I don't really think that this topic has been dealt with enough. What is it going to take for a Dem to win the presidency in '04? More specifically, what does the Democratic party need to do to improve its image? This was touched on briefly in the other thread in Dem Debate, but I think it needs a separate thread.

IMO, the Dems are putting on the image of having a weak front. The fact that they lack name recognition for the most part doesn't help them. When we actually see them on the news all we see are reports on them arguing with each other (i.e. Kerry and Dean on the war with Iraq) or getting other bad press (such as being condemned by the president of the NAACP). With all these different candidates, most people have no idea who to vote for. One of these guys needs to come out from the rest of the pack and start getting his name out. They also need to be more outspoken on the issues, not just constantly confronting the president about the war lies (it has to be done, but only in moderation), something that most people are beginning to get sick of (I can't say that I'm one of them). If some of them would confront things like the Patriot Act and not just criticize the president constantly, they could make good progress. These are just a fews things they need to improve in order to prevail next November.

The Democratic Party needs to do 3 things to make a good image of itself and to win in 2004:

1. Not cut military spending: Not while we are fighting a WOT and have a nuclear North Korea around

2. Make it clear that you will not slack on Homeland Security or the military

3. Don't raise taxes: Don't make voters unhappy by raising taxes

What will it take for the Dems to win in 2004?

It would help if they stopped hoping/waiting/praying for some scandal or something to happen to weaken George W. Bush. It would help if they gave people a candidate they actually want to FOR, instead of giving the American people who tells them all the reasons to vote AGAINST Bush.

Don't just tell people what Bush has done wrong. Tell them what a Democratic president will do right.

Don't pander and run around the country promising this to old people and that to the middle class and this to labor and that to business. Don't lie about what's it going to take to address the problems of the country.

Stand up for something. Treat people like they're smart. Don't be so beholden to the people that write checks that the candidate forgets about the millions of others won't don't.

Don't think calling the other guy a SOB is a substitute for policies, plans and solutions to hard problems.

A Democrat CAN win in 2004. Don't make the mistake of thinking people want a "Republican-Lite" candidate. Given a choice between the imitation and the real thing, most people will opt for the genuine article.

goamerica, this is the DEMOCRAT debate forum. Stay outta here

Like Al Gore who wanted to give more money to the military than Bush...

If the democrats can get Graham to run as VP they will win Florida. That way if they have an okay candidate they will win Florida (25), New York (33), California (54) and Illinois (22). That's 143 electoral votes. If you add in the very liberal states, Washington (11), Oregon(7),New Jersey(15), Taxachusetts(12), Maryland (10), Connecticut (8), Rhode Island (4) Vermont (3), and Hawaii (4). It's 217. If you add the states Gore won you have 290 and the democrats win.

I see one major fault in any Dem's campaign. They are forgetting about one major group which could get them a victory. That group is the young. They spend so much time trying to win over the old. But let's look at the youth turnout percentage from 1968 and 2000 (courtesy of The Nation.)



Clearly the Dems need to find an issue which can get the young back to the polls, and voting for them. The article from The Nation. ("Dems-- Why Not Woo the Young?") goes on to suggest that this issue is one that affects most of the youth: College. The article suggests that if a Dem would go so far as to declare an amnesty on students loans or even MAKE COLLEGE FREE , they could win the election, no problem. This makes sense to me, and any Dem would win with that stance.

I think it would have to be an unbelievable screw-up by the Bush administration very close to election time or for one of them to find another issue to pin against other than Iraq... I don't know why it is so hard... Democrats could blast away Bush in this election with just the obvious...

I hope they are just waiting until they get closer to the election to use the good stuff, which is entirely possible. You don't want to have your best political edge desk dry come November 2004.

We need a candidate!

Right now we are screwed. The Dems blew it when they gave war powers over to the Executive, passed the Patriot Act without even reading it and let Bush and Co. finance electronic voting machines in every state. Not one Democratic candidate has even a wooden leg to stand on at this point. Ive never been so embarrassed by the Party as now.

The only edge we have is Bush self destructing, which is evident. Now if the Dems could just get a Platform? A raison d'etre, a spine? A plan, a solution, an idea or chain of them to snap people out of their brainwash. We are now a parasite on the backs of the Republicans and the War on Terror, (IE: psychology 110, how to turn a free nation into a dictatorship, perpetual fear and war) The Republicans did a damn good job at bamboozling the public, with the Dems help!Getting us out of it may be more than a 2 year endeavor. Not to mention the 25 million Bush has already raised for his campaign.

Not to be a poopy party, but the ONLY chance we have of winning right now is getting people to the polls who cant stand Bush, not because the Dems have a speck of originality to vote for. They need o get their act in line, and soon.

I think it is difficult to say what it will take for the Democrats to win the 2004 election. This hard shift to the right we see in America could very much be related to the Baby Boomers. Particularly those who were too young for Korea and too old to actually fight in Vietnam. Unlike the lost generation between the two world wars, this older generation that i'm talking about were left out from experiencing the horrors of such conflict. Then mix in the adolescence of the Reagan era who foresaw the final stages of the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union actually have a false sense of how a real war is mobilised and conducted. We rapidly increased our military strength since Reagan and expanded it world wide...only there was no war for us to be engaged in. So then, what kind of attitude would best be associated with this massive build up of arms? Probably the same attitude America had when it had the atomic bomb before anyone else had it. A combination of security and superiority with the smallest margin of uncertainty. These are characteristics I see with the Republican party. However, being that I see this as a generational phenomenon there are many in the Democratic party who also share the same characteristics. But if a voter listens to two candidates (i.e. Gore and Bush) where the Democrat agrees with more than half of what the Republican stands for then why should the voter elect a Democrat that is subscribing to conservative values? It did indeed sound like Gore was saying anything to become President, bad enough to make a "sniff" from Bush sound genuine. I believe the masses as a whole are impressionable and will not be impressed by a candidate who appears to be a compromise between his/her party and their contender. I see the Republican party as strong as it is because of their loyalty and their values are more unified. The Republican Baby Boomers who acquired wealth passed down from their parents from World War II have the funding to keep their party strong as well as the ability to influence less affluent families on issues concerning social conditioning. If the Democratic party plans to counter any Republican initiative they are going to need a few things. They are going to need some new faces that the Republicans haven't smeared yet. The party will need to reinforce its identity confirming that its stays true to their own values. The candidate will need to approach the people like a catalyst. Many of the Democratic candidates already have an advantage because they don't have a double-edged track record like Bush has. Bush is also in no position to place blame while there is a Republican majority in Congress. However, the Democrats should not relish in the unfortunate disposition of the Bush administration. Allow Bush to roll in his own glory while we make it clear that it is our tragedy. And above all, the Democrats will need to make sure they will not have a candidate that will desecrate the American Flag by placing their name on it.

I heard somebody ask that of a friend the other day. The response - "A Republican". While I chuckled at the time, it is a horrifying thought.

I think that it will all come down to the economy. Patriotism doesn't pay the bills.

What will it take to have a democratic president?

Really, the ball is still in Bushes corner. He needs to get some great success story, fast, because he's losing credibility in alot of the polls (especially in how he's handling the economy).

The democratic president needs to be really great at public speaking, for this quality will allow him to annihilate Bush in upcoming debates (because Bush is a pretty bad public speaker).

Really, I'm betting its all going to fall on how the economy plays out. If Bush's plan is successful, you can kiss the democratic presidency goodby. But, if it fails, and you have a democrat speaking of a solid economic plan, the chances will vastly increase.

In the last election, Gore won the popular vote, so it wont be suprising if a democratic equivalent pulls through.

But, a candidate needs to be selected... RIGHT NOW.

I would like to see a voter registration drive. If enough people can be motivated to register to vote and vote, we will stand a better chance. We need to conduct intensive research on what issues are important to those who are unregistered, then define and target any groups among them. I suspect a high percentage, if registered to vote, would in fact vote for Democratic, particularly those unemployed or facing near future unemployment.

Some in our party would write off those who are unregistered. It may be we can't afford to. Something to think about.

I just hope Dean gets candidacy, a televised debate pitting Dr. Dean against G.W. would just be hilarious to watch.
I too agree that the democratic party needs to stop with this waiting for a scandal and displaying reasons to vote against Bush instead of reasons to vote for the running Democrat.