elections. In 2006, all 435 House seats are being contested, along with 38 governor's races and 33 Senate seats.

2006 could signal the emergence of a permanent Republican majority or the baby steps of a born-again Democratic Party. But it won't happen as long as the party is splintered, directionless and leaderless.

Howard Dean becoming the DNC chair isn't going to make everyone happy, but if he can help turn the party's political fortunes around, nobody will care if he's a Northeastern liberal or a Southern conservative or a Midwestern moderate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...=top_world_news
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BoF
post Feb 13 2005, 05:20 AM
Post #44


**********
Giga-bite: "I catch mice & rats - 2 & 4 legs."

Sponsor
October 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,128
Member No.: 3,423
Joined: August-14-04

From: Texas
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Feb 12 2005, 10:46 PM)
Howard Dean becoming the DNC chair isn't going to make everyone happy, but if he can help turn the party's political fortunes around, nobody will care if he's a Northeastern liberal or a Southern conservative or a Midwestern moderate.


Strategically Howard Dean may or may not be the best choice. As you once said, we can't out rove Karl Rove. I agree and have come to the conclusion that we shouldn't try. Dean has shown his ability to raise money and ignite fires of political passion in people.

When I've seen him on Meet the Press and other forums, I've been impressed by what I see as transparent honesty. thumbsup.gif

I'm cautiously optimistic. smile.gif

This post has been edited by BoF: Feb 13 2005, 06:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Feb 13 2005, 06:58 AM
Post #45


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I am encouraged by Howard Dean becoming DNC Chairman. He is an intelligent man of conviction, and I wanted him for the Presidential nomination before Kerry became the clear frontrunner.

No, the last thing we want to do is become Republican clones. We need to offer a viable alternative to the doubleplusgoodduckspeaking Republican political machine. In this current political climate, George Orwell would be intoning, "I told you so."

The Democratic Party has stood for the little guy for a long time. What we need to do is reassure those who feel disenfranchised by this last election (and the previous one) that their priorities can be addressed because we can win elections.

I am so sorry that John Kerry took it on his (ample) chin rather than answer the rottweilers brought out to discredit him. As you can see, it has taken me a while to become active in the Democratic (not Democrat) forum in AD once again. (My bitterness was great, and it most certainly manifested itself in other threads--if it offended some, I apologize.).

This current government is altogether too Orwellian for me. Further, Bush and the GOP are griping about the Democrats holding them back when they control both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency. And they talk about us whining?

Social Security is a huge issue where the Democrats can garner public support if only they can convey over the airwaves what a mistake it would be to gut it at this time. Somehow, lost in the argument is the fact that younger people, even if they do get to invest a portion of the money, will be getting less to begin with. Pray that so-called "stable" investments stay that way, and don't invest in AMTRAC during a Republican administration! ermm.gif

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Feb 13 2005, 07:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Feb 14 2005, 06:57 PM
Post #46


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



I don't expect the tide will be turned in 2006 and possibly not even in 2008, but the mere fact that Dean is not only in office but every potential candidate for that office dropped out because of the voices of the people of the Democratic party clamoring for Dean is very encouraging.

Dean is at the very least symbolic, by not putting some establishment, Republican-Lite Democrat in that office the party is sending a message that they want to change. Now change isn't an easy road, but half the battle really is just accepting the fact that change is needed.

Dean will hopefully bring passion back to the party and employ some changes in strategy. The Democrats need to quit playing by the rules the Republicans set, the only way to out-Rove Rove is not to play his game.

Sun Tzu once wrote:
QUOTE
Consequently, the art of using troops is this:
When 10 to the enemy's one, surround him.
When five times his strength, attack him.
If double his strength, engage him.
If equally matched, be capable of dividing him.
If less in number, be capable of defending yourself.
And if in all respects unfavorable, be capable of eluding him.


The quick summary of what this means as applied to this topic is - focus your strength where your enemy is weak. There are certain things that the Republican party does very well and there are certain things which they do very poorly. What the Democrats need to do in the coming years is pour their resources into attacking those weaknesses. Two things that quickly come to mind are fiscal responsibility and actually painting a picture of the future that we can look forward to and that will inspire us instead of constantly fear mongering at every turn. I could probably write a short book on how this an other stategies should have been employed in the election.

Another very important thing that deserves considerable resources is the concept of framing. The Democrats need to fully fund and expand Dr. George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute and start vetting all values and campaign messages through him.

Lakoff has done some amazing work analyzing political language and coming up with solutions on how Democrats and Progressives can get their message across by reframing the debate. His premise is that it doesn't matter what facts you have, if they don't fit your frame then they simply bounce off. I can't even begin to count the number of times I have seen that here on AD and even more profoundly out in the real world. I would imagine that there are still a decent portion of Americans out there that think that Saddam had WMDs and/or he was connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

One simple example of his work is analyzing the words "tax relief". By saying "tax relief" you imply that taxes are something oppressive and therefore require you to be saved from them. Furthermore it implies that anyone who gives you this "relief" is a hero and anyone who tries to prevent it is evil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Mar 6 2005, 03:30 PM
Post #47


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,393
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Lakoff has done some amazing work analyzing political language and coming up with solutions on how Democrats and Progressives can get their message across by reframing the debate. His premise is that it doesn't matter what facts you have, if they don't fit your frame then they simply bounce off. I can't even begin to count the number of times I have seen that here on AD and even more profoundly out in the real world. I would imagine that there are still a decent portion of Americans out there that think that Saddam had WMDs and/or he was connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

One simple example of his work is analyzing the words "tax relief". By saying "tax relief" you imply that taxes are something oppressive and therefore require you to be saved from them. Furthermore it implies that anyone who gives you this "relief" is a hero and anyone who tries to prevent it is evil.


Good point, CJ.

This can even be so fine as to the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Can it be said that we have a war *in* terror? Nope, because terror isn't a place. So how can a war *not* be in a place? War, by its very essence of definition, has to involve a place.

The Republicans are masters of using this kind of language stretch, and people have been sucking it up. Except now it looks like people aren't buying as willingly as they did just a short while ago. For example, the term "privatize" has lost its appeal, and there really isn't any better way of putting it. The Demo tactic has been to remind people about privatizing, and that looks to be working.

This points to a possible distrust of private enterprise, at least on the big scale. Maybe people are connecting dots and seeing how big private enterprises manipulate government for the gain of a few and the suffering of everyone else.

The voucher idea seems to be going this way, and an indication to me is the fallout from a recent school board stacking scheme that went on in a nearby city. Getting vouchers in didn't work, so the Repubs went after Planned Parenthood, and won.

But they lost for the long run, I think. We will see if people are now willing to respond to reason rather than emotion. Maybe the Demo leadership will see this trend and simply respond to the Repub emotional manipulations with reason?

I'm still on the thing that funding the Demo party from the grass roots will carry victories in future elections. Then we'll have a party of the grass roots versus one of big private enterprise. This will not only reframe the debate, but change it entirely toward what is best for the country, the state, the county, the city, the town, and the village.

In other words, classical Demos versus neoclassical Repubs. Actually, Repubs would probably have to go classical too in the competition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHCdem
post Mar 18 2005, 07:51 AM
Post #48


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 4,716
Joined: March-18-05

From: Denver, CO
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



If a moderate republican runs in 2008 then we need a moderate democrat to run. Just like here in CO. The moderate democrat (Ken Salazar) beat the moderate republican (Pete Coors). That victory also helped the party win both houses of congress here, which has not happened since 1960, therefore keeping a conservative republican governor in check!!! So maybe if in 08 if we select a moderate like Sen. Reid, then there is hope after all. I love this party but we need to be more "in touch" with the rest of this country and stop choosing extreme lefties, like Howard Dean!!!!!!


crying.gif us.gif GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!! us.gif crying.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cube Jockey
post Mar 23 2005, 12:31 AM
Post #49


*********
Now with more truthiness

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,799
Member No.: 1,224
Joined: September-16-03

From: San Francisco, CA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(MHCdem @ Mar 17 2005, 11:51 PM)
love this party but we need to be more "in touch" with the rest of this country and stop choosing extreme lefties, like Howard Dean!!!!!!
*


Ok, first of all Howard Dean is not some "extreme lefty" and if you perpetuate that stereotype then you aren't doing the Democrats any good, you are just reinforcing the rhetoric coming from Republican campaigns.

Secondly, the Democrats are not "out of touch" with America. Their problem is that they are horrible with actually getting their message out there where the Republicans excel in that area.

If you take a look just at some of the recent legislation in this session of Congress - Social Security, the Bankruptcy Bill, ANWR, even this stupid Terry Schiavo fiasco it becomes pretty clear who is out of touch with the mainstream, and it isn't the Democrats. We've lost a few of these battles, but we're winning the important one - social security.

Howard Dean will be a good addition for a few reasons.
1) He is an innovator in the fun raising arena. This past election is one of the first in recent memory where the democratic candidate came anywhere close to raising the same amount of money as the Republican candidate. A very large part of that is due to some of the things that Dean pioneered and I'm sure he'll refine as DNC chair.

2) He's not some career politician and thus has the ability to bring fresh ideas to the table.

3) Finally and probably most importantly he understands the importance of grassroots organization and framing (See George Lakoff).

I ran across this article over at Daily Kos, where one of the bloggers there has posted an interview with former governor and presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. It makes for a pretty interesting read if you want to check it out. He talks specifically about the importance of a full court press on grassroots campaigns:
QUOTE
Dukakis: Republicans don't do what I'm talking about. They do what they do pretty well. They target their vote and get it out. If the other side isn't doing what I'm talking about, then that kind of a campaign is going to be effective. But don't make the mistake of assuming that the Republicans were doing what I'm talking about on a 50-state, all-precinct basis. They weren't. In fact they weren't even doing it on an all-precinct basis in the battleground states. But they went after their vote intensely. They did it in a variety of ways, more power to them.

But if we're doing the kind of genuine all-precinct, all-household campaign, and that means you knock on everybody's door - you don't pass up the Republicans and the independents - everybody's door, and you do it in a very systematic way, that will always beat a targeting campaign. On the other hand, if we're not doing that, then an effective targeting campaign will win at the margins, and that's what's happened. It happened in 2000. It happened again in 2004. But I don't have any doubt that if we do this job and do it well, supported now by this wonderful new technology, which makes it so much easier to do this - virtually on a cost-free basis - we're going to win elections.


And if you haven't read it, I would highly recommend reading What's The Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank. I'm about halfway through it right now, fascinating read.

This post has been edited by Cube Jockey: Mar 23 2005, 12:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SirAjh
post May 1 2005, 07:02 PM
Post #50


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 17
Member No.: 4,946
Joined: May-1-05

From: Western United States
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Too me, it seems like elections are a pendulum that swings back and forth.

After 8 years of a republican, 8 years of a democrat......

I am guessing it will not take too much to win the next 2 elections. Just like the President and his republicans (who control the entire federal government) mess up and make the country worse. Most Americans will not be happy with what they see. They will want a change and Democrats will give them that change. Hence, we win the election.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
guy catelli
post May 3 2005, 03:16 AM
Post #51


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 32
Member No.: 4,953
Joined: May-3-05

From: manhattan
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(SirAjh @ May 1 2005, 03:02 PM)
Too me, it seems like elections are a pendulum that swings back and forth.

After 8 years of a republican, 8 years of a democrat......

I am guessing it will not take too much to win the next 2 elections. Just like the President and his republicans (who control the entire federal government) mess up and make the country worse. Most Americans will not be happy with what they see. They will want a change and Democrats will give them that change. Hence, we win the election.
*



you're absolutely correct.

the only way the Democrats can lose in 2008 is to allow people who advertise their hatred of america with quotes like "America: Just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable" to dominate the nominating process, as has happened too many times in the past.

let me make my prediction now: the next president of the united states will be Senator Hillary Clinton.

first, the public will have a great deal of Bush fatigue by 2008 (his poll numbers are already the lowest on record for a president at this stage of his presidency). after 8 years of Republicans taking from the poor to give to the rich, people will be more than ready for a change.

second, those poor deluded souls in our party who thought someone who has a 30-year record of betraying our interests to anyone he could find to betray them to would be seen by the general electorate as "strong on defense"(!) will have no one else to vote for. and, by running to the center, where most americans are, always have been, and always will be, Senator Clinton will win the general election handily.

This post has been edited by guy catelli: May 3 2005, 03:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: January 21st, 2020 - 03:46 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.